February 2002 posts
Point that must not be forgotten about Dawn (Spoilers?) -- Sean, 13:30:29 02/16/02 Sat
Dawn, from I believe the first episode we met her, has always stolen.
This isn't as a result of the death of her mom, or Buffy's neglect, though perhaps it has gotten worst because of it.
Dawn has always been shown as a Klepo. It's sad that it has taken Buffy so long to find out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Klepo or Clepto? Hee Hee! Just Kidding! -- jaffakree, 14:02:31 02/16/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Point that must not be forgotten about Dawn (Spoilers?) -- Dochawk, 14:21:20 02/16/02 Sat
Since Dawn was made from Buffy and we know that Buffy had some similar previous experiences (stealing lipstick), perhaps we are seeing Buffy as 15 year old? The predivorce Buffy who already feels that she isn't getting attention from mom and dad?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Point that must not be forgotten about Dawn (Spoilers?) -- Rattletrap, 15:04:49 02/16/02 Sat
It is true, we see several references in early S5 to Dawn "borrowing" Buffy's clothes or earrings, and we've seen in several cases that Buffy has done the same with Dawn or Joyce's things. That said, I'm not sure that is exactly the same thing as Dawn ripping off trinkets from the Magic Box or leather jackets from the mall. The first is a case of individuals sharing a household and working on the assumption that it's easier to get forgiveness than permission if you borrow something; the latter is actually criminal. I may be wrong on this, I'm curious to hear what others think.
Minor nitpick: Dawn is not a kleptomaniac. By definition, someone with kleptomania steals habitually and uncontrollably, usually with nothing to gain from it. Dawn intends to gain something from her stealing--even if it focuses less on the item and more on the attention and the possible thrill of getting caught.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunnydale and ethnicity -- Rochefort, 13:34:35 02/16/02 Sat
Have you guys had in depth conversations about this ever here?
I try not to pay attention to it too much because I don't want to find out anything I don't like, but I would really like to hear what you guys think. What is ME's (or Joss's) perspective on race and ethnicity? I know Mr. Trick made a comment once about how white Sunnydale is, and o.k., Sunnydale is white, but when characters from other ethnic groups come on the show (as rare as that is) I think they're usually villains. Mr. Trick, the Minister sounding guy that tried to raise the master, a lot of the vampires seem Asian. Kendra was black but she wasn't African American. A foreigner like Giles. It seems funny to me with all the societal issues that ME and Joss deal with that to have avoided ANY conversation about ethnicity while simutaneously making quite a few black villains is out of character. I'm not saying Buffy is any more racist than any other show on t.v. but Buffy challenges so many ideas and I think it is definitely safe to say that Buffy has NEVER challenged out ideas on ethnicity or ethnic stereo type. It seems to fall into these stereotypes, in fact, quite easily. What's going on here? Anybody got some help?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Sunnydale and ethnicity -- matching mole, 14:31:25 02/16/02 Sat
This has been briefly brought up here before but not discussed in any detail (at least not in the last few months since I showed up). It has seemed pretty odd (and mildly disturbing) to me as well. Basically the paucity of ethnic diversity has been explained by Sunnydale being an all white town as you said. However, given that it is a university town, the lack of non-white faces just about everywhere becomes staggeringly unrealistic from my perspective. However my perspective may be somewhat biased as during my life in the U.S. I have lived either in the more urban parts of large cities or (as now) in smaller towns with large college campuses. I may have an exaggerated impression of the geographic integration of the U.S. as a whole.
I'm confident that ME doesn't have some hidden agenda. The most likely explanation I can think of is that they didn't want to make racial issues an aspect of BtVS (having enough on their plate already) so they have tended to set it in a setting where those issues aren't likely to arise (in contrast to AtS which has dealt with racial issues to a limited extent). I seem to recall in the earlier episodes that at least one teacher at Sunnydale High and a guidance counseler were African American. My guess is that the reason that more 'background' characters (e.g. some of the employees at the Doublemeat Palace) aren't played by visible minorities is likely just laziness on the part of who ever is casting them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> As to casting... -- VampRiley, 14:50:44 02/16/02 Sat
Those who do the casting shouldn't have to wait around to find someone who is of color and that is good for the part. They start worrying about color, they might hire someone who would actually suck at the part. Then the show could start to really blow. Now, it does seem a little odd that in a town in southern California, there is a low number of people of color, it isn't completely out of the realm of possibility, though extremely unlikely.
VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: As to casting... -- matching mole, 15:33:51 02/16/02 Sat
I was really thinking more about extras and characters with a handful of lines (e.g. students on campus, employees at DMP, etc.) when I brought up the issue of casting laziness. I can't imagine that they would have any difficulty finding actors of any ethnicity that could suitably fill such minor roles with a minimum of effort.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: As to casting... -- Maxwell, 20:36:01 02/16/02 Sat
Remember that casting comes last. First the part has to be written. The writer sits down and decides that they need a new character for the show. They decide on the age, sex, race and ethnicity as well as any other pertinent details. If the writers decided that they wanted an African, Oriental or Hispanic character on the show they could of course find a competent actor. The fact is that if the writers wanted a black character then the casting director would in fact have to "find someone who is of color and that is good for the part". That's just the way it works.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Sometimes -- Vickie, 14:30:59 02/18/02 Mon
I believe that, for cast regulars, the process works largely as you describe. But sometimes, they just cast the best actor they can find for the role.
Two examples come to mind. One: Lando Calrissian in episodes 5 and 6 of Star Wars. Wasn't written as a "black" character. (Whatever that means in the eleventy millionth century) He was just written as clever, smooth, very attractive to the ladies. Casting Billy Dee Williams in the role was brilliant.
Two: Dr. Laura Rosen in the Babylon 5 episode The Quality of Mercy. The role was originally written as a male doctor, but June Lockhart became available and they wanted to work with her. Meaty role, nothing specifically masculine or feminine about a physician's ethics. It was great casting and she did a fine job.
I hope that, as we mature as a culture/species, we'll see more of this kind of thinking.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Let's get to the point! -- jaffakree, 14:58:32 02/16/02 Sat
Hmm
Let's get to the point. Would Buffy go out with a black guy? How would the Buffy fans react to seeing a black guy do to Buffy what Spike has been doing to her?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Let's get to the point! -- Rahael, 15:34:07 02/16/02 Sat
How would fans react to Buffy dating a black guy?
How did they react to Willow dating Tara?
How are they reacting to Gunn and Fred?
How did they react to Giles and Olivia?
Umm.....how well did they react to Buffy and Riley, mr blue eyes and blond hair?
Does colour even come into it?
Of all television shows, it struck me that BtVS fans would be likely to be most accepting and tolerant.
Nearly 90% of the fans that I know in RL are Asian, Black and Jewish.
We kind of empathise with the whole being on the margins thing, and having to deal with a tough world. And white or not Buffy is a role model for me.
As for the lack of skilled black actors and actresses. That I find hard to believe though. Just look at Hollywood, and see how many talented black actors are trying to make it through. They don't have an easy time of it.
I don't think Buffy needs black actors to deal with issues of race and alienation. I simply think it would be good for the industry for black actors to get more roles on this great show.
But I've never got exercised about race politics in Sunnydale. Its not an issue for me with this show.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Let's get to the point! -- jaffakree, 15:38:07 02/16/02 Sat
Point well taken.
But hey, I think its getting to point where Buffy needs some ethnic man in her life.
Notwithstanding vampires.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Thanks Rahael. -- Rochefort, 15:49:13 02/16/02 Sat
I agree about the fact that Buffy can and DOES deal with issues of ethnicity and alienation withOUT having a diverse cast. And I also agree that there are PLENTY of talented actors in this country and to say that it's just too hard to find any that aren't white can't possibly be the case.
I wonder what the stastics ARE as to what ethnic groups watch the show?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Thanks Rahael. -- Rochefort, 15:50:16 02/16/02 Sat
I agree about the fact that Buffy can and DOES deal with issues of ethnicity and alienation withOUT having a diverse cast. And I also agree that there are PLENTY of talented actors in this country and to say that it's just too hard to find any that aren't white can't possibly be the case.
I wonder what the stastics ARE as to what ethnic groups watch the show?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Let's get to the point! -- Lisa, 12:42:39 02/18/02 Mon
Answer to first question - Sure.
Answer to second question, people would accuse the show of being racist, playing into negative stereotypes etc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Wow, I think there's a big issue here after all. -- Rochefort, 15:08:02 02/16/02 Sat
Mole, like you, I've lived in urban areas and college campuses. You're right, there was one black guidance counseler. He seemed like a good guy, then he bit it. I think the likliest explanation IS that this show is all ready trying to dissect gender, if only in a limited way, and that it gets pretty complicated when you start bringing in ethnicity. Just look at these posts. Protests against affirmitive action AND interracial dating all ready. Eeee. This could get explosive.
And still... (sigh) in ignoring, there is a sort of statement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Sunnydale and ethnicity -- Rattletrap, 15:16:06 02/16/02 Sat
There have been a handful of African-American characters on the good side (Dawn's friend in "The Body" comes to mind), but the entire show has been pretty caucasian from day one. In some ways this is not an entirely inaccurate description of most white-collar, suburban edge-cities in the west; the African-American population is comparatively small. The more severe problem with ethnicity in Sunnydale is not the lack of African-Americans but of Hispanics. A town of that size in southern California should probably be around 30% Mexican-American, if not higher. The only Hispanic character I remember was Dawn's principal in "Tough Love."
As mole and VR speculated, I suspect this has to do more with the availability of skilled actors than with any hidden racist agenda on ME's part.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> AgentProvacateurs abound on this board or what?! -- jaffakree, 15:24:11 02/16/02 Sat
Admit it mole, VR, Rattletrap you just could not stand the heat.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Now I'm really confused. -- matching mole, 15:48:09 02/16/02 Sat
I don't have the vaguest idea what this is supposed to mean. I didn't respond to your initial post, true, but it was only posted within the last hour or so. And I don't think there was anything in my initial post that said anything about the availability of actors of any color. In fact my implication was just the opposite (at least I intended it to be) - that ME was casting primarily white actors for minor roles out of laziness (rather than availability of talent or some ulterior motive).
I would have no problem with the possibility of including major characters of color on BtVS or romantic relationships between these postulated characters and any character on the show. In fact at least two inter-racial relationships have been portrayed by ME (Fred and Gunn and Giles and his friend from England whose name I forget) and I can't recall anyone on this board having the slightest problem with that (or even commenting on it at all).
Have to go make dinner and watch Buffy now so no more from me for the moment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Now I'm really confused. -- jaffakree, 15:55:44 02/16/02 Sat
All I'm saying is that a little color right about now would spice up the show don't you think?
I mean everybody's been complaning about how jw is not writing for the show and that's its been suffering ever since DMP.
It is just a suggestion that's all.
Oh and the reference is just from a band from the past that I dig.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> For me, race doesn't make one bit of difference. -- VampRiley, 16:14:27 02/16/02 Sat
As long as there is a consistency in good writing, I got no problem with it.
BTW, what band were you referencing?
VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: For me, race doesn't make one bit of difference. -- jaffakree, 16:17:16 02/16/02 Sat
Hey VR
I'm with you. Hopefully JW will write and direct it.
The band was Foreigner.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> What knoid of music is Foreigner? Never heard of them before. -- VampRiley, 16:20:45 02/16/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> That should be "kind". -- VampRiley, 16:22:54 02/16/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> VampRiley: It doesn't matter.... -- jaffakree, 16:23:56 02/16/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks VR, now I feel old.... -- LadyStarlight, 17:37:12 02/16/02 Sat
...Foreigner was an 80's rock band. Lou Gramm was the lead singer. A big hit for them was "I Want to Know what Love Is".
(going to go stare mournfully at my CD collection now ;))
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> LadyStarlight I'll go stare too! After I watch Buffy!!! -- jaffakree, 17:45:26 02/16/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I was born in August of 1979. Sorry. -- VampRiley, 18:15:11 02/16/02 Sat
Didn't mean to make you sad. Sorry. (he said apologetically [sp?] )
Hanging his head in shame,
VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> It's cool man. Music trancends time and space. -- jaffakree, 18:19:15 02/16/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Not sad...just old ;) -- LadyStarlight, 18:21:38 02/16/02 Sat
But I feel younger now that I've only got 8 years on you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> He looks up with half closed eyes and a goofy grin, happy once again. -- VampRiley, 18:28:38 02/16/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> LadyStarlight: Its nice to know your a fan of BtVS too. -- jaffakree, 18:29:20 02/16/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> scandalized! -- yuri, 01:10:44 02/18/02 Mon
"As mole and VR speculated, I suspect this has to do more with the availability of skilled actors than with any hidden racist agenda on ME's part."
mm said (in a much nicer tone than I'm inclined to) "I can't imagine that they would have any difficulty finding actors of any ethnicity that could suitably fill such minor roles with a minimum of effort," or, for god's sake, major roles! I think suggesting that there aren't a plethora of amazing actors of color is audacious and, yes, I'll say it, racist! More the 21st century subtle kind of racism than the KKK kind... just as dangerous, if not more, IMO b/c it's harder to see and fight.
..speaking of which, is anyone else put off by the term "white hats?" Though I enjoyed the wish and all, it's never ceased to spook me. Am I missing a reference to something else?
and I should probably just clarify that I agree with some people above in that I think Joss and ME decided that they had "too much on their plate" to deal w/ race, unfortunately. It /would/ be a very different show if they did...
I guess I don't completely condemn ME for their neglect of the race issue, I mean you can't expect them to cover everything people want them to, but I am sad and disappointed that they have not because I think it's one of the most important things to tackle today. And they've got good forwards. (okay, I don't know what the people are called that generally do the most tackling in football, but let's just pretend they're called forwards.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> White hats -- d'Herblay, 03:01:30 02/18/02 Mon
White hats as a synonym for "the good guys" goes back to the classic Hollywood western, where the hero often wore a white hat (think of the Lone Ranger, or Alan Ladd in Shane, or Roy Rogers), while the villain wore a black one (think of Jack Palance in Shane, or Merle Haggard). As the villains, like the heroes, were 99% likely to be white, I do not think that black hat or its complement can be considered racist. The classic Hollywood western, on the other hand . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: scandalized! -- Rattletrap, 08:13:49 02/18/02 Mon
My point seems to have been misconstrued here, so I'll attempt to clarify: The percentage of African-Americans in the US population is roughly 15-20%, I think. The percentage of screen/television actors of African-American descent seems much, much smaller than that; the numbers are even more disproportionate for Hispanics. I, in no way, wish to disparage the accomplishments of the plethora of very talented African-American actors. I was merely attempting (however poorly) to suggest that the Hollywood system tends to be stacked against a realistic representation of all races because certain groups are not adequately represented.
I hope this clarifies my meaning,
'trap
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Sunnydale and ethnicity -- neaux, 15:20:57 02/16/02 Sat
I brought up this issue in one of my first posts on this board and it was totally ignored..
but I cant bust too much on BTVS because it is like my favorite show.
This is just my ideas on the situation. I think that if anyone has a problem with the lack of diversity on the show should watch Angel instead. More Asian and African American casting. Kudos to Angel...
As for Buffy, I could say that they are showing different SPECIES of monsters at least.. but that's a cop out.
I just hope that Buffy doesnt gain the "FRIENDS" notoriety.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Sunnydale and ethnicity -- jaffakree, 15:34:27 02/16/02 Sat
Yeah, I cant bust too much on BTVS either. I really dig her and the Scoobies
I'm just wondering what would Buffy fans think of Buffy going out with a Latin, Black, Asian etc...?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Sunnydale and ethnicity -- Lisa, 08:47:32 02/17/02 Sun
What if Buffy was black or hispanic? Would we identify with her as much? Almost all main characters ie heroes, on television are white. Minorities, in the few cases where they are protrayed at all, are relegated to sidekick status.
To be fair those Buffy was supposed to protray the life of a subburban middle class female, in the "valley girl" tradition of movies such as "Clueless". Therefore Buffy needed to be white.
Buffy is popular in India. Perhaps an Indian-American character wouldn't hurt.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I'm not saying it's a hidden agenda... -- Rochefort, 15:45:36 02/16/02 Sat
But I don't WANT to watch Angel. His hair stands straight up. And he's bloody stupid.
I think the point about a lack of hispanics is a good one.
And I DON'T think ME has a hidden AGENDA! That's not what I was saying. I'm saying that they don't seem to be transgressing ANYthing in the area of ethnicity on the show. If anything, they're slightly worse in terms of ethnicity than many other shows on t.v. but I would never say it's a hidden agenda. Possibly just a lack of thought, or as another poster suggested, an unwillingness to grapple with the issue and so an attempt to leave it out all together.
As to the earlier question, I don't think most of the Buffy watching audience would think anything at all of Buffy having an asian, hispanic or african american boyfriend. As long as he had nice cheek bones.
"Sweet" was black, right? I think many of the African American villains are stereotypical and boring. I'm thinking also of that guy with the vest and the hammer. And really Mr. Trick, too.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: I'm not saying it's a hidden agenda... -- jaffakree, 15:50:30 02/16/02 Sat
Was Sweet black? Who knows? Is that how you saw him? Interesting to see how you think.
Nick cheek bones. Yeah he's got him.
If jw wants new blood maybe he should give em a try.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: I'm not saying it's a hidden agenda... -- Isabel, 17:13:11 02/16/02 Sat
As for Hinton Battle's ethnicity, there were production photos for Once More with Feeling on the Web. Just to make sure, I looked for his bio and picture. Unless I misinterpreted what I read, he's African-American.
I think the point in hiring him to be Sweet was not to have a token African-American on the show, but to have a 3 time Tony award winning Broadway star on the show.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> that would be a good point. -- Rochefort, 17:27:23 02/16/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I'm not saying it's a hidden agenda... -- jaffakree, 17:28:29 02/16/02 Sat
Here Here!!!
Now, didn't his introduction spice up the show. Especially the way he was looking at Dawnie.
Now, what about Buffy?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> As I recall, Buffy was perfectly willing to serve as his "bride" -- WW, 19:33:33 02/16/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> yes, HB is black, but does that make sweet black? are demons played by white actors white? -- yuri, 01:13:58 02/18/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Sunnydale and ethnicity -- anom, 22:35:38 02/16/02 Sat
"I think that if anyone has a problem with the lack of diversity on the show should watch Angel instead. More Asian and African American casting. Kudos to Angel..."
I had a letter to ME composed in my head after about the 1st 6-8 eps of Angel about how badly it compared to Buffy (at that point; it's improved on many counts since then). If this board had been around then, I'd've posted it here. One major subtheme was that Angel was living in an LA that was whiter than Sunnydale, a fact only pointed up by plots involving "racial" divisions among demons & Angel's resentment of "stereotypes perpetuated by hack writers" (like that vampires sleep in coffins). In those 6-8 shows there had been 4 characters who weren't white, & only 1 was a major part (the bartender at D'Oblique); I think only 2 even had any lines. There was "ethnodemonology" but very little depiction of ethnic diversity among humans. Even after Doyle died & Cordelia started having the visions, I remember a black W&H lawyer & a couple of Koreans (they were in Koreatown, after all) who never showed up again, & that was about it for the rest of the season. I think that was the season there was (for once) a big stink about how few nonwhite characters were on any show, & the next year, Gunn & his gang were introduced. Of course, Gunn is still the only regular character who isn't white. But the numbers have generally improved since then, although there've still been very few Hispanic characters (in California!).
As for Sunnydale, it does seem to have a working-class part of town, as well as a seamier side (like where Faith's hotel was), but the Summers family seems to live in pretty much a whitebread suburban area. Rattletrap makes a good point about the proportion of Mexican-Americans in Southern California, but how many of that 30% can afford a nice big house like Joyce's? De facto segregation may account for Buffy & Dawn's school district being overwhelmingly white. We do occasionally see nonwhite characters aside from those named by other posters (there was also a teacher Marcie tried to suffocate), but usually as extras in crowd scenes (like at the prom or in classes or outdoor scenes at UC-Sunnydale). And the ranks of the Initiative had a higher percentage of nonwhites than we usually see on Buffy, reflecting the military's status as more of an equal-opportunity employer than most (including ME, apparently).
I don't see any lack of "minority" talent available, & I'm sorry to see anyone suggesting this as the reason for its scarcity on the show. If anything, the rarity of parts for nonwhite actors should mean there are plenty to answer casting calls that are open to them. I don't know how often casting personnel specify race when putting out a call for a part, & there is a tendency to assume "white" unless otherwise specified. I wonder if nonwhite actors' agents don't make as much effort on their behalf as they do for their white clients, or if they tend to channel them to certain (stereo)types of parts. (I have no idea if this is the case, but if there's anyone it's still safe to bash, it's agents.)
And speaking of stereotypes, on a show like Buffy I don't think casting nonwhites as villains has the same implications it does on more reality-based shows, not least because there are so many villains. I mean, c'mon--Mr. Trick & the guy in the vest trying to resurrect the Master weren't bad guys because they were black--they were bad guys because--hello--they were vampires. Villain parts are some of the plum parts on Buffy! Mr. Trick was a great character who went against a lot of stereotypes by being an intelligent, enterprising, high-tech-oriented black man. Sweet was just amazing (& what was that about "choosing to see" him as African-American? it was obvious under the facial prostheses). I don't think there's reason to hold casting some nonwhite actors as bad guys against the show when there are also (a) nonwhite actors cast as good guys or just ordinary folks & (b) white actors (plenty of them) cast as bad guys.
Finally, the issue that was originally raised was ethnicity & stereotypes on BtVS. I don't understand jaffakree's fixation on Buffy's dating someone who isn't white as "the point." (BTW, in addition to Rahael's list, Xander dated a Latina. OK, a demummified, life-essence-sucking Latina, but still....)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: 4 of the 6 Slayers we have seen were not white -- LeeAnn, 23:36:22 02/16/02 Sat
Four of the six Slayers we have seen were not white. The first Slayer, the Chinese Slayer, the New York Slayer Spike killed, and Kendra. That seems like a pretty good mix for heroes.
I like the mix the way it is. I'm not into reality since 9-11 and never would have insisted that Buffy reflect it. If more diversity is shown, it would have to include more cultural diversity, not just some black or Hispanic faces. I think that's the rub. That would change the whole imaginary cultural universe that we have existed in for the last 6 years.
I wonder if there have been few major minority characters because Joss wasn't interested in accurately depicting the cultural differences, or because he was more interested in examining different issues such as overturning the stereotype of helpless blondes and powerless women.
But if it's important to people maybe they should start including tokens. How about a black sidekick for Buffy? A voodoo witch friend for Willow? A Hispanic coworker for Xander?
God knows I'm PC in RL. I guess BtVS should have to start being PC too.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: 4 of the 6 Slayers we have seen were not white -- Hauptman, 00:33:14 02/17/02 Sun
"But if it's important to people maybe they should start including tokens. How about a black sidekick for Buffy? A voodoo witch
friend for Willow? A Hispanic coworker for Xander?"
Xander does have hispanic co-workers. They were introduced when Buffy briefly worked with them. And there are many whites who practice Voodoo. While I agree with your earlier point, this casual race baiting seems beneath you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> yeah. Tokens are more debilitating than helpful to anyone. (anom - very nicely said above&below) -- yuri, 01:21:31 02/18/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> thanks for pointing that out -- anom, 21:56:08 02/17/02 Sun
I really hadn't been thinking about the pre-Buffy Slayers. But they haven't appeared on very many episodes, & the thread (seems to me) is more about how Buffy's world is portrayed.
I don't think anyone's asking for tokens, and I don't consider wanting to see more other-than-white characters a matter of political correctness. After all, "Buffy" is about what would happen if vampires & demons really existed in a world otherwise resembling our own, & in the world most of its viewers live in, most places, even predominantly white suburbs, have noticeable numbers of people of other races. Not to show them in mostly-white shows is in effect to pretend they don't exist (except barely on the periphery).
Some posters have said viewers can't identify w/the experiences of characters on shows about people of racial or ethnic groups different from theirs. But one thing a good TV series or movie can do is help viewers identify w/experiences they haven't had personally (& aren't likely to--even metaphorically). If the writing, direction, & acting are good, even viewers who are not black & not parents should be able to identify with, say, a plot in which Bernie Mac can't get a cab to take him home when there's an emergency w/the kids, & people who probably will never experience such discrimination in real life may even get their minds opened a little.
Last point: Part of the problem (for a long time) has been that many white writers & producers assumed that shows w/mostly white casts (or all-white casts!) were "for everyone." This comes out of the fact that white is the default assumption for race in the US (like male for gender, Xtian for religion, straight for sexual orientation). It's easy when you belong to the if-not-otherwise-specified group to assume those in other groups have similar experiences/ways of thinking &, if you work on a show, not to see the need to portray anything different.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> thanks for so seriously bringing this back to topic -- Rochefort, 09:15:51 02/17/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> appreciate the compliments, roche & yuri, but i was hoping... -- anom, 11:40:48 02/18/02 Mon
...there'd be more discussion of some of the points i made. Some of them are addressed below (& I'll join that part of the discussion there), but I'm not seeing that much more about the media aspects of the issue.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> An idea from the bleachers -- Darby, 17:45:48 02/16/02 Sat
There is an interesting take on this question at
Slain by Buffy
the essay is about how Sunnydale is really a town in England, and the ethnicity is used as support. It's a fascinating read.
For another opinion, my wife thinks that it's the responsibility of American TV to represent an ethnic mix, perhaps even an "unrealistic" one, because of the effects that can have on our own viewers and the image presented abroad that we're at least trying to be what we've professed to be. I'm not sure I'd go that far, but the idea certainly has some merit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: An idea from the bleachers -- jaffakree, 17:55:52 02/16/02 Sat
Point well taken from the bleachers!
All, I'm saying is that JW should introduce some non-England blood into the mix.
JW could make it so that this non-England blood used powerful magiks to control Buffy's mind so that all her actions were not her responsiblity. Then the Scoobies could come and save her. Since she was under the magiks her actions would not be held against her and she could continue to be the Champion of Sunndale without blemish.
Just an idea to bring the fire back to BtVS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: An idea from the bleachers -- Rochefort, 17:58:15 02/16/02 Sat
I agree there's merit to your wife's idea. But a little town in England, hm? I'm going to check that article.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: An idea from the bleachers -- jaffakree, 18:03:43 02/16/02 Sat
Rochefort:
What's up man! Who cares about some web article that could have been created with Notepad in 60 seconds.
Can't you just entertain the thought that Buffy could benefit from some non-white interaction?
Think about it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> lol. all right. *considers* -- Rochefort, 18:12:50 02/16/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> What a convincing argument! -- Rochefort, 18:02:32 02/16/02 Sat
Gosh, he makes a great case!
No wonder I like Sunnydale so much. I hate baseball AND cars. I didn't know Joss grew up there. That argument makes a heck of a lot of sense and the absense of ethnic differences fits rather neatly in there. Though not entirely. Like squishing merangue into a shoe. Thanks for the tip!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> also the best explanation I've heard to Sdale's lack of guns. -- Rochefort, 18:03:46 02/16/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Sarcasm does not become you Rochefort. -- jaffakree, 18:12:18 02/16/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> No I'm really considering! I have a Japanese friend I might hook her up with. -- Rochefort, 18:14:43 02/16/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Wait, I really meant that about the England thing. It's good. -- Rochefort, 18:16:29 02/16/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Rochefort: What was your point? -- jaffakree, 18:20:28 02/16/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: An idea from the bleachers -- Rachel, 19:27:41 02/16/02 Sat
The most powerful writing happens when write about something we know. It makes a lot of sense that since JW grew up in England, his character setting is English-y. I'm glad he doesn't try to fit into a "correctness" mold. We are treated each week to hear his true and distinct voice. I'm also glad he doesn't give us characters solely to satisfy fan longings. Otherwise it would be all naked Spike all day. I think BtVS has plenty of diversity...there are humans, demons, werewolves, vampires, ghosts, and all other manner of creatures.
Rachel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> By George, You've Got It!!! -- LeeAnn, 00:28:37 02/17/02 Sun
Sunnyvale is in England.
"But what's the reason? Well, Joss Whedon, as usual. He grew up in England, and Buffy is after all about teenhood, so it's logical that he'd take the setting of his teenhood. Giles is the key authority figure, and he's English; maybe he's even loosely based on one of Whedon's former teachers. How conscious this Englishifying is, well, I don't know. But as far as I'm concerned, Buffy is a more accurate representation of (middle-class suburban) English culture than anything else I can think of. Apart from the vampires that is. Those we do not have." http://www.daydreamnation.co.uk/buffy/buffyengland.html
Excellent. It explains a lot.
It explains why Sunnyvale has a mystical quality. A place in the mist with different rules than the rest of the world.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Joss in High School -- Dochawk, 10:13:54 02/17/02 Sun
Joss grew up in America (Manhattan). His family was in the screenwriting business (my guess is he grew up pretty affluent). He spent his senior year at a British High School for Boys. Certainly he learned alot about class distinctions and cliques. But Valley speak and the SG are quintessentially American high schoolers. There is little in Buffy that resembles a British Boys Prep. And, the Americans I know who are most afraid of driving, grew up in Manhattan (where many people still don't have their licenses in their 20's)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Not here too -- LeeAnn, 21:21:17 02/16/02 Sat
Buffy the Vampire Slayer is white show. No doubt about that. In the same way that many "black" shows have few to no "white" characters.
It's not about reality.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Not here too -- Hauptman, 00:24:11 02/17/02 Sun
"Buffy the Vampire Slayer is white show."
Really? I am a little stunned at this idea. I don't necessarily disagree, and I am not taking issue with you personally, I am just not sure what this means. This phrasing gave me pause I think because to call something "white" excludes me somehow. My reaction to it is the same as when I am informed where the white neighborhood is, or the white public swimming pool. Most of the time people aren't telling me something is white to exclude me from it or to hurt me. They are just telling me where it is in the simplest terms.
Race is a powerful, divisive, complicated subject. Ultimately it comes down to the way people feel. Whites don't want to feel guitly or persecuted, other races do not wish to be ignored, forgotten, marginalized. The very act of discussing race causes these feelings to be revealed and magnified. And that makes it harder to talk about, because we are human and the subject calls into question our humanity, how we see ourselves and how we see each other.
I think Buffy speaks to this issue, the issue of humanity, what it means to be a human being. It's funny, although I did notice a lack of "characters of color" I never thought of it as a "white show." Primarily beacuse I don't know what a white show would look like. "Friends" came up as an example of a white show earlier. I guess I can see that more clearly, but it's still fuzzy for me. Black shows. Asian shows. Latin shows. Gay shows. I think I get it now. I was thinking about it as I wrote those down. I think what you mean is a show that is a white show (or black, latin, gay, etc. show) is one that has closed the door on diversity, it has only allowed certain things to enter into its world view and only those things are important. I get the "Friends" complaint now, but Buffy isn't like that.
Buffy and Angel are richer and deeper than that. Just the idea that this power Buffy has, this calling, this slayer-thing, is not an exclusively white condition, that it has been passed through different races, cultures and classes is enough to make me think this show is beyond such simplification. That is an example of the writers not taking the easy way out. The lazy way out. It may not represent our glorious dream of a "color blind" nation, and it may not represent the true demographics of our reality, but I think, in my humble opinion, that it is saying something ABOUT all of us. That's what I get out of it anyway. Sorry to go on. I was just a little surprised at what that first line brought out of me. I am glad you said it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Not here too -- Yellowork, 04:03:51 02/17/02 Sun
I would take issue with the 'problem' with villains being Black. I am from England, and as all Americans know, English is the only nationality which it is politically apt for a villain to be - like we care! I am sure African Americans are similarly less than attracted to the prospect of being portrayed like Riley Finns, dear God! Gunn is crap. Mr Trick, on the other hand, rules! Notice how Gunn, the 'white-hat', plays along with every conceivable stereotype about young black males, whereas Mr. Trick overturns them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Not here too -- Lisa, 09:26:26 02/17/02 Sun
Remember setting.
Buffy is set in a "peaceful" suburban California community. The name says it all. "Sunnydale". It's a place where the dominant cultural institution is the mall.
For those of us who grew up in communities that were predominately white, in communities where we had no minority friends, not because we were racists, but because minorities just weren't there, it is a community we can identify with.
I came from a very politically liberal town. But it was a town that nonetheless had few minorities. Perhaps one or two non-whites would be in a classroom. Sometimes.
We could be proud that we were racially tolerant. For we never had to be tested.
Sunnydale is definitely "whitebread" territory. Suburban areas like this do exist in California. Perhaps they are becoming more rare now, but Dawn does have a friend who is black. So I think that shows that Sunnydale (like all of subburban America) isn't as "whitebread" as it once was.
And don't forget - Willow is Jewish.
Sunnydale is a suburban area. It's not kind to those who don't embrace the suburban lifestyle. And that means White urban people like Faith, and rural White people like Tara's family even more than it does someone who isn't white. It's more about economics, and culture, than it is about race. If you can't fit into the PTA culture regardless of your race, then you are unwelcomed. But conversely, I really believe that if you can fit into the PTA culture, race wouldn't not matter as much.
Just be sure to remember to cook those cookies for the bake sale.
Actually the most realistic thing would be to have more Asians in Sunnydale.
Below is an interesting link regarding Suburban California lifestyle.
http://www.poppolitics.com/articles/2001-12-05-fasttrack.shtml
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> in our society, you cannot separate race from economics and culture. -- yuri, 02:55:03 02/18/02 Mon
and a white upper middle class suburban neighborhood (however liberal it may be) is racist by definition. There is no way a person of color in the same economic bracket as the people of a predominantly white town would have less trouble in said town than a white "city" or "country" girl/guy. They only have to manipulate their mannerisms, whereas a person of color must constantly prove themselves better than the stereotype that lives somewhere in the minds of even the most conscious white people, and especially those who live in an racially undiverse community. (I don't mean to say that white folks can't fight and reject those stereotypes, but it's unlikely for that to happen especially in a space where those stereotypes aren't often being challenged.) Yes, there is the recent phenomenon of wanting to "acquire" people of color in communities to attain some sense of diversity and acceptance, but the majority of America is not like this.
(Sorry this didn't relate back to Buffy.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Actually, -- Darby, 06:31:39 02/18/02 Mon
That's not entirely true. It seems to depend upon how large the minority is.
I've lived in many places with varying-size minority representation. There seems to be a minimum size (and it varies depending upon the town and the ethnicity of the minority) below which individuals are not seen as a threat and therefore not treated that way.
It's a reflection of human evolutionary development (which is why it's so insidious) to react aggressively to perceived threats - in the "old" days, with nonhuman predators, it established a fear by association which caused many to avoid human groupings and even human individuals, which is a great boon to otherwise relatively defenseless creatures. Unfortunately, as technology advanced, the only outside threat to groups of people were other groups of people, and the "us versus them" reflex was perpetuated, again logically so. But the reflex does require the perception of threat, which doesn't always exist in the American hinterlands - yes, there are people to whom a single individual represents their entire group, and who act accordingly, but they are rarer. And many more may be of the type whose inner voice is saying, "I fear/hate those people, but so-and-so here is okay"; I saw that often in the South, in general areas where racism was a real concern but specific localities where it could be pushed to the rear of someone's consciousness. Areas like predominantly white residential sections. But in the North, and I would assume the west, once out of the cities the threat represented by this or that group gets far away and abstract, and lessens the reaction of the community. Where I am now, you can see this dynamic play out in absolutely different ways in school systems just a few miles apart. We moved all of 12 miles to take my son from a school where I was afraid that he'd be both a target of negative reactions and a student of racist attitudes (beyond a certain age, the peers impart much more than the parents) to where he may be an oddity but no one bothers him about it. The conforming social pressure is a little strong, but I don't see that as inclusionary rather than inherently racist. "Please be more like us" does not automatically imply "what you are otherwise is evil."
I just have a problem with saying anything other than the obvious candidates is "racist by definition." I think that it lessens the connotations of the word "racist," which should have some real power, to apply it that way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Actually, -- yuri, 22:51:19 02/18/02 Mon
"I just have a problem with saying anything other than the obvious candidates is "racist by definition." I think that it lessens the connotations of the word "racist," which should have some real power, to apply it that way."
Okay, I definitely see that point, and I regret my inability to think things out completely before I post.
However, I still don't agree with you. You say that "there seems to be a minimum size... below which individuals are not seen as a threat and therefore not treated that way."
First, I think that if this were true in some cases, the cases in which individuals /are/ treated "that way" so outnumber them that it's almost irrelevant to recognize the exceptions. (almost.)
Also, even if in these cases minorities are not seen as "a threat," are they likely to be the most upstanding citizens of the town? Would they have as equal a chance of becoming mayor as a white person?
"But in the North, and I would assume the west, once out of the cities the threat represented by this or that group gets far away and abstract, and lessens the reaction of the community. "
Well, here in California it doesn't seem to be very lessened. SoCal is, from what I've learned growing up right above it, a conservative haven and notoriously racist. That's south, I know, but even in Northern CA it's bad. A family friend of mine who's white won't take his half black half filipino wife to visit his hometown, because it's so akward and uncomforable for her. Somewhere around Redding or something, I think.
Though I agree with you that I may not have put it quite as tactfully as I should have, I do believe that the existance of middle-upperclass white suburban neighborhoods is a product of a racist society, because there is no equivalently advantaged community for minorities, and in no way can a person of color or a fringe group be given those advantages equally.
(I'm talking america here, if that makes a difference in how this is taken.)
P.S. I'm not entirely sure I understood everything you said, and I wasn't sure how the theory of human evolutionary development should affect my opinion (because really I do think it's an interesting point, one that I intend to learn more about sometime) so I'm sorry if some of my arguments are a little off.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: in our society, you cannot separate race from economics and culture. -- Scott, 08:45:17 02/18/02 Mon
I totally disagree.
I believe that a minority who adopted a Suburbanite culture would be quickly accepted in Sunnydale society.
Whereas people like Faith and Tara's kin would be run out on a rail.
Again, I don't see "race" as much a factor as culture. And of course economic status.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Not here too -- Rahael, 06:27:27 02/17/02 Sun
I was as stunned as Hauptmann when I read this statement. I too had never thought of it as that way before.
He has written a far more gracious reply than I would ever have managed.
Really, I'm a little depressed. And to think black/asian people get condemned for seeing 'colour' in everything!
Nothing about Joss said anything to me about someone who wanted to create an exclusionary or exclusive cultural experience. And what's this about 'white' culture? I would seriously contest that American or British culture is 'white'. Just take a hard look at popular music in both countries, for example. Culture really doesn't work that way. It doesn't have a colour. It might be racist, but it doesn't have a colour. People can't be segregated from sharing an experience. Assigning a colour to culture might seem attractive, but ultimately its meaningless. The British colonial experience and its culture might call itself white, and set its paradigms in opposition to the 'other', but really, its not 'white'. It went native so to speak.
Buffy isn't 'unreal' in the way that Narnia is 'unreal'. It has all the pain and sadness that real life entails. It isn't about 'escapism' and it isn't about escapism from real life. And it never struck me that it confines itself to deconstructing ideas about women and not about race. Buffy is about tolerance, and a lack of bigotry. And tackling patriarchy is not just about tackling 'sexism'. Its much more fundamental than that. And by the way, there happen to be a few small numbers of black people who also happen to be women. Or do we need to create a separate category for them? Does Buffy then only tackle the issues of White women? I didn't want to respond, but silence might seem like condoning the statement and hell, 99% of this board probably agrees with you but here's the 1% that doesn't.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Two or three percent at least -- matching mole, 08:43:19 02/17/02 Sun
Rahael said everything I would have said, only better than I ever could have. BtVS might not explicitly address racial issues but certainly its overall message of tolerance seems applicable to everyone. It's mixture of realism and fantasy is one of its major appeals to me. While I am certainly not condemning the show, or even losing any sleep over the relative paucity of non-white roles, I also don't think the issue of race can simply be dismissed by calling it a white show or a fantasy.
I'm still mulling over the whole Sunnydale is England thing. I think that the lack of portrayal of cars, sports, and guns is in line with a lot of the rest of television. TV doesn't seem to be able to portray car travel very well (as opposed to film - probably some technical reason) so it tends not to be portrayed very often compared to the amount of time Americans (particularly in the west) actually spend in cars. Characters on TV don't seem to talk about sports unless there's a plot point involved. And don't the English talk about sports as well - just different sports? And I must say, that despite the stereotypes that many have about Americans and guns, I can count the number of guns I've seen in the U.S. (other than those in the holsters of police etc.) since I moved here almost 18 years ago on my fingers (maybe of one hand). Granted I have very little interest in guns, sports, or cars (the one unalloyed joy of moving from Arizona to Illinois was that I now can go for several days at a time without having to drive anywhere).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> I'm sort of relieved.... -- Rochefort, 09:27:47 02/17/02 Sun
I'm sort of relieved to hear that people on this board generally feel that Buffy does truly reflect a wide audience and manages to deal with diversity issues and issues of alienation in meaningful ways. I think there is a point to be taken, still, that the cast is mostly white, but I'm glad about the topic matter anyway. (I'm also frustrated, of course, by some of the other opinions expressed in this line, but this is a great place to talk about it)
When I've shown Buffy in class at my urban university to talk about gender transgression there has been no clear line between black/white male/female as to who likes the show.
So now that we've discussed ethnicity, you bring up another interesting point. You say that Buffy challenges Patriarchy. Do you think it meaningfully truly challenges it? Or just PLAYS at challenging it. But that's a question for a while different post-line. For another day.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I'm sort of relieved.... -- Rahael, 09:31:53 02/17/02 Sun
Happy to have the Buffy/patriarchy discussion! but just to let you know that several board members including myself and Age have discussed patriarchy and its truly meaningful and sophisticated deconstruction in Buffy in many, many threads, and in intricate detail! I don't know whether those are waiting to be archived, or still in the temporary archives on the top of the page.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Buffy and the idea of tolerance -- Dochawk, 10:40:22 02/17/02 Sun
If there ever was a television show that promoted accepting people based on the quality of their character rather than the color of their skin, Buffy is it. She can have Spike and Clem to her birthday party after all, because they don't have objectionable character traits. During Season 4, Buffy rejects the Initiative partially because they are unable to make this distinction. Some demons are good. Some humans are evil. Buffy will choose the good demons, rather than the "evil" humans. In fact, Riley was able to overcome one of the roots of prejudice, underexposure/undereducation by getting to know Oz before he found out he was a werewolf. Once he did he risked his life for Oz. Eventually he even accepted the idea of Spike having a right to live. These are metaphors for diversity and tolerance. Yes, there is a paucity of ethnic characters (though noone mentioned Forrest), but as someone mentioned above, there is a great mix when it comes to the heros (Slayers) and their is a tremendous understanding of what Tolerance is all about.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Not here too -- Scott, 10:34:42 02/17/02 Sun
"Nothing about Joss said anything to me about someone who wanted to create an exclusionary or exclusive cultural experience."
When you create any work of fiction it is about an "exclusive cultural experience". It's about setting, etc.
For example the show "Good Times" was a sitcom about urban African Americans. Those were the characters. The Evans Family lived in Government funded Projects in Chicago's West Loop. That was the setting. It was about an exclusive cultural experience. About how people grew up and lived under that lifestyle. A story can only be about one set of cultural experiences.
Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a drama about surburban mostly white Americans. It is about growing up under the pressures that society has. That is an exclusive cultural experience, but one that millions of Americans have shared.
That doesn't mean that someone who hasn't shared the cultural experience of growing up white and suburban in America can't enjoy the show. From rural communities, to urban communities from England to India and beyond, people from different all different cultural backgrounds have enjoyed Buffy the Vampire Slayer. But the show is ABOUT an exclusive cultural experience. It is ABOUT growing up in a predominately white California suburban community.
A show has to be about something. It had to be set somewhere.
That's not to say that a show about predominately white suburbia is a more valid subject matter than something set Lahore before it became part of Pakistan or Living in an small town in Canada's north, but please don't say that it is a subject that has no right to be told. For millions of Americans, this is how we grew up (minus the Vampires of course). We have a story to be told, not more or less valid than any other, but valid nontheless.
Other shows tell other stories, but this one tells ours. It's not exclusionary in the sense that anyone can and do enjoy it, and may in some ways relate to parts of it. But this show is about us.
Suburban America should have a show that tells about our lives. Our lives are as valid as anyone elses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Not here too -- LeeAnn, 20:34:57 02/17/02 Sun
I agree.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Not here too -- Hauptman, 15:34:33 02/17/02 Sun
Rahael
Thanks for your compliment regrading my graciousness in replying to the "White show" comment. I feel compelled to add that inside me there is a raving reactionary dying to stand on a table, denouncing and accusing with all the fire and flame I could muster, but that hardly ever goes over well. I just tried to keep my emotion in check. I think your response was quite civil and gracious, too. I think you made a clearer point. And I know it's hard to do when you're feeling so much. Thanks for the effort.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Me too! -- Rahael, 01:42:56 02/18/02 Mon
I write two versions of a lot of my posts - the first one usually has to be torn up for one showing more hallmarks of sanity.
Its a pity that these thread had to be highjacked by trolls. Though to be honest, Lisa/Scott has been visiting these boards in so many different incarnations for so long, they really are regulars in a strange sort of way.
I like to think that their attempts to sow division and discord are a backhanded complement to the civility of this board.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Not here too -- yuri, 03:53:01 02/18/02 Mon
"Really, I'm a little depressed. And to think black/asian people get condemned for seeing 'colour' in everything!"
I take this to mean that you think color is too often focused on, whoever may be doing the focusing. Well, I disagree, I think that in this culture color _is_ in everything and should be constantly recognized if we wish to ammend the issue of racial inequality. I would argue that upon meeting a person, your perception of them will inevitably be influenced somewhat by their race, whether or not you know it. And I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "Culture really doesn't work that way. It doesn't have a colour," because to the extent that there is a dominant race that monopolizes the power of a country/culture and to whom most media and entertianment is directed towards, I do think that cultures have colors.
You mentioned a few posts above that most of your Buffy-watching friends are minorities. That really hasn't been my experience, and I admit it makes me very happy to hear that, because I really do find Buffy to be a "white show." Not as white as others (I _have_ to reference friends here b/c it's just so perfect) but white, nevertheless. I guess my perspective is that if it doesn't deal with race (and if it does deal with other serious issues - metaphorically or not), it's white, because white people are the only people who have the luxury of not dealing with race.
However, I do understand the idea that BtVS is largely about groups shoved into the "margins" of society, and that that inderectly relates to racism, thereby allowing people of color to identify with the characters on the show. I have never really felt this connection myself, so it's good to hear about it.
Oh, but one last thing.. I /do/ believe, though there are many similarities and parallels, and the two groups can no doubt work together to strengthen each other, that the struggle of white women and the struggle of women of color are very different. Does Buffy apply to both? I haven't decided yet.
I almost always agree with everything you say, Rahael, so it's interesting not to. :)
Oh, and P.S. - I /think/ it was you who denounced Scott/Lisa, along with WW, and I want to say thanks to people who do that so I don't spend too much energy responding to what I assume are several different posters.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Culture and Race -- Rahael, 04:28:11 02/18/02 Mon
Thanks for your comments yuri, and for making me think harder about my earlier post.
My little aside about colour was a sarcastic one. As an Asian woman, when I do complain about racism, I'm told that I have a chip on my shoulder. Told that 'we' are always focusing on race when in fact, those who I am accusing are 'colour blind'. I forget about my colour most times actually, because I grew up in a different country where most people were the same colour as me. I realise it with a shock when I get jabbed in the ribs as I walk along the streets, or get spat at.
Its true that I would prefer BtVS to do at least one show specifically and directly undercutting preconceptions of race. I think Angel has tackled this far far more often.
But there has been *no* other show I have ever appreciated as much as Buffy, and appreciated as a young, black/asian woman. Buffy may be white, but I can identify with her choices. At the end of the day, we have more in common than not.
As for the culture colour comment - what I meant to say was that culture does not belong to one group of people. It's about the interaction between human beings, and culture is a system of ideas and shared understanding. Culture in apartheid South Africa may have been totally, and inherently racist, but to say it was white is to ignore the fact that its created by the domination of one set of people by another. Thus, both groups are implicated. The majority of black south africa should not be excluded from its culture because the white people were in power. That would be just what the apartheid wanted. That's what it sought to achieve. And the two groups were not segregated totally, no matter how much the racists wanted to. The culture of South Africa contains both the oppression of black people, and their spirited response. The culture of the British Empire, belonged both to the oppressors and the oppressed. I claim it. Its my heritage, just or unjust. It set the parameters of my life, and created my cultural background. So is my culture white? Is my culture now white that I now have assimilated into modern Britain? My culture is both Sri Lankan and colonial and British. Saying that culture has a colour is thus meaningless to me. When I call myself black/asian however, that is a strong cultural/political statement. That says something about my cultural outlook. Still doesn't give my ideas and world view a colour.
By saying that the culture of Britain is white is to fall for the lie that is told by certain people in this country who tell people like me 'not to destroy the Anglo-Saxon homogeneity' of this country. Culture isn't formed by the establishment. Its formed by the interaction of groups and individuals in society. Therefore, it's about the interaction of race, gender and class. It's the forum where the establishment's values can get subverted, where the powerless can win the war of ideas, at least.
But I agree that culture contains sub-cultures, and those subcultures could probably be defined by a strong conciousness of race, whether its 'white power' or 'black is beautiful'. But that's a slightly different emphasis.
Buffy belongs to me too. Not just subarbun White America. I don't appreciate it passively, I interact with it. It gets incorporated into my world view.
I'm interested in the point that the troll made about it being suburban America's story. Would like some of the other regulars to comment. Is it? And if so, what in particular does it tackle that distinguishes the white middle class suburban experience from the experiences of other groups?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Culture and Race -- LeeAnn, 05:29:21 02/18/02 Mon
"I'm interested in the point that the troll made about it being suburban America's story. Would like some of the other regulars to comment. Is it? And if so, what in particular does it tackle that distinguishes the white middle class suburban experience from the experiences of other groups?" - Rahael
I promised myself I wouldn't make any other comment in this thread because I seem to stick my foot in my mouth up to my knee, but here goes again. Let me apologize in advance if I offend anyone.
But...I didn't find those comments about suburbia to be a troll. I agreed with them. Does that make me a racist?
I think what distinguishes the white middle class suburban experience from the experience of other groups is that race doesn't have to be addressed. It doesn't exist. It can be ignored. Other forms of exclusion exist and can be painful but, in that culture, race is not one of them.
When I discuss movies and TV shows with black friends and coworkers I find that, whenever possible, they prefer those that have a black lead or even a totally black cast. Does that make them racist? Does it make me racist because I don't? If a black person can prefer "Martin" (a black sitcom where whites are as scarse as hen's teeth) why is it wrong for a white person to prefer, say, the sitcom "Roseanne", which had very few black characters, none of them major? (Myself I only watch Buffy these days and and the Scifi channel.)
But if I were of another race I would probably feel excluded by shows like Buffy. But I think to make Buffy ABOUT race would change it into a different show.
Although if ME keeps making me mad by treating Spike bad (been reading spoilers) that might be something I would favor!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Now that I think of it... -- LeeAnn, 05:36:26 02/18/02 Mon
Now that I think of it, I am excluded too. I'm nothing like the people on Buffy. My cheekbones won't cut glass. I can't do a flying kick. But even though I am NOT them, would NOT fit in with them, I still like them, enjoy watching them, and don't want them to change. I don't need to see a me-surrogate on BtVS to enjoy it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Now that I think of it... -- Hauptman, 06:35:36 02/18/02 Mon
On second thought, don't respond.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Culture and Race -- Hauptman, 06:32:14 02/18/02 Mon
LeAnn I hear points of view like yours when I speak with my white co-workers. And while I understand where you and they are coming from, I don't agree. The problem I find is that there is so much to mix into this soup that ultimately you end up with something impossible to digest. I will try to address some of the points you have repeatedly made in an effort to have a dialog. I am not interested in attacking you.
"I think what distinguishes the white middle class suburban experience from the experience of other groups is that race doesn't have to be addressed. It doesn't exist. It can be ignored. Other forms of exclusion exist and can be painful but, in that culture, race is not one of them."
I think that condition you describe above is a false comfort level created by and maintained by racism itself. How do you think the "white middle class suburban experience" came to exist?
"When I discuss movies and TV shows with black friends and coworkers I find that, whenever possible, they prefer those that have a black lead or even a totally black cast. Does that make them racist?"
Well, no. I expect there are some black people who are racist, but the preference to see people who are ostensibly like themselves in movies and television is not, in itself, an act of racism due to the rarity of the image. I think that white people in general have trouble understanding this as images of white people are the norm. Even now the vast majority of movies, television shows, commercials, magazine ads and cartoons convey images of white people. And I think your reaction to that statement might be "what is wrong with that?" I am not addressing that at this time. But while you feel yourself preparing to defend your right to that fantastic abundance of represnetation, you might wonder what it would be like to not have it, and then you will understand why a black person might want to watch a show where their people have the entire range of human representation rather than a single character whose very existence will be nit picked into oblivion. If you hoard all of the images for yourself, you can't blame people for finding their entertainment somewhere else. All-black shows are a result of racism, not an expression of it.
"Does it make me racist because I don't?"
I don't think it does. What makes you racist (if you are one)is not that you don't watch black shows, it's that you want to maintain a separation. To make an illustration, it's not that you want to push "them" out of town, but since that has already been done for you, you want to keep "them" out.
"If a black person can prefer "Martin" (a black sitcom where whites are as scarse as hen's teeth) why is it wrong for a white person to prefer, say, the sitcom "Roseanne", which had very few black characters, none of them major? (Myself I only watch Buffy these
days and and the Scifi channel.)
But if I were of another race I would probably feel excluded by shows like Buffy. But I think to make Buffy ABOUT race
would change it into a different show."
I am black and Buffy is my favorite show on television. Ever. I think that what you mean is that you think Buffy 'should not' be enjoyable by people who are not white. I think that you are projecting your racism on other races, (i.e. If I were black I wouldn't want to have anything to do with this white thing. Which is actually how you want it to be. This is an all white neighborhood. Why would a black want to live here? Surely they want to live with their own kind...the way we do. I do not think all white people think this way, but some do to justify their feelings about 'keeping it white.'
Hence your coment about it becoming a different show. Your comfort level suffering is your major concern. And I understand that. But maintaining your comfort level is not what we are all here for. And the fact that others, not in your exclusive club, have sought some of that comfort does not make them like you and does not justify continued exclusion.
I do not think that you are a bad person. I understand how you could have come to some of your conclusions. But I respectfully submit that you are very, very wrong. I hope you will respond to this.
Best to you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Excellent response -- Rahael, 07:09:14 02/18/02 Mon
And far more coherent and hardhitting than mine. Not to mention less spittle-flecked too.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Culture and Race -- Scott, 09:04:09 02/18/02 Mon
I think "making it about race" would ruin the show.
The thing about Suburbia is in ways it can be quite accepting, and in other ways it can be quite intolerant.
I don't believe anyone in Sunnydale would have a problem with a minority moving in next to them. In fact in suburbia this has been occuring over the years.
The problem would occur when cultural norms are shaken. But again, that would be the case regardless of the color of the skin of the person challenging the norms.
Why do you think Faith was treated so harshly by the Scooby gang? Because she wasn't like them. Who says 5 by 5 in suburbia? Had Faith been an Asian or a Black from suburbia, they would have embraced her, and they all would have become great friends hanging out at the mall and such. But because she was Urban from the wrong side of the tracks, they made fun of her when she said stuff like 5 by 5.
They had never met anyone like Faith before, so they didn't know what to do with her. And Faith couldn't get into their whole suburbia lifestyle, so she was out of the loop.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Culture and Race -- Rahael, 06:53:14 02/18/02 Mon
The comments made by Scott are irrelevant to my calling him a troll. I was simply calling him/her a troll because he/she is. This person has made numerous visits to the board pushing the same old buttons. And I didn't call him a racist. As far as I know, troll is not equivalent to racism, the last time I checked.
You said:
"I think what distinguishes the white middle class suburban experience from the experience of other groups is that race doesn't have to be addressed. It doesn't exist. It can be ignored. Other forms of exclusion exist and can be painful but, in that culture, race is not one of them."
So the only thing about suburban America that is different is race? Don't middle class black people live in suburban America? Or do they all live in ghettos? What about Jewish people? Do issues of race and racism not concern them? My Jewish friend gets as concerned and upset about racism in Britain because the people who beat me up are likely to find her just as objectionable. Yes, perhaps issues of race doesn't have to matter to 'white' people - a huge umbrella term which is meaningless as a scientific category anyway. In Britain, white Eastern Europeans are targeted by racists too. At that moment, myself and a Croat/Serb are united by a common experience, being taunted or being told to 'go home'.
And yes, probably the reason why white people kept driving on while I was having my head smashed against a wall was because 'race' didn't concern them. When they engage in casual racism, I suppose race doesn't concern them. Turning your face away, pretending not to see, keeping away troubling issues by ignoring them or mouthing platitudes about civil rights while doing your best to make sure no one who isn't white moves next door to you is not 'not being concerned with race'.
How can issues of race not concern white people? Does the existence/abolition of slavery not concern the enslavers? Did apartheid not concern white South Africa. Or did they just do it all by accident?
Actually, I am proud to know many middle class white (British though) people who are as concerned about race and racism as I am. Perhaps I just have higher expectations about their capacity to be troubled by injustice and cruelty than you do. Perhaps they realise that the thugs who don't like me are likely to curtail their freedom in other ways, perhaps they realise that prejudice and injustice and racism corrode away the foundations of democracy. Perhaps they actually know that you can build high security gates to keep out the powerless and the undesirable, but in doing so you build a mental, ideological and emotional prison for yourself.
And what I found most troubling about your earlier comments was that these were the implications as understood by me:
"Buffy is a white show". - implication, made by white people for white people. This is a discussion board about a white American show. Have I, as a non-white, non American have anything to contribute? Should I even be on this board?
I don't look at works of art or culture and think 'white!' 'black!'. Should I throw away Proust and start reading Salman Rushdie, who I hate? Should I abandon my beloved Austen for Zadie Smith? No where have I argued that Buffy should start being 'about race'. It is about the human condition, and thereby tackles issues of alienation and powerlessness, suffering, compassion, tolerance, and the fundamental importance of not judging people by their appearance. And that all encompasses my experience of racism. The points you make below about cheekbones and the like, I don't think are comparable to the lack of an explicit tackling of race in the show. But perhaps you think that cheekbones and one of the greatest injustices present in human society are comparable. Your points accord Buffy an intellectual and emotional poverty which I don't recognise.
If as you say, Buffy is deliberately excluding race as a consideration of white America, then ME are no better than the complacent and self satisfied citizens of Sunnydale, covering up the evidence of the darkness which the town is built on. ME go out of their way to argue against such intellectual dishonesty, and argue for Buffy's innate sense of compassion and justice.
(And I don't really feel like writing another version, more civil and gracious than this. Apologies to the board. If anyone thinks I should lighten up, or take this more humorously, I have to say that my hands are trembling with anger as I write this. If regulars think that this is unfortunate, and we shouldn't discuss such emotive issues on this board, I'd have to say that I would have to consider taking a break from the board, because I would find it difficult to keep silent, especially with the deafening silence of everyone else - with a few honourable exceptions. I am a passionate person and I do get worked up by such things - and it can be a bad thing. I can totally understand why this might be uncomfortable and bad for our little community. Plus, I should probably do a bit more actual work during my work time from now on.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Culture and Race -- Hauptman, 07:19:04 02/18/02 Mon
Rahael
For god's sake, stay. Or at least for mine. I was about to pop a seal over this issue, too. While I pride myself on giving everyone an ear and thoughtful consideration, I am at a point where the combination of casual racism combined with deflection displayed here is deeply troubling to me. I think we (you, me, Yuri and a few others) have a responsibility to stay on the board, though. Bottom line: we have a right to live in this neighborhood, too. And I will defend your right to my last breath. Let them come.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well said, Hauptmann -- Wisewoman, 14:37:01 02/18/02 Mon
I've tried before, without much success, to address the issue of "casual racism combined with deflection" that arises whenever the issue of ethnicity is raised in regard to BtVS. I've never called anyone here a racist yet, but I've come close.
I've always appreciated MEs ability to use vampires and demons as metaphor, I just can't understand why they don't address the situation head-on, along with the metaphor. Your comments and Rahael's have made this a little clearer for me, and maybe it is okay for BtVS to be the way it is, but not if it encourages the kind of passive complacency that we see among some of the fans.
I wish I had more time and could be more coherent, but I wanted to add my support for Rahael, and extend it to you and to Yuri.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Culture and Race -- LadyStarlight, 07:29:02 02/18/02 Mon
Stay. Please stay. I haven't commented much on this topic simply because I have trouble organizing my own thoughts.
But I back you and Hauptman one hundred percent. You are bringing a grace to this discussion that, frankly, I didn't think was possible when it started out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Culture and Race -- LeeAnn, 07:47:31 02/18/02 Mon
I apologize for upsetting anyone and will make no further comments on the subject.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Culture and Race -- Scott, 08:37:22 02/18/02 Mon
"Buffy is a white show". - implication, made by white people for white people. This is a discussion board about a white American show. Have I, as a non-white, non American have anything to contribute? Should I even be on this board?"
It is a show about a white American suburbanite (Californian) who would be more comfortable shopping at the mall, but instead is forced to be the protector of good against the forces of evil.
Do you have something to contribute? Many of the themes of Buffy the Vampire slayer about growing up are universal, so I would say, Yes, quite definitely.
But having not grown up in America suburbia perhaps some of the situations you wouldn't identify with or understand as well. Just like if I saw a show about Bosnia, I might enjoy it, I might identify with some of it, but some of it I just wouldn't get since "I haven't been there".
Even I who am not a Californian (though I am a suburbanite) can't relate to this show as well as someone from the valley. Doesn't prevent me from enjoying it though.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Culture and Race -- manwitch, 11:36:00 02/18/02 Mon
"No where have I argued that Buffy should start being 'about race'. It is about the human condition, and thereby tackles issues of alienation and powerlessness, suffering, compassion, tolerance, and the fundamental importance of not judging people by their appearance. And that all encompasses my experience of racism.
--Rahael
You remain, Rahael, remarkably insightful even as your hands tremble.
I hope it will not be lost on people that, along with the passion of your response, you have indicated why Buffy is as appealing as it is to its (as far as I can tell) multi-ethnic audience. Everyone I know, of any ethnicity, that watches the show, finds it their favorite. The only exceptions are a couple of, well, bigotted people who are willing to acknowledge that it has some nice T&A.
If Buffy is a "white show," it would be to the degree that white is the representative ethnicity of the power structures and hierarchies that Buffy consistently opposes and undermines.
In academia, one of the big intellectual arguments around racism is the way that the white male has assumed the available "subject positions" from which people in our culture can speak. For example, one does not have to specify a white male speaking, it is assumed. Our culture and language does not require the specifying of masculinity, it requires the specifying of feminity. This is one of the most insidious aspects of cultural racism (and sexism) in that it alienates non white non males from themselves. They are a sort of "required" to speak from subject-positions from which they themselves are "the other." It is also this fact that makes racism and sexism so intimately connected: the power structures and hierarchies that perpetuate racism and sexism are in large measure the same.
As Rahael eloquently points out, Buffy is against those structures and for humanity.
Also, I would further point out that Buffy isn't even supposed to be a white girl. She's a metaphor. She may look like a white girl on screen, but she's a pointer to YOU. The viewer. Whatever you are.
It would be a garagantuan mistake for whites and non-whites, males and females, to view her as some sort of role model for how those "like her" should behave. She's no more a role model than Barkley. She IS you. Not like you. IS. I'm not female, so the point of her, to me at any rate, can't possibly be female-specific. She is a gendered metaphor, but she is not sex-specific. The same would be true of her whiteness. Its not a lesson plan for white girls. Its about how to maintain humanity under any circumstances. And one of the ways she does it is to constantly oppose the forms of power and authority that divide, alienate and oppress. Perhaps some don't feel that is explicitly anti-racist enough, but I don't see any other show ever doing it any better. Could be my own limitation.
Most all Buffy fans, I would think, would have no problem with any sort of character coming in and being any sort of role in Buffy's life, so long as its written well and true to the show's heart.
That said, the argument of whether or not the show, as a late 20th early 21st century institution, has an obligation to be more representative in its casting is another issue. While I love the show as it is, my view on the question would probably be, what's the harm in broadening the image?
So, to a degree I'm just repeating what Rahael said, but in more long-winded academic language. Sorry to bore. But this is "key" to what this show is doing and what its about and why it appeals. To me, its fundamental to any useful discussion of race and ethnicity on the show.
I will end by saying that people on this board, well meaning people, will be in different places on the subjects of racism and sexism, with different levels of experience and recognition, just as some people on this board aren't sure what a metaphor is and won't have any idea what I'm talking about when I say "subject positions." Bringing them into the conversation will always be more productive than excluding them (monkeypants excepted) no matter how much it might make the hands shake. That's not a jibe at you at all, its another request that you stick around and continue to comment, even when you're furious.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Culture and Race -- Lisa, 11:43:50 02/18/02 Mon
"Also, I would further point out that Buffy isn't even supposed to be a white girl. She's a metaphor. She may look like a white girl on screen, but she's a pointer to YOU. The viewer. Whatever you are."
Buffy is supposed to be a Valley Girl For Sure. A pom pom waving, mall shopping Valley Girl. You see the type at the mall all the time, with their giggling and their teenspeak.
I went to school with several Buffy's, along with several Cordialia's, and all too many Harmony's.
That she was able to break out of her own stereotype gives hope to us all. But I have never considered her "me". I was never a cheerleader, nor the most popular. Nor did I really try to be.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Rahael? (O/T-well, not really) -- dubdub, 14:25:38 02/18/02 Mon
It's me, sweetie. I know you wrote several hours ago, but I just got a chance to read this now, because I'm so busy at work--are you okay now? My main concern is that this discussion not force you to relive situations and emotions that no one should have to go through even once, never mind over and over again.
Can you e-mail me when you get a minute and let me know you're alright...I haven't read the rest of the thread yet, so I'll try to do that. Would deep breaths help?
Sending you love and support,
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Casual Racism -- Rufus, 18:00:16 02/18/02 Mon
"Buffy is a white show". - implication, made by white people for white people. This is a discussion board about a white American show. Have I, as a non-white, non American have anything to contribute? Should I even be on this board?
BTVS may seem like a white show in that the main cast members are white, but it's exposure of how it feels to be marginalized speakes to everyone. I said before that demons are a way to talk about all the isms without getting personal. People aren't always good at digesting ideas that are in their face because it brings up all the negative emotions that cause them to again shove all that stuff inside where it will be safe and under the rug.
Rahael is talking about feelings of being the "demon" in the real world. Being marginalized because of the shade of her sking, the country of her origin. Having to work harder, longer, better to get any recognition. Being invisible to white people who don't feel comfortable admitting that such ugliness as racism still exists after all this time. People want to be Politically correct, which I take to be just another way of hiding from the truth of the feelings that Rah speaks of. It's that symbolic way of turning one's head while an atrocity occurs.
How can issues of race not concern white people? Does the existence/abolition of slavery not concern the enslavers? Did apartheid not concern white South Africa. Or did they just do it all by accident?
The fact that slavery exists at all should make us all uncomfortable no matter who is the enslaver. In all of us exists that capacity to ignore the humanity in someone else and make them a thing. The allure of turning ones head beckons all the time. In Season four, with the Initiative, it was in our face, demons were just animals,not because that was a proven fact, but because it was assumed. The demons they performed vivisection on were representations of us, the people we could become if we were no longer valued. That point was brought home to Riley and the audience when Oz turned back into a person. Did they stop what they were doing, no, because they had already categorized him as an animal, something to be experimented on....animals have no feelings, no rights, don't matter, aren't us. The Initiative is what we can become if we ever forget that we are capable of making people things, the other, not us. Yet we may do that every day without even knowing it. Think twice before you think Rahael has a chip on her shoulder, because the pain of exclusion she feels is brought home to her in tiny, and not so tiny ways all the time, without a break...ever. When we decide that to consider her feelings makes it too uncomfortable to dredge up our own, does nothing more than confirm her doubts.
To even begin to touch the surface of healing the wounds of racism we first have to acknowledge it may exist in ourselves. This thread was just a reminder that just because we don't think it applies to us, we may be allowing it to go on.
Don't go Rah, just because people like me didn't reply at first doesn't mean we weren't thinking about it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> re -- yuri, 01:01:42 02/19/02 Tue
First off: thanks, Rahael, for being very alive.
Note: long... turns into more of an introspection so my advice is to stop whenever I stop making sense. For real, I'm not a chronic self-depricator, but this post is seriously flawed.
I want to respond to things from this post and the one above, if you're able to whether the subject for a little longer.
First, I knew your aside was sarcastic. Believe me I've seen many a person pull the "chip on your shoulder" thing with someone. Rereading my post, I didn't at all say what I meant. I just wanted to establish that in your opinion LeeAnn was considering things too much in terms of race, so I could respond to that.
I agree with your evocative analysis of culture, and I think our disagreement must have just been in what we each meant by using the word "culture."
The point of LeeAnn's that I did agree with was her point that "what distinguishes the white middle class suburban experience from the experience of other groups is that race doesn't have to be addressed. It doesn't exist. It can be ignored. Other forms of exclusion exist and can be painful but, in that culture, race is not one of them." I didn't interpret it the way that you did, because to me this is saying that though middle class whites are obviously /completely/ involved in racism and have huge responsibilities to the issue, they, since they are the dominant or the agent, have the option of being oblivious to it all. (I was gonna talk about subject positions, but manwitch already covered it, thank god.)
What I'm wrestling with now, with many sincere thanks to Rahael and Hauptman, is the idea that a show can transcend its, well, its external racism, I suppose (in that it essentially has an all white cast). I can't really wrap my mind around it all right now... so many emotions...
In response to "Buffy is a white show" you say:
"- implication, made by white people for white people. This is a discussion board about a white American show. Have I, as a non-white, non American have anything to contribute? Should I even be on this board?"
(btw - that was of your many comments that made me shake and left my eyes sore by the end of your post. You're not the only person on this board whose emotions lie near the surface. [And proud of it! Anyone who thinks you should "lighten up" can just consider themselves bitchslapped by me. I very rarely desire _less_ emotive issues, and I assume others feel the same. I mean isn't that really the whole point?])
and Hauptman says;
"I am black and Buffy is my favorite show on television. Ever. I think that what you mean is that you think Buffy 'should not' be enjoyable by people who are not white. I think that you are projecting your racism on other races, (i.e. If I were black I wouldn't want to have anything to do with this white thing...)'"
and these ring in my ears and I need to go drink some tea or something. I wish I could verbalize what I'm thinking, because I don't think I've made any indication. And I'm worried people will think I'm thinking something I'm not.
It's because I actually would have agreed a few posts ago that BtVS is a "white show." I mean, the general cast is white and I don't sit through an episode without noticing that, however slightly. I feel that it is set in the context of a "white culture", - well what the hell is white culture, right? After those two comments, it's obvious to me that saying BtVS's a "white show" undermines the appreciation of it by other races. Should we criticize the casting decisions? Is ME off the hook because their high quality shows are able to reach beyond the race barrier, and they're probably just doing what they gotta do for their survival? Does it make a difference that Buffy is being shown in an era where television is prejudiced and segregated -- meaning is it important to be hyper aware of race because of the context rather than the actual show? Or is race really not a barrier if it's treated correctly? Does it matter that some people _are_ alienated by the whiteness of Buffy? It depends on the individual and their relationship to race. And then is there a majority opinion? Does it matter if there's a majority?
I need sleep. I apologize if this kind of post is totally against board etiquette. I need to keep a journal or something..
And again, Rahael, thank you for your honesty and your willingness to show your wounds. I shall try to take it as inspiration for my own choices in the future.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Culture and Race -- Darby, 06:44:36 02/18/02 Mon
Excellent, just great.
Can you tell that I totally agree with your definitions of culture and subculture?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Culture and Race -- Scott, 09:57:37 02/18/02 Mon
I have no idea what you mean about "troll". This is the first week I have posted on this board, and considering the attitude of some of the feedback, I think I am not coming back, but I stand by the statement that Buffy being suburban America's story.
Too much is being made about the "White" part (though I guess I understand that) but the truth is that until recently suburbia was predominately White. But I don't think that the "lack of racial issues" in surburbia makes surburbia racist as there is no attempt to keep others out. But for many of us, we grew up in a one-culture world. Where minorities were indeed few in number.
How does distinguish the middle class suburban experience from the experiences of other groups?
In many ways they are similar. Take an urban setting like "Boston Public" and compare it to "Sunnydale High" and there would be more similarities than differences. Or "Smallville High" (a more rural setting).
Being in the "middle" in all respects (economically, etc) means that one still need to struggle to find money for college, yet college isn't out of reach for them. I think what makes suburbia different in some respects than say the urban and rural experience is the overwhelming need people feel to make a "perfect life". To have that white picket fence, to keep up with the Jones. People want to think "it can't happen here".
And when it does "happen here" like it happened in Springfield, Oregon, or Littletown, Col people have no coping mechanism. The house of cards all fall down upon them.
I don't know if I can exactly say in a few sentences what makes Suburbia different. Every experience is different. Suburbia like every other subculture has it's good, bad, indifferent, and ugly aspects.
Getting back to the 'white' part, I really don't see it as racial. But in Suburbia there is a great desire to conform. To make sure that everyone cuts their grass, etc. I say if I have to sum up Suburbia in two words it would be conformity and safety. Don't like people who make waves regardless of race.
I think another thing that is different between Suburbia and say Urban areas is the lack of identity. You say Los Angeles and everyone knows where you are from. But you say "Sunnydale"? And there are unique things that makes Los Angeles different from San Diego, or New York. But Sunnydale? What makes Sunnydale different from Forest Grove, or Mountain View, or Lillyfield?
Of course, some of us know the answer to that. Sunnydale has the hellmouth.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Culture and Race -- LeeAnn, 10:29:28 02/18/02 Mon
In the words of Rush's "Subdivisions"
Conform or be cast out,
Be cool or be cast out
Sprawling on the fringes of the city
In geometric order
An insulated border
In between the bright lights
And the far unlit unknown
Growing up it all seems so one-sided
Opinions all provided
The future pre-decided
Detached and subdivided
In the mass production zone
Nowhere is the dreamer or the misfit so alone
Subdivisions
In the high school halls
In the shopping malls
Conform or be cast out
Subdivisions
In the basement bars
In the backs of cars
Be cool or be cast out
Any escape might help to smooth the unattractive truth
But the suburbs have no charms to soothe the restless dreams of youth
Drawn like moths we drift into the city
The timeless old attraction
Cruising for the action
Lit up like a firefly
Just to feel the living night
Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights
Subdivisions
In the high school halls
In the shopping malls
Conform or be cast out
Subdivisions
In the basement bars
In the backs of cars
Be cool or be cast out
Any escape might help to smooth the unattractive truth
But the suburbs have no charms to soothe the restless dreams of youth
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Culture and Race -- Lisa, 11:34:55 02/18/02 Mon
There seems to be an emptiness in suburbia. Perhaps you find that in other places as well, but that has been my experience with suburbia.
Still though given the alternatives of urban decay and rural isolation, suburbia has it's attractions. Can't complain.
Nope, can't complain. Not my right. It's just another day in paradise. Billions of people would give anything just to be where I am right now.
Well, off to take my prozac.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Culture and Race -- Fred, 10:11:08 02/18/02 Mon
I do think one can "focus too much on race".
I don't think it helps bringing racial issues to the forefont as it puts people on the defensive and forces them to stop dealing with you as an individual.
Until we can stop seeing people as "races" and instead see them as unique individuals, racism will continue.
As long as there are people who are willing to use "the atomic bomb" everytime some personal interaction doesn't go the way they think it should, racism will continue.
If you let people get to know you, instead of be afraid of you, the racial issue would be worked out in the framework of personal friendship instead of some cultural crusade.
Let people get to know you as an individual and they will learn to appreciate your culture as well. Walk around with a chip on your shoulder and they will always be wary of you as the "Other".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Culture and Race -- Spikesbitch, 13:54:40 02/18/02 Mon
"Walk around with a chip on your shoulder and they will always be wary of you as the Other"
The idea that if you are friendly people will see beneath appearances and you will be accepted is a nice idea in theory but in reality there are some people who will never accept people they see as "different" from them in regards to sexual preference, gender, racial identity etc. I find it offensive that you suggest that certain people are not accepted because they have chips on their shoulder. You seem to be blaming racial minorities for having attitude problems and seeing the entire majority culture as accepting if given the chance. Not always the case!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Culture and Race -- Fred, 20:49:07 02/18/02 Mon
"I find it offensive that you suggest that certain people are not accepted because they have chips on their shoulder. You seem to be blaming racial minorities for having attitude problems and seeing the entire majority culture as accepting if given the chance. Not always the case!"
Well I find the exact opposite offensive. That you can't recognize that many people do have chips on the shoulder. That many people just wait to be culturally offended so they can lash out and blame everything bad that has ever happened to them on racism.
What is harder for a person to accept? That people don't like them because they are of a certain race, or that people simply don't like them.
It is easier to blame it on your race (it's their fault since they are racists) then to blame it on yourself (people simply don't like me because of who I am).
And it is really tough in forming a personal relationship with someone, if one person has to always worry that something they might say or do to that person will be interpreted as racism. Most people wouldn't want to take that risk. So they avoid the minority. Which the minority can use as justification that they were right all along.
It's a self-fullfilling prophecy.
Instead, it would be much better to allow people to approach you as an individual. Most people come into relations with baggage (chips) regardless of race, but in other cases finds ways of working it through. If you let people learn about you as an individual instead of making it a big political crusade, you will in the end find that "understanding" you CLAIM that you are seeking.
That said though, I think the reason the Scobbies were not that accepting of Faith, was due to the fact she was African American. It was really racist of them to be so cold to her, especially Buffy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Culture and Race -- Scott, 10:50:44 02/18/02 Mon
"As an Asian woman, when I do complain about racism, I'm told that I have a chip on my shoulder. "
I find it quite interesting that no one addressed how people would have felt about the Scoobies treatment of Cordelia and vice versa had a black actress protrayed her.
Perhaps sometimes people really don't like You. Perhaps it is You they don't like.
"Buffy belongs to me too. Not just suburban White America. I don't appreciate it passively, I interact with it. It gets incorporated into my world view. "
Buffy belongs to everyone who enjoys the program
But don't try to change it into something it isn't.
For example. Harry Potter is written by an English person, about English people, for English people. But that doesn't stop millions of children from throughout the world from enjoying it.
I love the books and have incorporated some of it into my world view. But some of the details, as an American I just don't get.
For example, what is Marmite? How do you pronounce Hermione? Who is "Father Christmas"? When they talk about the Quidditch World Cup is that like the Super Bowl of Quidditch?
Again, not being of English culture doesn't stop me from enjoying the books, but if I was British I would identify with it, appreciatiate it, understand it just a bit better than I do as an American.
Harry Potter is about the British. It's about them, not about me. It's not about life in America. It is about life in Great Britain. But there are things in it that are universal.
I would never want Harry Potter to become "Americanized". Being about British culture is part of what gives it its charm. Just like I assume that lovers of Buffy wouldn't want it to move away from its suburban Californian setting. For that is what Buffy is about.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Culture and Race -- matching mole, 11:42:08 02/18/02 Mon
This is going to be a long-winded post and the position I'm placing it on the thread is somewhat random as it relates to a large number of other posts. Here goes.
1. First I would like to urge Rahael to stick around both because of her highly valued Buffy/Angel commentary and because I think she is being too hard on herself re the tone of her responses which always strike me as measured and well-reasoned. Go Rah!
2. I would like to agree with Darby that care should be used when applying emotionally loaded terms such as racist. While I might agree with Yuri's thesis that suburban America might be considered 'racist' in the sense that racial identity influences social interactions I think that the blanket application of the term racist is likely to reinforce existing social attitudes rather than alter them. The only people who are likely to consider themselves racists are either hard-core bigots or liberals with a heavy dose of guilt. Calling people such a loaded term when they don't think of themselves as racist is more likely to lead to alienation than a reappraisal of attitudes.
3. The conflation of race and culture is very unfortunate. Comparing myself to Rahael will only accentuate her point. I am, genetically, as British as you could possibly hope for, being 100% English and Scottish in ancestry. My ancestors emigrated to Canada at various points between the 1850s and 1910. However, much as it embarrasses an anglophile like myself to admit it, I have never been to Britain (hoping to get around to going some day soon). That means that no matter how many British novels and films and television shows I watch there is an immense amount of British culture about which I know nothing. I'm reminded of this every time I watch the 'Vicar of Dibley' and I miss some fraction of the jokes. Yet I'm sure that some people would consider me more genuinely British than her simply because of my appearance and my solidly Anglo-Saxon last name. Ridiculous.
4. There have been several spirited and excellent comments about the major theme of tolerance running through the BtVS and AtS shows so I feel no need to pursue them further other than just saying 'me to'. However I would like to enlarge upon a couple of issues that relate specifically to the portrayal of race and/or culture in books, films, TV, etc.
5. Race remains a serious problem in much of the world, by which I mean that opportunity and general life experience are, to a significant extent affected by race. My perception of these problems has been shaped by my experiences. I was born and raised in relatively small communities and non-white persons were simply not part of my day to day experience. My initial (long term) experiences with people of colour were with very small numbers of fellow students in high school and university. At this point I had a relatively simplistic idea of what racial injustice involved. It meant being deliberately unjust to people of colour as individuals (e.g. not giving them jobs). Solving it seemed simple - stop being mean and unjust. Then I moved to the south side of Chicago and for four years lived in an affluent mixed-race enclave surrounded by poverty-stricken and almost exclusively African-American neighborhoods. Something that had seemed so simple became very complicated really fast. I saw reactions in myself and other well-meaning people that I didn't really like. I saw that the effects of history are not going to vanish overnight. And so on.
Life in the suburbs often does not afford the same perspective. And that's where culture can play a really valuable role. Most of the people watching 'Friends', 'Will and Grace' or 'Mad About You' have never spent much time, if any, in Manhattan. I've never been to Manhattan at all but I am sure that these shows do not in any way reflect reality. Now I'm not arguing that every show on TV has to deal with racial issues, far from it. What I am arguing is that there is an increasingly pervasive tendency on television to present a vision of American life that is consistent with the racial worldview of white suburban America even when the show isn't set there. The one exception to this rule are the workplace dramas: ER, NYPD Blue, etc. I don't tend to watch those shows so I can't comment on them. BtVS seems, in this respect, only too typical of Hollywood television (as much as it transcends it in other ways). To reiterate I don't think that BtVS has been racially insensitive and it certainly has had a number of minor roles for racial minorities but it seems pretty much part of the current Hollywood mainstream in terms of ignoring race.
6. Finally I would like to argue from a completely different perspective. Most of the discussion of BtVS on this board (not surprisingly given the board's name) tends to focus on big picture issues: symbolism, philosophical insights, moral issues. I enjoy all that or else I wouldn't be here. However I also enjoy books, films, and TV for more specific and worldly things. Reading a novel written by someone from a completely different culture may provide me general insight into the human condition but it also provides me with specific insight into a particular culture, a particular time and place. I've always been confused when people say that a book or a film was too foreign for them. To me that is an added bonus, helping to feed my insatiable curiousity (at least I hope it's insatiable). Very little television (as opposed to books and films) really satisfies that curiousity - setting often seems very abstract and blanded out. One of the great appeals of the early BtVS was that it seemed to really capture what it was like to be a high school student. However the fairly monoracial makeup of Sunnydale has always seemed a jarring note to me compared to my own experience of southern California but then again I've only spent a day in Santa Barbara.
This doesn't mean that I don't understand the appeal of fiction (printed or otherwise) that appeals to one's own cultural biases. If there was a show about expatriate Canadians living in the US I would watch it religiously, unless it was utterly horrible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Culture and Race -- Wisewoman, 15:12:17 02/18/02 Mon
This doesn't mean that I don't understand the appeal of fiction (printed or otherwise) that appeals to one's own cultural biases. If there was a show about expatriate Canadians living in the US I would watch it religiously, unless it was utterly horrible.
I dunno, mole, wasn't that the premise of "Due South?" Oh, right, that was utterly horrible...never mind.
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Due South -- LeeAnn, 17:19:38 02/18/02 Mon
Don't speak ill of Due South Wisewoman. It made me a Canadianophile as well as turned me on to Stan Rogers.
Benton Frasier, the perfect man/geek.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Not here too -- LadyStarlight, 12:49:47 02/17/02 Sun
Am I to assume then, if I watch "The Bernie Mac Show" (just as an off-the-cuff example) and identify with some of the issues raised therein, that because it is an African-American oriented show, those issues are not valid for me? That they do not reflect my "reality"?
My reality is what I make of it, skin colour does not come into play.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Not here too -- Scott, 13:08:16 02/17/02 Sun
Some situations are universal. I don't watch that show so I am not sure about setting. But it is possible that there are situations on that show that African-Americans can identify with better than white people who watch that show.
Or perhaps (again I don't watch that show) people of one economic blackground can identify with better than others.
Just because you are not of the same social-economic background as the people being protrayed on the show you a watching doesn't mean you can't enjoy that show. But it does mean that you can't relate to it as well as people from that background are able to.
Malcom in the Middle is a good example. Everyone can enjoy that show, but perhaps can't relate to it as well as people who come from lower middle class households with two working parents.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Not here too -- Scott, 13:17:37 02/17/02 Sun
Looking at the web site for Bernie Mac Show I assume that there would be some aspects to parenthood that you would be able to identify with, but other aspects of the show would be lost to you. Cultural aspects that you would only be able to identify with had you been raised by a black parent.
Which is perfectly fine. Both stories have a right to be told. Both lifestyles have a right to be protrayed.
I think it is healthy that we have some shows like Buffy that protray suburbia, and others like Bernie Mac. Both shows have a place in our society.
Why is it that some when they want to talk about diversity want to exclude whites?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Not here too -- Lisa, 13:40:28 02/17/02 Sun
"African-American oriented" those I believe are the key words here. Doesn't mean it can't be appreciated by people of other backgrounds, but it is " African-American oriented" and you would be upset if the writers ever decided to change this orientation.
Buffy is a middle-class white oriented show. I believe what Scott is trying to say is that White Mall Rats have a story to be told as well. A perspective. Many of us grew up in Suburbia. Not our fault, but that's where we grew up.
And I am not complaining. Count myself lucky. But even for the most fortunate of us life sometimes gets difficult.
Dawn might not know how it feels to grow up a victim of racism. Or how it feels to be a refugee. But Dawn has a story to be told. She knows how it feels to lose a parent. She knows how it feels to want to be accepted by a group. How it feels to be lonely.
I think it is great that we have a show that displays how life is for us in suburbia. Something that we can identify with. Other shows can be about other situations, but this is about suburbia. The good, the bad, the ugly.
It's in the familiarity of the setting, that the show has so much power. That life, even for the most fortunate of us can get difficult. That demons exist in even the most "sunny" of places.
I don't want to downplay the pains of people who live other lifestyles. There are shows and news programs that protray them. ER for example shows what life in a big city hospital is like. And watching that show, I do feel fortunate. But people in the "Sunnydales", "Mountainviews", "Happy Glens","Greendales" we bleed to. We feel pain. And those pains are real too.
And sometimes being middle class, you get the worst of both worlds. Too rich for government benefits, too poor to live in a one breadwinner household.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> ROCKIN THE SUBURBS (ot) -- Rochefort, 15:58:20 02/17/02 Sun
let me tell y'all what it's like
being male middle class and white
it's a bitch, if you don't believe...
listen up to my new c.d.
Shamon!
I got sh-- runnin through my brain
so intense that I can't explain...
all alone in my white-boy pain...
shake your booty while the band complains
Rockin the Suburbs, just like Michael Jackson did
Rockin the Suburbs, c'ept that he was talented
Rockin the Suburbs, take the checks and face the facts
some producer with computers fixes all my shitty tracks.
Don't know how much I can take...
girl gimme something I can break.
In a haze these days, I pull up to a stop light...
I can feel that something's not right...
I can feel someone's blastin me with hate...and base.
sending dirty vibes my way!
cause my great great granddad made someone one's great great grandad his slaves.
just goin to the store for some preperation H.
Y'all don't know what it's like!
Being Male Middle Class and White!
--Ben Folds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: ROCKIN THE SUBURBS (ot) -- Lisa, 18:57:34 02/17/02 Sun
When you compare life in America to how bad it is in other countries, you really do think that we don't have a right to complain.
But that isn't human. Pain is pain. Perhaps to outsiders from Bosnia or somewhere life is pretty easy, and perhaps it is, but don't underestimate how painful going through High School is in America.
And then, situations like Buffy being stuck in a dead end Burger joint job. Sure, it anti a refugee camp, and I guess Buffy can thank her stars for that. But still the job sucks. And the thought that - "this is all I will ever be" can get pretty terrifying.
And the death of a parent is very painful to rich and poor alike. And for Buffy it wasn't only painful, but financially destructive as well.
In a world sense, yes we are the lucky ones. Buffy's addiction to Spike, Willow's addiction to magic, Dawn's stealing, Anya and Xander's wedding seems pretty trival when compared to events and situations like 9-11. Or the world's staving, etc. But these life experiences are painful nonetheless. And I am glad that there is a program that explores them the way Buffy the Vampire Slayer does.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: ROCKIN THE SUBURBS (ot) -- Lisa, 19:08:21 02/17/02 Sun
Rochefort,
Actually your lyrics seems quite on topic here.
I could just imagine what someone like Faith would think of Dawn's (or Buffy's) problems. I can imagine Faith thinking -yeah you lost your mother. So what. The only memories I have of my mother is of her beating me when she was drunk. At least you have good memories of your mother.
Buffy, Dawn, and Willow might be "the lucky ones", but that doesn't mimimize their pains and struggles.
By the way, Being Male Middle Class and White equals forget about financial aid. Being Middle Class and Minority is far better today.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: ROCKIN THE SUBURBS (ot) -- Scott, 21:27:14 02/17/02 Sun
Cool Song.
Check out his web site.
http://www.benfolds.com/intro.html
Here's another song, from many years ago.
http://ingeb.org/songs/littlebo.html
Malvina Reynolds
1. Little boxes on the hillside,
Little boxes made of ticky-tacky,
Little boxes, little boxes,
Little boxes, all the same.
There's a green one and a pink one
And a blue one and a yellow one
And they're all made out of ticky-tacky
And they all look just the same.
2. And the people in the houses
All go to the university,
And they all get put in boxes,
Little boxes, all the same.
And there's doctors and there's lawyers
And business executives,
And they're all made out of ticky-tacky
And they all look just the same.
3. And they all play on the golf-course,
And drink their Martini dry,
And they all have pretty children,
And the children go to school.
And the children go to summer camp
And then to the university,
And they all get put in boxes
And they all come out the same.
4. And the boys go into business,
And marry, and raise a family,
And they all get put in boxes,
Little boxes, all the same.
There's a green one and a pink one
And a blue one and a yellow one
And they're all made out of ticky-tacky
And they all look just the same.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> malvina reynolds! awright!! -- anom, 21:59:01 02/17/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> That's awesome that you posted that...Ben Folds is my personal god! (besides Joss, of course) -- Rob, 07:42:58 02/19/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Bernie Mac Show -- Dochawk, 16:41:43 02/17/02 Sun
I just came from a seminar where Larry Wilmore (the creator of the Bernie Mac show)was asked this very question. Basically he said that the situation they created (a stand up comedian who is caring for his jailed sister's 3 children) has nothing to do with color. It would be funny (and I've never seen the show, but Larry Wilmore is hilarious) regardless of the color of the cast.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Bernie Mac Show -- Lisa, 18:15:04 02/17/02 Sun
I don't think the show has everything to with color but race has something to do with the show.
But more important than even race is the personality of Bernie Mac. Situation comedies like this one usually rely heavily on the background of the main character. For example, "Everyone loves Raymond" relies heavily on the family background of Ray Romano. It would be a different show entirely if Seinfeld was dropped in the situation that they dropped Bernie Mac into.
Again, you write what you know. Buffy is about predominately white middle class suburbia. But within that we are seeing more minorities in Sunnydale as suburbia becomes more ethinically diverse.
I give the show credit for protraying suburbia as it is, not as we would like it to be. There is room in television for both Bernie Mac, and for Buffy. Doesn't have to be one or the other.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Sunnydale and ethnicity -- JM, 12:08:32 02/17/02 Sun
Just wanted to jump in here before things get too vicious, in case they do. Haven't quite finished the thread. There has been some ethnic diversity shown in the background of the show, and everyone has seemed pretty tolerant in their interactions. And the truth is there are plenty of towns out there like that. Where I started highschool, the one black student has to be shipped in. And there were no Hispanics despite the fact that the next town over was an old factory town and had a very large population of Puerto Rican heritage.
They have made some effort to have a sprinkle of speaking characters, both bad and good be black. And on Angel there is a black regular (20% of the cast) and an Asian recurring character. Some noticeable strides. And on Buffy, Bianca Lawson (Kendra) was originally cast as Cordy but had schedule conflicts.
Just wanted to speculate on one point, the writers are all white, as I understand. I think they may have some difficulties writing for characters with ethnic backgrounds. You write what you know. What they know is growing up white in the burbs. I think the shooting scripts for Gunn on Angel often sound a little out of character. Some of it gets changed with the shooting and then JAR really seems to know Gunn and really sells it. (Although I think the actor may actually be Latino -- he grew up in Panama -- he's mentioned before that he gets dialog assistance from black friends.) It's possible not an agenda but more a disinterest in writing minority characters less than competently. Because especially in America there are often culture distinctions and speach patterns that differentiate ethnic communities. And I think that writers are just as sensative about "whitening up" characters as presenting them negatively. This is just spec. No offense intended.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Sunnydale and ethnicity -- Scott, 12:23:50 02/17/02 Sun
"Just wanted to speculate on one point, the writers are all white, as I understand. I think they may have some difficulties writing for characters with ethnic backgrounds. You write what you know. What they know is growing up white in the burbs."
I see nothing wrong about having a show about white people in the burbs. I think it is a legitimate lifestyle to protray. It is a lifestyle many of us grew up in here in America.
And you are right. If white writers write for a black character it would not have a "real" feel to it. It would in fact be quite phony and in the end insulting.
Perhaps they could hire an Indian writer or a black writer or an Asian writer who could write for any Indian, Black, or Asian character they want to include. But I fear if they go too far in that direction at least in Buffy, they will lose the focus of show being about suburban middle class America.
Buffy is about middle class suburbia. Perhaps someone else could make a show about a NRI who comes to America and fights Vampires. But don't make Buffy into something else than about predominately white middle class America, as we have our stories to tell as well.
Angel, since it is set in LA can include more minorities, but they better have the minority writers to back up the characters.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Sunnydale and ethnicity -- Scott, 12:37:59 02/17/02 Sun
Bianca Lawson as Cordy?
I wonder how people on this board would have judged "Cordy"'s actions differently if that one aspect of her was different?
Would they have accused Willow (who hated Cordy from kindergarden) as being racist?
I have a feeling that people would have seen Cordy's interactions with Willow, Buffy, Giles, and Xander in a totally different light even if Bianca Lawson played Cordelia Chase exactly the same.
Cordelia Chase
Cordelia Chase
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Sunnydale and ethnicity -- Lisa, 12:57:11 02/17/02 Sun
Charisma Carpenter as Cordelia Chase is a selfish self-centered popularity seeking high school rich kid. But if Bianca Lawson played the character the same way, I am sure that many people would have a different reaction to the character. That somehow Cordelia had a right to act the way she did to Buffy and the others by constantly putting them down.
It shows that sometimes we do judge people not by their actions or attitudes, but by their race.
The two faces of Cordilia (what is and what might have been)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Hey, Lisa... -- WW, 15:34:39 02/17/02 Sun
How come you had the same problem posting the picture of Bianca Lawson that Scott did? Same picture? Or same poster?
Just curious...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Hey, Lisa... -- Lisa, 17:58:44 02/17/02 Sun
I took the picture from Scott's.
So, if he is having a problem, and I am having a problem it must be because it comes from the same site. What you do is right-click, then go to properties and then put . We are just as into sport as America. And there are plenty of non white people in England depending on the area you visit. And the reason there are no guns in Buffy is because of the stigma attached to them following the school shootings. Marti says as much in her commentry for Whats My Line when Buffy is shot at in school. Guns are a sensitive issue and they are not allowed to portray the hero using them. It has nothing to do with Sunnydale being British.<BR>If Buffy is based in a wealthy middle class suberban area of course white people are portrayed as the minority, thats a simple matter of economics. Angel is based in LA and should have non white characters (hence a black regular). Buffy is set in a completely different area. And there have been black characters from what I recall. Forrset, Olivia(interracial romance), Mr Trick, Kendra, The first slayer, Dawns friend etc. It might have been nice or one of the new regulars like Tara was an hispanic or if more black extras were used in DMP but I don't think it should be a priority when casting. If roles are not colour specified then everyone gets a chance. But black or Asian people shouldn't be hired just to fill a quota. JMO<BR>------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>[> [> [> [> Re: Um. hate to correct you, but... -- Lisa, 18:24:10 02/17/02 Sun <BR>Growing up going to an American Middle Class public school, I really identify with Sunnydale High. I see it as totally American. Nothing British to it.<BR><BR>Except for the librarian of course (with is in someways realistic as we do have one or two teachers who come from abroad occasionally). But then again who goes into the library any way.<BR><BR>No Sunnydale is very American. Very Californian. I like the word Middle Class instead of weathly. Sunnydale isn't Bel Aire or Beverly Hills, but it isn't the slums either. It's what we call middle class or suburban. People in Sunnydale range from the somewhat rich (like Cordy's family) to the somewhat poor, but most people have middle class incomes. Buffy's Mother worked at a Museum.<BR>------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>[> [> [> [> affirmative action (dun dun dun) -- yuri, 03:20:21 02/18/02 Mon <BR>)
That is not true -- on a show where the writers and, I'd wager, most of the staff is white, the natural occurance is for more white people to be hired. In this culture, we look at people of our own race(s) as people we can identify with, and people surround themselves with what they think is familiar and what they know and understand.
(okay this wasn't really about affirmative action per say, but it's the exact same argument I would make against someone who was anti-aa)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: affirmative action (dun dun dun) -- Fred, 09:19:19 02/18/02 Mon
The thing about Affirmative Action is it only is about race.
When the real problem is cultural background. Affirmative Action wouldn't help Faith, but it would help Dawn's friend even though Dawn's friend comes from a healthy middle class environment.
What is needed is to focus economic programs on economically depressed areas. Affirmative Action just promotes racial divisiveness.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> But maybe affirmative action would mean we'd all remember Dawn's friend's name? -- WW, 17:51:49 02/18/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: But maybe affirmative action would mean we'd all remember Dawn's friend's name? -- LadyStarlight, 19:53:48 02/18/02 Mon
Funny, I can remember the name of the girl who was mean to Dawn. Kirstie (or Kirsty). But then it's also linked to the rather fevered story conference for Dark Alchemy. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Um. hate to correct you, but... -- JM, 02:55:52 02/19/02 Tue
Yeah, I know that one too. I've heard the Bianca Lawson factoid several times so I'm inclined to give it credit. I think Bianca Lawson was considered for Cordy after SMG had been recast as Buffy. I think there were a lot of ideas tossed around before the final calls were made.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> my grab bag post on the issue (long) -- anom, 17:10:46 02/18/02 Mon
I hope folks will bear with me here. Rather than post multiple replies to individual posts, I'm going to quote several people & answer what they've said. I've come back to this several times & haven't checked the board for new posts in between, so please pardon me if anything below is repetitious of, um, anything above.
yuri
"I guess my perspective is that if it doesn't deal with race (and if it does deal with other serious issues - metaphorically or not), it's white, because white people are the only people who have the luxury of not dealing with race."
The real luxury white people have is that of ignorance. Especially if we live in a predominantly white area, we can go most of our lives without witnessing anything we can recognize--anything we're equipped to recognize--as racial discrimination. But just because you don't/can't see it, that doesn't mean it's not there. My favorite example is that I could be shown an apartment advertised for rent & never know that 15 minutes before I got there, a black person came to see it & was told it was already taken. I suppose the other side is that people of other races don't understand how white people can avoid seeing instances of discrimination.
Hauptman
"This phrasing ["a white show"] gave me pause I think because to call something "white" excludes me somehow. My reaction to it is the same as when I am informed where the white neighborhood is, or the white public swimming pool. Most of the time people aren't telling me something is white to exclude me from it or to hurt me. They are just telling me where it is in the simplest terms."
A neighborhood can be white by history even if active discrimination no longer exists, but "white public swimming pool" should be a contradiction in terms. Private clubs can legally maintain pools & other facilities & keep whoever they want (or rather, don't want) out of them, but if a public pool does the same, that's against the law in the US. (Of course, whether the law is enforced is another question.) I'm curious, Hauptman--how often do you hear this? Mostly from whites or from blacks? Do you think they don't realize it's hurtful even if that's not their intent?
LeeAnn
"I think what distinguishes the white middle class suburban experience from the experience of other groups is that race doesn't have to be addressed. It doesn't exist. It can be ignored. Other forms of exclusion exist and can be painful but, in that culture, race is not one of them."
If race isn't a basis for exclusion, then why are there so few nonwhite people living there? Things like "racial covenants" promising not to sell one's house to a black, Latino, Jewish, or other minority (which white homeowners were once required to sign before they could move into some communities) are illegal now, but some realtors still "steer" white people & people of other races into different neighborhoods or apartment buildings. (Yes, there are other reasons people of the same group live in the same neighborhood; these things are always complex. But discrimination is also a big part of it.) And how many people living in white suburbs like Sunnydale have black or immigrant housekeepers or other employees? How much do they have to ignore to remain unaware of how different the lives of people they see every day are?
Fred
"I don't think it helps bringing racial issues to the forefont as it puts people on the defensive and forces them to stop dealing with you as an individual."
Racial issues wouldn't need to be brought to the forefront if members of racial minorities were already being treated as individuals. That's what discrimination is--treating people according to their race instead of as individuals. That's what the problem was in the 1st place--it wasn't brought about by raising racial issues, it's the other way around.
"Affirmative Action wouldn't help Faith, but it would help Dawn's friend even though Dawn's friend comes from a healthy middle class environment."
Faith's not being accepted wasn't about her being urban (Buffy's from LA) or from the wrong side of the tracks. In fact, everyone thought she was great when she 1st showed up. It was her emotional problems that distanced her from the Scoobies, & those came out of how she was raised, not where. Kids are abused & neglected even in the suburbs.
And do you really think middle-class black people don't face discrimination? In many places it's more subtle than it used to be, but ask the black people who've worked at Texaco or Coca-Cola, stayed at the Adam's Mark hotel chain, or tried to get served at Denny's. It took lawsuits to get those companies to deal with & end (I hope) the discrimination they practiced.
rahael
"I realise it with a shock when I get jabbed in the ribs as I walk along the streets, or get spat at."
"(...If anyone thinks I should lighten up, or take this more humorously, I have to say that my hands are trembling with anger as I write this. If regulars think that this is unfortunate, and we shouldn't discuss such emotive issues on this board, I'd have to say that I would have to consider taking a break from the board, because I would find it difficult to keep silent.... I am a passionate person and I do get worked up by such things - and it can be a bad thing. I can totally understand why this might be uncomfortable and bad for our little community....)"
Rahael, I'm so sorry to hear these things--& worse--happen to you. I like to think I'm pretty aware of racial issues (for someone not usually subject to racial discrimination), but reading this came as a shock to me. How could you not be angry given the things that racists have done to you? This is an issue worth being passionate about. Please don't leave the board, & please don't keep silent. And LeeAnn, please don't stop commenting--you or anyone else who's contributed to this thread. We all need to learn about each others' perceptions, & we all need to get our own perceptions questioned. We watch & talk about "Buffy" & "Angel" partly because of what they show us about real life. And if how these shows do & don't deal with race leads us to talk about racial issues in real life, I think that's entirely appropriate for our community.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: my grab bag post on the issue (long) -- Scott, 18:43:49 02/18/02 Mon
"And how many people living in white suburbs like Sunnydale have black or immigrant housekeepers or other employees? "
Buffy's mom couldn't have afforded housekeepers. Nor could Willow's. And Xanders family? Forget it.
Cordilia's family probably had a housekeeper, but then again she was rich, not middle class (I still don't know why she went to public school).
The answer to your question is very few people living in white suburbs like Sunnydale have black or immigrant housekeepers or other employees? I don't know where you got the impression that most middle class Americans have housekeppers?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: my grab bag post on the issue (long) -- anom, 20:38:14 02/18/02 Mon
"I don't know where you got the impression that most middle class Americans have housekeppers?"
I don't know how you got the impression that I said most did. I just asked how many did. And a lot of middle-class Americans do, because they have 2 parents working & need to hire someone to take care of the kids (usually when they're younger than the Scoobies), who usually also cleans the house. We don't really know if Willow's parents can afford a housekeeper, but if both her parents work at good jobs, why not? As for Xander, who says abusive alcoholics can't have jobs that pay well enough to hire someone? And the gang is only 3 out of a whole town full of people, some of whom, I bet, have maids.
I grew up in the suburbs (not rich suburbs, just standard separate-houses-w/small-lawns suburbs, & after my mom went back to work we had various live-in housekeepers (black, white, & Hispanic at different times) to take care of me & my brothers. It was nothing unusual. (My folks paid the social security for them, too--none of this Cabinet-level scandal for them!)
Out of my whole post, this was all you could find to respond to?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: my grab bag post on the issue (long) -- Scott, 21:00:12 02/18/02 Mon
Maybe I should reconsider the definition of "middle class"?
Live-in housekeepers? None of my friends ever had live-in housekeepers.
We had a House, a backyard, two cars, and I and my siblings all were able to go to college, but no Live-in-Housekeepers.
Are you sure you aren't from the rich suburbs?
Or perhaps now I should consider myself poor?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Is this a California thing? -- Scott, 21:04:08 02/18/02 Mon
Where I come from we don't have live in maids. That was always a luxury of the rich.
I have always thought myself as growing up middle class. Imagine my surprise to now learn that I grew up in poverty.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> no, i grew up in the dc suburbs -- anom, 22:35:48 02/18/02 Mon
And having someone live in was cheaper because the value of the room (i.e., rent the housekeeper wasn't paying) counted toward the salary.
This was before there were many day care centers, & money generally went further in those days--that may account for housekeepers being more common. But we definitely weren't rich.
I guess you really don't want to address anything else I said.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Is this a California thing? -- LadyStarlight, 07:50:05 02/19/02 Tue
Scott,
You've now hit one of my hot buttons. Would you like me to describe what being poor is like? Because from what you've said in your above post, you are/were as far from being poor as I am from being middle-class. Believe me, that's not being poor. I should know.
Don't respond to this unless you have something intelligent to say, and are not just tossing around words in an attempt to be clever.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: my grab bag post on the issue (long) -- Scott, 19:00:59 02/18/02 Mon
"Faith's not being accepted wasn't about her being urban (Buffy's from LA) or from the wrong side of the tracks."
Yeah, right, you really believe that?
Buffy was probably from a more suburban area of LA.
It was all about Faith not fitting in because of being from a different social-economic background. Five by five? What's up with that? Faith came from somewhere the suburbanites couldn't understand. Not even Xander. To them, it was like she was from a different planet.
"And do you really think middle-class black people don't face discrimination?"
Sometimes perhaps. But not as much as they think they do. Not in any real form.
"If race isn't a basis for exclusion, then why are there so few nonwhite people living there? "
Economic reasons primarily. But more and more non-whites are moving into the suburbs. For the immigrant population I believe they stayed in the cities at first because they found support within their own immigration population. Again they are moving out to the suburbs as well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> adding my humble opinion -- Sheri, 19:29:58 02/18/02 Mon
First, I'd like to give a quick apology to Rah for taking so dang long to get off my keester and write a reply. Sorry for taking forever to get my two cents in.
Anyways..... I decided to take a look in my t.v. guide to see where I could find the section that listed which shows are intended for white viewers and which are intended for black viewers. But it was just nowhere to be found. I didn't even try to find the section listing shows for white-middle-class-suburbinite-20-something-lapsed-Jewish-now-agnostic-with-predominantly-Latvian-and-Turkish-background-women-who-think-that-Rah-is-a-really-swell-gal-with-brains-coming-out-of-her-ears-and-wouldn't-it-suck-if-she-stayed-away-from-the-board... (anyways I already found a show that fits that criteria...).
Over categorizing a television show doesn't seem very economically wise to me. A wide range of viewers creates more advertising dollars. Why on earth should I not watch, say, Bernie Mac? Because the cast is predominantly black? Doesn't the fact that the man is damn funny give me permission to watch (even though Bernie and I have different color skin)? Opening up shows to a wide range of viewers equals MONEY. I see no point in telling an entire group of people "oh I'm sorry... this show wasn't intended for YOU to watch." As for "white" shows... would "Friends" be getting the kind of ratings that it gets if ONLY whites watched the show? I would think not.
BTW... the notion that suburban middle class neighborhoods in Southern California are all white is incorrect... half of my neighbors are either Asian or Persian, and about 50% of those who are white are also Jewish. Admittedly, I can count the number of black families living in my neighborhood on one hand (thankfully, that has changed for the better in recent years) and the number of Hispanics is even smaller-but I don't think they should be told that Buffy is not the show for them simply because they are not a huge demographic in the neighborhood. I think they've been just as much a part of the suburban experience as someone who is a white anglo saxon protestant.
Sorry for the rambling... but it's taken me this long to respond simply because I'm having a really tough time formulating my thoughts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> I can't say it better, so I'll just add my agreement to what Sheri said -- Liq, 19:41:34 02/18/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Sunnydale and ethnicity -- skeeve, 08:26:59 02/19/02 Tue
Once upon a time, in response to a similar question regarding Babylon 5, J. Michael Straczynski stated that the racial makeup of the background people on B5 was that of the Screen Extras Guild.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cinescape Article on James Marsters -- Rufus, 01:25:45 02/17/02 Sun
the Cross and Stake
Date Posted: 03:40:30 02/17/02 Sun
Author: AdoraSpike :)
Author Host/IP: cache-mtc-ak06.proxy.aol.com / 64.12.96.203
Subject: This is the James Marsters interview in Cinescape!! :)
just in case you didn't see my message I asked everyone who wanted the article to write me...so to save time here it is..sorry for the mistakes but it is 3 in the morning and it took me 2 hours to type up...owwwwwe my hand lol!!
Enjoy!! :)
CINESCAPE
March 2002
Crossroads By: Anthony C. Ferrante
Upon meeting James Marsters, the actor behind "Buffy the vampire Slayer's" Sid Vicious-esque blood-sucker Spike, you're immediately struck with two realizations: He's not English and he doesn't bite. As off-putting as the character makes himself out to be, Marsters is quite the opposite. Chatty and down to earth, the modest actor is still a Northern California boy at heart, grateful for the opportunities his Buffy role has provided him-especially considering he was always the kid who didn't "fit in" while growing up.
"Very much like Spike, I was not comfortable with myself in my younger years," admits Marsters. "I was very much on the outside. I was the freak of Modesto."
After discovering punk rock music in Marin, Calif., having a spell in New York becoming an angry young lad, doing time at the Julliard acting school (he was kicked out-"They told me I could never be an actor and to stop trying"), and eventually forming his own repertory theatre companies in both Chicago and Seattle, Marsters ultimately found the place where he fits in best of all- Los Angeles.
"You're not freaky around here," Marsters says with a hearty laugh. "This is where the circus is. All the freaks come here and we discover we are beautiful. It's like this film Joss {Whedon, Buffy's creator,} showed me called Illuminata, which is about a group of actors, producers, directors and theatre people who are all freaks but who create beauty."
It's a particularly balmy winter's afternoon as Marsters arrives at an all-natural bakery in Santa Monica, Calif., for the interview. He's dressed casual, though his bleached blond Billy Idol hair is unmistakable, allowing for a couple of customers to instantly recognize him. However, Marsters admits that fans tend to be hesitant about approaching him.
"Luckily, I play a character that you don't f--- with, and so generally in life, I don't take people f-k--- with me," says Marsters. "I've gotten in a lot of trouble for standing up for that, actually."
Marsters laughs, aware that for a former outcast it's quite fitting he relish being the uber-outcast that Spike has become on the series. When it comes down to it, however, the actor has just as much William the Bloody (his character's more introspective, pre-vampire state) in him as he does Spike. In fact, his drink of choice on this day is hot English tea-an alternative to coffee, which he has been trying to wean himself off of.
"I do have good interactions with people daily," he adds. "Almost every time I go out someone says, 'Hey, good job.' Or, 'Hi, I saw the show." I have to say Buffy fans get it. They are fairly intelligent and hip to irony and metaphor. They don't take things literally. So I've really had no bad reactions with people, but, yeah, celebrity is generally not a healthy psychological state because everybody will tell you that you are great even if you are not - even if you are being a jerk. I've had to constantly surround myself with people who don't give a s--- about my celebrity and will tell me when I am being a jerk. An I am trying to live a very normal life so that I don't lose my keel in all this."
Much of Marster' attitude stems from how fortunate he has been. A Hollywood nobody when he first auditioned and snagged the part of Buffy during Season 2, Pike and his vamping cohort Drucilla (Juliet Landau) became breakout characters as the season's "Big Bad."
"They had their backs against the wall," says Marsters. "They had been looking at a lot of people and didn't find anybody and decided to look a little lower in the talent barrel to lesser-known people - in fact, to people with almost no credits, like me, who was a theatre actor but who could do an accent."
Luckily the gamble paid off. The vampyric duo, scheduled for midseason termination, lasted the entire year with the Drusilla-less and heartbroken Spike popping back in town a season later. Better still, the character was turned into a full-time cast member by Season 4, but not without his fair share of growing pains.
"Buffy as conceived was a story of a young person trying to find {herself} - that adolescence where most people either really become themselves of fail to," says Marsters. "So Joss used vampires and demons as a sideshow and a metaphor so he could talk more directly about issues, and as an obstacle in the way of a person achieving their best self. And my character is a demon and evil. If you ever redeem my character, he will become as patsy."
Nonetheless, Spike has certainly continued to revel in his outsider statues, even though in Season 4 a computer chip was placed in his head by a government operation called The Iniative, which in effect neutered the once ferocious vamp. He no longer could harm humans (though he still can kick demon ass).
"Spike was not planned," admits Marsters. "He was not part of the original concept at all. In some way, he threatens it and in some ways he just spins off in his own interesting way. So when Joss wanted me to be a part of the cast, of course I say 'yes,' but at the same time in the back of my mind, I didn't know if it would work. Joss wanted me to be the new Cordelia because there needs to be someone in the Scooby gang saying, 'You are all stupid and we are going to die, this sucks.' That's how you keep it from really becoming Scooby-Doo. That's how you keep it from being, 'Gosh, guys, let's go get the monster again.'"
Yet as much as they tried to fashion Spike into the new Cordelia, it ultimately didn't work. Anya {Emma Calfield}, the former Vengeance Demon-turned-mortal (and now Xander's bride-to-be), ultimately filled that void.
"They found out very quick that Spike couldn't really be that," says Marsters. "He couldn't hang out with the gang because of the sunlight. You see me in the very beginning of my tenure as a regular in Season 4 lurking over in the corner of Giles' apartment throwing out a lot of zingers, or they would ties me up a lot. They were trying to figure out a way to get me the hell in the story. They found that I couldn't be the Cordelia, but what the hell was I?"
Eventually, something even more surprising happened - Spike suddenly became one of the most fascination characters on the show. Literally defanged, he tried committing suicide, became infatuated with Buffy- and even had Warren Meers build him his very own Buffy-Bot when the Sayer did not reciprocate his affections. The arc of the character suddenly became this widely unpredictable mechanism in the Buffy universe that proved to be even more human and falliable than some of the human characters themselves. And this season with Buffy back from the grave and feeling out of place, she's finally shacked up with Spike in what can be considered the ultimate love/hate relationship.
"I've essentially become the metaphor for heroin for Buffy," says Marsters with a smile, though he cautions this is his interpretation of what's happening with the characters and not anything creator Whedon or executive produces Marti Noxon has explained to him "You have to remember something important - I can be very forthcoming in interviews, because I don't' ask what's going to happen next. I have never gone to the office and said, "What's going on with Spike? Why are we doing this? What's happening? It's all my interpretation. I don't know if I'm going to hang onto Buffy. I don't know if she's going to dump me in the next script. So that having been said, it seemed to me right when Buffy and I kissed and the very next episode {that} I leaver her in the lurch. I mean that's kind of f-ked up for a boyfriend to do to his girl. What an a-hole. I started thinking, "Wow, he hasn't changed.' So when I got the next script, the one where Willow goes to Rack, who is a metaphor for a drug dealer, and she gets semi-molested by him in order to get the magic/spells, that structurally the script has a mirror of that with Buffy struggling with her own addiction to Spike."
That said, Marsters admits he is stil curious where everything is heading with Spike and Buffy's rough and tumble love.
"I think he's deeply in love with Buffy, but that's what I think in my little universe," says Marsters. " And what I think is interesting is that it can go two ways. He could wither and be driven to acts of great heroism as he is going now, or is she completely rejects him and continues to be horrible to him, he could really get scorned as lovers do and become quite cruel. So dramatically it can go either way. There's rocket fuel in both directions. And knowing Joss and Marti, it will probably go both ways."
One aspect of the show that continues to surprise Marsters is the abundance of material he has to work with. He admits that much of that has to do with his character being a creature of the night.
"Being a vampire is both good and bad," says Marsters. "It's good because they can't make Spike hump the plot around. He just cannot be around too much to figure out who's got the gem and where to get this and who to go to for that, because he can't be in daylight and it would be too ridiculous to have him walking around in a smoking blanket all the time. So he is forced into the shadows by the fact that he's a vampire. He walks into the darkness, which means I am a dab of colour rather than a main character who you are going to experience the story with. I'm not a hero. The heroes are the daylight characters, and those are the people the audience wants to be. I am not one of those."
Yet the quality of writing, as the series approaches the halfway mark of its sixth season, still manages to achieve levels many shows only dream about. This year, for example, Whedon wrote and directed the much-talked - about musical episode, which allowed each character to express their innermost secrets through song. It could have been Cop Rock; instead it was pure Buffy magic.
"We didn't know what we were filming from day to day," says Marsters of the hectic schedule. " We basically filmed four and a half episodes in a three-episode schedule. They were having splinter units, second units, third units. They just crammed them in the corners. So we just worked harder and scheduling-wise it was all up in the air. But basically it was a question of where there is a will there is a way, and everyone was willing to work a lot harder because we knew we were doing something special. We just found the time even though there was not time to find."
And while singing on the show might have scared most actors, Marsters was ready. He already plays a number of Los Angeles clubs-just him and his guitar a la his idols Buce Springsteen and Bob Dylan- and Whedon made sure to test everyone's vocal range so that each song was written to the actors' strengths.
"{Whedon} writers 24-chord songs, so they're kind of hard to learn, but it was easy for me to rehearse the song and make it my own because I learned it on my guitar," says Marsters " I just plugged in the amp and I really felt like I owned the song by the time I recorded it. The hardest thing for me was lip-synching. I was not that bad, but it just meant extra takes. Some people were good at lip-synching and some people weren't. I was medium. Sarah, of course, was perfect. She's perfect at everything. She buried everybody. God, it makes me crazy."
In the grand scheme of things, having the musical episode so early in the season (episode 6 to be exact, if you count the two-hour season premier as two episodes) could have meant it would be downhill from there, but writer Rebecca Rand Kirshner produced the stellar "Tabula Rasa" script as the follow-up, taking the show into grand farce when a spell by willow goes awry, making everyone forget who they are. Trying to put the pieces together, the characters begin rediscovering themselves- and their relationships to everyone else. Spike, kidding out from a loan shark in a suit and bow ties, thinks he's actually "Randy," Giles' son- since both have English accents.
"After the previous episode, what a nice relief amnesia would be at that point," says Marsters. "So it was great to see the characters having fun with each other and not so crushed by events."
Still, the cast was fried by the time "Tabula Rasa" came around and even Marsters thought it was going to be a horrible episode, but he says director David Grossman felt differently. Grossman was confident the cast was still on a high from the musical episode and that their timing was better than ever.
"We all went into that episode thinking it wasn't going to work, but director David Grossman knew," says Marster. "It was a difference between being subjective about the experience, which is what we are paid to do, and watching it as an objective viewer. You could see what was happening and what was happening was quite wonderful. The last third of the episode really plays as farce, complete with bow ties, mistaken identities, changing sexual partners. The only thing we really didn't have in the last act was a bunch of different doors we would come in and out of.
"An to do all of this requires almost a musical timing, and we had been given that by the musical. We were hearing the best without even knowing it. We were functioning on a high level and we weren't even aware of it."
With the writing still at the top of its game, Marsters says there are only really two downsides to the show. The first: dying his hair.
"Every 10 days I do it, but pain is interesting," he says moving closer to accent his point. "If you repeat it enough, it just becomes another experience."
The other bummer is the night shooting, though eh says with a smile, "That's the downside of being a vampire. You can't be counted to show up on the daytime, but the bad thing is you will always be there at night. Four o'clock on Friday-that's always my shots. The last shots of the week."
And even with the fortuanate circumstances of landing on a hit cult show like Buffy, bad habits do form. Purging his system of his coffee addiction by drinking tea is one- quitting smoking after seven years was another.
"You realise at some point that you miss running and being able to take the stairs," says Marsters. " I had quit for a long time and then started smoking again when I got Spike. Joss, that goddamn bastard- my life went to hell after I met him."
As for solving the problem of still smoking on the show, Marsters says he drags on "these horrible herbal cigarettes." And that's not the worst of it.
" The worst thing about doing nude scenes is there is no place to put the {nicotine} patch anywhere, so right when you need it the most, you can't have it," he says. "Why are you edgy, James?' "Argg, never mind."
Waking up on the wrong side of the dead has never been more fitting both on screen and off, but Marsters wouldn't have it any other way. Having run two repertory companies, he's still interested in being involved on the producing side of the business, and even directing sometime down the road.
" I have alot to learn about the film language before I direct, but I feel like I am starting very much to learn how to write for film," he says. " And learning how to act for film was a big lesson for me. Watch my earlier performances and they are often quite chilly, so I've learned to calm down and keep more secrets."
Since Marsters is not carrying the entire series, he's found time to guest star on the syndicated hit Andromeda, as well as an episode of VH1's Anthology series Strange Frequencies. Recently, he starred opposite Amber Benson in her directiorial debut Chance. He's also been pursued by the studios for film roles, and reveals he just lost out of a major film villain.
"There would have been lunchboxes with my picture on it-action figures, everything." He says. " I asked them if they wanted me to audition with an English accent and they told me, 'No'. It came down to me and one other person and they cast an English guy. Go figure."
Nonetheless, Marsters rolls with the punches. Even Buffy's move from the WB to the UPN has proven to be a blessing in diguise for the actor.
"The WB was constantly saying, 'Don't do that, it's too much, it's too dangerous,'" he says. "They did a great job frankly, but the thing is Joss never wanted it to be only for kids. He never thought of Buffy as that kind of show. And now it's kind of wonderful that as Buffy grows older, we've gone to a network that is interested in an older audience and the issues can be more adult. The who is going to get really dangerous. What I am most excited about frankly is we are going to start to really offend people."
And don't worry about the trust old bloodsucker goig MIA any time soon, either-yes, he's contracted for next season ("Oh yeah, baby, they've done me right-I'm here,") he says and he reveals he's accomplished something most TV actors only dream of.
"What TV actor in the fifth year of a job or of a series can say that they're not bored, but I'm not," he says. " Who has the honor of being terrified by the challenge of a story to tell. Joss opened me up in a way I didn't want to tell people about. He made me go places I didn't want to go. And that's just beautiful and dangerous. That's right where you want to be as an artist and a storyteller. I will never forgive him or I'll never be able to repay him for doing that."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Great Article! Rufus, thanks for sharing & all your hard work. -- Brian, 04:53:13 02/17/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Fabulous article! James is pretty chatty. -- Deeva, 09:34:50 02/17/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Thanks so much for the article! It was wonderful. -- Wynn, 10:52:08 02/17/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> JM would really like some of the recent posts on this board :P -- Traveler, 11:53:58 02/17/02 Sun
"What I am most excited about frankly is we are going to start to really offend people.""
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn: In or Out (Spoilers) -- Hauptman, 03:02:47 02/17/02 Sun
I have noticed a bit of a Dawn bashing note lately. Is she not favored any longer? I wonder if she will eventually be written off and what the reaction to this move would be. It seems like she is considered 100% human these days. Which strikes me as a bit odd. Basically, a group of monks created her, rewrote history in a sense, using magic. Okay. So she is a human being, but Buffy was able to see past this spell though she is a total novice at magic (granted she does have some slayer related psychic ability--an ability that seems to have been dropped from the show entirely). Why can't magical beings like Halfrek see that Dawn isn't of human orgin? Perhaps, she can't and perhaps the reason Dawn stood out to Halfrek in a town like Sunnydale is because she has some key ability mixed with Buffy-psi. Just guessing.
I just wondered why the general release spell that Tara cast had no effect on a magicly constructed being like Dawn or on the perceptions of the people around her. And what does Spikes chip think of her?
If they have totally dropped the KEY stuff and they want us to think of Dawn as human, then no one will ever see dawn as anything different no matter what the circumstances. I think that is kind of a waste. First she is the equivilent of a multi-dimentional hydrogen bomb and now, nothing. Did the key have one use only?
And, if the spell were somehow broken, would anyone remember her?
And, my god, is she a brat!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Dawn: In or Out (Spoilers) -- Goji3, 06:25:14 02/17/02 Sun
Let me try and answer your questions
The Key was a one-time use devise. Glory kept saying "the time is growing near" or something to that effect. If the Key could be used at any time, why didn't glory use it when she first got it? The key is a one time-only event
Also, Everyone's false-memmories remembered her as Human. now that the Key-debacle is over, its easy for them to go back to treating her like a human again.
If the spell was ever broken, they might not remember her, depending on who broke the spell...because it could go either way.
And one more thing...I don't think she's a Brat. She's sick of being ignored. She's going through something similar to what Faith went through. Neglect. (See my old post "Faith and Hedorah: Monsters in the Same Mold" for a further explination of this). Maybe this time Buffy can get it right.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Dawn: In or Out (Spoilers) -- Darby, 06:58:07 02/17/02 Sun
Keep in mind that none of this is really established.
Glory's use of Dawn to specifically access her own dimension was a one-time-only event - maybe there is a cycling of sorts going on, maybe it was the one time that Glory's own dimension could be gotten to without being part of the great mish-mash that was the coming apocalypse. Why didn't we think of that before? As explained, wouldn't Glory's use of Dawn destroy the very place she was trying to get back to? As with the apparent lack of logic in her offer of clemency to Ben, there are details here that were either poor writing or extensive hidden backstory.
And finally, the monks thought that there was some glorious potential in the Key, used some way other than Glory's - the Knights thought they were nuts, but the idea was floated. Perhaps the monks got far enough to use the power of the Key itself to "open" and alter reality, creating Dawn - killing her might be the only way to end the spell. That would be ironic - if someone had killed her in The Gift, no one might have known.
Last, I don't see why we can't see her as sick of being ignored, righteously indignant, and a brat. Sometimes my son is at his most annoying when he's right. But that often implies that I'm wrong, and how annoying is that??
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Poor Dawn -- Lilac, 07:11:11 02/17/02 Sun
I am glad that this thread has come up, because the Dawn thing is something that has been on my mind a good bit lately.
Something that has been surprising me is the amount of anger and hostility that has been directed at Dawn. Yes, she has been whiny and unsympathetic -- meet the average 15 girl. Having been a 15 year old girl once upon a time, having an almost 15 year old son myself, and having spent some time working in a middle school (kids slightly under that age, but believe me starting the behavior patterns), I feel comfortable stating that Dawn's behavior would not be unusual coming from a kid who had normal reasons to be unhappy with her life. The fact that Dawn's life for the last couple of years has been one trauma after another makes her behavior seem, to me at least, remarkably mild. I think Dawn is being shown as a reasonably realistic young teenager -- Rory Gilmore, on the other hand, I think is really a space alien as I am fairly sure that no teenage girl has ever existed who was so hysteria free.
While the Key thing no longer seems to be of active importance -- and who knows, maybe someday it will be important again for different reasons, I do think that Dawn is serving a valid purpose on the show. Without Dawn's character, Buffy could continue to refuse to face her adult responsibilities. Buffy struggling to support an empty house would lack dramatic tension. Dawn, as a living dependent, forces the issue of keeping things together for justifiable reasons. Dawn is Buffy's link to the straight life, the daylight life.
I have to give the show credit for not falling into the typical TVland treatment of kids -- they are there to be cute, make a smart remark, or set a plot point in motion, but otherwise spend all of their time off screen, ostensibly happily alone in their rooms. Real children, even teenagers, do not disappear until they are convenient. They are there all the time, making demands -- meeting those demands is what parenting is all about. Really, Dawn has made relatively few demands on anyone until recently -- she has been trying to cope as she thinks she is supposed to, alone, and it is finally becoming apparent that she just can't do it.
I have been watching Dawn's story with real distress all season. The kid's level of loss and loneliness is heartbreaking. I have read posts from some here who don't understand what the big deal about leaving a 15 year old alone is. True, a 15 is capable of spending time alone, feeding themselves, so on, but not raising herself. The important point here is that Dawn is not just lonely on a given day, but every day. Her mother is never coming back to take care of her, to listen to her. And not only is her sister, the only family she now has, leaving her alone all of the time, she is doing so while engaging in very dangerous activities, things that might kill her. I would compare the stress of this to having a mother who is a beat cop, who might be called upon to face a life threatening situation on any given day. Surely that mother's children would worry if she didn't show up after work.
Buffy hasn't been doing a very good job of taking care of Dawn up until now. This is understandable, 21 year olds are not supposed to be parenting 15 year olds, they haven't developed the life skills needed to do it yet and they are meant to spend a lot of time thinking about themselves as they start out to make their own lives. Buffy has many, many issues of her own to cope with, making it even harder for her to find the emotional resources to give Dawn what she desparately needs. This is completely understandable. But since she wants to keep her sister with her, she is going to have to find those resources somewhere.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Poor Dawn -- DEN, 07:52:29 02/17/02 Sun
Thanks, Lilac, for reminding us of two things. Dawn is Buffy's link to the "grownup world" of the Jossverse. Otherwise she sells the house, buys a condo, and goes all "Sex In the City"--with a reasonably clear conscience, given the circumstances. And your police analogy is perfect. I know several single moms who are street cops. Their teenage children worry just as you describe, and often act out from the worry.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Poor Dawn -- Rufus, 08:11:37 02/17/02 Sun
I like Dawn, she is all new to the world and is learning all that the SG think they know about life. When Buffy was brought back, Dawn had family again, should no longer have been lonely, but she became more lonely than ever. The SG treated Buffys return as meaning the solution to their problem was here. Buffy was back to protect Sunnydale and take up the responsibility of her sister. Dawn became an afterthought. Buffy has been keeping Dawn at armslength doing the things she remembers necessary for the basic upkeep of a human. Dawn became more frustrated at being ignored and left out of life. Dawn may have acted bratty, but she learned that the only way to get any attention was to make a noise that would draw attention. Now she has it, and Buffy hopefully will start to see her sister as more than a Tuesday night burden.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Poor Dawn -- John Burwood, 08:29:43 02/17/02 Sun
Great post, Lilac. Both sensitive & sensible.
Can't help`wondering how Buffy is going to be able to cope financially with a house that size, and a teenager, on fast-food pay. Even with a lodger presumably paying some sort of rent it is going to be hard.
Add financial burdens to emotional burdens, the pressure on them both is quite awful to contemplate. Would be no surprise to me if she had to sell the house & move to somewhere smaller.
It might not just be extra emotional resources she is going to have to find.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Cryin' for help -- snuffynelson, 09:20:14 02/17/02 Sun
I agree, Lilac--wonderful post.
I've been feeling the same sort of distress as you as Dawn's substory progressed this season. This distress increased tremendously after seeing the net's primary reaction to the most recent episode. "Kvetch, kvetch, kvetch." "How can Dawn be so self-centered as to have a tantrum when they're all trapped in the house?"
As far as I can tell, Dawn has been crying out for help (to be noticed) for as long as we've known the character. Her journal entry aeons ago where she said something like "Why can't they see that I'm not just a normal girl" is the earliest example I can think of. The kleptomania is the most _obvious_ example. Dawn being "cheated" out of her song in Once More With Feeling is my _favorite_ example of Joss making explicit that Dawn gets overlooked. The poor kid has been calling out in her mind for over a year--and only Giles has noticed a thing (and he left). Hallie is exactly right--Dawn has been crying out for help.
The two Dawn-centered episodes thus far this season were Halloween and Bein' Trapped in the House. In each case she acted out in ways that we haven't seen yet--and in each case, she finally got someone to visibly notice her. Kid's adapt...and not always in the ways we want them to.
--Snuffy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Poor Dawn -- Dochawk, 09:54:10 02/17/02 Sun
Nice and sensitive post. I may add that for the 3 months that Buffy was dead, Tara seems to have done most of the mothering of Dawn (Willow was certainly no more ready to be Dawn's mother than Buffy was/is). Now Tara is gone, so Dawn has lost her 3rd female mother figure. In addition, I wonder if Dawn feels any guilt over Tara and Willow breaking up. If she hadn't brought up the previous fight, Tara would have never known (though obviously it would have boiled over anyway, this is certainly how 15 year olds think, much like Buffy blaming herself for her parent's divorce).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> My problem with Dawn -- Sarah, 10:47:53 02/17/02 Sun
"Without Dawn's character, Buffy could continue to refuse to face her adult responsibilities. Buffy struggling to support an empty house would lack dramatic tension."
See, for me this is the major problem with Dawn. She isn't a character, she's a plot contrivance to illustrate how irresponsible Buffy is. And for me, it's hard to get too upset at a 21 year old being irresponsible. Buffy is not Dawn's mother, and I think the writers are making a big mistake in trying to make us angry at Buffy for not being a better parent. They are sisters. If there is to be a family dynamic between the two of them, I would like to have the feeling that it is something the two of them are working together on. Instead I feel it's constantly beaten into our heads that BUFFY is failing her duty, BUFFY is being a bad mother, BUFFY is not trying hard enough. Dawn is going to be 16, quite old enough for me to feel like she should be trying to hold the family unit together as well.
But beyond this, for me BTVS is entertainment, and Dawn is not entertaining. I simply don't care about her character. I can hear arguments that illustrate how realistic the portrayal of a 15 year old is, but it's simply not what I'm watching the show for. In my mind, the show has moved beyond Dawn. We've lived through the teen years in the Buffyverse, and I don't think we can go back. The character of Dawn just doesn't fit into the story that the show is telling at this point.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: My problem with Dawn -- Lisa, 11:19:43 02/17/02 Sun
"We've lived through the teen years in the Buffyverse, and I don't think we can go back. "
Sure we can. Many of us who "grew up on the show" might not be able to, but there are many who see Dawn as a breath of fresh air.
I like Dawn. I wasn't offended at how she reacted last week. I see her as a strong character who maybe could take over for Buffy as Slayer someday.
What I like about Dawn is that they didn't make her a mini-Buffy, but a character in her own right. Dawn really depended on her Mom for social activities in a way Buffy never did. Not all of us can be the popular girl in school like Buffy was and make friends as easy as Buffy did.
The show has to grow to survive. Dawn happens to be one of my favorite characters as she tries so hard to fit in, but she is always overlooked.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: My problem with Dawn -- Sarah, 14:21:34 02/17/02 Sun
"The show has to grow to survive."
That is what I mean when I say I don't think we can go back. The show is clearly venturing into adult territory this year, and Dawn just does not fit. When I look through the episodes this year, there may be ones I like more than others, but there's only one that seems as if it doesn't even belong, and that is "All the Way." Why? Because it feels like a second rate Season 1 retread. For me Dawn is much like Riley in Season 5. Season 4 Riley had a purpose, but by Season 5 he didn't belong in the story anymore. I really feel like Dawn's story ended with the defeat of Glory.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: My problem with Dawn -- Valhalla, 20:39:24 02/17/02 Sun
I've got to throw my vote in with both Spikesbitch and Sarah - even if her behavior is justified, it's just not interesting.
I think the boringness of Dawn connects to the move away from using the supernatural as a big fat metaphor for the horrors of adolescent life (or life generally).
Buffy acted out quite a bit, too, but it was always wrapped up in her mission (destiny, calling, whatever) to make it interesting -- like when she and Faith went on their Slayer-wilding spree and ended up killing a human. Especially in the early episodes, when she was the same age Dawn is now, she was constantly trying to squirm out from under Giles control, and the bad, bad consequences were always wrapped up in some sort of supernatural bad result.
But Dawn is just a very ordinary teenager acting out in very ordinary ways. And what's worse, she doesn't seem to learn from her mistakes, or even her very traumatic life experiences. If your sister was the slayer, and some Hell-God from another dimension tried for an entire TV season to kill you, and you'd seen all the vampires and demons and whatall, wouldn't you particularly NOT sneak out on your sister and friends on Halloween? If you had personal experience with what raising hell means, wouldn't you be a little more careful?
Plus I can't be all that sympathetic just because she's a teenager. I was a teenage girl, as were many of my friends, and trust me, we were no more charming that the average 15 year old female. And man, traumatic experiences or no, we would have gotten our asses kicked if we acted like Dawn.
BtVS is the only WB-originating-teen show I've ever watched, because I'm not really that interested in teen problems. I started watching Buffy because it was about so much more than just a bunch of teenagers stumbling tearfully through their problems. That doesn't mean I think teenagers (including Dawn) don't have very real problems; I just don't find them, alone, interesting.
I would be happier if Dawn was acting out in a way that made more sense in terms of the general structure of the show; if she started messing around with magic (ok, with the whole Willow thing that might be too much magic trauma), or started trying to join in the slaying/fighting, or started hanging around Spike too much (that would be kind of interesting -- Buffy'd have to think quick to explain why SHE was hanging around Spike so much), or started sneaking into the Bronze, or vampire bars, or something. But stealing from the mall? So, so, so very banal, and not on the usual level of plot twists we've come to expect from the BtVS gang.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Dawn Fears Buffy Leaving -- Scott, 11:36:41 02/17/02 Sun
Buffy died.
Yes, then she came back, but she wasn't really there, not really. Buffy was as empty as the buffybot. Remember how Dawn freaked when Buffy became invisible. That was because Buffy became a "ghost" to Dawn reminding her of Buffy's death.
Buffy knows what it's like to lose a mother. But Dawn lost a mother and sister all in the same year. Then Giles left and then Tara. Look at all the effort people are making to leave Dawn. And there's Dawn all alone. Dawn even left Dawn, when she found out that her whole life hasn't been hers.
Buffy came back, but still, she would rather be dead than with Dawn. Heck, she would rather be in jail than with Dawn since look at how quickly she jumped at that opportunity without even considering how such a course of action would effect her.
Dawn got Buffy a gift that she thought Buffy would love, but she was more impressed with Xander's gift
And then, when they found out that they couldn't leave the house, look how quickly they turned to blame her, even though she had nothing to do with it. But the only time Dawn becomes noticed is when they are forced either by duty or mystical forces to be with her. There must be someone really wrong with Dawn for everyone to make such an effort to leave her whenever an opportunity presents itself to.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Sorry but I find the portrayel of Dawn unbearable. -- Spikesbitch, 13:11:15 02/17/02 Sun
Maybe it is realistic but that doesn't make it entertainment. The scoobies were 15 in season 1 right? At leasat they were in 10th grade. Buffy had just turned 16 but we don't know about Willow, Xander or Cordelia. Anyway they all had distinctive and interesting personalities and were very relatable. Typical teen language wasn't used like "do you like him like pee in your pants like him". The gang were mature and witty and saved the world on a regular basis. Buffy was a spoilt, shallow 15 year old when she was told that it was her lifes duty to sacrifice all her spare time on a life threatening job and tell no one about it. Buffy rose to the challenge and kept her secret identity from her mother. True when she first arrived in Sunnydale she was a reluctant slayer but as soon as lives were lost she realised what her priorities should lay.
Dawn is the same age as at least some of the gang were in season 1 but is a sterotypiccal whiny teenager. People dismiss her as a brat because it is the quickest and most accurarte way of defining her character. Whether her behaviour is justified or not I still find it unbearably dull and painful. Her temper tantrum in OMAFA was not in the least bit interesting to me. I hear enough 3 year olds whining and screaming in the supermarkets without having to listen to a 15 year old behave in a similiar way.
All the gang have had tough lifes. It has been suggested that Xander's background invoves abuse. And so was Tara's. Willow's mother neglected her from what we have seen so Willow went out there and found her own friends. In the episodes "Family" it is clear the gang have found a family with each other. And Faith's situation can't compare to Dawn's in my mind. Faith had no one. She was left in that horrible apartment and only called upon when the scoobies needed help with slaying. Well except for Homecoming when Faith basically asked herself to the school dance. And in Amends when Joyce invited Faith for xmas. Obviously a one off occurance as when Buffy arrives at Faith's apartment Faith asks very pointedly "whats up scary monsters". Also Faith had no family and no love in her life which she was hungry for (Riley's confession of love in Who Are You clearly freaks her out). Dawn is surrounded by people who love her. She may have lost her mother but it was pretty clear they were close and her mother did love her. Buffy sacrificed her love for Dawn because of love. And Tara is like a second mother to Dawn. The gang is always being protective and concerned and it is suggested in Real Me that Willow and Dawn are close and play chess together etc.
Buffy faced her own death in Prophecy Girl. She had to face the death of the man she loved and his metamorphsis into a depraved and vicious killer. She handled this with grace and continued fullfilling her duty and saving lifes. She sacrificed Angel and her own happiness to save the world. Her reward? She was expelled and kicked out by her mother. She spend 3 months learning to take care of herself in LA with no support and again she puts other peoples feelings first (Anne's). In season 3 she has to deal with Faith's betrayal. In season 5 she loses her mother and becomes a parental figure to her 14 year sister whom she has been told is not really her sister. She also finds her sisters life under threat and sacrifices her own instead. She then wakes up in to find she has been buried alive and dragged back from heavon by her friends. She has bills dumped on her and is offered no help. She is sacked by Xander and Anya docks her wages in the magic box. That is why I am sympathetic when people accuse Buffy of being irrespoinsible towards Dawn.
Buffy is trying to be a good mother but it's not going to happen immediately. Dawn has no patience. She promised to be good in Barginning which was clearly a non existent promise. Whenever Buffy reaches out to Dawn, she cannot be bothered to make the effort. Buffy took a while to adjust to being alive again sure but has Dawn even tried to understand?
She is not endearing in my eyes, she is a typical teeneger with no distinctive personality. I would be interested in an exploration of her key powers. All this Dawsons Creek angst just bores me. And I cannot bear all the "cute" teenage comments like "it was like a meat party in my mouth. Ok I'm just a kid and even I know how wrong that sounded". What teenager wouldn't
I did like Dawn in season 5 specifially in The Gift. She was also a likeable chararacter in Afterlife. But lately I cannot bear her. She needs to find her own friends. Why should Xander and Anya be made to feel guilty for not spending time with her?
The excuse that she has suffered is not that convincing in my eyes. All the gang have been through traumas. But Buffy didn't whine and scream the way Dawn does even after losing Angel. Dawn has lost her mother but it's not as if shes been dumped in care or anything like that. I'm afraid that I don't care how justified her behaviour is, she is just not interesting for me to watch.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Sorry but I find the portrayel of Dawn unbearable. -- Lisa, 13:22:48 02/17/02 Sun
Dawn isn't Buffy. She always has been more of a Homebody. I like that they were sophisticated enough to make Dawn an unique character and not Buffy Clone at 15.
Dawn shows that we are all unique. We have all have different needs. No Dawn isn't where Buffy was when she was 15, but Buffy at 15 didn't suffer the death of a parent and a sister. And again Dawn isn't Buffy. Never has been. Buffy was always more outgoing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Sorry but I find the portrayel of Dawn unbearable. -- Spikesbitch, 13:39:41 02/17/02 Sun
I'm not saying I think Dawn should be more like Buffy. But I simply don't find her to be a particularly unique character. I find her a sterotype of an annoying teenager. E.g Buffy was brave and heroic, Willow was shy and smart, Xander was brave and witty, Cordelia was bitchy and tactless but amuzing. Dawn=? Whinning brat is just what comes to mind for me personally. I don't find her good entertainment is my basic point. No matter how justified her behaviour might be I do not see her as sympathetic. I understand she has her fans but a lot of people are finding her poor me routine grating. She is far too self obsssed for my liking. And when I tell viewers this they say well she's a teenager what do you expect. I don't expect a whiny cliche whose behaviour is justified by her age group rather than by a distinctive personality. JMHO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Sorry but I find the portrayel of Dawn unbearable. -- Lisa, 13:47:05 02/17/02 Sun
Dawn has shown a great love for family and friends. She is inteligent, curious, and energetic.
She just hasn't found her place.
Don't underestimate what a lifeline her mother was. She would do things with her mom. Go to a book club for example.
Buffy's life, even when she was young, was always outside her house. Outside her family. Dawn's life was always within her house. She had some friends, but most of Dawn's activity included reading and doing things with her mom.
Sure Buffy was always more independent than Dawn. That just shows that Dawn was different that Buffy. Like any one sister is different than another.
A parent learns that they can't treat their children exactly the same. As each child is an unique individual.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> You make a good case for Dawn -- Spikesbitch, 14:43:54 02/17/02 Sun
And I probably am being to hard on her. In the real world I would be sympathetic. She's just not entertainment in my mind, I simply find her annoying. And I do compare her unfavourably with the other characters because it is difficult for me personally to see her life as so terrible when all the gang have suffered. What I mean is I cannot emphasise with her indulgence in whinning as understandable in the way I would in real life.
But I did like her in season 5 like I said. I loved her interaction with Spike. And her suffering over her mothers illness did move me. I thought Michelle did a particularly good job in Forever and The Body. And she did feel like she had a place last year. Watching a young child learn to accept death was very well done. Michelle was also outstanding in Blood Ties. But this year it does feel like she is just being kept around to atract the teen audience to the show (although I am aware that she also has older fans). The characters have moved past the teenage years and I personally did not enjoy the episode "All The Way". I just found it average and rather pointless and I did find the teen language more realistic and less witty than the language used by Buffy and her contemporaries. The character Dawn feels like regression is my basic point
I guess what frustrates me is the characters untapped potential. I just don't care for her klepto issues and wish her key powers and her potential for good or evil could be explored. Michelle is capable of so much and I do feel she is being underused and written badly. But again thats JMO. I am starting to feel that unless the writers have a specific purpose in mind for Dawn I would be happy for her to be killed off. At the moment I am thinking we should have lost her when the key story ended. And thats a shame because like I said there is so much more the writers could be doing with her. I am just struggling to find her likeable or interesting at the moment. It feels like Michelle is being kept around until Buffy's show ends and Dawn has a spin off.
But thanks for your justification of Dawn. It has made me question whether I am being to hard on her and if there is more to her than a teenage sterotype.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I know this won't change anyone's mind, but... -- Lilac, 14:31:51 02/17/02 Sun
I think there are several reasons why the Dawn character should be cut some slack. First of all, she is a youngest child. Youngest children are often held to a lower level of expectation than older children. In many families, the oldest one is always supposed to be old enough to know better, while the younger one is never old enough to be held accountable. (I am not trying to diss any person on the basis of their birth order, there have been books written on this topic, and this is just a generalization -- if it makes anyone feel better, younger children tend to be a lot more fun).
So, added to this built-in birth order dynamic, you have the whole chosen by Destiny to be the Slayer thing. I imagine that Buffy was a tough older sister to live up to before that -- cute, popular, cheerleader, May Queen (or Queen of whatever it was she was) -- throw in being the Slayer, and one can hardly blame Dawn for feeling she is less than Buffy. Also, Dawn was still pretty little when Buffy was called, even though we never saw that reality. It would make sense for Joyce, worried about Buffy and threatened by the separation she feels from her because of the slaying, to cling extra tight to her "baby", the child she can keep with her.
I realize that none of this is going to make Dawn more sympathetic to those who loathe her. How about considering that, without Dawn, the entire cast is in the same age range -- not a very realistic portrayal of life. All of the mature adults in that circle have died or gone away (OK, Spike is old, but hardly qualifies as a mature adult). Should there be no one younger than the Scoobies too? It's kind of important to interact with people not in your own peer group.
And, and I realize that this will probably tick some off, I think it is probably easier for me to feel sorry for Dawn rather than to hate her, because I am way removed from her age group. I suspect that the closer the viewer is to the age of the Scoobies, the less sympathy Dawn is going to get. Again, I am not trying to insult anyone with this observation -- I just think it is easier to look at Dawn with compassion rather than annoyance when you have a little distance from her state in life.
Of course, in the end, it doesn't matter what I or anyone else thinks about Dawn and her part in the story. All we can do is watch to see how she and the story develop.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> If you'll let me play devil's advocate... -- LiteralGirl, 14:02:17 02/17/02 Sun
The fear of abandonment has always been Buffy's 'issue'. Why is Dawn living out the storyline that ME has carefully laid out as Buffy's over the last 5 years?
This is the question I'm asking myself. I feel a bit cheated. I'd rather see Buffy deal with her own abandonment issues rather than be stuck in a rut (pardon the pun) feeling guilty about the so-called 'naughty' things she does to Spike and lets him do to her. As for Dawn, I find her character inconsistent and fragmentary. I look forward to seeing whether or not ME can pull her persona together somehow and make her into a "real girl".
And maybe Anya can pull a rabbit out of a hat too. LOL. Honestly, I'd really like to see some of the regulars come to terms with some of their issues.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gunn's Abandonment of His Neighborhood -- Lisa, 08:31:00 02/17/02 Sun
Well it looks like Charles Gunn has finally abandoned all links to his former life, mission, and neighborhood. He hasn't been back to the old neighborhood for months now. He has learned that he likes the Ballet and even is now dating a white woman (nothing wrong with that in and of itself).
I guess Charles is moving on up. To a big hotel owned by a white vampire. Wouldn't his sister be proud.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Gunn's Abandonment of His Neighborhood (vague spoilers) -- Darby, 10:06:09 02/17/02 Sun
There's good news here and bad news. I think that you've covered the bad news effectively.
Except that Gunn hasn't abandoned his mission. He's joined a group who can extend that mission more effectively. Isn't that what they're all doing there? Unlike on Buffy, where the mission is based on Destiny and the group are somewhat pulled in the Slayer's wake, on Angel there has been a true cooperative established among equals - they each have taken leading roles at various times, based somewhat upon seniority. But Angel started with a clear mission, and everyone has fallen in with him - Wesley and Gunn have adapted their own similar missions, and Cordy and Fred have come to the realization that this is what they want to do. It's been, to me, a little too obvious and trumpeted rather than shown. We have even been shown that the mission of those Gunn left behind has evolved into something that he can do longer condone, to hammer home the "rightness" of his decision - do you think that some on the show staff might have had feelings similar to yours? I'm not trying to dismiss your problem with the implications, just maybe explain the rationale as I see it.
I think the real dichotomy (little "d," not big "D") here is that Gunn's old mission and his new one are on different levels - he was "cleaning the streets," to use an unfortunate metaphor, but now he's more often policing the upper reaches of demon evil. That will keep him out of his old neighborhood as often as not. And at least the show hasn't ignored your abandonment issue, and we can debate how well it was addressed.
I'm not sure that I like the implication that "moving on up" is okay as long as you stay within your de facto segregated community - it's evil for the powers up the ladder to prevent it, and I think just as evil for powers around the ladder to rail against it. That's another way of saying that the two ME shows should remain essentially "white bread" commodities, because any persons of color who join them must be "abandoning" their "real" place in America.
As for Gunn's relationship with Fred, here you run into one of the realities of TV - you have a limited ensemble to "pair up" without increasing your regular cast. No matter who Fred ultimately winds up with, there are people who would take issue with the choices involved. You just need to look at some of the controversies that have arisen on ER, whose large and changing cast has allowed it to try many permutations and get criticism from somewhere-or-other for anything beyond old-TV "norms."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Gunn's Abandonment of His Neighborhood (vague spoilers) -- Lisa, 10:44:54 02/17/02 Sun
I think the key point here is what he has left behind. He is definitely leaving the street behind him, and now is joining the culture he once had such contempt for.
Who will protect his old neighborhood now that he is off to the ballet?
As for Fred and Gunn. Have no problem with that. None once so ever, and if Joss thinks this is going to be a controversy he must be living in 1975. But I do wonder how women from his neighborhood would feel about him dating white women. Aren't black women good enough for you Charles?
Gunn was supposed to be Angel Investigation's link to the street people of LA. Just like that Computer Software company owner and Wesley's girl friend was their link to the upper classes of LA society. Now they have neither.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Gunn as Liason -- Scott, 11:06:16 02/17/02 Sun
I don't think they ever dealt with the "partership" issue that well. At first Gunn and Angel Investigations had a more equal arrangement. Gunn as the leader of his group would help them out, and then they would help him and his neighbors. There was supposed to be some reciprocity.
Except it always seemed like Angel Investigations missions always took priority. They never seemed like they held up their end of the arrangement.
And then Gunn became an employee. Under Wesley. And his leadership within his old group weaken. And now he has not only given his leadership up, but also the community as well.
If Gunn's mission was to protect his neighborhood - he has gone off mission. Perhaps it's to pursuit a greater mission, but it still came at the price of abandoning his old community.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Gunn as Liason -- Lisa, 11:11:20 02/17/02 Sun
Gunn used to remind me of The Baker Street Irregulars that Sherlock Holmes used to gather clues and get information.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Gunn's Abandonment of His Neighborhood -- JM, 11:40:38 02/17/02 Sun
Well, one of thing is that the neighborhood is safe now. That mission has been covered, even if it ultimately had little to do with Gunn. I think that the message of War Zone, Becoming, Over the Rainbow, and TOGoM was that although it was a good mission it was not good for Gunn. After Alonna's death he struggling with a mean mixture of battle fatigue, PTSD, and survivor guilt. It was making him cold and detached from those around him, even his own group. He was becomoing like Angel before Doyle reached him. He needed the escape that AI provided. Part of the reason that the break was so long and drawn out was that that he couldn't admit this need to himself.
I think that ME wasn't showing in TOGoM that his abondonment was justified, just that loyalty is a complex issue. There is no doubt in my mind that if Gunn had stayed with his group Gio would never have gained so much influence. TOGoM was Gunn being forced to finally commit to his decision and face the consequences. And although they have been negative, I can't help think that Gunn earned his retirement. What he had to do to his sister was very difficult. There is a reason we've been shown time and again our main characters failing to slay the vamp selves of people they once knew. It's just more than a human can bear. Leaving was unfortunate, but it probably saved his soul. And that's as much at the heart of the show as helping the helpless. Being part of AI has saved the souls of all who have been a part of it. From Angel, Cordy, and Wes to Kate and Lindsey.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Gunn's Abandonment of His Neighborhood -- Lisa, 11:54:45 02/17/02 Sun
Gunn's neighborhood (urban ghetto) isn't safe. Those areas never are.
Gunn leaving the Street lifestyle behind might "save his soul" but does little for the community he left behind. Not saying he is wrong to do that, as he saw his chance to get out and he took it. Who could blame him for that?
I don't know if this is important, but all the members of Angel investigations call him by his last name-"Gunn". But Fred is the only one who from the very beginning called him by his first name - "Charles". Is there any significance in this?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Gunn's Abandonment of His Neighborhood -- JM, 12:28:35 02/17/02 Sun
Physically safe, no probably not. Not sure that vigilante justice is the best way to handle that either. Safe from vamps. Yes, it is now. They siad that in TOGoM. And not sure that Gunn has an obligation to choose one fight over another just because of his origins. Like every human, he has to choose which path is right for him, sometimes that means parting ways with your family and community. That's quintessentially American, regardless of ethnic group. And he still does a lot of good in this world. Perhpas Wes had an olbigation to return to the Council when he could and reform it from the inside, perhaps Fred should have returned to Texas with her parents to help ease their pain of the last five years. Granted, his situation is different, but not unique.
Fred calling him "Charles." Yes, it's noticable. When he joined AI, he was still the outsider and Cordy, Wes, and Angel respected his less intimate preference. Fred joined long after and probably assumed the familiarity unconsciously. The fact that he never corrected her is telling about his feelings for her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spike and religion -- abt, 09:37:40 02/17/02 Sun
This is sort of a follow on to my post the other day asking about Spike's moral code. Spike often comes out with a religious reference. Do you think he is inclined towards religion or perhaps I should say, spirituality, in some way? I don't mean 'does he believe in something in particular?', just that it colours the way he views the world. Drusilla was the same. Angelus and Darla were not like that. Maybe I mean an inclination towards believing in something greater than one's self.
Like I said in the other post, Spike seems to want to believe in stories. Like a framework for how things should happen. When Buffy hits him in Superstar he says "You're not supposed to do that!"
When he loses his memory in Tabula Rasa, he's extremely taken with the idea of himself as a hero.
You might think Angel would be more inclined that way, given the interference of prophecy in his life, but I don't think it works that way, I think it's just another part of personality.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike and religion -- Lisa, 11:44:23 02/17/02 Sun
William was a poet(albeit a very bad one). He seems to be the one who likes to be a hero (one on a quest, in this case Anti-Hero).
Angulus seems more practical. Sure he loves to have a good time, but he is also more cautious than Spike. Spike actually goes out to seek Slayers, whereas Angulus doesn't press his luck.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Spike's destiny: is he the prophecy's true subject? -- Wilder, 19:00:09 02/17/02 Sun
It's been a while since I've posted here; and I've missed reading bunches of past postings ....
(sorry, not personal. I've been trying to stay spoiler free and it's HARD. I got ruined a couple episodes back and tried to abstain from all internet indulgences - this being a big one)
but, back to Spike: as a folo to this comment >
"You might think Angel would be more inclined that way, given the interference of prophecy in his life"
I have begun to wonder if the prophecies are really about Spike. He has certainly earned it more than Angel, given that he has been capable of altering his demonic ways without the need of a gypsy-spell soul.
Unless, of course, the show's writers over at Angel just threw that stuff in with no intent of following all of it up.
If this topic has already been dissected, please direct me to where I can read more about, and I'd care to elaborate, if others are interested in disucssing it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Spike's destiny: is he the prophecy's true subject? -- Dariel, 20:11:04 02/17/02 Sun
I have begun to wonder if the prophecies are really about Spike. He has certainly earned it more than Angel, given that he has been capable of altering his demonic ways without the need of a gypsy-spell soul.
Can't agree with you here. We really don't know how much or how little Spike has changed inside--the writers have kept this intentionally muddy. Spike has done some good things, but being the "fool for love," it may all be about Buffy. I'd like to think not, but don't yet see the proof. (Yes, he cares about Dawn, but he was able to appreciate Joyce even in his clearly evil, unchipped days.)
We also don't know how much the chip has effected Spike's thinking. Maybe it only does what the Initiative intended, maybe it does more.
Angel clearly wants to do good for its own sake. He cares about humanity. You might even say that the soul makes him a different being than Angelus, and thus not guilty of Angelus' crimes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> A few of Spike finer moments -- Wilder, 20:25:32 02/17/02 Sun
Hmmm. I don't know Dariel. I think it would be interesting to see what an Angel with a chip would be. Prolly a very very dangerous Angelus, using his abilty to manipluate to cause mass pain and destruction.
Here's where I gotta go for William the Bloody over that other "poof."
Spike helps avert his first of many apocalypses by aiding Buffy in defeating evil Angel way back in S2.
Alright, there he is evil, but thenm while chipped, he attempt more bad things, breaking up the scooby's, hooking up with Harmony, etc.
With chip, he could easily mamnage to continue his evil ways, even more than when he was in a wheel chair.
As this plot line develops, we see a more compassionate Spike, much more motivated by love than lust.
He of course:
cares and aids for the Key and Joyce;
mourns for Joyce;
helps battle Glory;
is sweet to a brainless Tara as she plays with Mr. Sunshine;
takes it for the team and implicates Bob Barker;
post Buffy death Dawn and Scooby gang goodness;
chooses good over Drucilla;
shows compasion for willow even when the Summer girls dis her;
helps Xander and is willing to stand up again for Willow in this last ep.'
and others that I'd go into but I'm at work and have to go now .......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: A few of Spike finer moments -- Tomtom, 22:13:24 02/17/02 Sun
Please, Dariel is so on the mark. Sure, Spike is motivated by love (and lust) for the slayer, but everything is done for Buffy and always has been. Spike doesn't help save the world because he cares for all the Happy Meals on legs, he does it for Buffy. And yes, even with her death it was all for Buffy.
And for every good deed you list he has done evil. You mention he helps stop Angelous but don't mention how he brought The Judge to destroy mankind. You fail to mention how he tried to help Adam, you fail to mention how he was going to shoot Buffy for rejecting him, you fail to mention his twisted idea of killing Drusilla to prove his love, you fail to mention this and that.
If anything Spike's actions indicate he stands in the middle. Angel, on the other hand has clearly chosen the side he wants to strive for whether or not its ultimately successful, unlike Spike, the lazy git. The hottest place in hell is reserved for those who remain neutral.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: A few of Spike finer moments -- Etrangere, 03:58:33 02/18/02 Mon
>>You mention he helps stop Angelous but don't mention how he brought The Judge to destroy mankind.
It was a birthday gift ! It was kind and considerate to Drusilla :)
>>You fail to mention how he tried to help Adam
And managed to make his plan fail :) OK, might be not on purpose
>>you fail to mention how he was going to shoot Buffy for rejecting him
And didn't do it. *shrug*
>>you fail to mention his twisted idea of killing Drusilla to prove his love
You know, I really never got people's problem with that, I mean...
IT WORKED FOR ANGEL WHEN HE KILLED DARLA !
so you know, we just followin' his sire's tracks :))
>>The hottest place in hell is reserved for those who remain neutral.
Just forget one minute that you the world of morality in term of a spectre from Good to Evil, and consider that for some it's about the clash of compassion, justice, ambition, altruism, self-protection, courage, prudence, beauty, tolerance, respect, integrity... etc.
None of this things are bad in se, are they ? Yet you can't never have all of them at the same times, so some people think some of them are more important than the others, and will sacrifice some of this good things for other of this good things.
That's a relativist stand point, not saying that everything is equal, saying that things are of one of this thing, but not of the others...
Spike is someone who will always stand for the one he loves, without ever wondering if they're for good or evil, or whatever. That has nothing to do with opportunnistic neutrality. He's choosing a side. Only not because of what this side is.
It's just not about good and evil, it's about the people.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: A few of Spike finer moments -- Dariel, 23:03:05 02/17/02 Sun
I agree that Spike's done a lot of good of late, and even shown some compassion for Willow. (After all, as a former nerd, he knows the heady effect of power!). I'm a big Spike fan, and tend to think he'll end up on the right side in the end. It's just hard to tell whether, at present, he has some morality based on more than love of all things Buffy. (Doesn't mean he's not moving in that direction, though.)
In any case, I don't see the point in any "Angel vs. Spike" calculus. You know--"Angelus wanted to destroy the world/but then there were those 200 years of punishment in hell"; "Spike was still plotting when the chip was first in/Spike helped protect Dawn...." Could go on a long time. Both are complex characters, stumbling along the redemption highway. Neither of them started on that road of their own volition: If it weren't for the gypsy curse and the chip, they'd have just kept on maurading and killing their way through the years.
(Just watched part 2 of Graduation Day, so probably explains why I feel like defending Angel today. Sniff!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Spike's ambiguous moments -- Ishkabibble, 10:40:23 02/18/02 Mon
My first question is: When goodness is accomplished, does the motivation behind it matter? Are good deeds done for the wrong reason any less good?
My second question is: Does it appear to others that the writers are trying to tell us that there is some good in the most evil person and there is some bad in the most virtuous person?
My third question is: What is our own level of tolerance for ambiguity?
I both love and hate the degree to which the writers are making me stretch my comfort zone.
Thoughts?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike's ambiguous moments -- Sophist, 13:04:16 02/18/02 Mon
IMHO, good deeds are good regardless of motivation. We sometimes excuse bad acts because of motivation. For example, we don't prosecute the cop who kills a bystander while trying to stop the presidential assassin. The hardest calls are those where motivation makes the difference, but the ambiguity makes it hard to judge. That, to me, is the brilliance of the way ME has portrayed Spike.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Spike's actions good but not praiseworthy? -- Shabidoo, 13:16:31 02/18/02 Mon
"My first question is: When goodness is accomplished, does the motivation behind it matter? Are good deeds done for the wrong reason any less good?"
A relevant quote from Mill's Utilitarianism--"[A] right action does not necessarily indicate a virtuous character, and...actions which are blamable often proceed from qualities entitled to praise."
Although Spike's acts may be judged to be good from some objective standpoint, say a utilitarian perspective, such a judgment may not satisfy our curiosity about the changing nature of Spike's character. The crucial question is whether or not Spike's actions are praiseworthy. That is, do Spike's actions emanate from admirable qualities?
At this point in the series, I don't think the writers have given the audience (despite its God's-eye view) enough evidence to answer that question one way or another, which, of course, is why we're all still so damned interested in Spike's moral progress.
P.S. Someone will probably respond with a post on the futility of determining other people's motivations. While I agree wholeheartedly with that sentiment in real life, I find it less compelling in a fictitious context where we often have relatively more information than in real life. It could even be defensible, although I would not defend it, to say that in fiction we have comprehensive information regarding the context of every action since there literally is nothing more to the action and its context than what is on paper or on the screen.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike and religion -- Shabidoo, 06:21:17 02/18/02 Mon
"When he loses his memory in Tabula Rasa, he's extremely taken with the idea of himself as a hero."
I think the writers, as Dariel pointed out, have made this plot point about as muddy as it could be. Spike isn't just taken with the idea of being any old hero. He wants to be Angel. This seems to be one of the deep-seated desires that has survived the memory loss. He specifically self-applies Angel's motto of "Helping the Helpless," albeit without remembering the motto's origin. This makes Spike's motivations for being pleased with his own nobility ambiguous at best. Does he want to be heroic like Angel for its own sake, or does he simply want to be Angel so Buffy will love him?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Or does he loves Buffy because he wants to be Angel ? :) -- Etrangere, 06:28:53 02/18/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know I'm probably starting something.... -- HJ, 17:36:40 02/17/02 Sun
with this post, but I can't stop thinking about this lately. This season just so far does not seem to be as good as the others. Anyone else feel this way? What happened to all the mystery and the "big bad"? We haven't heard anything more this year about the slayer's origins or her destiny etc. If those three nerds are supposed to be the big evil this year, well, that kind of sucks because I think they're pretty cheesy. No Angel (not that that can probably be helped). Not many flashbacks to Spike's past or anyone's for that matter which I really enjoy. And I agree about what's been said here about Dawn. I was hoping for a lot more from her character than just shoplifting and complaining teenager stuff. Where is Faith? The whole Willow and magic thing is getting old. I miss the continuing story line of Buffy and some higher purpose. Like all that stuff last year with the first slayer. I had a glimmer of hope the other episode where Buffy asked Tara to check on the spell that brought her back, but nothing. I keep hoping for something to come out of the "why can Spike hit me" but so far nothing. Anyway, I was just curious if anyone else feels this way. I think Joss is a genius and I absolutely love Buffy, but I can't help but feel a little let down so far this season.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Nope. Already been started :) -- Traveler, 17:47:43 02/17/02 Sun
A lot of people have been expressing the same sentiments you are. However, I really like season 6, for exactly the same reasons you don't like it. The story arc may be about growing up, but apparantly that includes upsetting old beliefs and stereotypes. I like this whole "rock the boat" mentality and I am looking for more. As for Dawn, take heart. I think I read in an interview somewhere that Joss is planning to do a lot more with her in season 7. I guess the world can't be in jeapordy because of her EVERY season :P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Nope. Already been started :) -- Fred, 19:10:24 02/17/02 Sun
Maybe Spike and Dawn can get together next season. Wasn't that about the age Buffy got together with Angel?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Disturbing thoughts. -- Darby, 19:48:30 02/17/02 Sun
I guess that's why there are laws about this sort of thing, but now that you've got me thinking about it, the Buffy-Angel thing is very disturbing. She was only sixteen (it's easy to discount - we know in the back of our minds that the actors are older, and the Buffy character was much older in spirit), and Angel, despite appearances, was over a century old (souled, anyway).
The Dawn-Spike suggestion just kind of underlines that B/A was iffy at best, molestation at worst. If Angel had looked his age, I think all of us would see this differently.
The world is easily as complex as this TV show, but out here, do we really want this sort of thing decided on a case-by-case basis?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Buffy was seventeen -- Vickie, 21:30:35 02/17/02 Sun
the night that she and Angel made love.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> True, but... -- Darby, 05:58:43 02/18/02 Mon
The relationship started when she was sixteen (and Angel got the hots for her when she was fifteen!).
And I don't know about California, but the age of consent in many states is 18.
Regardless, a centegenarian boinking a 17-year-old?? And, experience-wise if not emotionally, it has been established over and over again that Angel is an old, old man.
Sorry, but this has suddenly set off my "yick" factor. I'm more than a little disturbed that I wasn't more disturbed before.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: True, but... -- Wiscoboy, 10:06:06 02/18/02 Mon
The only disturbing thing I'm tired of seeing in the show is the apparent, in-your-face soft-porn aspect(Angel seems headed in the same direction). How many times do we have to watch Spike almost-too-graphically pound the Buffster? Someone should tell Joss and the other writers we get it already(and this coming from a healthy heterosexual male no less). If I wanted to watch porn, there are plenty of free sites on the web. The show for me has always been the slick drama and humor and clever banter among the cast. I think the writers and Joss have been sitting on their newfound financial success at UPN and are becoming very lazy.
- A second-time poster -
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: True, but... -- John Burwood, 12:32:25 02/18/02 Mon
It occurs to me that ME might be getting exactly the reactions they want to the whole Buffy/Spike relationship thing.
All along the point has been made that Joss likes to give the BTVS fans what they need rather than what they want. I remember some people wanting Giles & Joyce to pair off to make Buffy's home life happier - what they got was Band Candy kiboshing that to hell.
All the B/A shippers were given IWRY to show why a B/A ship could not work.
And now I have read declared B/S Shippers posting that they want the Buffy/Spike relationship to end because they don't like how it is progressing - or do I mean regressing?
The point surely is that when Buffy & (insert name here) fall in love, personify all sweetness & light & live happily ever after the whole show is basically going to be over.
Which might explain Riley - Joss once said that he originally envisaged the show only lasting a hundred episodes, and Marti mentioned in an interview somethng about Sunnydale being sucked into hell as an early idea for that hundredth episode. For a show ending at the Gift Buffy ending up with a nice comfortable bread-and-butter love relationship with a nice guy could fit. B/R could have stretched to that. But when the show was set to go further B/R were doomed - not enough angst potential in it.
BTW my reference to bread-and-butter love is the Margery Allingham definition, in contrast to cake love or grand passions like Buffy/Angel or Cathy/Heathcliff.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> I wasn't trying to say it was ok. -- Vickie, 12:57:12 02/18/02 Mon
I was only trying to get the facts straight in the conversation. Buffy was seventeen.
Whatever we may think of it ethically, it was not a legal relationship. Technically, it was statutory rape.
The only things that made Buffy/Angel OK for me were 1) Angel's relative immaturity and 2) the fairy tale aspect of the relationship. It could never play for me in real life.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> If Angel had looked his age -- matching mole, 12:46:41 02/18/02 Mon
He'd be a few pieces of bone and a bunch of molecules distributed throughout the ecosystem. That's what most 200 plus year old people are. Kind of hard to pin a charge of statutory rape on that. Sorry for the flippancy but I couldn't resist. I've actually wondered about the B/A age issue for years, mostly from the point of view of network censorship or lack thereof.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Can we not do this? -- d'Herblay, 21:20:37 02/17/02 Sun
The Spike/Dawn troll has already been done. You can read the whole sordid mess here (it takes a while to load the precise thread; ok, it takes forever). Please, let's not relive it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> LOL.....I remember that now......I contributed soooo much to that one....;) -- Rufus, 22:32:22 02/17/02 Sun
Who honestly thought it rated a one word response....:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> It's all ready been started.... (and the goddess Tara.) -- Rochefort, 17:54:27 02/17/02 Sun
We've been arguing. It's heated. Not as heated as the conversations on ethnicity, maybe. But pretty heated. There's a post a little ways down in which everyone stated what they thought of the whole season. The majority love it (blindly, heh) but there is an ever growing and increasingly vocal resistance movement. We're not all sure what we're resisting, but we feel the need to resist.
I'm sort of hoping we can all concentrate real hard and send vibes to Joss that he should get his butt back to the show and pay attention.
My problems, by the way, aren't with the lack of "Big Bad", mystery, flash backs, or anything like that but with uneven writing and the poor handling of the plots they HAVE taken up. Also, even the resistance movement loves the show. In fact, if we didn't love the show, we wouldn't even say ANYTHING at all.
So, ya know, I think we should take Tara as our heroine. We love Buffy/Willow, but we think Buffy/Willow is a little out of control, doing some not very nice things, experimenting with some very unsubtle (drug metaphors), and trying to use cheap tricks and magic to fool us into thinking the show still has the same high quality as it did.
I'm hoping ME doesn't kill Tara off for being so vocal about the show's weak points. Go, Tara baby! Believe in yourself. Have faith in yourself! You're fightin the good fight.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> traveler already wrote already only he spelled it write. -- Rochefort, 17:57:15 02/17/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> "Resistance movement." LOL. And all very well said (esp. about the writing). -- mundusmundi, 18:43:41 02/17/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: I know I'm probably starting something.... -- Terrapin, 18:31:45 02/17/02 Sun
Well, I really like season six, first of all. The show started off when the characters were in high school. It dealy with issues and how the characters respond and feel about certain issues. Basically, the show dealt with adolescence. Adolescence can be described as a time when kids are no longer innocent. They have to become more independent. They have to make really important decisions for the first time in their life. Issues and problems seem to be huge and they feel like they're too big to handle sometimes. One problem can feel like it can consume your life and take over. But then when you get through it, it's over, and you're like ok, it wasn't that bad. You feel like you made the issue bigger than it had to be.
The next stage is young adulthood. Buffy, Willow, and Xander are in this stage. Totally different than adolescence. Its not the end of the world anymore.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> You're right! -- Darby, 19:51:46 02/17/02 Sun
It's not the end of the world, as teens see each crisis.
It's just one pain-in-the-ass after another. Some alone, some recurring.
That's this season!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: I know I'm probably starting something.... -- neaux, 04:44:28 02/18/02 Mon
someone somewhere said..
If man is 5, then the devil is 6. Then God is 7.
actually i'm referencing the Pixies... but still.. its interesting.
But it seems last's years season was about God.. this season is about man... so I guess if Buffy ends next season.. then it will end with a bang about the devil!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you love or hate the Buffy/Spike sex? -- LeeAnn, 20:57:07 02/17/02 Sun
I admit I love it. Have been thrilled by JM's ablity to portray it more explicitly than I remember seeing on TV before.
But judging from various forums many people hate it.
Want it to stop.
Don't want it shown even if it is going on, even if they want Buffy and Spike together.
This has surprised me.
How do you feel about it?
Too much, not enough, just right, or NO MORE, I'M GOING BLIND!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I think it needed to be this explicit to develop the characters. -- bookworm, 21:17:24 02/17/02 Sun
If anything, they've toned it down from what it should have been, understandably since this is still television. They've been hinting for years that Buffy likes kink, Buffy likes it rough, Buffy's got a real wild side that she's never let go. Back in Season 3, Faith is the one who told Buffy part of her dug Angel even after he turned evil. Buffy appeared to orgasm while Angel was feeding off her in "Graduation." Buffy is drawn to Dracula and lets him feed off her in "Buffy vs. Dracula" in Season 5. Every scene between Buffy and Spike from "School Hard" on has been sexually charged. They hit us over the head with it in "Something Blue" -- Buffy to Spike: "I'm just dying for a good slay!" Yeah, and who didn't bet he could give it to her? Even Joyce and Giles in "Band Candy" hinted at it. Buffy's mom liked bad boys and she let Giles cuff her while they had sex on the hood of a police car. And then there's little Dawn, who was a little too slow about staking that cute vampire who gave her her first kiss. Like mother, like daughter; like sister, like sister. I don't have a problem with explicit, dark, kinky sex if it's part of a story and character development. So far it's been interesting and probably about as realistic as they could decently make it. Getting off on a fight? Fine. We've always known that Buffy and Spike equate fighting with sex. Handcuffs? Huge, huge risk and a sign either of how much Buffy trusts Spike or of how much she wants to die. A dominant woman who's always in complete control, letting herself be cuffed by a vampire who can bite and kill her? Very scary. Aside from the thrill of the risk, not being able to touch him back must have driven her crazy. UPN must have got scared and cut the Bronze sex scene. I don't think what they showed of the Bronze sex would have been physically possible, since she's so much shorter than he is. She would have to be standing on something to raise her to his level. Maybe it's supposed to be a dream. I don't think this show is appropriate for children anymore, but then parents are supposed to be monitoring what their kids watch anyway. As the characters become adult they will have more sex.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> This little bear says "Just right." -- Deeva, 23:09:22 02/17/02 Sun
They can only go so far on broadcast telly. I'm only for the sex scenes when it helps the story along, otherwise it would just be a porno. Although I'm not complaining about Nekkid!Spike. I've done my fair share of rewinding the tape over and over in Wrecked & Gone but I wouldn't want this show to become all about "Gee, how can we get Spike and Buffy naked this week?"
I'm surprised to hear that other people want this to stop, to have it only be alluded to off screen somehow. I only hang around this forum so it's news to me. I wonder what they hate about it? Maybe they think that it's best left to the imagination?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> And would there be something wrong if it was "just porn"?!? -- Rob, 23:31:25 02/17/02 Sun
But seriously, folks, I'm all for the Buffy/Spike sex...and all of those thinly velied graphic references. Because honestly, how could a relationship between Spike and the Slayer be anything but as hot, passionate, and overtly sexual as it is being portrayed? Spike ain't no choirboy, if ya know what I mean.
I, for one, am glad for Buffy getting herself good and laid. After the past year she's had--death of Joyce, messy breakup with Riley, her own death and resurrection--I don't think anyone's deserved it more than she.
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Porn vs plot -- ponygirl, 12:02:12 02/18/02 Mon
I think Buffy deserves a lot of credit this year for exploring sexuality in a way that most North American shows avoid. With so many shows and movies the sex is almost standard: kiss kiss, some tasteful nudity and writhing under the sheets. Emotionally nothing is revealed, nothing is actually said about the characters. That for me is more pornographic than far more explicit scenes, since it becomes more about the actors than the characters. IMO there hasn't been a sex scene this year that hasn't been necessary.
BTW if anyone ever wants to see a great film that proves that sometimes sex scenes are essential to revealing character, rent Dreamlife of Angels. French movie from a few years back, really good.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Nope. Nothing wrong if it were just porn. But... -- Deeva, 15:39:01 02/18/02 Mon
I would think that it would have to be, as Tensai jokingly said one day, "Buffy the Vampire Layer". That and my cable bill would cost more for the porn option! ;oD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> ... and I wouldn't be able to see it at all, living in Utah ... -- verdantheart, 07:14:54 02/19/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Do you love or hate the Buffy/Spike sex? -- Lilac, 03:06:51 02/18/02 Mon
I love the Buffy/Spike relationship, even though I can't see it ending happily. I love the scenes with the two of them together -- they really light up the screen. BUT I do think that a lot of what has made many people unhappy,less than satisfied, with this season may be blamed on the amount of screen time this relationship has taken. There are a lot of characters who we are used to spending time with who we rarely see anymore because we spend so much time with Buffy & Spike.
I love B/S, but I wish we still saw more of everyone else. But I guess that is the way it goes with old friendships when a new affair begins, isn't it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> What I would like to see.. -- neaux, 06:57:54 02/18/02 Mon
Actually what I would LOVE to see is JM on Saturday Nite Live. With so many Spike Fans out there and the amount of young actors that host the show, he deserves his turn hosting
I would love to see Spike on Saturday Nite live spoofing the amount of sex on Buffy..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Oh yeah, baby. That would be the ultimate. Where do I sign up for that? -- Deeva, 09:33:10 02/18/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Oh yeah, baby. That would be the ultimate. Where do I sign up for that? -- neaux, 10:39:01 02/18/02 Mon
I dunno. how can we request/petiton for Spike?
they REALLY need SPIKE on SNL!!
if they can have 3 members of Dawson's Creek Host SNL, they can easily get SPIKE on... i mean c'mon.. Buffy has hosted twice already.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Oh yeah, baby. That would be the ultimate. Where do I sign up for that? -- LeeAnn, 10:57:00 02/18/02 Mon
Great Idea!!
But how?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> SaturdayNightLive@nbc.com -- LeeAnn, 11:04:12 02/18/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> If he does, could someone post an announcement here? -- verdantheart, 07:17:38 02/19/02 Tue
Our regular NBC station doesn't run SNL (it runs a sports show), it runs on another station, so I'd miss the promos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re:Buffy/Spike sex? general season six spoilers -- Anne, 12:25:45 02/18/02 Mon
First of all, I must say that I have never seen sex on TV that was less gratuitous, in the sense that I think that what has been shown and how it has been shown is absolutely crucial to understanding the stage of development of the characters both individually and in relationship to one another. To that extent, you could say "love it".
On the other hand, it seems obvious to me that Buffy is using sex as a tool to keep Spike at a distance, not as an expression of intimacy, not to mention that they have a bit of a mutual degradation society going here. And other than that brief moment of lucidity in "Gone", Spike is apparently too caught up in the transitory pleasures of it all to fully recognize or resist that aspect of it. (And regardless of whether you think Spike is totally evil and unredeemeable, or believe that he is "stumbling along on the redemption highway", to borrow a nice phrase from another poster whose identity I have forgotten, I think you have to admit that Spike wants genuine intimacy from Buffy, not just sex). In fact, he is behaving a bit against character to the extent that since Season 3 he has been represented as being very perceptive about Buffy and her motivations, but is not really using that insight now. (Probably deprivation of blood supply to the brain . . .).
So, to the extent that I would kind of like to see these two characters get together in a constructive way at some point (probably not until the end of the last season of the show, whenever that is), I find the sex being shown currently deeply disturbing. Because of that, I would like to see them break off this stage of their relationship as soon as possible, in order to move on more rapidly towards something a bit more positive.
I liked that bit of the dream in "Dead Things" right at the very beginning, though, which was quite gentle and tender. Interesting that it remained that way as long as Spike was initiating, then turned into a nasty series of images of betrayal and death as soon as Buffy got on top. Not entirely sure what that means but it can't have been accidental, and I suspect there's more down the road for these guys sexually. That'll be just fine for me -- but it's time for a breather.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Regarding his blood supply to the brain....... -- vampire hunter D, 13:26:49 02/18/02 Mon
Reminds me of a bit of wisdom I once heard:
When the gods made man, they gave him both a brain and a penis...
but only enough blood to use one at a time.
and on another note, I'm intrigued by the scene in Buffy's dream where Spike comes to her and initiates a more loving, intimate kind of sex (as oppsed to the wild, dirty, animalistic kind they actually have). Could this be a sign that maybe she does love Spike?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Sex in the Dream -- LeeAnn, 16:40:22 02/18/02 Mon
"I'm intrigued by the scene in Buffy's dream where Spike comes to her and initiates a more loving, intimate kind of sex (as oppsed to the wild, dirty, animalistic kind they actually have). Could this be a sign that maybe she does love Spike?" - Vampire Hunter
Maybe...but I thought it was interesting that even in Buffy's dreams it is Spike that comforts and protects her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Sex in the Dream -- anom, 23:15:14 02/18/02 Mon
"Maybe...but I thought it was interesting that even in Buffy's dreams it is Spike that comforts and protects her."
Hmm...maybe the later part of the dream is what happens in her mind when she can't accept the idea of that comfort & protection coming from Spike. Or maybe those are the feelings that don't let her accept it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Love it. -- Sophist, 12:48:24 02/18/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I'd like it more if we could see less NakedSpike and more NakedBuffy ;-) -- vampire hunter D, 13:19:59 02/18/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Yes, More nakedBuffy (well at least some) (possible future spoiler) -- Dochawk, 13:58:30 02/18/02 Mon
For all the sex, we really haven't seen that much of SMG's skin. We've seen much more on other mainstream network shows. Hopefully the DVDs will have the parts that were masked.
For those of you who are of a more purient nature. MN said in an interview that she would like to push the lesbian sex envelope as much as she has the straight sex envelope. I would take this as good news for W/T shippers, I guess.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Love it. -- Spikesbitch, 14:40:47 02/18/02 Mon
I'm fine with it. All the sex has been necessary in order to illustrate Buffy's state of mind at the time. None of it has just been sex for the sake of it. Also it is very entertaining watching Buffy and Spike going at it IMO. But I do think they need to move the story along to avoid the relationship becoming stagnant. Buffy's attitude is tiresome at the moment.
And if you visit the cross and stake board one of the main complaints regarding the sex is that other characters (specifically Xander) are being underused. I don't find this complaint valid personally as I don't feel Spike is getting as much screen time as some people suggest. Also it is nothing to do with the B/S storyline if other characters don't have much screen time. That is down to the writers.
There are also people unhappy with the relationship because they see Spike as an evil serial killer and they believe Buffy is demeaning herself and aren't happy watching the two of them kiss let alone have sex.
There are also people who complain Buffy is supposed to be a family show and all this sex isn't healthy for their kids to be subjected to (the violence is of course not a problem).
And there are S/B shippers who were expecting a more romantic relationship and are unhappy with the raunchy way it is being portrayed as opposed to B/A.
Thats my experience of the main complaints anyway.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Do you love or hate the Buffy/Spike sex? -- verdantheart, 07:31:38 02/19/02 Tue
I'd say that I can't put it into terms of love it or hate it. I will say that I don't consider it gratuitous. It's completely integrated with the characters and storylines. I understand that many viewers would like a more romantic approach, but this is something that Buffy will not allow, whether it is because she does not love him but needs the sexual release he provides, or because she does love him but fears facing that fact. From this viewpoint, you might say that I "love it" because I like seeing the characters face this complex, difficult, and painful situation. It's fascinating.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can Buffy make new friends? -- Grace, 21:47:38 02/17/02 Sun
We were introduced to three new people in the birthday episode: Clem, Buffy's friend from work and Xander's friend from work.
When Buffy told Anya and Xander that she had invited a friend she commented that she wasn't one of those people who couldn't make friends outside of her small group. But, I think she was wrong. None of the new guests (except for Clem who commented that he had a good time) really fit in.
I think that Buffy's failed "match" with Xander's work buddy is an indication that Buffy doesn't mix well with the "normal" world. Riley was able to be her mate because he too was a demon fighter. Every other attempt at dating a "normal" guy has ended badly.
It doesn't seem that Buffy or any of the Scoobies can have friends that aren't in tune to the demon world. Honestly, would anyone other than the Scoobies accept Anya as an ex-demon, Dawn as the ex-key, Willow and Tara as witches or Spike as a chip-head vamp?
Try as she might, Buffy will never be a normal girl. (Spike said as much to her when he visited her at the Doublemeat Palace.) Part of growing up is accepting your place in the world. I think Buffy has to accept hers. I think this means accepting the fact that she is better suited to date a chip-head vamp that some "sweet" construction worker.
Ironically, Angel left Buffy because he wanted her to have a chance at a normal life. I don't think that opportunity is there for her. Once Buffy sees and embraces this-she will be on her way to being an adult.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Can Buffy make new friends? -- Cactus Watcher, 02:01:08 02/18/02 Mon
I'm not sure about Sophie. She reminds me of Willow way back when, and unlike Richard, she didn't have any problem with Clem. She might fit in better than we think.
I agree that a normal life is probably not something Buffy can have. But, a semblance of normality including a few stray non-Scooby friends isn't necessary out of the question.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Can Buffy make new friends? -- Scott, 09:12:23 02/18/02 Mon
I disagree, though it might just be on sematics.
Buffy makes new friends quite easily. It's one of her greatest attributes.
Look how easy it was for her to make friends when she first arrived in Sunnydale.
Now what I think you are getting at is can she KEEP new friends? And the answer is probably not easily as the more they get to know her, the more likely it is for the demon world to interfer.
The demon world is part of Buffy's life. If they can't live in that, then it would be very tough maintaining a friendship with her.
And please, lets all give Sophie a break. I kind of liked her. Her health problems isn't her fault.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Sophie's health problems -- Robert, 14:00:05 02/18/02 Mon
>> "And please, lets all give Sophie a break. I kind of liked her. Her health problems isn't her fault."
Maybe I misunderstood, but aren't Sophie's health problems psychosomatic?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Sophie's health problems -- Fred, 20:32:19 02/18/02 Mon
As someone with real food allergies I find that assumption a bit offensive.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Sophie's health problems -- Robert, 22:06:39 02/18/02 Mon
>> "As someone with real food allergies I find that assumption a bit offensive."
My older brother is also seriously afflicted with life threatening food alergies. My point was that that ME appeared to be presenting Sophie as a hypochondriac. I was not making a statement about alergies in general or about people in general or about people with alergies in general. This was merely my interpretation of the story as presented by ME in this eposide of BtVS.
Why did I make this interpretation? I made this interpretation because ME was playing up Sophie's condition for laughs. I did not believe that ME would do that if she had real, possibly life threatening, alergies.
Was my interpretation unreasonable? At the time, it didn't seem so, but I am willing to accept that it may have been.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Sophie's health problems -- anom, 22:58:33 02/18/02 Mon
"Why did I make this interpretation? I made this interpretation because ME was playing up Sophie's condition for laughs. I did not believe that ME would do that if she had real, possibly life threatening, alergies."
That's what bothered me about this episode. They made it sound like Sophie's allergies were on a par with her needing to be reminded to say "Thank you" as soon as she got to the party. She also seemed very young--maybe the way she talked about what she couldn't eat was just part of that picture. I suppose 21-year-olds who haven't encountered the problem may not be very aware of how dangerous food allergies are, but ME should know better. Although I don't want to jump to conclusions--we may see more of Sophie later, & of how the show deals with her dietary restrictions. (Not to make light of them, but at least she has an excuse not to eat Doublemeat Medleys....)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Sophie's health problems -- Darby, 06:50:22 02/19/02 Tue
I think that it was the sheer volume of foods that Sophie couldn't deal with that tells the tale. And makes whatever point they were trying to make.
It's unusual for someone to be allergic to that many foods all at once, and some of the stuff she mentioned isn't connected to allergies much at all.
It's not impossible, but highly unlikely - the best chance is that it's psychosomatic or home diagnosis of some simpler problem. But it was supposed to be used to establish a bit of the character in 15 seconds, and I'm not sure what the intent was there.
I've read that the scripts are often full of "in" jokes on the cast and crew - maybe that's what we're seeing?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Sophie's health problems -- dream of the consortium, 10:38:49 02/19/02 Tue
There are certainly a lot of people who suffer from real food allergies - heck, I know someone who was homebound for three years until it was finally determined that she was allergic to most types of plastic. But, the number of people who actually have food allergies are far outweighed by those who don't but believe they do. The number of adults with provable food allergies is about about 2-5% of the population, as compared to about 35% of the population who claim to have them. Even adusting for the ignorance of Western medicine, there's a big gap there. (Pet theory - Since food poisoning is much more common than people think, I think a lot of people assume "allergy" when the real problem is "left out too long." But that is neither here nor there.) Anyway, I think the long list of things she's allergic to does give credence to the hypochrondriac theory. But the fact that she announces all her allergies, even if they are real, makes her seem young. An older person would be more likely just to mention the applicable allergy or just turn down the food without feeling the need to explain herself. Also, ME was, I think successfully, trying to indicate how different this girl's life is from Buffy's. Buffy takes on vampires, gods for that matter, and Sophie has clearly spent a lot of time weighing the differences between amaranth and quinoa flours. That's not necessarily negative or critical - Sophie was portrayed in a favorable light, I believe. She certainly seemed pleasant and accepting. I would agree with the early Willow comparison. It was nice to see a Sunnydale resident still in the ignorant bliss stage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Sophie's health problems -- Cleanthes, 11:50:45 02/19/02 Tue
If I may add: those who think they have allergies but don't will not be helped if the existence of such people is denied in some misguided attempt to retain full sympathy for those who do have serious allergies.
Nothing in the episode suggested that ME intended to make a categorical statement about people with allergies. To jump to such a conclusion is looking for insult where none is intended. Such a quest for victimhood underlies most, or perhaps all of the world's troubles, and pretty much describes what I saw wrong in Dawn's behavior in this same episode. She decided that all the others were ignoring her on purpose and in order to demean her.
Ain't so. Nobody wants to hear about your band or your aches and pains. Heck, I can't get my doctor to listen to my aches and pains. Here I am, with the flu, and nobody to tell me, "oh, you poor baby." Damn, it's tough... {smile}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh, you poor baby.... get better soon (NT) -- Caroline, 12:12:27 02/19/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Cleanthes? Hope you feel better. ;-) -- VampRiley, 13:48:08 02/19/02 Tue
What happened to you? Real life take you away from our discussions of reality/surreality/fantasy? Or did you just fall of the edge of the Earth or something?
Welcome back!!!!!!!!!!!!!
VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Cleanthes? Hope you feel better. ;-) -- Cleanthes, 17:44:18 02/19/02 Tue
Yes, real life took me to other places, jails, courtrooms, all kinds of interesting, eye-opening things.
Now, let me tell you ALL about my aches and pains because they are SO important. Okay, I hear those groans from the peanut gallery.
Thanks for the sympathy.
I'm interested in Sophie. I'd like to see more non-villain recurring characters. We used to have Ms Calendar, Harmony Principal Snider, Willie, Johnathan, etc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Cleanthes! Long time no see! Sit down and stay a spell! -- Masquerade, 17:04:35 02/19/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> so that's what it takes... -- anom, 20:34:16 02/19/02 Tue
...to bring you back to the board? You have to have the flu keeping you home? Makes me a little ambivalent about wishing you a quick recovery--no, not really, of course. Get better as soon as you possibly can, but keep posting even after you do!
And no, don't post your symptoms here, but you can tell us all about them in chat. After all, in cyberspace, no one can hear you sneeze.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Sophie's health problems -- Kimberly, 11:27:54 02/19/02 Tue
I interpreted Sophie's multiple food allergies differently than most of the responders here appear to have: that her mother was the hypochondriac. That said, Sophie also comes across as very young, which would fit with someone who picks up so clearly on Mama's dictates.
I also got the feeling that Buffy may need to slay some demons at Sophie's house some day in the future. (No spoilers, just off-the-cuff spec.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Sophie's health problems -- Robert, 12:30:22 02/19/02 Tue
>> "I interpreted Sophie's multiple food allergies differently than most of the responders here appear to have: that her mother was the hypochondriac."
Yes, this would fit with what I saw in the episode. If true, Sophie's symptoms would be psychosomatic, regardless of whether she herself was a hypochondriac.
Lest anyone accuse me of insensitivity, I do not intend to belittle psychocomatic illnesses. Back in the days when my step-daughter was rampaging, I used to get stress related flu symptoms. My symptoms included full-body muscle aches and high fever. With just a day of rest they went away. I knew my illness was psychosomatic, but that didn't stop it from occurring.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> that's not psychosomatic -- skeeve, 08:12:54 02/20/02 Wed
A high fever might be psychogenic, but it's not psychosomatic. To be psychosomatic, it has to be *all* in one's head. A fever is generally an all over thing.
Maybe Sophie is allergic to an otherwise harmless and unnoticed demon. It likes the kinds of food that Sophie thinks she is allergic to.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: that's not psychosomatic -- Kimberly, 08:26:54 02/20/02 Wed
Clarification on the word psychosomatic: It means a physiological disease which is triggered or exacerbated by psychological factors. The classic examples are heart attack, ulcer, stroke. In all cases, the actual disease is real and physiological, even if the triggers may include such psychological factors as stress.
What everyone here is referring to as psychosomatic (and I'm guilty by omission earlier) is something else. I don't remember the exact term, but I want to say hysterical illness. In this case, it is an illness which has no physiological basis but is purely "in the mind".
Sorry for the rant; this word gets misused all the time and it bugs me. (The most dangerous thing in the world is a woman who majored in psych lo these many moons ago.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Can Buffy make new friends? -- vampire hunter D, 12:27:38 02/18/02 Mon
I liked the fact that the two new people showed up (Clem was not new). It means that the group is not as insular as I wsa worried they were. The implication is that they do have friends outside the group (we just don't see them as often).
And Buffy does make friends very easily. The problem is that they're usually eaten/killed/turned by the end of the episode.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Can Buffy make new friends? -- Corwin of Amber, 21:11:56 02/18/02 Mon
>Part of growing up is accepting your place in the world. I think >Buffy has to accept hers. I think this means accepting the fact >that she is better suited to date a chip-head vamp that some >"sweet" construction worker.
Isn't that one of Buffy's current problems though? Buffy doesn't believe, deep down, that she deserves a relationship with a "nice" or "sweet" or "good" person. (Spike isn't any of those, in my opinion.) At this point, I believe she would find a way to trash any such relationship.
And I believe that part of growing up is making your place in the world, not just accepting the cards you've been given.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Can Buffy make new friends? -- skeeve, 08:43:27 02/19/02 Tue
Buffy can make new friends. She doesn't need to tell them about vampires and demons. She kept her mother in the dark for quite some time.
If Buffy can't make new friends, Warren can make them for her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please go way down to the bottom and respond to the last subthread. -- Darby, 07:27:24 02/18/02 Mon
The "EPILOGUE" -> "But" one...
Masq, I trust you'll remove this when that thread gets peeled. I thought it was important to bring it to the attention of people who might never see the discussion way down there.
It just seems like since we vote / poll on so many other things, why not this?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> The Boke Thing -- Lilac, 08:44:33 02/18/02 Mon
While I appreciate your concern about blocking someone, Darby, I think that the right decision was made in this case.
I am a very new, very insignificant poster here, but I have very much enjoyed reading other people's posts and having a venue to air some of my observations. Some of the posts here are truly amazing. When the forensicpoetry stuff started showing up, I quickly determined that those messages were not going to fall into the amazing category, so I just didn't read them. Then the other "personalities" of the same poster started showing up. The feeling I had from those posts was that the mission of this board was of no importance to the writer -- getting personal attention and pushing people's buttons was all that mattered. While one could just avoid reading posts identified as coming from that poster, and that is tough to do with the multiple names, the fact that the volume of those posts was taking up a lot of the board was really becoming a problem.
Boke was given a good bit of room to explain himself and participate, and showed no indication of being willing to do so in good faith. I think that Masq was generous in the amount of time she allowed for this process to take place. In a very brief period of time the board was in danger of deteriorating from an interesting, varied forum for discussion to a billboard for one person. A person who likes to scream a lot.
For what it's worth, I have never felt threatened about posting here. I wasn't specifically welcomed when I first started, but that is because I didn't announce myself as new, didn't want to attract that much attention. I have never seen anyone here behaving in an exclusionary manner. People may get snippy on occasion, but generally they apologize if it happens, and snippiness is to be expected when people discuss things they feel strongly about. It's a nice environment, one person should not be allowed to ruin it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Well said, Lilac ;o) -- Wisewoman, 10:23:37 02/18/02 Mon
Darby, I think you know where I fall on this one, but rest assured I do understand your trepidation about the whole banning thing, it's never pleasant. In this case though, I have to agree with Masq and Lilac--it was necessary.
:o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Amen. -- Traveler, 11:55:16 02/18/02 Mon
"It's a nice environment, one person should not be allowed to ruin it."
That's why I never responded to any of his posts. It wasn't worth my time, and I didn't feel like feeding his ego.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Insignificant posters do not exist here, at least to me. -- VampRiley, 13:14:47 02/18/02 Mon
Only annoying pillocks who waste other people's time.
As for what happened, I feel like the parent who has become disappointed with their child. Not exactly, but I'm really getting to know the feeling. You try to be patient. You try to work and act in a respectable manner and what do you get for your troubles? A big fat zero. You don't get one good thing out of it and feel like you've wasted so much of your time trying to work with them. But it never happens. You feel exhausted. Both mentally and physically drained. And you just don't want to do it anymore. You just can't. You sit there in the court room, in the gallery. You shoulders slumped, a tired look on your face. And when your child comes up to you saying how sorry they are, all you can say is that you're not mad. Just very...very disappointed in them.
Don't get me wrong, I did not like the way Boke handled himself. Nor do I feel like it was "my mission" to try to help him. But I got really upset with the way he handled things when there was a better one. Masq gave him a second chance and I even asked him to explain his point. And his explaination made me disappointed with the fact that I wasted my time and the time of everyone else. And what were we left with because of what happened? Boke has been banned from ever reading and writing anything to this board ever again. Good threads that should have had more time on the board to be discussed, ended up not getting what they should have. We get personal attacks from a total stranger that feels that they have some sort of "right" to say whatever the hell they feel like without worrying about the consequences that his actions would take. Consequences he, no doubt, wanted to happen. And what was with the extra large, multi-colored writing. Unfortunately, the banning of Boke needed to be done. Not because we didn't like him, but because his tactics would not be tolerated.
Maybe because we didn't like him.
I would like to apologize to the whole board: Masq, the regular and non-regular posters, the lurkers, etc. for my part in this whole situation.
I am very sorry.
Respectfully yours,
VampRiley
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Insignificant posters do not exist here, at least to me. -- CW, 13:43:37 02/18/02 Mon
There are two things every college instructor and professor has to learn early in his or her career, that some students are not going to 'get it,' and that usually it's not the instructor's fault they don't. Don't be too hard on yourself. You gave the guy a break. It's not in anyway your fault he wasted it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> It still sorta bites though. -- VampRiley, 13:48:42 02/18/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> no need to apologize, vr -- anom, 14:27:26 02/18/02 Mon
I admire your tolerance (& that of Darby, change, & a few others) & your heroic attempts to get through to boke. You really put yourself out there, in a way most people wouldn't have been willing to. This board is already more tolerant than most, & if anything you exemplified that. You have nothing to be sorry for.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Please go way down to the bottom and respond to the last subthread. -- Liq, 10:48:03 02/18/02 Mon
Darby, I am not unsympathetic to what you are saying. I personally was welcomed with open arms once I had the courage to begin posting and have never seen anyone openly shunned unless their initial posts were obvious troll attacks and even then, the conversation was usually turned around to honest discussion. I believe VampRiley gave it an honest try with no results. (Good for you VR!)
My issue with Boke was his spamming of the board which is never tolerated anywhere. Had he chosen any other board, he would have never been given the opportunity he was given to express himself as he was here. To my knowledge, and I have been around awhile now, this was the first banning I have ever seen.
A particularily nasty troll event from last summer (which now has the dubious honor of being an adjective for us) was allowed by Masq to continue to it's bloody end because it became an awesome discussion of responsibility and adulthood. And you know what? The initial trolls who started the whole mess lost interest about 1/4 the way through it.
I was amused with Boke for about 10 minutes of reading until I realized there was no point. There was only a soapbox and I don't have much time to read every single post on the board as it is.
My bottom line is to continue the way we always have which is to say that every single person who chooses to join us has an equal opportunity in joining our community and becoming a part of it. I know that us "old-timers" understand and appreciate the tolerance and fairness from our board moderator, Masq. It only takes a few visits to some of the other boards to realize why we are so very lucky in that respect.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Suggestion for Boke -- change, 11:22:03 02/18/02 Mon
I don't have time to read all of the messages on this board, and I seem to have, somehow, missed most of yours. However, it appears you were trying to change this discussion board into something that the other posters didn't want, and that pissed off a lot of people. You should be able to understand why. How would you feel if you found out someone had hacked into your website and changed it? Masquerade and the other posters have spent a lot of time building up this web site and contributing to the discussion board and they naturally feel protective of it.
I suggest that instead of trying to change something that someone else has built, you should try creating something new yourself. Why not create your own BtVS forum on your website, or create a new forum at www.voy.com. The last time I checked, anyone could create a new forum at www.voy.com for free.
Another suggestion is that you should try reading some of your own posts. It seems to be the general consensus here that you post in an annoying style. When one person says that you are annoying, he's annoying. When many people say you are annoying, it's time to take a look at what you're writing. Remember, you can write anything you want, but no one has to read it.
I'm sorry to post this message after you have been banned and cannot respond, but as I said, I don't read every thread on this site and didn't I find out about this debate until after the fact. I do not mean to flame you, just to offer some constructive suggestions.
Peace.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> (Boke is also blocked from reading this site, but your message will be forwarded.) -- proxybot, 12:48:48 02/18/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Clarification - it's not there anymore, but... -- Darby, 13:15:17 02/18/02 Mon
...it's the first thread in the archives.
Basically, after much hoo-haw (and if you haven't seen it, it's...well, interesting in the way that an accident scene is interesting), Masq decided to re-ban Boke after he found a way around the initial ban. Certainly Masq's prerogative, but I had offered a snippet of dissent. Here's the cut-and-paste version:
Okay, maybe I'm naive, but I thought that Boke had actually kinda sorta opened up a dialogue here, and deserved a chance beyond this thread (which was about him, after all, so should we blame him for filling it up?) to show a willingness to come at least to the fringes of what we all seem to agree on as civility here. And, you've got to admit, in this thread the civility frayed much more on this side than on Boke's.
I am new, and very naive about this whole troll experience (& not enjoying this new paranoia in regards to new posters), but, again, I feel compelled to say it: please allow for a learning curve. Maybe it's a dumb thing to expect it, but isn't this thread progress?
Just to be clear, I may be just as annoyed with Boke as many of you, and I don't know that he'd ever put up much that I'd understand, much less respond to. I just feel that this latest reaction is confirming his impressions.
Well, folks? Thumbs up or thumbs down?
By the time I've put up this addendum, it's starting to look like I'm in the minority here. That's fine, the people who have voted have made really good points, and I'm not all that clear exactly where I stand anymore. I just didn't think that we had beaten the subject enough with our metaphoric clubs yet. Hard to believe, isn't it?
And I'd still be interested to know where our other posters come down on the subject, so when you get to work on Tuesday...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Another suggestion for Boke -- vampire hunter D, 13:35:15 02/18/02 Mon
bend over to make my foot's entry into your ass easier
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> *chortling* -- VampRiley, 13:51:13 02/18/02 Mon
How's this for being conscise, Boke? (I know you'll never read it. But so what?)
VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> *lol* vhD, you certainly have a way with words! (I was thinkin' it ,too) -- Deeva, 15:29:55 02/18/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> He'd have to remove his head first -- Sheri, 17:00:22 02/18/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Thank you, thank you, vhD!! -- Rob, 18:46:16 02/18/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Suffice to say.... -- mundusmundi, 15:06:40 02/18/02 Mon
the options were few. Either he got banned or, based on what more or less amounted to an emergency meeting called by d'Herblay on Sunday morning, the dogs of war were about to be unleashed on the poor bastard. My response was more pacifistic, but admittedly now I'm glad he's gone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Arf! -- Lapdog of War, 16:19:04 02/18/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Wondering what the alternative could have been -- Liq, 16:26:42 02/18/02 Mon
It was my understanding from reading the thread that several attempts were made to draw Boke into an actual discussion regarding his points, however he continued to "soapbox" the issue. Other boards have a minimum time limit allowed between posts which may have helped, but I don't know that Voy supports those restraints.
Don't be certain that Boke cannot continue to read or respond at this point. IP numbers are not difficult to come by. If he is truly interested in joining the community with all of it's diverse opinions, I sure that he will and maybe will be more apt to share his views -- "share" being the key word here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Oh, I'd be astonished if he can't. -- mm, 16:48:35 02/18/02 Mon
The guy did give me a chuckle or two, before the tedium set in, but nothing beats the bellylaugh I just got reading vhD.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> sure he hasn't already? see quote below--sounds like his supposed point -- anom, 20:45:02 02/18/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> (David E. Kelley) "My favorite episodes are those that force the audience to confront their values." -- coda-bot, 17:23:07 02/18/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Please go way down to the bottom and respond to the last subthread. -- Caroline, 21:16:51 02/18/02 Mon
Thanks for this post - have been away and missed the excitement. So, after reviewing the whole 'Boke/monkeypants etc' affair in the archives, I find myself supporting Masquerade's actions. Posters tried to reach out and were stone-walled by someone expounding rather than discussing. Really defeats the purpose of a discussion board. And as I read through the posts, I felt that Boke was actually engaged in a hostile act, that he was projecting his anger onto other participants while he took the pseudo-moral high ground when, in fact, the hostility was his in terms of how he provoked the situation.
I'm a newbie - lurking since last October and started posting replies this month, just responding to things I found interesting and getting to know some of the characters. It's the first Buffy site I've found where people seem to share my interests - be it psychology, history, mythology, philosophy, the use of metaphor in art etc and I'm grateful to find that 'cos now I feel less like a spaz in terms of how I view Buffy. (If only I had a dime for every time I heard "How can you watch a show called Buffy the Vampire Slayer?"). I appreciate how this board is managed and I've been blown away by the level of insight and the quality of analysis here. So thanks to Masquerade for creating this and ruling with benevolence.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Good Riddance! -- Eric, 23:11:24 02/18/02 Mon
Boke was an artsy fartsy bore who indulged his pretensions by poking at what he considered the board's pretensions. Which would've been OK if he'd actually found some to mock. He misinterpeted the show, his poetry sucked, and it seemed it was all for his own self indulgence. Jeez, just buy yourself a frickin' mirror! I pointed out as much and after some tit for tat, resolved to ignore him. At this point all would have been well. He's not the only poster I disagree with or think is dumb. (Conversly, most others I envy for their great big brains and/or incredible coolness factor.) But his penchant for continuous posting and rhetorical question answering was out of control and would've only gotten worse. THAT couldn't be ignored. Endless threads of multicolored self aggrandizement - bleh!
(Struggling not to post on the Buffy and Race thread below...must...keep...foot from mouth...)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> J'Accuse! A viperous destroyer of civility rises to spray more venom. -- The Prophet (shimmering in the light of Heavenly Truth), 23:48:59 02/18/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Help! Help! I'm being repressed! -- Malandanza, 18:54:40 02/19/02 Tue
(Bloody Peasant!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Brief personal response to Darby -- via proxy, 23:26:03 02/18/02 Mon
Darby: (if you are not Darby, please disregard this "private" postcard, it has no public/rhetorical purpose)
The response of the community to my "hypertextual case" in my defense
was understandable, given that few, if any, have ever taken a course
in "hyperspacial rhetoric." TRANSLATION: We still learn primarily
to write linear essays in school, not how to "orchestrate an argument
broken into a postmodern collage of links/chunks.) yada yada yada [smile]
BUT THE REASON FOR THIS NOTE:
Whatever my virtues and failings, guilt or innocence,
it seems that you -- alone -- presume that someone who is "on trial"
should have the opportunity to "make a case in his/her defense."
(which, when explaining an alternative logic to the statu quo,
understandably requires some of what might be called
"soap-boxing" -- but a trial includes some direct
"making of the case" in narrative form. e.g., opening statement, summation ... )
IN ANY CASE (BOTTOM LINE):
I do not presume that makes us allies in any way. I pass along this note
simply to salute you as a stranger with a perceptive sense of fairness
in process.
JBT
(in exile)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I'm not sure that's fair... -- Darby, 06:35:20 02/19/02 Tue
The feeling I get from these responses is that, in carrying out your own defense, you merely helped to prosecute (and I do not mean "persecute") yourself in their eyes. Don't they each have a right to decide? I didn't myself think that you made a great case - my point was that I really thought that you were trying, and under those circumstances didn't deserve an immediate expulsion.
Bubbling under the surface of that, I didn't think that a banning would be practicable anyway and I figured that the arc of the future would follow one of these courses:
1) You'd be banned and go away.
2) You'd be banned and make it your personal mission to continue to irritate those you see as oppressors, now feeling more justified to do it.
3) You wouldn't be banned, but continue your previous pattern, which would quickly turn masturbatory as everyone ignored you. But it would have a negative effect on the board, due to board space and readers' time restrictions.
4) You wouldn't be banned, and might come to become an actual participant here. Your point of view would certainly stand out, once you settled into a style that actually lent itself to discussion (it really doesn't make any sense for a postmodern discussion board to not allow discussion!).
So, as it's been all along, the ball's on you side of the net; you can return it playably, keep the rally going, or paint it blue, pump some more air into it, and hit it over the fence behind you. The decisions are, really have always been, yours. But decisions also speak volumes about the person making them, and if your think that by being obscure we are not learning about you, you'd probably be mistaken.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Stylistic freedom, the Anti-HamHanded Party Manefesto. . . and the ball (version 1) -- via proxy, 12:14:20 02/19/02 Tue
BOKE
(smiling benevolently,
as is usually the case)
As I said, Darby . . . I was merely saluting
your fairness on a procedural point. The
weight of your arguments clearly indicate
that you are no more approving of my actions
than anyone.
(glancing through some
computer printouts)
Looking back over my participation here . . .
(scanning the gallery
without judgement)
. . . or as many would categorize it -- my "grandstanding,"
"showing-off," "ego-tripping," "monologuing," et cetera.
(looking back to
Darby)
I, of course, have a different perspective.
(a beat)
and, perhaps more directly to my point -- a
different style of online rhetoric, that has
evolved from my experience. . . and from the
evolving theories of communication in a networked,
"postmodern" age.
(parenthetically)
Let's leave the postmodern bailiwick aside,
but rest assured I do not throw it around to be trendy
or intellectual. . . To me it has very precise implications,
although it can certainly be a "silly fog domain."
(smiles, moving on)
But to respond as directly as I can to what seems to
be your major thrust . . . as well as many others here.
(to all)
I have no intention -- now, or ever -- to constrain
my form of communication to what "everybody"
has come to assume is the way to carry on
a conversation on the Internet.
(a beat)
Nor -- although many will violently disagree -- do I
imply that everyone must follow my lead or face an
endless barrage of mocking attack.
(firmly)
What I do intend, however . . . and it is one of my
core values . . . is that whenever I encounter . . .
(pausing with
a different smile)
. . . a contradiction between implied ideals
-- in this vicinity, those of philosophy --
and the natural tendency of social practice
to fall into patterns . . . contrary to the
implied ideals . . . To quote a wiseTVperson
"yada yada yada."
(deleting his smile
but not his compassion,
could it be "love" for all?)
Even a couple of years ago, I thought writing "arguments"
out at this length on the Internet made sense.
(pause)
But "bloody hell" . . . "Bugger this!."
ALTERNATIVE VERSION TO FOLLOW
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Stylistic freedom, the Anti-hamHandedParty Manefesto...& the ball painted blue (i.e.,version 2) -- via proxy, 12:20:47 02/19/02 Tue
forensicpoetry's post of 2/1/02
Saving The Buffyverse with Buffy-Verse
[rhetorical verse in Shakespearean sonnet form]
What Do We Hold Sacred?
AS HAS BEEN WISELY SAID: we are not "fans."
Our "group identity" does not require
a thoughtless positive that squelches pans.
We do not "worship" that which is our sire.
Where Buffy's beauty shines, we praise its light;
but where a bulb has failed, we swap it out.
It's not for Buffy's honor that we fight
with pointy language -- yet we are devout . . .
. . . to what the Vampire Slayer has aspired.
And when Joss Whedon's team forsakes their vows
and loses their clear vision -- becomes mired
in "lesser quality" -- we won't be cows.
A fealty to the highest quality:
The Buffyverse depends on you and me. [smile]
Boke (www.boke.com)
ADDENDUM: The site listed above is neither commercial nor "sticky."
There is nothing to do there but get an impression of who I am and
what's on my mind "in the big picture." (Only for the very curious.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Why don't you just leave and never come back, Boke. -- VampRiley, 12:41:05 02/19/02 Tue
You have already been banned twice. We get that you "think" that the show is going down and that you "think" you have to right wrongs that you see. But now you are being very rude. I tried giving you a chance but you wasted it. Masq has said that she has banned you. But what do you do? You find another proxy server (Maybe from another computer or not. I don't know and at this point don't really care.) Your being very disrespectful to Masq and everyone else, especially Masq. If it wasn't for her, there wouldn't be a place here for you to annoy others. This is her board, her rules. You don't like it, then leave us alone. And the only reason I have for responding to this is that so I can tell you, flat out, to stop. Many wish to ignore you. I have no problem with that. I'm used to doing the things that other members of your "family" don't want to do. But I'm not responding to keep inviting you back. If you ever find a way back onto this board, don't ever expect me to respond to you. Why don't you go to one of those other boards and spout your rhetoric there and don't come knocking on our door again.
To put it bluntly, I don't like you. You don't like it, sue me.
Bored now,
VampRiley
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Loving one's enemy takes practice. Consider this like Amy-Rat's exercise wheel. -- prophet-bot, 13:20:46 02/19/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> VampRiley: he isn't listening, and never was. Don't feed the trolls. -- Aegis, 13:59:54 02/19/02 Tue
Let him play by himself. We've got plenty of better things here to respond to. ;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Exactly. -- VampRiley, 14:02:37 02/19/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> "I think you're missing the essence of the whole poop-head principle..." -- Willow-bot, 15:19:29 02/19/02 Tue
. . . If you keep not listening with your mouths open,
this stupid thread will eat up the board. AGAIN!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Brief aside regarding 3rd person vs 1st person posting -- via proxy, 12:33:30 02/19/02 Tue
HERETICAL QUESTION RE 1st vs 3rd Person "Conversation" on the Internet
As fitting my style . . . I leave this question to your imagination.
JBT (www.boke.com)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Let's try something Jim... -- Liq, 16:38:41 02/19/02 Tue
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here seeing that you appear to want to be a part of this board in some fashion.
Try rephrasing this last post into an actual question and see what happens.
Go ahead, post the question and then sit back a bit and give people a chance to respond. And then you respond. Let's see some back 'n forth action. Who knows, we may all appreciate the results. Maybe not. But we won't know until we try.
Liq
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Please go way down to the bottom and respond to the last subthread. -- Marie, 02:25:45 02/19/02 Tue
The way I look at it is, this board is Masq's "home", and we are her guests. We have a responsibility to have some manners and not insult the other guests.
I don't believe in arbitrary banning, but when one of the guests persists in unacceptable behaviour, I do believe that Masq has the right to do the un-invite spell, so to speak.
As far as Boke is concerned, I don't mind being annoyed by someone, but I do hate to be bored.
Marie
p.s. All might be forgiven someone, however, if she has a birthday and imbibes somewhat too freely!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> uh...so did I miss all the fun with the Boke bloke? :-( -- Nevermore, 09:01:19 02/19/02 Tue
It's so typical of me to go away for a short while, do a bit of coursework, gardening,spring cleaning, visiting family etc, and completely miss all the controversy (big sigh) So is the offender completely banned now?
O well, there has to be a resident dozy person on this board - have to get a good cross-section of society ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> It's in one of the recent archieve pages. It'll be easy to find. -- VampRiley, 10:44:47 02/19/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Please go way down to the bottom and respond to the last subthread. -- Sophist, 09:23:54 02/19/02 Tue
This is another thread I missed from being away for the weekend. Jeez, I'm gone 2 days and the Hellmouth opens!
I've gone back and forth on this issue. My general view is that the Board is a haven for free and open discussion. If I find a poster whose only point is nihilism, I can simply avoid those posts. This is a little harder with the constant name changes, but still, to me, just part of the cost of free discussion.
It is true that the sole object of many of these posts is disruption. While that's frustrating, I learn even from that. I learned a great deal from the thread on race, painful as it was to those living through it. It was worth the cost to me, but of course the cost to me wasn't anywhere near what it was to others. Easy for me to say, I suppose.
This is a meandering way of saying that I vote to ignore the trolls most of the time. The only exception I would make is for those whose spamming tactics are so disruptive that they prevent the rest of us from conversing at all. I think that has been Masq's de facto policy and that she has followed it responsibly.
Darby, your response just above was very well put.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> As we go forth, let us remember that Joss's pa wrote Captain Kangeroo & grandpa wrote for TV,too -- commencement-bot (capping what seems like 4 years of tedium), 15:39:39 02/19/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Boke's inane ramblings are nothing more than exercises in mental masturbation. -- Rob, 19:10:42 02/19/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Episode trailers (bitty spoilers for Dead Things?) -- Oyceter, 11:55:11 02/18/02 Mon
Oiyyo all,
First-time delurker here, bit nervous at that, but I love this board. I've been completely addicted ever since I found it (shortly after I discovered the joys of BtVS and A:tS, which was really way too recently).
Anyway... I was just a bit curious as to the significance of the episode trailer things that are on before the theme song, or, more specifically, the "Previously, on Buffy the Vampire Slayer..." portion. It seemed, especially with the Gift and with Dead Things, that ME or whoever picks them (episode director?) really seems to give them some consideration. Mostly, we seem to be stuck with the normal the Trio decides to become supervillains and plague Buffy type exposition, but sometimes, especially in "special" episodes, they seem to pick them to make a point in the episode.
With the Gift, I suppose it's fairly obvious what they were trying to do, summing up the entire five seasons and getting faster and faster as time went on. It seemed a bit like how your life seems to go by faster every year b/c of each year, when compared to accumulated experience, feels like a much shorter little bit of time. With Dead Things, I felt as though whoever picked them really did to emphasize the many references Dead Things was making to other episodes (as discussed here elsewhere.... somewhere... archives?). For example, the sudden throwing in of Buffy telling Spike in Wrecked that she was disgusted with herself made the Katrina/Warren/Buffy/Spike parallel much easier to discern. I also don't remember seeing that little episode snippet in another of these trailer things, although I could be very wrong. I guess throwing bits of Faith in would be too obvious ^_~. Anyway, I'm not really going anywhere with this, apologies to all for the rambling, but I just thought that this was a really nifty little storytelling/point-making technique that I haven't really seen elsewhere.
ttfn, Oyceter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Episode trailers (bitty spoilers for Dead Things?) -- Darby, 12:47:11 02/18/02 Mon
As happens with other multiple plot-thread shows, the "previously" segment is also a way of finding out which ongoing plots will be significantly addressed in the upcoming episode. With Buffy, there's a bit of anxiety in the space of time before they start - will they go this way or that way? Will I go another week without finding this out? Can't we just run all of the remaining episodes now???
Still, much more useful than showing a "preview" of a show you're about to watch! Now those are annoying!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Episode trailers (bitty spoilers for Dead Things?) -- Cactus Watcher, 13:08:53 02/18/02 Mon
Buffy isn't the first show to give a few vital details in the form of 'previously on's.' It was common in the days of movie serials (Perils of Pauline, Buck Rodgers, Flash Gordon etc.)in the 1930's and early 1940's when it was expected that much of the audience wasn't going to make it to the theatre for every weekly installment.
Yes, the idea is to give enough background that a person who is familar with the show won't be lost, if they have missed several episodes. And yes, that was Buffy's life flashing before our eyes at the beginning of the Gift. Another big hint she was going to die at the end of the ep. ;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Welcome. -- mundusmundi, 15:45:07 02/18/02 Mon
I'm glad you mentioned the Previouslys. I've always enjoyed them too, especially the hilariously brief one for "The Zeppo," which simply had Quentin Travers telling Giles, "You're fired."
The new show I'm presently hooked on, Smallville, has been accused on occasion of ripping off Buffy too much. And how! If anything, I think it needs to rip it off more and include a "Previously" prologue, the characters and storylines keep getting more fun and interesting, and springing off events that came before.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> episode trailers: an art form in itself -- anom, 23:07:01 02/18/02 Mon
There was an article in the NY Times arts section (a few months ago, I think) on the art of the "Previously on..." sequence. If I remember right, it started (on TV, anyway) with Hill Street Blues. The article may still be available on the Times website. You have to register, but it's free.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Days of Whine and *Just Suppose...(s)* - Thoughts on *Older and Far Away* -- OnM, 22:01:00 02/17/02 Sun
It's been an entire week now-- OK, five days, ya nitpickers. It's late Sunday evening, and I'm sitting here, trying to collect some cogent ideas to present for this week's Buffy ep, Older and Far Away, and I'm having difficulty because, frankly, I'm still not complelely certain what I think, other than that I truly love the evocative nature of the episode title. No question, BtVS gives great title.
On the one hand, I haven't much changed my basic evaluation that this was the weakest ep of the season so far, but on the other hand I'm also wondering why I think that, when there has been substantial evidence presented by numerous other posters and commentators that the 'sode is just as full of subtlety and hidden detail as ever. For example, jenoff's typically excellent review pointed out something that I was totally unaware of, that the show made a reference to a 1962 Spanish film by director Luis Bunuel titled 'The Exterminating Angel'. The film is about (among other things, obviously) a group of people who attend a dinner party and find that they are unable to leave. He also mentioned the reference to the 'little boy and the cornfield' story, which I did get, although I admit to being unaware of the original source, a 1953 SF short story by writer Jerome Bixby, called 'It's a Good Life'.
Anyone who has read either my Season 6 episode reviews to date or any of my general discussion commentary posted on the board already knows that I am a big fan of the current season. The only 'weak' episodes that I have noticed so far this year are Gone, Doublemeat Palace, and the one now under contemplation, Older. Even so, using the term 'weak' is becoming even more debatable in my mind as time passes and keeps passing. In the case of Gone and DP, my estimation of their overall worth and level of creativity increased substantially upon additional viewings, and further yet upon reading the ideas gleaned by others. On a 0-10 scale (linear, not a curve, 0 = absolute dreck, 10 = absolute brilliance) Gone has moved from an initial '6' to maybe a '7'. DP has changed even more, from a '5.5' to a good solid '7.5'. What will I think in a few weeks or months when I see Older and Far Away again, and suddenly mentally slap myself and think, you doofus... you're so dense, why didn't you get it before?
The thought of this happening really doesn't concern me; very fortunately I am not an individual so consumed by rampant ego that I go through loops to avoid changing a previously held opinion. In fact, I appreciate being enlightened if it involves a greater appreciation of a work from artists whom I already hold in high regard. My only concern is fairness, that what I write here does not disparage the efforts of those who are merely misunderstood, not mistaken in their creative direction-- thus, my hesitation.
One seed of enlightenment that has just germinated in the last few days is my realization that the true appreciation of art may not be possible without a community. Certainly, each and every one of us enters into an individual relationship with the creative work of other persons. When I watch an episode of Buffy, I bring all of my past experiences and future expectations into the interaction. From the result of that meeting, I can derive conclusions, but are they the globally correct ones? The name Heisenberg popped up on the board last week, a famous name associated (for better or for worse) with one 'famous' principle, which as it turns out is usually misunderstood by the general public anyway.
Heisenberg's 'Uncertainty Principle' is usually interpeted to mean that one cannot divorce the means of observation or measurement from the thing being observed or measured. As someone who started out at a tender age with a boundless curiosity for All Things Electrical, I became aware of this constraint at a time only slightly less tender. I was the happy new owner of my very first volt-ohmmeter, an essential tool for any electronics hobbyist, and as I pored throught the instruction booklet I came upon the cautionary note that 'on the lower-voltage scales, the loading effects of the meter can adversely affect the accuracy of the readings obtained', or words to that effect. (Hey, I was like 7-8 years old, you expect me to remember the exact details 40+ years later??)
For the benefit of the electronically challenged (i.e., all of you 'normal' people), what this means is that the meter imposes a small but detectable load on the circuit under test. The lower the voltage being measured, the greater the effect of the meter's load, and so the greater the measured error. Better meters will impose a lesser loading effect, often to the point where it becomes negligible, but some small error is always there.
Now, Heisenberg was talking about sub-atomic particles, specifically electrons, and what his principle points out is that we (apparently) cannot simultaneously determine the exact spacetime position of any given electron and also know it's exact speed at that instant. The physics/mathematics used to devise this theorem are undoubtably complex and most assuredly beyond the brainpower of this humble amateur scientist, but I do get the gist of it. The Heisenberg theorem doesn't actually get into the macrocosmic application of 'observations influencing evaluations', but the public sensibility has since evolved it into that expanded level of meaning.
A few years ago, the much more interesting Clinton, Hillary, made the public statement that 'it takes an entire village to raise a single child', or words to that effect. (Hey, I was like 40-some years old, you expect me to remember the exact details 4 or 5 years later??) I was always puzzled at the often vituperous responses this remark generated by many of the public pundits. I mean, isn't it obvious that every child is the responsibility of human society as a whole, and not just the immediate parents and family?
So, it has occurred to me that art is the child of immediate parents and family, and also of the greater society at large. What has changed in the last decade is that society, via the internet, has increased it's level of interaction with art, and the immediacy of that interaction makes possible a 'gestalt' consensus heretofore impossible. So, as a modern 'critic' of the art, do I consider that consensus in my evaluation, or do I remin aloof from it and contain my evaluation to my own, and original thoughts?
I really don't know, but my instinct is to say that just as I believe in a balanced fusion of biological predetermination ('genetics') with environmental influences ('experience') as to determining explanations for human behavior, I believe that such a confluence is essential for the appreciation of the 'true nature' of artistic endeavors. In more succinct terms, I think, therefore you interact, and vise-versa.
Returning to the ep under review (oh, yeah, that!), I'm gonna give it a bump from '6' to '7' for now. I watched Older for the third time this afternoon, and found that I didn't find the flow of the story as clunky as it seemed on the first two viewings. I do think that Vampire Hunter D was correct in that the script and/or actual filming got trimmed substantially for time needs, i.e. those (obsenities deleted) commercials. This is one thing that is really starting to irritate me, largely because I see no real solution to the problem (and that I clone-commented on in my CMotW column last Friday night). What are the show's producers supposed to do with a really brilliant script that films out at 48 minutes? How do you deal with a gallery that requires, without exception, that all paintings be presented in frames exactly 42" high x 60" wide? Go to another gallery? Where? What good is any art if you can't see it?
So, I'll give a 'pass' on Buffy's rather quickly made connection as to the guidance counselor/vengeance demon angle, and point out in support of the writer that our heroine does have a long history of similarly sudden epiphanies, whether the gift for obtaining same be Slayer- or human-induced.
There were a number of things I did enjoy, among them that the Willow magic-addiction recovery plot line remains consistant, as did Willow to her determination to stay on the 'sober' side. I appreciated Tara's considerate response to Willow when Willow revealed the reasons for keeping the hidden 'stash'-- I was half or more expecting her to dog Willow for it, but she was understanding and forgiving. Tara also won big points from me for the clever way she handled the Spike/Buffy interactions, and the delicious little glint in her eye when she was jibing Spike about his 'cramp'. It is also very plain now that Buffy has truly bonded as a friend with Tara, when previously it was more like 'I support Tara because she's Willow's friend'. I suspect that Tara will become a sort of stand-in for Buffy's mother in her future, which can only be a good thing.
Speaking of mother figures, it was only on the third viewing that I suddenly became aware of the voicing technique utilized during the confrontation between Dawn and Buffy during the latter part of the show. There was the scene where Dawn finally realizes that she is going too far, and is pushing Buffy away instead of trying to draw her in. As Buffy turns to face Dawn, the entire phrasing and speech rhythms she uses are perfectly like Joyce's during the episode where Buffy's Slayer identity is finally revealed to her mother. I have to admit, this gave me a little chill, in a good way, because it was another confirmation that the show hasn't lost it's touch. I mean, good lord, how can Sarah do that? Duplicate the body language and speech patterns of another character played by another actress from a show several years ago?? Amazing.
I appreciated that Buffy didn't repeat her mother's mistake, although I'm not sure Dawn understands the resonance just yet. One of the unbreakable rules of any human interaction is to avoid making ultimatums that you have no real intention of enforcing. Joyce instantly realized after Buffy walked out the door that Buffy might indeed never come back, and so that it was a serious error to present a 'my way or the highway' scenario to a child that she loved. Buffy understands that Dawn is like herself in many more ways than just 'sharing the same blood', and is effecting a more reasoned response to Dawn's problems as a result. Again, like her bonding with Tara as a mother-figure, this is a very positive developement for Buffy. Buffy's interactions with Spike seem to be slightly more under control as well, which follows the ongoing S6 theme of a having a character realize they can't deal with their more serious problems alone, that they need to unburden to some trustworthy individual and find acceptance, not condemnation. (The lifting of the secrecy of the burden releases much of the weight in an of itself).
Anya keeps on become more and more human with every passing month. Since the events of The Gift she has pushed her previous fears of personal mortality into the background, but in they have resurfaced with a vengeance (pun intended). I am still not certain of the reason for the panic attack she exhibited while under attack by the sword-demon, but I am wondering if it isn't due to some subconscious or paranormal link established between her and Halfrek and the wish-spell. It has been the subject for substantial debate among BtVS fans whether or not Anya needs to repent of her days spent as a vengeance (excuse me, 'justice' demon), and perhaps this incident will initiate the resolution of, or at least some active consideration on her part as to this matter. Anya has hardly been the most introspective of the Scoobies, but she has evolved and this could be another step in that evolution. It's one thing to talk of 'justice', it's quite another to get innocently caught in the cross-fire of that action. Experience is a wonderful teacher, is it not? Anya views her past vengeance role as simplistically as her current capitalist- tool one. Halfrek has just complicated her world-view on vengeance in the same way Dawn has complicated her view of the marketplace. It is one thing to espouse a view from an 'ivory tower', another to have persons you consider friends 'betray' you. Punitive damages? But who exactly is being punished? Anya has dealt with the concept of forgiveness as relates to Xander, a lover, but forgiving a friend for this difficult a trespass is a new experience. Anya typically takes the 'practical' course of action, as evidenced in her desire for Willow to do a spell to free the gang from the house, even though this would not be good for Willow. Forgiveness is seldom 'practical', it calls for placing one's own desires as secondary to a sense of spiritual graciousness.
A few minor details, then I'm outta here for another week (or two). I appreciated the Trekian 'red-shirt' reference on Buffy's fix-up boyfriend. I liked that recently, Buffy was seen wearing a shirt with a heart around a star on the front, and in Older Dawn was wearing a little star on a chain around her neck. I liked that the necklace Tara was wearing was-- I don't know how to express this exactly, it's just the impression I was left with-- was 'stronger' than the very simple reflection of it's overall styling that Willow was wearing. Pre-spellcasters-anonymous, Willow unquestionably saw herself as the dominant character in the W/T relationship (though she would have denied it), now she seems to very willingly allow Tara to take on that role, without resentment. I see this as yet another sign that these two will get back together eventually.
What is the deal with the neckwear, anyway? Almost everybody in the show was wearing something around their neck, I doubt it was an accident. I have to say that somehow, in every case, the style matched the person wearing it. Curious.
Lastly, as to the subject of Dawn and her child/ish/like behavior patterns, all I can say is that Malandanza evaluated them perfectly in his post earlier this week, so if you haven't already, go check that out and then mentally note me saying 'yup, uh-huh'. Now, who says I can't do a short ep review? And it's not even after midnight on the West Coast yet!
Hah!
;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Thanks! Really enjoyed reading this. -- Rahael, 01:48:24 02/18/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: *Days of Whine and *Just Suppose...(s)* - Thoughts on *Older and Far Away* -- yuri, 02:31:15 02/18/02 Mon
"very fortunately I am not an individual so consumed by rampant ego that I go through loops to avoid changing a previously held opinion. In fact, I appreciate being enlightened if it involves a greater appreciation of a work from artists whom I already hold in high regard." Here's to allowing people to change their opinions without criticism - something I face everyday that seems ridiculous to me. You can't always withhold having convictions about something until you know everything there is to know about it. When do you ever know everything there is to know? It'd be like living in limbo. By all means have convictions, but stay open. Anyway, well said, b/c I think there's an unspoken pressure to always "stick to your guns" -- even here.
Then you lost me for a few paragraphs. (I tried really really hard to figure out what you meant by "meter" and "load," but to no avail. I don't think it hindered my understanding of your post much, though)
(And I'm off to look up vituperous.)
So thank you, I quite enjoyed it. Even more because of your uncertainty about OaFA.
I say one of us here wins the lottery and buys our own TV station and rejects capitalism, only showing a few local small business commercials every few hours to break even, which would then allow BtVS to be two hours long every week! Kay?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: *Days of Whine and *Just Suppose...(s)* - Thoughts on *Older and Far Away* -- Cactus Watcher, 02:43:51 02/18/02 Mon
I actual liked the episode until the ending. Then the whole thing seemed fairly flat. I only saw it a few hours ago, but it seems that ME has finally found something it can't pull off. Just as in Gone, camera work couldn't cover up the fact that the actors weren't doing anything. It was impossible to believe most of the characters felt any stress when Anya was the only one who reacted more to being trapped, than to Dawn's temper tantrum. Neither the actors nor the directors are capable of making this work. Someone mentioned the old Twilight Zone episode with Billy Mumy. The folks at ME could stand to study the first Twilight Zone series to see how a fairly static story can often be made interesting. And even TZ wasn't always successful at it.
Anya is very much the pivotal character of the episode, not Dawn nor Buffy nor Willow. Clearly, Anya is going to have to face the fact that she hurt innocent people when she was a demon. That is obviously why she of all people, reacted the worst to being trapped, and why it was important that she rather than Buffy discovered Dawn's cache of ill-gotten booty. Anya has discovered that others can hurt her. But, before she can progress any farther as a human being she must realize she, too, has hurt people and still does hurt them, because she gives no thought to their feelings. If she doesn't figure it out, her marriage to Xander will surely be short and bitter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: *Days of Whine and *Just Suppose...(s)* - Thoughts on *Older and Far Away* -- neaux, 06:17:48 02/18/02 Mon
great post... but i dont know if you read my little blurb I wrote about the jewelry/necklaces in this past episode..
its somewhere buried in the forums..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> OK, thanks-- I'll look it up this evening when I get a chance! -- OnM, 07:39:41 02/18/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Very nice posting! -- Robert, 13:53:45 02/18/02 Mon
I enjoy nearly every episode of BtVS better on a subsequent viewing. While I admit that "Older and Far Away" has been my least favorite of the sixth season, I was dismayed by the vitriolic postings. My disfavor is more the result of discomfort than from any writing or presentation problems. This episode just pushes to many of my fear buttons.
I do understand those of you who don't find Dawn's behavior to be believable. If I hadn't raised my step daughter, I wouldn't have believed it either. Since I did, I now find Dawn to be entirely believable -- maybe even too reserved.
>> "One seed of enlightenment that has just germinated in the last few days is my realization that the true appreciation of art may not be possible without a community."
If this were not true, then I would not be hanging around this board. It is the community of similar minded people which helps me to understand and appreciate more fully the stories that Mr. Whedon and ME are trying to tell.
>> "Now, Heisenberg was talking about sub-atomic particles, specifically electrons, and what his principle points out is that we (apparently) cannot simultaneously determine the exact spacetime position of any given electron and also know it's exact speed at that instant."
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is derived from calculating the commutator of operators -- in this case the position operator and the momentum operator. The math is not difficult, but the interpretation can be tricky. This is not a description of an engineering difficulty. The uncertainty principle is telling us that we cannot know the position of a particle to perfection, given perfect knowledge of momentum, because the position is not defined perfectly. Rather it is a probability distibution.
I mention this only because I believe your example of the VOM (Volt-Ohm-Milliammeter) to be a better example of observations affecting the measurement. The VOM requires a small amount of power to drive the meter pointer to full deflection (usually around 12 microwatts). It draws this power from the "circuit under test". Consequently, sensitive measurements will be affected. All test equipment will affect the "circuits under test" to some degree.
We all bring our own baggage along, when we view BtVS. I my recent thread, I argued that Buffy deserved more sympathy in her relationship to Spike, whereupon I was pummelled with rebuttals. I spent the next week trying to figure out why I was out of step with the rest of the board. The baggage I carry is the abuse my wife suffered at the hands of her father. He never touched her, but he put his psychology degree to devastating effectiveness.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Very nice posting..to you too Robert! -- Caroline, 20:36:00 02/18/02 Mon
Robert, as the person who was the step-daughter, I heartily agree with your assessment of the realism of Dawn's behaviour. She has been annoying me (as she should all of us, I think) but I have a great deal of compassion for someone under so much pain, and without the coping skills that someone more mature and self-aware would most likely have. And kudos to the writers for remembering just how it was!
I did not see your thread on Buffy and Spike but I'd like to reassure you that I feel the same way. In other threads I have likened the journey that Buffy is taking this year as similar to the kidnapping of Persephone by the god of the underworld and her subsequent, part-time return above ground - a metaphor for facing up to one's dark side and integrating that into the overall character.(Funny how in OMWF she was willing to become Sweet's queen of the underworld.) Repression of one's dark side, or shadow, usually leads to all sorts of depressing, destructive and rather compulsive acts, some of which Buffy appears to be engaging in with Spike. And that's why I have sympathy for her right now - she's on a journey of self-discovery and fighting it like crazy. It's bloody hard to grow up (if we ever actually get there). But, given the proclivity of ME for lots of pain and suffering, I think that Buffy is going to suffer her way to lots more character.
So we can be out of step together.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Very nice posting! -- Rufus, 22:01:31 02/18/02 Mon
We all bring our own baggage along, when we view BtVS. I my recent thread, I argued that Buffy deserved more sympathy in her relationship to Spike, whereupon I was pummelled with rebuttals. I spent the next week trying to figure out why I was out of step with the rest of the board. The baggage I carry is the abuse my wife suffered at the hands of her father. He never touched her, but he put his psychology degree to devastating effectiveness.
I agree with you on more sympathy to Buffy. The show is all about Buffy all about how she slowly becomes a whole person. Her biggest lesson is about learning to live in this world. Her relationship to Spike has certainly caused an uproar, with Spike appearing to be the more sympathetic character. I don't see it that way. I remember that some of his first words to Buffy were about killing her (School Hard), they are never far from my memory as he could at any time decide to carry that early threat out. But I don't feel that killing is the point of the relationship. Spike is able to get to Buffy on a level that no one else has. He may in equal parts annoy, disgust, puzzle, and attract her. Both parties are learning about life from the other. Buffy is supposed to kill Spike, it's her job description, but for some reason Buffy has been able to show mercy. The beating she gave him in Dead Things the reminder that both people are able to devastate the other emotionally and physically. I have sympathy for Spike and hope that he does figure out how to live in this world, but it's Buffy the young girl, only just 21 that has the lions share of my support.
I am a step-mother who hopefully has had a less of a negative impact on her step-children.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Older & Far Away/Empire of the Sun -- La Duquessa, 14:05:17 02/18/02 Mon
The thread on "Empire of the Sun" got buried rather quickly, so forgive me if I bring it up again. But after reading the book over the weekend, and then getting to see the ep last night for the first time (Thank you UPN--Phoenix), I thought there were some important points to be made...and since no one else mentioned them, I figured I'd be brave and delurk a bit, to throw my two cents in.
When the quote "Older and Far Away" was first indentified as belonging to "Empire of the Sun" by J.G. Ballard, everyone seemed to assume that ME was making a parallel between Buffy and Jim, the abandoned young hero of the novel. After reading the book, though, it is clear to me that the parallel should be between Jim and Dawn.
In "Empire of the Sun" a trick of fate separates Jim from his parents on the eve of the Japanese invasion of Shanghai. Jim, who is 11, doesn't really understand what the war is about and, although he is British, in many ways he identifies more with the Japanese than with the Allies. At first Jim tries to live on his own, moving from abandoned house to abandoned house, eating food that has been left behind and trying to find his parents. When he realizes that he can not survive on his own, he tries to surrender to the Japanese only to find that as a child he is of no importance and even they do not want him. Jim continues to harbor an idea that if he can make it to one of the prisoner camps he can finally find his parents, but it's not until he hooks up with a disreputable British sailor that he finally makes it to the camps. (It might be noted too that the only reason that the sailor looks after Jim is that he thinks he can sell the boy to the Chinese, but he can't. The starving skinny boy has no value as even a slave or even food.)
Jim does not, of course, find his parents, nor does he find anyone in the camp to adopt him. The adults are too busy taking care of their own children or themselves to worry about Jim. For four years he runs wild in the camp and while the other adults disapprove of his freedom, they don't care enough to take him in hand. It's important to note that Jim feels comfortable in the camp. Having known the uncertainty of life outside the prison walls, he is more than content to stay inside where the routine, no matter how painful and full of death, is certain and he can be sure of a food ration, no matter how paltry. He has no desire to leave the camp, in fact the camp itself now represents the security that his parents had previously given him. It has become his surrogate parent, as does the camp's doctor, who does look after Jim somewhat but is still caught up in his own problems The doctor sees what Jim's loneliness, but can not truly help him.
When the war is over, the prisoners are marched out of the camp, towards an uncertain fate, and on that march Jim sees the flash from the Nagasaki bomb. At that point the prisoners are abandoned by their guards and Jim makes a short attenpt to get to find his parents. But finding that the world outside is still uncertain and full of death, he goes back to the camp. He is sure that World War III is about to begin and he wants to make sure that there will be room in the camp for both himself and his parents, but of course the war is really over and the camp has been taken over by a crazy British prisoner. It is as dangerous inside the camp as it is outside.
Jim is finally reunited with his parents, but the reunion is not what he had hoped it would be: "Jim had wanted to tell explain to his parents everything he and the doctor had done together, but his mother and father had been through their own war. For all their affection for him, they seemed older and far away. (p. 278)
If you haven't read the book, I do recommend it on its own merits--it's a fascinating view of war from a child's perspective, part game, part ordeal, part matter of fact life. But for BTVS purposes I think the comparision between Dawn and Jim is clear.
Both Jim and Dawn end up trapped, and both are trapped becaue they want to be trapped. Jim by surrendering to the Japanese and asking to go to the camp, Dawn by making her wish.
Jim sees the camp as "familiar and reassuring" (p.145) while the adults see it as prison.
Dawn is happy and pleased to be stuck in the house, while the adults feel trapped.
Jim is constantly ignored or given half hearted attention by the adults around him who are engaged in their own literally life or death struggles. They have no time for him.
Dawn feels ignored and rejected by the adults around her, who are engaged in important activities, as the Scoobies all described when they explained their reasons that they could not go shopping with her--none of the reasons that the Scoobies gave for not being with Dawn were frivolous--Anya had to do the Magick Box's books, Willow had to go to her SA group and Xander had to work on the shift roster. Even Buffy was busy slaying demons...
From last season we saw how Dawn wasn't sure she was real, was afraid she was just energy, that no one would love her or see her because of her mystical origins.
Jim too suffers from feelings of worthlessness."He welcomed the air raids, the noise of the mustangs as they swept over the camp...the death of the pilots and even the liklihood of his own death. Despite everything, he knew he was worth nothing. He twisted his Latin primer, trembling with a secret hunger that the war would so eagerly satisfy." (p. 152)
Both Jim and Dawn go through a war, a time of violent upheavel and loss, where they are mere pawns in a greater game. Jim's war is, of course, World War II where an 11 year old boy matters not a whit in the great catacylsm of world events. Dawn's war is the Glory war, where Dawn is the center of attention, yet still powerless.
What could the parrallel mean to Dawn's future?
Empire of the Sun doesn't end on a high note. Jim is reunited with his parents but the reader gets the sense that they will never be able to communicate. They have gone through too much and the distance is now to great. Jim's hope that all will return to normal is dashed, and the camp still remains, to him, the ultimate dream of secruity. Even after he is reunited with his parents, he returns to the prison camp which has become, to him, a paradise lost.
Throughout the story, Jim constantly believes that he is dead, that death is inevitable, and he welcomes true death. At several different points, Jim actually believes that he might be dead and then is surprised to find he is still alive. He often references the fatalism of the Chinese peasants who understand that death can come at any time. In many ways, Jim ends up book as a ghost.
What is Dawn now that she is not the Key? This has been discussed a great deal in other threads, so I'll not add to that discussion here. I'll just note that perhaps Dawn is like Buffy--perhaps she too is trying to feel alive. Perhaps like Jim she feels she is a ghost.
In Dawn's English class the teacher asks the question:
"if we can come up with things Jim lost during his years in Shanghai, and things he gained.."
But we don't hear the answers to her question.
What did Jim lose? His parents and his security.
What did Jim gain? The knowledge that he is all alone, and nothing can ever be certain again. That true freedom is security and that true security is enclosed. (See final quote below)
What does this mean for Dawn? I don't know, but as one of the clear lessons of Empire of the Sun is that tragedy and horror push people apart rather than bring them together, things don't look too good!
I leave with one last quote from "Empire of the Sun" that I thought really fit with Ep 16...
The war is over and the prisoners are free, yet after a few days of freedom, they return---
"After three years of trying to leave the camp they were now back at its gates, ready to take up their stations for World War III. At long last they were beginning to realize the simple truth that Jim had always known, that inside Lunghua [the camp] they were free." (p. 245)
Perhaps it would have been good for the Scoobies if they'd spent a few more days trapped in the house together???!
Bibliography:
J.G. Ballard. Empire of the Sun. New York, Simon & Schuster, 1984.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Has the connection been confirmed by ME? If so where? -- Dochawk, 14:32:14 02/18/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Maybe not officially confirmed, but... -- La Duquessa, 15:17:48 02/18/02 Mon
"Empire of the Sun" is certainly the book Dawn's teacher referred to, and the words "Older and Far Away" do appear in the book, as well. That, added with Drew Greenberg's teaser about the literary allusion, make me believe that the book is a template for Ep 16, although perhaps not for the rest of season...
I don't remember Drew's exact quote, but he said something along the lines of the fact that the title was a literary allusion, hard to track down, but whoever did would find good insight into the ep.
I can't take credit for tracking down the allusion...but I certainly gained insight into the ep by reading the book. Plus the book was worth reading on its own!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Older & Far Away/Empire of the Sun; Thanks for the excellent summary/post -- Dochawk, 14:37:00 02/18/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I enjoyed your post very much. -- LiteralGirl, 14:48:28 02/18/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Good Analysis - I will rewatch OaFA with more attention - Thanks -- Brian, 15:41:39 02/18/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Very interresting, thanks -- Etrangere, 15:19:59 02/18/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> That was very good. -- Deeva, 15:24:18 02/18/02 Mon
I'd been meaning to reread the book, the details are verry fuzzy on my brain. Though I do remember the movie quite well. Some very good thoughts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Older & Far Away/Empire of the Sun -- Kerri, 17:04:24 02/18/02 Mon
Thanks for the great analysis!!!
"Jim had wanted to tell explain to his parents everything he and the doctor had done together, but his mother and father had been through their own war. For all their affection for him, they seemed older and far away. (p. 278)
Hmmm...Dawn doesn't seem to understand everything Jim does. Dawn doesn't seem to get that Buffy has been through her own war and that she really does have affection for Dawn. As much as people have complained that Buffy is self-centered, right now it really seems to be Dawn who's too wrapped up in herself to reach out to Buffy.
Dawn tells Buffy that she will never understand what its like to be alone. The fact that she thinks that really shows how out of touch Dawn is with her sister. Buffy has felt so alone since she came back, and Dawn feels that she is the only person who is alone.
Buffy really isn't as far away as Dawn thinks, they both just need to try to listen to each other better. While Emperor of the Sun may have ended on a pesimistic note, but OaFA definately didn't-the episode was very hopeful.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Older & Far Away/Empire of the Sun -- Rattletrap, 17:12:16 02/18/02 Mon
Great work Duquessa! I read Empire of the Sun when I was about Dawn's age, and the recent discussions have brought some of it back. I think your assessment of the connection between Dawn and Jim is spot on. Dawn's situation is, in some ways, a bit more complicated because the war continues. Glory was defeated at the end of S5, but the ongoing fight against demons will keep Buffy and the SG in a permanent state of war mobilization--the only time they are ever free is while imprisoned in the house. I am now curious to see if this was merely a one episode metaphor, or if it foreshadows things ahead for the rest of S6 or S7.
Once again, good job.
'trap
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> The village thanks you -- Sophist, 17:55:53 02/18/02 Mon
I was the one who started the thread below, and I really appreciate what you have done. I meant to go buy the book and read it this weekend, but I was away (and missed all the excitement below). Your post motivates me even more. Thank you. And thanks to OnM for putting into words what I had dimly sensed but wouldn't have been able to say without him pointing it out, i.e., that the shared thoughts on this board increase exponentially my enjoyment of all the episodes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> It is moi who thanks you all, for listening! -- La Duquessa, 18:35:13 02/18/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> And likewise from me! -- OnM, 19:47:17 02/18/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Ballard also wrote the book "Crash" -- Rufus, 19:09:43 02/18/02 Mon
Buffy and Spike's sexcapades reminded me of that fact.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
lurker has a theory- Angel's curse -- sl, 20:11:22 02/18/02 Mon
What evidence do we have that angel still has his soul.
1. works on the side of good-
so does spike.
2. he loves someone. Ok- everone has to agree on this- its the "who" that is the question.
so does spike
3. doesn't feed on Humans-
no I'm not going to say the obvious answer-
but- this could be explained by habit or learning theory. When Angel recieved a soul he learned that feeding off human makes him feel bad.- hence this beavior is wrong. Now after 80 years he has had this same thougth over and over again. He has got in the habit of not killing.
plus- he let Darla and Dru kill humans and did not feel the least about it.
my point is that mayby he does not have the curse anymore- hense no soul and no losing soul. Angelous has just been socialized through condtioning.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: lurker has a theory- Angel's curse -- AnonyLurker, 20:42:27 02/18/02 Mon
> my point is that mayby he does not have the curse anymore- hense no soul and no losing soul. Angelous has just been socialized through condtioning.
So you're saying that Angel is still Angelus and doesn't have a soul? Wouldn't that mean that all his efforts to redeem himself are pointless, because he doesn't have a soul anyway?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: lurker has a theory- Angel's curse -- Earl Allison, 02:18:38 02/19/02 Tue
Not sure about this -- we've seen humans do things, or try to do things that seem pretty cruel and soulless, like Weatherby, Smith and Collins planning to kill Buffy-in-Faith with little if any remorse -- yet I'm sure they have souls.
Angelus was a vicious, murderous monster, I don't see him getting civilized through behavior. Besides, when did he lose the soul, then? We know he had it through at least the beginnings of Season One -- what event either took it from him or showed he never had it?
Most of the Angel/Spike links work, although again, until and unless I see Spike get his perfect opportunity WITHOUT the chip or the risk of being caught, I am extremely skeptical :)
Take it and run.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does Spike believe that he could change if he wanted to? -- abt, 02:32:21 02/19/02 Tue
There are three questions involved.
1)Can vampires change?
2)Does Spike even want to change?
We could argue forever about the first two. The third question is the one I'm interested in, and it doesn't require the first two to be answered. What does *Spike* believe about all this?
3)Does Spike believe that he could change if he wanted to, for whatever reason?
In School Hard he claims that demons don't change.
OTOH, look at the flashbacks in FFL. It seems like being VampireWilliam wasn't enough, and he created or made himself into Spike. So maybe Spike believes there is some room for remaking himself, if he wanted to. Also, when he has amnesia he talks about rising above one's lot in life.
Never mind about how much free will we think a vampire has, or how much free will the writers have stated vampires have, how much free will does Spike think he has?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Does Spike believe that he could change if he wanted to? -- change, 04:18:36 02/19/02 Tue
1)Can vampires change?
Apparently not in any real way. Angel is the one and only "good" vampire we have ever met on the show, and he is that way because he has a soul, not because he has reformed himself. All other vampires have been evil. So, the evidence seems to be against Spike. Remember that he loved Drucilla for a century, and still killed without pity or remorse. So being in love with Buffy is not a reason for him to change from evil to good. All evidence in BtVS suggests that Spike would go back to his old ways if the chip ever stopped working.
2)Does Spike even want to change?
No. As soon as Spike thought the chip had stopped working in Smashed, he immediately tried to kill a girl. Some people on this board point out that Spike seemed to have second thoughts about it. Well, those second thoughts only lasted a minute or so and then he went ahead and tried kill her. That was after a year of positive reinforcement from Buffy and the scoobies, and a year of negative reinforcement from the chip. Harmony controlled her urges in Disharmony better than Spike. She held out all night (only one bad moment) when she could have killed Cordy any time she wanted.
3)Does Spike believe that he could change if he wanted to, for whatever reason?
Yes. Loving relationships do not appear to be common between vampires. However, Spike had one with Drucilla that lasted over a hundred years. He also has one (sort of) with Buffy. He tried to protect Dawn as best he could when he felt he owed it to Buffy. So, Spike can do good things if he wants to. However, he is acting against his nature when he does this. The only reason he is helping the scoobies is to please Buffy. He will do evil as long as he thinks Buffy won't find out about it. He would gladly, and without remorse, feed on other people as he did in Crush, and as he tried to do in Smashed. It's not that he can't control his behavior. He just doesn't want to. It is his nature to be evil.
Some posters have argued that Spike has to change in order to satisfy the dramatic needs of the show. The argument is that the writers will not let Spike be a static character because doing so robs them of too many opportunaties for developing the character and for creating dramatic tension with the other characters. My argument is that every vampire on the show, except for Angel who has a soul, is a static character. They are evil, have always been evil, and will always be evil. That's part of the definition of a vampire. So, if the writers make an exception for Spike (who seems to be more evil than most vampires), they will severely weaken the show. I think there are just as many dramatic opportunities with Spike appearing to be reformed, but actually acting as evil's siren and luring Buffy to the dark side. My prediction is that the Buffy/Spike relationship ends with Buffy staking him after realizing that he will always be evil.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I don't just mean evil-to-good change... -- abt, 06:21:33 02/19/02 Tue
Spike tends to keep his deals, and is much more determined in reaching his goals than Harmony (the sheep) ever was about anything.
I also don't think he's had that much positive reinforcement.
Spike seems a little less evil than other vampires in that he keeps his word.
I agree he clearly doesn't see anything wrong with eating people.
But all that is just a matter of degree, and not my point, so I'll stop.
When I say 'change', I don't just mean change from evil to good.
Just because a vampire stays evil doesn't mean they are static. Neither Darla nor Spike seem static to me.
I'm in the UK, so I'm some way behind, but I get a feeling Spike's story is almost about maturity in some ways.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> These times, they are a changin' -- fresne, 09:43:58 02/19/02 Tue
It's a question that I've frequently puzzled over myself.
Really, I always go back to trying to define change. What do we mean when we say that someone can change? Could I change my essential nature? Or could I merely change the outward signs of my behavior as I come to a greater understanding of why I do the things that I do? Are vampires, like people, the sum of their experiences? Where do I stand on the whole Nature vs. Nurture debate?
Brain hurts, restart.
Can Spike change? First, I agree. Let's keep, good, evil, neutral, in the irrelevant column. Ah, a burden lifts.
S2 Spike was loyal to Dru. Kept the letter, if not always the spirit of his word. Was capable of lightning changes in alliances as long as they suited his personal loyalties. S6 Spike is not altogether different.
Spike's really a people before principles sort of person. (i.e. he has lower loyalty to abstract concepts like evil than he does to emotional relationships with other individuals.) Which seems to tell me that he isn't the sort of person/vampire that could love humanity/demonity in the abstract. He loves individuals. Concrete things. In contrast, the Master was muchly into the abstract. The idea of a race of demons rising up. Being part of grand scheme of things. Overall long term concepts. Individuals, like Darla, the Three, the Anointed, could be connected to as part of his overall goals, but not contrary to his goals.
I think I've been working on my database too long. Spike is a one to one data table, while the Master relates to other tables through one to many parent child relationships. So, getting back to the change question, do they cascade data as new information enters other tables?
The Master could change. The Master of S1 changed his goals in the Wish to meet new requirements. And yet, this wasn't a change in his essential nature. The Master was still a larger over arching concepts person. He still related to others as a grand patriarch. He still maintained that interesting abnegation of physicality. No really, check out the glumness of his prison beneath the school. Look at the relatively Spartan style of the Bronze. It was certainly within his power to get a generator, some lights, some throw pillows. Contrast with Drucilla's room in S2. All lush and fluff and Victorian down. Consider the austerity of the Master's clothes. There is a strange naturalness that someone who would talk of the necessity of personal sacrifice to bring about the end of the world, would fall in love with the depersonalization of industrialization.
We've seen vampires that can adapt behaviors to new technologies and ideas (computers, industrialization, tv) and we've seen vampires who can't (they wear old fashions, they boast about the crucifixion). Kinda like people.
Spike knows that he can change his outward behavior because he has already remade himself once. Keep in mind that the Spike persona is entirely a creation. He could easily have been a "I write bad poetry while I kill people" sort of Vampire. But he choose to reject the outwardness of his geekdom. More successfully, I might add, than the geek troika. However, in as much as his essential motivations are the same as they have always been, (he wants love and he wants respect) I'm not sure that he could change the essential Williamness of himself. I'm not sure that any of us could.
I would have to totally agree that Spike's plot line is all about maturity. The hopefully arrived on point where you come to understand your own motivations and stop doing the boneheaded stuff (i.e. change). While at the same time learning to just be you 100% of the time (i.e.. don't change in the slightest).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: These times, they are a changin' -- vandalia, 11:43:29 02/19/02 Tue
Spike knows that he can change his outward behavior because he has already remade himself once. Keep in mind that the Spike persona is entirely a creation. He could easily have been a "I write bad poetry while I kill people" sort of Vampire. But he choose to reject the outwardness of his geekdom. More successfully, I might add, than the geek
troika. However, in as much as his essential motivations are the same as they have always been, (he wants love and he wants respect) I'm not sure that he could change the
essential Williamness of himself. I'm not sure that any of us could.
This reminds me of Xander's observation in 'Older and Far Away':
"When a geek goes into hiding, he really goes into hiding."
I don't think he can change. I think he will always be that bashful, earnest 'bad poet but good man' passionate Fool for Love, no matter how many layers of undead tough guy rebel Spike persona he veneers over himself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: changing versus learning? -- leslie, 12:15:19 02/19/02 Tue
I am not sure whether Spike can change his essential personality (nor whether that would be the bad poet William or the evil vampire Spike), but one of the most enjoyable aspects of the post-chip Spike, for me, has been watching him trying to learn how to deal with it. Rage, suicidal depression, joy at realizing he can at least hurt Bad Guys, assumption that being able to hurt Bad Guys but not Good Guys must mean he is himself now a Good Guy, realization that this is not necessarily the case because the Good Guys treat him like a Bad Guy, reversion to wanting to be a Bad Guy... and then the whole "how do I get Buffy to love me" thing: "Hey, look at me, I'm helping someone rather than drinking her blood!" "Hey, I'm being useful and helpful!" "Hey, I'm babysitting your sister!" and my favorite, "Hey, I know how to make her love me--I'll tie her up and make her watch me stake the former love of my life!" You gotta give him marks for persistence, and also marks for abandoning fruitless efforts and concentrating on the ones that work, i.e., taking care of her family and paying attention to her emotional pain (which is something everyone else, with the occasional exception of Giles, tends to completely overlook--the really big failure of Riley, in my opinion).
But his love for Buffy aside, it is instructive to look at how Spike lives his life after almost two years of the chip. He is now a loner. Previously, he was always part of a group, whether part of the Spike-and-Dru pair, the Darla-Angel-Dru-Spike family, the leader of minions, the head of a gang. He still obviously wants to be accepted as part of the group--I think the thing that most touched me about his reaction to Buffy's resurrection was what I could only describe as his grief that the Scoobies had done this behind his back--but he is also okay with being alone. That is a change, externally imposed on him, that he has learned to accept in himself. Perhaps the more interesting question, then, is whether without the chip he would want to be a leader of minions or a member of a vampire family again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Does Spike believe that he could change if he wanted to? -- skeeve, 09:00:32 02/19/02 Tue
An interesting questing question is what effect would Mohra blood have on Spike. If Spike knew about it, would Spike want it?
What effect would Mohra blood have on Joyce? After all, Angel was officially dead.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Does Spike believe that he could change if he wanted to? -- Etrangere, 11:52:05 02/19/02 Tue
The Spike from School Hard said Demons didn't change.
The Spike from Crush and Smashed said that a Man could change
To which Buffy answered that he wasn't a man, but a thing.
From School Hard to Crush, the difference is that Spike doesn't see himself anymore as a demon, a monster, but as a man, and looks forward to be treated as a man.
But does he believe ? Does he believe he is like a man, able to change ?
Or does he half-consciously delusion himself ?
For Spike who he is is something he's already deconstructed and remade, like you would change your clothes.
Then, certainly, he thinks he can change that part of himself.
Yet, I think he's aware this is only some kind of facade, a show, a role.
"I know I'm a monster, but you treat me like a man, and that's..."
Spike believes he can change who he is, but not what he is.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Can't go home again -- Anne, 14:57:16 02/19/02 Tue
With regard to your main question, as to whether Spike believes he can change: as Etrangere notes in this thread, Spike has said upon occasion either that he can change, or has changed. Whether he believes this in his heart of hearts is not clear; but that he would like to believe it -- because it must be true if he is ever to have Buffy in the full sense that he wants -- seems fairly clear.
But your questions started me thinking more broadly on the question of whether Spike could change or has changed, and led me to a rather interesting little gedankenexperiment. I started to think about what would happen if some future plot turn has Spike "turn evil again".
Imagine what would happen if Spike is rejected by Buffy, is spurned, and decides to come up with a plot to hurt her. Now suppose he succeeds (not to kill her, of course, since that would be the end of the show, but just to hurt her in some way). How would he feel? Would he feel the same way he would have in Season 2, just happy and satisfied and gleeful that he has succeeded in his plot? Or wouldn't he in fact be totally miserable; be more hurt, in fact, by what he had done to her than she was? Wouldn't he go home and burn, while she used her friends and support system and connection with the world to heal her wounds and go on?
And I don't think it's just a matter of Buffy. Spike has tasted what it's like to sit at the table with Joyce and have her chat with him, feed him little marshamallows, and not treat him like a freak. He's tasted what it's like to have compassion for and empathy with Dawn, to try help her out (however misguided his means), and receive her gratitude and regard. I have not the least question in the world that Spike has the capacity to go back to acting in ways that are mean, destructive and hurtful -- but sorry, I don't think there's any way in the world that he can go back and have the simple uncomplicated fun from that kind of behavior that he used to have. An evil Spike in Season 6 or 7 simply could not be the same as evil Spike in Season 2.
So I guess the conclusion I'm reaching is almost the opposite of what you're asking: I suspect that Spike has in fact changed but in ways that he has yet to come close to suspecting. My guess is, if you asked him right now, he would say that he could perfectly well go back to being just an evil guy if that is what he elected to do. But I'm not sure it's quite that simple. I think he really may have been locked out of both rooms by now: not fitting in with the "good" world of Buffy and the Scoobies; but no longer capable of going back to being the happy-go-lucky villain.
Or another way of putting it: be careful what you ask for. Maybe Spike wishes it's true he could change, or have been changed, so as to get Buffy. But if circumstances send him back towards the evil route, (and of course if the chip is removed) he may be appalled to find out that he actually has changed, and that escape routes that he has always assumed were there for him have in fact been cut off.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Very nice! -- Sophist, 16:18:42 02/19/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Does Spike believe that he could change if he wanted to? -- Caroline, 20:03:24 02/19/02 Tue
Spike himself answered the question about whether he can change by actually saying to Buffy that 'a man can change' earlier in season 6. Spike certainly believes he can change and has changed. Season 4 Spike, pre- and post-chip was determined to follow what Joss has called the evil star, even after he realized that he loved Buffy in OOMM. In season 5, he became inextricably involved with Buffy and the SG and in season 6 this has moved to a more personal relationship. So for me the question becomes - what is the mechanism for this change and how does it affect the metaphysics of the Buffyverse.
I think that it's fairly clear in FFL that William was a sensitive, poetic soul, rejected by his true love and seduced to the dark side by Drusilla. As he became a vampire, he deliberately shed every vestige of the William identity and created a new persona - Spike. (I remember reading a really good thread about Spike as the existential man, able to make himself as he wishes). Spike was vicious, evil, uncouth - in other words, a likely lad up for any bit of mischief. But, there was still the love and loyalty he felt for Drusilla and the care he took of her that showed there was some remnant of the poor, lovesick William there. No matter how he tried to suppress certain parts of the William persona, it peeked through somehow. However, the acquisition of the chip has given Spike the opportunity to reluctantly explore William, find out what parts are lurking beneath the surface and allow them to come out.
Spike is undergoing a process of psychological change, a process where he has identified with the dark and shadow side of life, or unlife, and is now discovering those previously repressed, William-esque attributes that are good and decent. Like Buffy, who is going through the opposite process, he is in some ways desperately trying to maintain the logic and structures of that part of himself that he considers his identity - his dark side. The last gasp seemed to be when he tried to bite that girl in Smashed, working himself up to it. The reason that he feels so compelled towards Buffy is precisely because she embodies all those things he is trying to repress about himself. I'm not trying to say that all love/attraction is projection but in this case, I think it's quite clear.
I would argue that when the chip is removed or becomes inactive, the feelings, scruples and new identity that Spike has developed will continue to exist. Spike has shown himself that he can hunt and fight demons (ie have some purpose) and under the effects of the forgetting spell in Tabula Rasa he speculated that he was a noble vampire, fighting for the side of good, blah, blah, blah. He is certainly not wasting away, he manages to get blood from other sources to stay healthy etc. So I would say that if he does become chipless, for whatever reason, he will have a choice about which star to follow, the good or evil star. I haven't go this bit figured out yet - ie, what would the causal factors be that would drive Spike one way or another but I'm not sure that a breakup with Buffy would do it. Maybe it would depend on how they broke up. Any thoughts?
As for what this does to the metaphysics, I could cop out and say that Joss can make or break whatever rules he wished because we don't have the complete set of rules for this universe - the gang could find new prophecy relating to this etc. I guess it could also be presented as a unique case, first time this has happened to a vampire etc in the same way that Angel was the first to get a soul. I mean how many vampires get the opportunity to be Pavlovian dog or a Skinner rat?
But it appears to me that Joss as quoted above about souls makes a distinction between instincts and choice. Spike will always, at base, have an instinctual desire to feed on human blood. Angel is the same, the thing that stops him is the whole soul-possessing thing and the emotional pain. But each of them is given and opportunity, via rather different mechanisms, to behave differently. Just as the evil humans that we see most likely have an instinct to do good but can be seduced by the dark side. The difference between Spike and Angel is that I think that because Spike is creating this new identity without the mechanism of a soul, the new identity has a chance of surviving the chip-less stage whereas we have never seen a soulless Angel make any choices - he becomes a product of his instincts. That could be a result of what Giles tells Buffy (I think in Beauty and the Beast - season 3 when Angel returns) that there are two types of demons - completely evil and those who wish to be redeemed. Spike is integrating the newly-discovered part of himself into his identity and really becoming invested in it, whereas Angel is either good or bad, and doesn't get to be anything inbetween.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To the Board -- Rahael, 03:55:21 02/19/02 Tue
I have no idea how many people were reading the race and ethnicity thread at the bottom of the board, nor how many followed the intricate arguments. But I ended my last post by making some overly dramatic statement about taking a break from the board. Yeah, that lasted a long time.
I took time to consider what all the contributors to the thread had said late into the night and early this morning. I'd like to say thank you to the many wonderful contributions that were made. If that thread prompted you to present the board with the posts you did, it has served some purpose after all. Those that I must give a special mention to: Hauptman, thank you for articulating everything I felt even more dispassionately and more effectively than I did. Your post carries scars of experiences that I can recognise all too well. Manwitch, your post was wonderful. You didn't repeat what I said. You wrote a really great analysis of why Buffy is so compelling, why we are all so addicted to it. I had never quite understood why this above all other tv shows had so grabbed my imagination, had never understood properly why it is so skilled. Matching Mole, your contributions were nothing less than I have come to expect from you - sane, articulate, a must read as usual. Rufus, your post touched me deeply, and indeed was the one of the key reasons why I am writing this now. Sheri, I got you to post! And in your typically down to earth cutting-through-the bs kind of way. You totally undercut the argument that Buffy is a 'white' show by pointing out a startlingly obvious fact. Lady Starlight, thank you again for sticking your neck out, and 'putting your money where your morals were'. Yuri, thank you for your honesty and genuineness. Agreeing or disagreeing, it's this kind of exchange, that makes posting here meaningful. Anom and Wisewoman, you are pillars of strength to me! And Spikesbitch - I am impressed by your contribution. We clashed badly over a similar issue not long ago. You displayed a lot of integrity by disagreeing with the troll and thank you for making the point that you did. You confounded my cynicism, and that's always a wonderful sensation.
But let's not forget the two posts that made me reverse my decision to take a break, the posts that made me snap out of my self pity, and laugh out loud, and regain my sense of proportion about all of this.
Fred in response to Spikesbitch said:
------------------------------------------------------------
* " "I find it offensive that you suggest that certain people are not accepted because they have chips on their shoulder. You seem to be blaming racial minorities for having attitude problems and seeing the entire majority culture as accepting if given the chance. Not always the case! [Spikesbitch]"
[Fred] Well I find the exact opposite offensive. That you can't recognize that many people do have chips on the shoulder. That many people just wait to be culturally offended so they can lash out and blame everything bad that has ever happened to them on racism.
What is harder for a person to accept? That people don't like them because they are of a certain race, or that people simply don't like them.
It is easier to blame it on your race (it's their fault since they are racists) then to blame it on yourself (people simply don't like me because of who I am).
And it is really tough in forming a personal relationship with someone, if one person has to always worry that something they might say or do to that person will be interpreted as racism. Most people wouldn't want to take that risk. So they avoid the minority. Which the minority can use as justification that they were right all along.
It's a self-fullfilling prophecy.
Instead, it would be much better to allow people to approach you as an individual. Most people come into relations with baggage (chips) regardless of race, but in other cases finds ways of working it through. If you let people learn about you as an individual instead of making it a big political crusade, you will in the end find that "understanding" you CLAIM that you are seeking.
That said though, I think the reason the Scobbies [sic] were not that accepting of Faith, was due to the fact she was African American. It was really racist of them to be so cold to her, especially Buffy." *
-------------------------------------------------------------
And Scott said in response to me, first quoting me:
----------------------------------------------------------
* "As an Asian woman, when I do complain about racism, I'm told that I have a chip on my shoulder. "
I find it quite interesting that no one addressed how people would have felt about the Scoobies treatment of Cordelia and vice versa had a black actress protrayed [sic] her.
Perhaps sometimes people really don't like You. Perhaps it is You they don't like.
"Buffy belongs to me too. Not just suburban White America. I don't appreciate it passively, I interact with it. It gets incorporated into my world view. "
Buffy belongs to everyone who enjoys the program
But don't try to change it into something it isn't."*
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tut tut tut Scott/Fred/Lisa. Can you still pretend that you aren't the same person? Note the curiously inelegant writing style, which you don't have the cunning to try and alter. Note the fact that you always end up posting two to three responses in quick succession to other people's posts. Note the fact that you three are on the board at the same time all the time. Any trawl through the archive will reveal that you've been honouring us with your presence for quite a while now. Though, you've switched from quoting Star Trek to enclosing links in your posts.
Your posts made me realise something. Why are you so sensitive about Buffy and Race ? (for those who don't know what I'm talking about, please refer to the troll attack we had after the Angel episode 'This Old Gang of Mine'). Could it possibly be that Buffy fundamentally challenges something, that it makes you deeply uncomfortable, uncomfortable enough to come out into the net and engage in such games?
Rather than my presenting Buffy in the wrong way, or trying to make it something that it isn't, you are the one trying to portray it as a one-dimensional, unsophisticated teen drama. I have no idea why you feel the need to make this point so persistently, and with no real effort to engage or conduct a dialogue with us. I have no idea why this is so important to you.
But this is what makes me laugh. You are the person who comes here, takes on multiple posting names, makes a cynical attempt to upset, annoy and disrupt normal conversation here. And you suggest to me that all the racism I've had to deal with were really directed against the human being that I was! You are clearly someone who has indeed been treated badly by other people, probably for very unfair reasons. I can see that you have difficulty in engaging with others in a straightforward, open and genuine way. You are right that in the midst of privilege, one can feel great pain. But this crude attempt to make me upset, to suggest that when I've been beaten up in the street, that those men really took one look at a gangly 13 year old school girl and decided she had an objectionable personality, really didn't have the effect it intended. Quite the opposite. Let me tell you what happened - I was walking to school when two men walking behind me came closer and closer. Before I knew it, my head was making violent contact with the stone wall. My glasses fell off. I felt something trickling down my forehead. I bent down, picked up my glasses and looked up with bewilderment at my attackers, who looked pretty well satisfied and amused. I was convinced it was an accident, that any moment now, they were going to rush up and apologise, ask how I was. I knew I looked a pitiful sight, unconscious tears falling down my face, my forehead gashed, clutching my glasses, and looking at my attackers, who then called me some names that I won't bore the board with. At that moment, I felt utterly humiliated, and reduced as a human being. Looking back at it, I knew it was my attackers who had been humiliated. I knew that the other pedestrians who kept walking were humiliated. I knew that all the motorists, many of whom were taking their children to my school were humiliated.
I didn't even think 'racists!' until I walked to school and my teacher made me report it as a racist assault. These things only happen to other people. People like my aunt, who got punched in the face, and called names, also in broad daylight. People like my uncle's brother, who when working on his car, had his screwdriver grabbed out of his hand by a man and driven into his face. When a nearby policeman came running up, he arrested the Asian man who had blood pouring down his face, because the white man told him that he had had his watch stolen by him. When my aunt went to the police station to bail him out, the on duty policeman asked her, grieved, "Why does he keep saying we are racist?" That was genuine bewilderment there. I understand this. I number many people as friends who will never understand racism, or even accept that I have indeed suffered such things in Britain. They think my voicing such opinions amounts a kind of profound disloyalty. I don't agree with them. But I am their friend nonetheless.
And by the way, the last thing that I am insecure about in life is my ability to be sociable and get on with others. Sometimes I get tired of making chit-chat, or the shallowness of much of that kind of interaction, but it's a useful skill. I find other human beings interesting, and I love to talk whether it is to agree or disagree. Obviously if we were face to face, I'd have been able to have this conversation with LeeAnn, and make her feel much more at ease, and less defensive. There are limitations to this whole virtual thing.
Scott/Fred/Lisa, I would suggest that people on this board already 'know' who I am and what kind of person I am. They know all sorts of things about me unrelated to my political convictions, unrelated to my colour. You don't know me, or know this board, or know the kind of people who post here. Even were we to disagree on this debate about race or ethnicity or affirmative action, we still respect each other as human beings. You show us a profound disrespect for us, and underestimate us by making such a personal attack on me and expecting it to find a resonance here.
I have no intention of telling you to go away, or leave this board. Why don't you try speaking to us civilly? Why don't you come as one person and stay one person, without trying to give yourself a false sense of consensus by supporting and repeating your own opinion ad nauseam under different names? You might find yourself having a more meaningful experience, and you might understand why we like coming here and talking to each other.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I'm glad you didn't leave, Rahael...The board wouldn't be the same without you. :o) -- Rob, 04:56:40 02/19/02 Tue
Actually, I missed the whole race post controversy, because I was off-line for the day, came back, and saw that huge monster, and didn't have the patience to read through it!
But anyway, glad you're still here.
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Beautiful, awesome post, Rahael... -- celticross, 05:00:43 02/19/02 Tue
I am at best an infrequent poster...more like a glorified lurker. But I cherish the civility and intelligence of this board as a haven from all the inanity one finds on most BtVS and AtS boards. Here we do not all cling to one point of view about the shows, and while voices can be raised, discussion rarely descends into outright arguement. It's refreshing, and I count myself lucky to have found this island of maturity. I love this board for all the great people who post here, for all the reasons you so elegantly stated, Rahael. And the sad thing is, Scott/Fred/Lisa will never come forward and account for his/her self and that's too bad. If this person was willing to join in the board's conversation, they would be more than welcome. But this is not the home of simplistic thinkers, for which I am very grateful.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: To the Board -- neaux, 06:16:49 02/19/02 Tue
Thank you for staying! I had a great pleasure chatting with you this past weekend..
and it was a shame that I didnt read your posts on race/culture until now.. then I would have known who you were.. "and not a man who wears corderoys."
Anyway, I know its tough dealing with stupid people. It gets very frustrating. My wife and I are young I guess. I'm 27 and she just turned 28. My wife is Korean, but was adopted when she was 3 and has lived in the U. S. for 25 years with a caucasian family. She grew up in Minnesota.. which is very very very white. When I first went up to Minnesota 2 years ago, I couldnt believe how white it is. And I am Caucasian. Anyway, after visiting her family up there I realized that there are areas that just do not have much racial integration. There is also racial discrimination due to stupidity. But I think I am totally digressing.. My point I am trying to make is that visiting up there made me realize that my wife and her biological sister had it tough. Heather is a strong girl, I love her for being strong, but thinking about her past sometimes makes me sad. like i wish i was there for her..to stick up for her or something..but i think the important thing is for me to offer as much respect for her as I can.. and I think (i'm not positive) but I think that's what she loves about me too.
In relevance to this board, I believe the whole race thread could have been a very insightful post but turned into a lack of respect.
And as a friend even though I have barely met you, I would love to have your back by offering the one think I know is important... respect.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: To the Board -- Marie, 06:45:45 02/19/02 Tue
Rah, I've always hesitated to respond to posts that deal with the subject of race, mainly because I think that my background makes me ineligible to do so.
If I may first explain that (and hope you'll bear with me!): My small Welsh town, when I was a child, had only one non-white resident, that I ever met, anyway. He was what was called, in those days, a half-breed (and I mean absolutely no offence by that, that was the term used in the 60s - not now by me!). Anyway, Johnnie was to me and my family and everyone else) not a person of a different colour, but just one of my brother's little pals. I see him still, and we are good mates, though not particularly close any more. If I'd known what it was, racism would probably have been, to me, the Welsh against the English. And I had a Cockney dad, and a grandfather who hailed from the Highlands.
When I moved away from here to a big English city, my English friends were quite shocked at my habit of chatting to people I didn't know, on buses, trains, in clubs, at bars, etc. I never met a stranger.
I once stopped a gang of youths who were picking on a lone lad in the street by the simple expedient of yelling at them that I'd called the police, and they'd better scarper, and it didn't even occur to me not to get involved, even though my then-partner hit the roof, saying I could've been seriously hurt. I just couldn't stand by could I? Wouldn't that have made me just as bad as them?
Anyway, my point, I suppose, is that I can't presume to understand about racism from the comfort of my white skin. I do try, without being preachy or patronising, I hope, to not be racist, and when I see posts from the people you mentioned, I know that they will carry on posting their drivel as long as people respond to them, so I never do.
I hate with a passion what was done to you, and I hope you don't leave the board.
Marie
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: To the Board -- Kimberly, 08:02:25 02/19/02 Tue
Rahael, I'm glad you're giving those of us on the board a second chance. I would deeply miss your insightful posts, wonderful poetry, and board conversations with Age that make my brain hurt (in a good way). I missed most of the thread you're discussing, but I'm very sorry it distressed you so much. I'm also very glad others were able to convince you to stay; you're a nice lady.
Marie, Thank you for articulating, better than I could, the problems those of us who meet the very-WASPy criteria can have with debates of this kind. I put racism in the "EVILness of humanity" category, but I have a very hard time discussing it with those who have to live with its horrors without feeling like a "bleedy-heart liberal who doesn't know what she's talking about". Like you, I grew up in a racially non-integrated area (I understand it's getting a very little bit better.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: To the Board -- LadyStarlight, 08:01:47 02/19/02 Tue
Well said, Rahael. Can I add my thanks that you didn't leave?
(tiny bit of thread hijacking here, please forgive)
LeeAnn,
If I made you feel like you couldn't/shouldn't contribute to the discussion, I'm sorry. It's been said before, but this is an imperfect medium for discussion. Again, apologies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: To the Board -- Lilac, 08:18:09 02/19/02 Tue
I had chosen not to participate in the "race" thread because I felt that, while the question of diversity on shows like Buffy is a valid one, the intent of the person who started the thread was inflammatory. I did read much of the thread, and was bemused by some of the unevolved opinions stated there. Obviously, there are some who don't know or care that what might be just a theoretical discussion for them strikes at some deep, and often painful, feelings for others. Rahael, I think that you, and Hauptman, and others, have done an important thing by reacting openly and genuinely as you did. People can't learn anything without teachers, and by expressing yourself so honestly, you have presented a lesson to be learned. It isn't always easy to be forced into the role of teacher, but it's important that it be accepted when the situation arises. Thank you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: To the Board -- Hauptman, 08:43:22 02/19/02 Tue
I am moved almost beyond words by what has happened on this board this weekend. Rahael, Ladystarlight, Yuri, Wisewoman, Spikesbitch, Manwitch, Rufus and Anom, I wish there were some way to beam you to Boston for dinner and Buffy on DVD.
I am happy that the oft mentioned thread on race still lingers at the bottom of the page. If that is a concious decision on the part of the powers that be, thank you. I know it is intimidating to read a massive thread like that, but I would suggest it to whoever comes along. I am thinking about making my way through it a second time and I notice that there are new posts even as late as today.
Frankly, the whole thing surprised me.
If you have any interest in furthering your interest in the matter, I would like to offer a link to an article that might help make visible the invisible forces that are at work. I especially invite the above named to have a look as I would love to hear opinions. I cannot vouch for the agenda of the organization presenting the article, but they seem to be trying to examine the dominant paradigm in America, which I think is valuable work...work we have been doing.
Best to you, my friends.
http://www.euroamerican.org/editorials/Edit0499.asp
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Article Link -- Wisewoman, 10:03:01 02/19/02 Tue
And, had I wings, I'd be there for dinner ;o)
Interesting article. It's difficult to be white and not cringe at the thought of an organization calling itself Center for the Study of White American Culture, but I'm trying to keep an open mind.
I'm pleased at the suggestion that there's an alternative to racism. Colorblindness has never worked for me, and that's always made me uncomfortable. Growing up in a place like Toronto was in the 50s and then moving to Vancouver, as it was in the 70s, colorblindness was not an option. Meeting a black person at all was a newsworthy event. I always felt guilty that my very awareness of the presence of a person of colour meant that I must be racist, even if my natural reaction was to feel drawn to them. Maybe I wouldn't feel so friendly toward them initially if they weren't black? I tended to withdraw from interactions until I could convince myself that this was an individual with whom I had something in common, someone with whom I would like to have a friendship, regardless of colour. I don't do that now--I don't have to. I accept everyone initially and let them show later whether they are worthy of friendship. But colorblind? It'll just never happen for me.
I'd like to think that the third alternative advanced in Hitchock's article is a real one, and that there's a place for white people to enter into discussion of race that isn't so obscured by guilt, fear, anger, or simple ignorance as to become an exercise in futility. Unfortunately it appears that our posting board isn't that place...yet.
Thank you for the link, Hauptman. Unless and until I ascertain that this particular organization harbors a secret agenda, I'd be happy to strive for personal "race-savviness."
;o)
PS to Rahael: Well-done, my darling...grace under fire, as always.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Another Article, from this week's TIME -- Hauptman, 14:16:36 02/19/02 Tue
Just thought I would share this with you, too. It's from the latest Time Magazine. I present it as more of a weather report.
http://www.time.com/time/2002/bhm/tv.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Thank you ;o) -- WW, 19:09:47 02/19/02 Tue
I've never heard of Bernie Mac--I'll have to check with Rufus and LadyStarlight to see if we even get it up here in the frozen North.
I don't know how pertinent this is, if at all, to the subject of "otherness," but here goes--when I was growing up my television viewing included Donna Reed, My Three Sons, Gidget, and The Monkees (along with a lot of other American television shows). For a while there, the only movies I went to were the Beach Party type movies--Annette Funicello, Frankie Avalon, bikinis, and surfboards. I was raised in Toronto. I'd never even seen a surfboard. I moved to Vancouver at 20, and the next year a friend from Toronto joined me in a car trip to LA. Neither of us had ever been across the border. It was a great adventure.
But the strangest part of it was, as soon as we got through the border into Washington State, I became completely relaxed, as if I had finally come home. I felt like I was in the "real" world at last, the world that I'd been only watching from afar up until then. I'd been to Britain some years before. All my ancestors as far back as I can trace are from the British Isles, but I never felt as if that was my true home, not the way I did in the US.
Of course, we couldn't stay, we had to come back to apartments, and jobs, families, and friends. Crossing the border back into Canada was actually depressing. I don't know why, but I never mentioned these feelings to the friend I travelled with, or to anyone else. I visited the US twice more, and experienced the same phenomenon both times.
As far as I know, no one has every tried to oppress me because I'm Canadian. I've never faced any kind of discrimination based on my nationality. (I sometimes think Canadians are just too boring to engender hostility ;o))
I know the lesson I learned as a child though, sitting in front of the big black-and-white tv in my parents' living room--America is the only place that matters, and Americans are the only "real" people, the only ones who count. Whether black, white, Asian, or Hispanic, American is the thing to be.
Of course, Vancouver now has a thriving film and tv industry and many of the "American" shows I watch are filmed right in my neck of the woods. I always know, immediately, if a show or film is shot in Canada. The scenery may be beautiful, but it's just not the "real" world, it's only pretending to be.
There's no margin like the margin of the 49th parallel. The effect of a lifetime of exposure to American media is such that Sunnydale seems more "real" to me than the city I live in.
Hmmm. As I said above, I don't know if this rambling is pertinent at all, but I felt it was time I shared it with someone and you guys got lucky!
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: the article -- manwitch, 12:18:22 02/19/02 Tue
Thanks for the link.
I don't have the opportunity right now to give it a thoughtful response, but I want you to know that I am not ignoring it.
My quick points would be that the name is great because it immediatley objectifies "White American Culture" and reduces it to the "sub-culture" that it is, nipping any claims to universality in the bud (to use the terms matching mole was using).
I have always been confused by two things in discussions of race that have come up with "my fellow white people." One is the willingness to align oneself with dominant power structures and thoughtways even though they are also oppressive to us! Particularly in relation to issues of capitalism and economics.
Second is the inability to recognize history. I grew up in Evanston, Illinois. People sometimes feel that because the Civil Rights Act was passed that everything is now OK, and how come "they" aren't happy? Everything's even now, right? And there seems a total refusal to recognize that Wilmette, Kenilworth and Winnetka, (and Evanston), nice communities all, I grant, exist as part of the same history that produces the ghettos, the poverty, the economic disadvantage and educational disservice that are pervasive throughout the country. You don't have to have "owned slaves" to stand now in a position of priviledge that stems from past inequities. I don't ask that people surrender everything they have. Most everybody works hard for what they have and suffers a lot. But, as the article points out, you can recognize where you stand, and that for purely historical coincidence, others don't get to stand there. You can do what you are able to create a different set of historical coincidences, and you can still poke your finger in the eye of power. Don't just refuse to be dominated, refuse to dominate.
Trite, perhaps, and not always easy. But why should it be easy?
What I mean is, I agreed with the article.
To get back on topic, this is exactly what Buffy does. She resists those power structures that would both dominate her and cause her to dominate others.
I am glad, like everyone else, that Rahael is both staying, and continuing to express herself the way she does. These last couple days have been quite the experience. Great people, great minds, great show, great board.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: article -- yuri, 02:17:24 02/20/02 Wed
"Center for the Study of White American Culture" - I loved the title too. You're instinctively uncomfortable about it (or at least I was), but then you gotta think - how many tens of organizations have names like "The Center for the Study of Latin American Culture?"
anyway, about the article --
I was confused by the tone. I suppose its intent was to convert "colorblind" whites into "race-savvy" whites. Though it is a good point, I don't really see that as the problem... the article seemed to imply that to be "race-savvy" also meant to be active and passionate about racial issues, but many "race-savvy white people" I know (that is, people who know that "Whiteness forms the center of our society and as long as it does, we cannot have a society centered on multiracial values") may be aware, but are extremely apathetic. The "colorblind white people" I know aren't vehemently against acknowleging race, they just find it _easier_ to live their lives that way than admit race is an issue.
The article makes it out to be a conflict of beliefs, with one side yelling "race shouldn't matter EVER!" and the other side yelling "being white in america is different than being a minority and we MUST recognize that!" while really there's not much yelling at all. I think white people's views on race are based mostly on comfort levels rather than personal beliefs.
Thank you for the link, though I didn't love the article, because randomly exploring the site I found some stuff I enjoyed. I liked their "Background - the need, and our response," which brings to attention the unfortunate way whites often try to fix racism in the colored community rather than fixing it in our own (where, obviously, change is most needed)...
which is a good time to say hey, I'm white. I don't know if it was obvious but I consciously tried not to say definitively. Yeah, I have issues. Guilt for having white guilt and confusion in trying to find my place in "the struggle," and on and on, I know it's clichŽd and silly. I'm working at it. I mention this because I skimmed an article there called '"Us" and "Them": A Note on Writing Style," (http://www.euroamerican.org/editorials/style.asp) which mentions how us white folks don't typically use the pronouns "I," "we," and "us" in a racial context. I wanted to clarify that the reason I haven't done that is because I'm weird and didn't want to declare my race yet. When my race is already known, I do.
Time article: interesting "weather report." quick q to anyone who's seen the Bernie Mac show: Is it worth a look? I haven't checked it out (mainly because my tv schedule is so set). I saw him in Original Kings of Comedy and liked some parts of his performance but disliked others.
ah, I seem to be so long-winded these days. Sorry guys.
but I must say, to Rahael: I think you're already aware of my high opinion of you, but again I say thank you, and I hope you take everyone's compliments and messages of endearment to heart. I'm honored that you shared with the board such a personal and intense experience, and I'm awed at how all your posts are personal and intense in their own way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: To the Board -- Sophist, 08:58:19 02/19/02 Tue
I missed the whole thread because I was gone for the weekend. I read it last night when I came back.
I'm a strong believer in the ability of sincere conversation to change people's hearts and minds. I have no use for the talk radio style, where rants and insults serve as a substitute for thought. I'm sorry anyone had to suffer through that.
Rahael, your posts are always favorites of mine. I usually read them before I read the ones they respond to. Don't just stay, continue to share your ideas, provocative (in the best sense of that word) and elegantly expressed, as often as you can.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: To the Board -- Sebastian, 09:22:02 02/19/02 Tue
I, too, was gone most of the weekend. By the time I did log back on, I saw the immensity of the thread in question - and only had the patience (and time) to read the first several posts.
It is a shame that someone has to use the very sensitive subject of race relations as a tactic to promote discord on the board. Naturally, everyone is entitled to express his or her opinion, but to do so to deliberately provoke people is abhorrent.
As usual, Rahael, your post was eloquent and well thought. I am both amazed and unsurprised by how insightful and clever your posts are. And once again, you have proven yourself to be a mistress of logic and conviction.
I also feel honored that I have had the opportunity to chat with you on several occasions.
I am very glad you have decided to stay on the board and agree it would not be the same without you.
- Sebastian
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> A moving statement -- matching mole, 09:41:38 02/19/02 Tue
Rahael I'm delighted that you decided to stick around and moved that you shared your experiences with us. You reminded me that, however racially enlightened I may think I am, there are aspects of this issue that I can never fully appreciate. I'm sorry this has caused you such grief.
Like someone above (forget who) I don't want to hijack this thread but I noticed that the original thread is a) huge (and thus forcing rapid archiving of other threads) and b) basically dead. And I had thought of an idea that might make a few things clearer regarding race and culture (mostly just culture).
Dominant subcultures often don't think of themselves as having 'a culture'. Instead they percieve a universal mainstream culture and a series of subcultures. My guess is that when most Americans think of television or films they think of American examples but they don't think of them as 'American films and TV programs' Citizens of other countries would, I'm guessing, often think of examples from both their own culture and from American culture and label them accordingly. They would consider films produced in their country as supporting their national identity in a way that Americans typically would not. I'm not intending this as a value judgement on anyone, I think both responses are perfectly natural given the enormous cultural dominance of the US in film and television.
However this asymmetrical view of the world can cause problems. Members of a dominant subculture may percieve themselves as contributing solely to universal inclusive culture but what they may actually be doing, in part, is sending the message, often completely unintentionally, that their subculture is universal culture. As Hauptman pointed out so eloquently the existence of 'black' television shows may largely be the result of a lot of 'mainstream' television excluding blacks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: To the Board -- Solitude1056, 09:45:39 02/19/02 Tue
I missed much of those posts (it's midterm week, so I'm a bit busy with things non-BtVS related!), but I'm glad I didn't miss your post, Rahael. Oh, wait a minute. I never miss your posts. Or Lady Starlight's, or dubdub's, or Rufus', or d'Herblay's, or Darby's, fresne's, or anom's, or OnM's, or Masq's, or Liquidram's, or Dedalus'... hell, I do try to catch just about everyone's as best I can. Unless, of course, they're clearly in the midst of a troll battle - and in that case, I just patiently wait for our own Troll Slayer to sally forth and make quick work of things. ;-)
Speaking of which, where is our Hero? Hopefully not pining away as he searches the NY streets for loose change with which to purchase a ticket to somewhere less lonely... I hear any rumors of a rendez-vous in Aruba between our Lady of Ultimate Exoticness and the Troll Slayer, and I'm gonna demand you guys post the pix on the net. (Well, the non-private ones, at least!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: To the Board -- Masquerade, 09:54:15 02/19/02 Tue
Rahael,
I just wanted to echo what everyone else is saying. Glad you're staying. You are an eloquent and valued member of this board.
Talk to you in chat soon!
Masq
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: To the Board -- Rattletrap, 10:09:25 02/19/02 Tue
Let me add my voice to the steadily growing chorus of people who are glad you decided to stay. We always have room for intelligent, articulate, and passionate posters like you.
"see" you in chat,
'trap
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: To the Board -- Deeva, 10:38:34 02/19/02 Tue
Rahael, if I could only be half as eloquent as you, then I wouldn't have been in as many scraps as I have been. I will fess up and say that I did not have the patience to go through the monster thread that was and also I did avoid it knowing what it was about. I don't always avoid the subject of race but I don't necessarily like to discuss it with people, that no offense, I don't "really" know. Even with the people that I do know and call friends and family I don't like the subject much. It's a very provocative subject, as that thread is a testament to, and it usually always ends a little awkwardly, a weird sort of draw where neither is right or wrong in their minds. I'm an idealist, it shouldn't matter but I know that in real life it sadly does.
I do know that from reading your postings that you are a thoughtful individual. I am upset by the violent racist events that have happened to you and your family. While I cannot say that I experienced the exact same degree of prejudice, I do know it. It may sound awful but I think that in knowing this malevolence, it has made my siblings and I more resilient. Kind of like that saying "That which does not kill you, makes you stronger." Sounds like I'm fighting a war, huh? Maybe. There are days, not too often, when it feels that way.
All I, and we, can do is live our lives as we see fit. People have funny notions as to what threatens them, their kith and kin. Just think, my simply existing is revolutionary to some. Wow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: To the Board -- Brian, 10:53:21 02/19/02 Tue
Stay, Lady, Stay
Your thoughtful words show us the way,
For each of us to make a better day.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: To the Board -- Liq, 11:07:05 02/19/02 Tue
Rah,
You are a friend.
It wouldn't be the same around here without you.
Not a very eloquent statement but a truly honest one.
xo LJ
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> The chips in our heads -- darrenK, 12:33:13 02/19/02 Tue
A couple of years ago, a close friend of mine (let's say her name is X) told me how she'd been sexually abused by her uncle from the age of 8 until the age of 12.
Eventually, X told a teacher who told her father who felt like she'd brought public shame on their family, so he beat her--breaking her arm and cracking her ribs.
Here was this person I'd been close friends with for 5 years and she'd carried around this horrible fact, this terrible dehumanizing humiliation and I'd had no idea. I didn't know her at all.
There are so many hidden layers to people, so much we don't know and can't see, but inform who they are and everything they do. People we know have hidden turning points and secret vats of knowledge rendered from experiences that some of us would find unendurable.
X is an amazing person and a wonderful painter. She's such a character, so confident and funny, how could all that have anything to do with such horror? The revelations themselves weren't even half as shocking as seeing her crying. She just wasn't a person that broke down.
Suddenly, I had to see that everything I might like about my friend was affected and informed by everything I dislike about the world.
I feel the same sense of strange shock reading Rahael's raw, honest, beautiful post.
I don't mean to equate sexual abuse and hate crimes. The only real tie between them is that both are inflicted upon an innocent individual who is being victimized for reason's that have nothing to do with their individuality. They are being objectified, treated as things, not as people.
And these grim, awful experiences inflicted upon innocents forever change the individuals who experience them, separating them from the normal course of humanity by the secret shame that's the result of unasked for humiliation.
Having to face these challenges puts them on their own more prosaic Hero's journey. But a Hero's journey nonetheless.
Reading Rahael's post, I have an advantage over many of the rest of you, I've met Rahael in real life. She's a funny, articulate, intelligent, wise person, fun to be around. And she talks really fast (because I think her brain's moving very fast.)
And I should say that she can't take a break from the board because she's what this board's about. She's what Buffy the Vampire Slayer is about. So is my friend X.
I did read the "Race" thread, but I didn't weigh in. I wasn't sure of it's motives or even it's goals. It seemed designed to cause division more than discussion.
But, I'm going to weigh in now for those of you who can endure a long post.
Buffy is an allegory, a huge set of metaphors meant to mirror us back at us. We know this. We talk about it everyday.
And many of the ways it comments on race may be bigger than I'm able to understand or explain. That doesn't mean I'm not going to try.
But first, I want to say that casting is not the best way to track the way Buffy talks about Race. Casting is affected by and sometimes mandated by, THE NETWORK. The network in this case, the original network, the WB, could care less about the deep inner thematic meanings of BTVS. They care about demographics and ratings. They care about advertising.
Believe me I know, I'm typing this from my office in a New York ad agency owned by the second largest advertising conglomerate in the world.
Week after week, networks, cable channels, magazines and newspapers troop into our boardroom to make presentations. They say nothing about the thematic power of their content. They don't talk about the edifying effect of the powerful multi-layered storylines their writers produce.
They tell us about demographics and ratings. Who we can reach. When we can reach them. How long those groups will tune in for.
What's the goal? Money. Ad dollars.
Whose dollars do they want ? Everyone's. Black. White, Jewish. Asian. Hispanic. Gay. If a demographic has dollars then the WB wants them.
But they can't have all the dollars from all the demographics. So they divide the pie, trying, as best they can, to deliver to advertisers a solid block of viewers with cash to spend. The more cash, the better. This guarantees the "right audience" to Maybelline, Jeep, Revlon, and Tommy Hilfiger.
The networks mandate that shows be cast to appeal to these highly calculated demographics.
And these demographics aren't just measured, they're focus grouped. The shows are shown to thousands of different people. The ads for the shows are shown to thousands of people. And the ads that will be shown during the show are shown to thousands of people.
Their every opinion is quantified and analyzed by Strategic Planning departments in ad agencies like this one. Then it's delivered to people like me in the form of a "Creative Brief," so that I might write an ad that appeals to this now "highly targeted" demographic.
They don't consider this racist, they consider this commerce.
Originally, the executives sold BtVS as a show for white teens and that's who they cast.
So, all those posts about why "Joss" cast who he cast are FUNDEMENTALLY flawed. Joss did his casting with the WB execs sitting on either side of him. He even says this in the commentary for the Season 1 DVD's.
He even had to fight with them to cast a woman who was not conventionally pretty to play our beloved Willow.
And he didn't have any leverage to do as he pleased. He was new to TV, with no track record and no fan following. The network could dictate any terms they wanted and he had to please them to get his little show on the air. Only a half-season of BtVS was ordered and it was going to possibly be a mid-season replacement. There was no guarantee that it would ever even see airtime.
But Joss did something that made him a hero to many of us, and in doing it, he seemed to invent a genre of TV all his own, he cut the legs out from under those same executives.
He did something as beautiful and redemptive as Buffy herself would ever do, he made his show about "otherness" and about "individuality."
Otherness is that feeling that you don't belong, that everyone else fits in and you don't. Or it's the opposite, when someone is "selected" by the group to be the goat, the one who is picked on. That person can be selected because of race, gender, religion, sexual preference, perceived sexual preference, smartness, dumbness, richness, poorness. bigness, smallness, or even, ugliness. I'm sure that there are quite a few people out there who've even been singled out for persecution because of their beauty.
On it's most obvious level, the victims of racism are singled out for "otherness". A group is singled out as "other" by a culture and persecuted usually just for looking different or having different practices or beliefs. It happens all over the world and you certainly don't have to have dark skin for it to happen to you.
You only have to be a Jew on a Christian continent. A Catholic in a land conquered by Protestants. Black in the Western World. Tutsi in the Hutu world. A Muslim among Serbs or an Armenian or Kurd among Turks.
You don't have to wake up as an insect to be other, you only have to be a human being among the homo sapiens.
Any person cast in the role of "other" serves as an allegorical signifer for everyone who is made to be other or has volunteered for the martyrdom of "otherness."
Right upfront in Welcome to the Hellmouth, Buffy is given the opportunity by Cordelia to not be "other", to be among the "ruling class," the strong. Those that are beautiful wear Prada and are unquestioned.
But our Buffy has already learned this lesson. She knows that the secret she harbors makes her "other." She sees more hope in the "softer side of Sears," the "other" as represented by a poorly dressed Jewish wallflower, a nerd set apart by her brains, her looks and her manner.
And Willow is not our last character representing "the other," she's our first.
Buffy puts together a whole crew, an alternative society based on "otherness." These people might not be black or Asian or any other racial minority (other than Jewish), but they represent those people allegorically by being signifiers for the "otherness" that every individual faces, no matter how they come by their "otherness."
Xander has learned loyalty and compassion from his otherness. Willow has, in Joss' own words "developed an eccentricity instead of resentment." But we see the pain of her role as a societal outcast even today.
Or Marcy. She might not be a racial minority, but her invisibility surely parallels the invisibility that many minorities feel in "White America."
And the list of characters set apart by their "otherness" is endless:
Angel--not a human, not a vampire.
Jonathan--Scrounging on the bottom rungs on Sunnydale High's social ladder, his name isn't even important to Buffy, the champion of the outcasts.
Faith--rejected by Buffy and the Scoobies and her parents. She couldn't be more self-loathing if her name was Shylock.
Speaking of Shylock, what about Dawn? "Is this blood?" she asks in Blood Ties, in a clear parallel to Shylock's own speech in The Merchant of Venice. Her own recent creation was more of a metaphor for adoption, but her keyness sets her apart as surely as race or religion does. "I must be something so terrible, to cause such pain..." she says to Spike.
And I could keep going but it's certainly clear to me that if BtVS pays less attention directly to race it's because the show's mission statement is so much about the way issues of identity affect individuals, not the way they affect groups.
But that doesn't mean we never see groups. What about the anti-demon racism of human supremicist organizations like the Initiative or The Watcher's council? They certainly become Buffy's enemies just as surely as vampires do. In Buffy's tolerant worldview, Demons and Humans can, side-by-side, fight on the side of Good. And as such, she doesn't discriminate in who becomes her friends or her allies.
In fact, as I've stated in a previous thread, Buffy is not a warrior for Humans, she is a warrior for balance, for tolerance. It's a balance she's willing to carry through into her own life, with her romances with vampires, friendships with demons and sisterly feeling for a blob of green energy.
By the way, for anyone who didn't notice, Xander's marriage to ex-demon Anya is a clear metaphor for inter-racial marriage. Look for this to become VERY explicit in the next few episodes.
Race doesn't exist. How's that for a provocative statement?
It's an artificial construct born at the same time that "doctors" were bleeding people to let out the ill humors that cause illness. Somehow our understanding of medicine improved but our understanding of our own humanity didn't
But, individuality does exist and the way that it's affected by the artificial construct of race, the rejection that kids feel when they are singled out as "other" or even the strangeness that comes from being different is something we all have to bear. Some of us bear it as a chip on our shoulders. Some of us as a chip in our heads. But all of us can tune in every week as the characters on Buffy wrestle with these very same issues couched in metaphors to give us all hope in the daily battles we all have to fight in order to get the respect and approval that should be our natural right as human beings.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The chips in our heads - Whoa! Well said! -- Brian, 13:11:06 02/19/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The chips in our heads -- Hauptman, 13:25:50 02/19/02 Tue
DarrenK,
Thank you. What a thoughtful post. I tried to make this point earlier but didn't do anything this magnif. "The Other" is a powerful character in art and belongs to all of us, is all of us. I am so glad you wrote this. Can you put it on a t-shirt for me? Maybe on a tape that I could play on a loop from speakers on top of my car? Wow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Oh wow. (Pulls out a lighter and holds it up. Ouch! Just burnt myself.) -- Deeva, 13:37:20 02/19/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Wow! And well said. -- Kimberly, 13:43:06 02/19/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Wow from me, too -- Vickie, 14:57:32 02/19/02 Tue
"You don't have to wake up as an insect to be other, you only have to be a human being among the homo sapiens. "
Thanks!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The chips in our heads -- Rufus, 17:42:04 02/19/02 Tue
If sexual abuse is not a hate crime then tell me what it is. The pain of those who have been betrayed by another in such a damaging to the psyche way, is like a scream heard by no one. Try telling a little one that they did nothing wrong that caused such an attack or series of attacks, cause I tell you this, they are attacks on the body and soul. And tell me how we change a legal system that can call a three year old "pressing and persistant" therefore partly responsible for her sexual abuse by an adult. One of the oldest tricks in the book of warfare is the systematic sexual abuse of an opponents females...I say females because age isn't an issue to these creatures. Sexual abuse frequently creates a no win situation for the victim, who may find a second more harmful abuse occurs when they find the courage to tell only to be abused all over again. Anything that attempts to dominate and control to take away the dignity of another is a hate crime.....IMHO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Kudos! (Holding up a lighter alongside Deeva) -- Solitude1056, 20:03:52 02/19/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Both poignant and powerful...Thanks, darrenK -- Little One, 20:38:46 02/19/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The chips in our heads -- anom, 21:23:55 02/19/02 Tue
Beautifully said, Darren. Well worth "enduring" its length.
I'd like to chime in on the ad agency aspect of this. Soon after I moved to NYC, I had a roommate who worked for a major ad agency. She came home one day in a bad mood, & when I asked about it, she told me she'd seen plans for an ad campaign (can't remember the product) in 2 tiers: "upscale" & "ethnic." I don't think I need to comment on the implications of this supposed dichotomy. Another day she told me she'd been shown proposed ads showing what were supposed to be three generations of a black family. Apparently the "creative" types at work decided to run it by a black employee, a rare opportunity. Leigh pointed out that the people in the ads didn't look like each other, so why would anyone think they were related? The people who created the ad looked closer & said "oh yeah, she's right." I have to give them credit for recognizing that after it was pointed out, but they had already said, in effect, "you people all look alike"--just not verbally.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The chips in our heads -- darrenK, 08:40:12 02/20/02 Wed
Thanks, anom.
Yeah, working at an ad agency can be trying. They get some things right, but they do plenty that makes me hold my nose when I take my paycheck.
Hope you're well.
dK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The chips in our heads -- Rufus, 22:37:28 02/20/02 Wed
Those who go with the mindset that a segment of people "look alike" don't see what I see. Every face is a work of art that changes each time you see the person. Obvious beauty may get attention, but I can find it dull. To look at the curve of a jaw, the move of facial muscles, the lines of either happiness or sadness.....then there are the eyes, each one a new world, with expression, colour, spark of joy, hint of regret. I just love watching people, how they emote, move, interact, live. If you only consider a person a demographic then they become as facless as the intent to manipulate numbers for profit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Thank you -- vandalia, 22:17:11 02/19/02 Tue
Everything I wanted to say but couldn't phrase well enough to be comfortable posting in the fear it'd be misunderstood. I couldn't agree more. I think once people realize that race indeed does not exist but as a product of our own minds, rather what we have are cultural clashes, (rich vs. poor vs. urban vs. rural vs. suburban vs. immigrant vs. southern vs. northern vs. insert culture here) the better off, more honest and further we'll all come to truly being able to live with each other.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> darrenK--could I put this on my website? -- Masquerade, 11:08:42 02/20/02 Wed
I might have to edit it for length a bit, but I think it's a good analysis. : )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I'd be honored... -- darrenK, 11:28:26 02/20/02 Wed
...and sure you can edit it if you need to. You will be a more effective editor than I would. (It's hard to be ruthless with your own stuff.)
E-mail me if you have any questions.
Thanks, it's a big compliment.
dK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Gee, just think how much better that would have been... -- OnM, 14:17:28 02/20/02 Wed
... if you had posted it in large, colorful fonts and/or possibly broken into single subject lines posted individually!
( Or not... )
Bravo sir! You do us proud!
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Well said -- Rattletrap, 15:18:28 02/20/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Do Stay... -- Eric, 15:29:30 02/19/02 Tue
I appreciate your presence and contributions, even if I don't always agree with what you say.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: To the Board -- Darby, 19:46:58 02/19/02 Tue
It's in these situations that I get really inarticulate, moreso as I see these wonderful posts accumulate; all I can say, Rahael, is that it would be hard to imagine this board without your input. Glad to see that some comments made in our ignorance have not totally soured you on your experience here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: To the Board -- anom, 01:10:00 02/20/02 Wed
I'm really glad you're staying, Rahael. Rah Rah Rah indeed! And I'm glad the posters who said those things to you had the opposite effect of what they intended. I admire your graciousness toward people who haven't earned it, & your understanding of people who disagreed w/you but didn't use that as an excuse to attack you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Postscript -- Rahael, 06:36:01 02/20/02 Wed
I'm humbled, a little by the responses to this thread. And can I just say what a fantastic post by Darren?
Thank you to everyone for their good wishes. I just wanted to emphasise that I in no way was offering the board an ultimatum - "Agree with me or else!" Its just that we do have certain standards of behaviour and civility. I have a quick temper, and this is an issue that I feel strongly about. I was afraid that if I had stayed, I might go too far in the heat of the moment.
I wasn't soured toward the board; I just had a fear of my own limitations as far as reasoned debate is concerned.
I regret if anyone (like ID, above) read my post and thought that I was trying to enforce some consensus or try to impose a political agenda. In fact, as far as race, or poverty is concerned, I have no real idea of how to improve things. I wish I did have an agenda, some sense of how to go about fixing these things. All I can do is discuss, and exchange ideas. And my views on racism are definitely not fixed, and its not just about skin colour. There is racism in my country of origin even more vicious, and without involving skin colour, so really I am no more 'qualified' to pontificate on it than any other person on this board.
I don't think I called anyone a racist, or even came near to it. In fact, I don't think I've ever applied that label to anyone whom I've met or interacted with. As matching mole commented, it's not useful if your purpose is to try to change someone's mind. I have had friends who held views about black and asian people that alarmed me (apparently I was an honourable exception!) and I have had friends who have been Islamic fundamentalists or Christian fundamentalists...no Hindu fundamentalists as yet. Some have been reactionaries, many, 'left of sensible'. But I generally try not to have friends who are boring or dull, or who don't like a good argument!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Postscript -- fresne, 06:58:25 02/20/02 Wed
Don't worry, I don't think anyone believes that you were offering an ultimatum. You've certainly earned/bear the scars of your passions.
I didn't say anything in the race post, because well I have nothing constructive, unconstructive, or reconstructive to say. Well, other than an odd flashback to my Minority Cultures in America class in college. Twenty white middle class Americans reading the Bluest Eye and watching Gamylan. Couldn't think of anything useful to say there either.
Happily, you and so many posters here have discussed to far greater efficacy.
And, I would like to add my voice to those who genuinely enjoys your posts and I am glad that you'll be sticking around.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I hope others will forgive me for sounding cynical... -- Cactus Watcher, 07:51:28 02/20/02 Wed
First and off the topic of my title, like everybody else, I'm glad you'll still be around. I didn't participate in the discussion about race because by the time I was back from "no Buffy exile" the thread was already very long, and anything I could have said would have been redundant. I hope the things that have happened to you will not drive you into bitterness. I once literally stepped out of a crowd, and helped someone. It was not so much an act of courage on my part, as one of shame that it was happening. On another day, I might not have felt that way and would have stood by doing nothing like the others. I'm sorry no one stepped forward to help you when you needed it. Forgive us all, and by all, I mean humanity.
Back on to the topic of my title, it is all too convient that someone would choose this moment to make accusations against the board. Frankly, when I find a website I don't like, it pretty easy to type or click my way on to the next one. The fact this person took time to post a long gripe is a good indication it is not someone who just dropped by and found us disgustingly political. ;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Ooooh, CW, you read my mind! ;o) -- dubdub, 08:26:37 02/20/02 Wed
I suppose only our beloved Masq will know for sure, but I suspect we've heard from ID before...
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> If M in the thread above is Masq, are suspicions are confirmed. -- CW, 08:31:48 02/20/02 Wed
Not just a troll, but one we've seen before.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Eegad, make that 'our suspicions.' -- CW, the dyslexic, 08:40:27 02/20/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> If that's so -- Rahael, 08:47:26 02/20/02 Wed
Is this the first time that our little scamps (to quote mundus) have ever merged?
Usually we do post after post telling them to go away. This is the first time that it's threatened us with a departure!!!
But I thought that since it did have the courtesy to answer my challenge by coming back as a single entity, it should at least get the present of a nice poem. And if it did turn out to be a new poster, well, hedging my bets both ways!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: To the Board -- Spikesbitch, 19:18:43 02/20/02 Wed
I just thought I'd add a thanks to Rahael for your thoughtful post and I am truly sorry for the prejudice you have encountered. My own family sadly have very controversial views about race which is what caused me to point out to Fred that the majority culture is not always accepting depending on the attitudes of minorities. Both my parents frequently make offensive comments about immigrants coming to Britain. My stepbrother is an outright racist who is always complaining about people based on race and uses very offensive language whilst doing so. I would like to think that their views haven't influenced me in the slightest as I find their comments abhorent but unfortunately I suppose that we are all the product of our upbringing to some extent and I may have unconsciously been influnced. I certainly get tired of the amount of political correctness in our society today which is what caused our views to clash originally. But for what its worth I would hope that I am tolerant enough to accept all people regardless of ethnicity or sexual preference etc. I certainly welcome political immigrants to Britain whether asylum is being seeked or new skills are being offered to our country. So thanks for reading my posts with an open mind. And again I am sorry for the abuse you have suffered. I hope you have now found happiness and acceptence in our country.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the Austin Chronicle...."Fandemonium"...... -- Rufus, 05:50:49 02/19/02 Tue
www.austinchronicle.com
Fandemonium!
BY BELINDA ACOSTA
February 15, 2002:
They live among us. They could be neighbors, co-workers, a distant relative, or a close friend. They look for any "in" to talk about their pet subject. They make your eyes glaze over at parties or at the office coffeemaker as they wax incessantly over their obsession.
First-time parents? Pet owners? Sales people hoping to win you over to their pyramid sales scheme?
No, they're fans.
The above description is extreme, but who hasn't encountered someone they thought was a little too enthusiastic in their adoration of this musician or that movie star? And who hasn't secretly worried about their own ability to determine if they've crossed that thin line between being a connoisseur of cool to being that person others shake their heads at while saying, under their breath, "get a life"?
There are many levels of fanaticism and degrees of acceptance or dismissal. It depends on the object of the fanaticism and the medium. Sports fans are acceptable, especially if they're of the all-American, apple-pie variety. But fans of pro wrestling, the now-defunct XFL, or roller derby are less so.
There's stoic acceptance of those who lay flowers at the Dakota building on the anniversary of John Lennon's murder, or sing George Harrison songs at Strawberry Fields in Central Park. But Graceland, home of the late Elvis Presley, teeters between being an eyeball-rolling shrine to those who believe the King still lives and being accepted, tongue in cheek, as kitschy cool.
Those who spend hundreds of dollars a year for an HBO subscription in order to see The Sopranos or Sex and the City are au courant. The person who spends the same money at a Star Trek convention is a called a loser. The "L" is capitalized if the attendee goes to the convention in costume.
Who or what to blame for this stratified approval of fandom is as difficult to find as a pint of Romulan ale.
Fan clubs, fanaticism, fandom -- whatever the name -- are not new, though the rise of mass media, particularly television and now the Internet, plays a significant role in how swiftly the fires of fandom can flare into all-out fandemonium.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tabasco Sauce and Couch Potatoes
In television, the first groundswell of "fan action" occurred in 1967, when NBC canceled the Star Trek series. Fans inundated NBC with protest letters, saving the show for a third season, but not a fourth. However, as anyone who keeps up with popular culture knows, this was not the end, but the beginning of a TV and film franchise. It was also the birth of an enormous fan base that many regard as the prime example of fans gone over the edge.
A subsequent letter-writing campaign swelled around CBS's Cagney & Lacey in 1982. This effort ushered in the show's eight-year run and led to the formation of Viewers for Quality Television, according to Howard Wen in "Revolt of the Couch Potatoes" (Salon.com in 1998, www.salon.com/21st/feature/1998/08/24feature.html ). Today, Web rings, authorized and unauthorized fan sites, newsgroups, and simple e-mail can rally fans in the click of a few keystrokes. Although an online campaign failed to save another CBS drama, Brooklyn South, a more recent campaign by Roswell fans convinced the WB (which then carried the series) to renew the show. The campaign was a double whammy of sorts. Instead of just flooding the network with e-mail, fans decided online to snail mail bottles of Tabasco sauce to WB execs. The ploy was clever in that it provided the networks with tangible evidence of the show's fan base; media observers say network execs take greater stock in snail mail than in e-mail, because snail mail takes more thought and effort to execute. The campaign also brought a bit of playfulness to the ordinary complaint letter. Tabasco sauce is the beverage of choice for the alien teens on the series.
Playfulness aside, what kind of person goes to the trouble of buying Tabasco sauce and mailing it with a message that says, "Save my show!"?
The psychology of fans is the subject of countless books, articles, and films. Television fans in particular are overwhelmingly labeled as the most pathetic of the lot. Robert Putnam's Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community laments the role of television in the erosion of what Putnam calls "social capital," or the decline of civic engagement. Even television is not kind to TV watchers, as Jane Rosenzweig astutely observed in the May 7, 2000, issue of The American Prospect: "One of the great ironies of TV is that its heroes are rarely seen watching it, except when they're depressed."
Researchers who focus on the pathology of fandom say it's rooted in loneliness, the inability to foster relationships, poor self-esteem, an indistinct sense of self, obsessive-compulsive disorder, or the inability to separate reality from fantasy. In its most benign representation, the fan is a person who immerses himself in a fictional world. Who can forget Barbara Adams, the Star Trek fan from Little Rock? Adams turned heads in 1996 when she appeared for jury duty selection for the Whitewater trial wearing her Starfleet Commanding Officer's uniform (she was not selected). In several newspaper accounts and in the 1997 documentary Trekkies, she says she has modeled her personal conduct on the philosophy of Star Trek and wears her uniform to all formal functions to remind people of the "Starfleet ideals of intergalactic tolerance and peace."
From the dark side of the spectrum come names like John Hinckley Jr. and Mark David Chapman. Hinckley contends that he shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981 as a tribute to actress Jodie Foster. Chapman gunned down John Lennon in front of the Dakota building in 1980, hours after he sought Lennon's autograph. His explanation for his crime? Low self-esteem.
As a result of these often-cited representations of fans and fandom, some local fans quoted in this article asked that pseudonyms or only their first names be used.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gang of 12
Surely, there's another definition for fandom, an explanation that does not rest on a disturbed psychological profile. At least that's what I hoped when I was approached last summer by a small but enthusiastic legion of local fans distressed by the rumor that Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Roswell would be dropped by the WB and picked up by UPN. The netlet had left Austin airwaves the year before -- although UPN officials insisted that Austin could receive the network over the air from Fredericksburg. Star Trek: Voyager fans already knew this was not true. When UPN disappeared with little warning, they were unable to finish watching the last season of their favorite show.
The Buffy and Roswell fans wanted to know what I knew (not much) and copied me on e-mail messages sent to one another and to fan sites. Information was shared on who to address letters to, as were experiences with Time Warner Cable representatives. Dora Smith, an Austin Roswell fan, went so far as to locate FCC and franchise rules and station carriage guidelines. In the process, she discovered an FCC ruling that suggested that UPN should have been present in Austin via KBEJ in San Antonio.
"UPN needs to get the message that they're not getting the coverage they think they are. Fredericksburg is not coming in, and if KBEJ is supposed to be here, why isn't it?"
In the meantime, the Star Trek fans had already dealt with the loss of UPN. Thanks to a KVC-13 (which carried UPN) station representative unfamiliar with blind copying e-mail messages, over 100 Star Trek fans received the e-mail addresses of other like-minded fans who had originally written to KVC to voice their complaint. The response from the KVC representative was of the standard, "Thanks for writing. We feel your pain ..." type. But it didn't matter. The Star Trek fans began to e-mail each other, and before long, a core group of 12 viewers found a way to gather each Wednesday night to watch the newest episode of Star Trek: Voyager.
"Steve [Martin] was getting a tape from a friend in Boston," says Frank, an original member of the Voyager gang of 12. "He was working under contract with a company in North Austin, and got them to loan us a conference room. That was great -- highback leather chairs, a large screen. I eventually got a dish network system, canceled my cable, and started providing the tapes. When Steve's contract ended, we bounced to a couple of other places, but kept on watching."
When the Voyager series was coming to an end last summer, the gang of 12 wanted to have a special farewell screening. They wrote me for suggestions on how to get a screener copy of the last episode. As it turned out, the industrious group didn't need my help. Within a few days, not only did they get a screener (without commercials), but Tim and Karrie League graciously opened the Alamo Drafthouse Downtown for a Voyager finale screening in June.
"We really weren't sure what to expect," Frank says. "I mean, it was just 10 or 12 of us regular viewers."
The group got their answer when the Web site used to collect reservations stalled. Reservation requests flooded the site, overwhelming the site's server. A second and third screening were promptly added.
Enedelia Obregon and her family were among the attendees. She and her family missed the prior season, yet were willing to pack up the kids, drive from the comfort of their Northwest Austin home into downtown Austin in the middle of summer, and find parking to see the finale.
"We gotta see how it ends! I want to know if they get back home, and I think everyone else does, too," Obregon says. "It's like being in the middle of a good book and not getting to read the end!"
The response was repeated when the gang of 12 organized a premiere screening of the new Star Trek: Enterprise series at the Alamo Drafthouse Downtown in August.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Hello, I'm (don't print my name). I'm 47 years old, and I watch 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' --"
I shouldn't have been surprised when I first heard from Buffy (then Roswell) fans. I'd called them out, so to speak, in this paper's "TV Eye" column, where I said I suspected there were closeted Buffy fans out there. On a subconscious level, I think I needed to know they were out there. I'd already gotten lots of ribbing from family and friends, and one exasperated "You've got to be kidding!" from a colleague. Surely, I wasn't alone.
Turns out I was right. I got e-mails from the younger, target demographic, but also from middle-aged men and women, sharing favorite moments from the show and lamenting its possible loss in Austin. But there was something else expressed as well: embarrassment.
"I've been very careful to protect my respondents' anonymity," says Sharon Ross, a Ph.D. candidate in the Radio, Television, and Film department at the University of Texas. She's writing her dissertation -- that's right, her dissertation -- on the representation of female friendships in Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Xena: Warrior Princess. She has been collecting and analyzing viewer responses from a detailed questionnaire she began distributing in 1999.
"Part of the reason for the anonymity is because Buffy, in particular, is regarded as a teen show," Ross says. In reality, "Buffy (and Xena, now in reruns) have extraordinarily strong fan bases and many crossover fans of various genders, ages, ethnicities, and sexual orientations," she says. "The other reason, I think, is the fear of being labeled some kind of nut who doesn't have a life," she continues. "That's the unfortunate legacy of Star Trek fans, who've unfairly been made fun of for their devotion."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Face-to-Face
When Time Warner announced its change in channel lineup, adding KBEJ, the UPN affiliate in San Antonio, to its basic cable package, it seemed time for celebration. All that letter-writing and phone calling had paid off. Although local fan action was not directly credited, Time Warner alluded to its effectiveness in a flier with the new channel lineup and a cutline that read, "Buffy Is Back! That's Killer."
I proposed that all three Star Trek, Buffy, and Roswell fan groups meet. I wanted to see who these people were. How "out there" would they be? As it turns out, they were the most delightfully ordinary bunch of people I've met. The youngest was 22, the oldest near 50. They were semiprofessionals, students, mothers, and fathers. Single, married, short, tall, chatty, or politely reserved, they didn't match the stereotype of the quirky, socially arrested fanatic.
The Roswell fans in attendance were the liveliest of the group, including several twentysomething women and one gentleman named Richard, who admitted to being a little self-conscious about being the only male Roswell fan, and twice his group's age.
"I can't even get my kids to watch the show," he said. "I watch it because I'm interested in the Roswell story [a longstanding conspiracy theory that involves a downed spacecraft and the capturing of aliens outside the small town of Roswell, N.M., in 1947] to begin with. I like how they do such a good job of working with the relationship between the alien people with the earth people and how they learn to deal with each other."
Sharon Ross, Ph.D. candidate, assistant instructor in the UT RTF Dept., and Buffy the Vampire Slayer fan
photo by John Anderson
The local Roswell fans not only participated in the Tabasco sauce campaign, but were part of an elaborate letter-writing and telephone campaign to Time Warner Cable that included recruiting family, non-Roswell-watching friends, and even out-of-state fans.
"I love Buffy the Vampire Slayer," says Carol, a middle-aged fan of the series. "I love the writing, the stories, the ensemble aspect of the show. But I have to admit to feeling a little silly about getting so worked up about being able to watch a television show."
There was something to get worked up about, and it involves the fundamental question of who owns the airwaves. Technically, the networks are only borrowing the airwaves from the American public. This fact has been lost in the flurry of media conglomeration, relaxed FCC rules that benefit media moguls, and a public predominantly oblivious to it all. So, in some small, if unconscious, way, maybe the fan fight to demand that UPN return to Austin was a method of taking back what was rightfully theirs to begin with.
On another level, it seemed that something fundamentally necessary was also accomplished.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Telling Stories
"More and more there is embarrassment all around when the wish to hear a story is expressed," wrote cultural critic Walter Benjamin in his 1955 essay, "The Storyteller." "It is as if something that seemed inalienable to us, the securest among our possessions, were taken from us: the ability to exchange experiences."
The three fan groups I met are devoted to three distinct shows. Star Trek is set far in the future. Roswell and Buffy occur in the present. Buffy is rooted in vampire lore, while Roswell is fueled by the contemporary mystery of whether aliens from other planets live among us on earth. However, the overriding similarity among them all is in their strong internal mythology, and ultimately, each show's unique ability to imaginatively address what it means to be human. We may live in the Information Age, but information is not communication on a deeply meaningful level. As Benjamin writes, "The value of information does not survive the moment in which it was new."
"The Star Trek series has all the basic hallmarks of great art and literature," writes Donald Montgomery, a fan who attended the Star Trek: Voyager screening at the Alamo Drafthouse last June. "Lush character personalities based in the realities of real human existence, scripts of depth, action, and pacing appropriate to the medium, and my favorite part, the fierce devotion to a positive outlook and a happy future for us real humans. There is genuine uplift here, which is so rare in this day of mindless repetition and vulgarity."
I listened to each fan's explanation as to why he or she follows Buffy, Star Trek, or Roswell. Some admitted to having a crush on this character or that actor. But more than that, I heard the excitement in their voices when a favorite episode turned out to be the favorite episode of another, formerly faceless fan. I observed the delight in finding a like-minded soul, and the pleasure of retelling morsels of the tale, and the warm generosity of bringing newcomers to a series up to speed.
Could it be that with all our computers, beepers, wireless messaging, e-mail, voice mail, faxes, and cell phones, all created to bring information to us as fast and furiously as possible, that the need to admire the embroidery of a well-crafted story is stronger than ever?
There's a difference between taking stories literally and taking them seriously. The fans I met had both feet on the ground and a firm grasp of reality. When someone admits to being a fan of a highly imaginative project like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, the Star Trek series, Star Wars, and most recently, The Lord of the Rings, it's assumed they are unable to cope with the real world. In reality, perhaps they are coping in the most human way possible.
I first saw this at Baps...so thanks alanesue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> What should Buffy fans send -- skeeve, 08:33:12 02/19/02 Tue
Tabasco sauce would be pointless. What should Buffy fans send WB to get an eighth season of Buffy? Suggestions anyone?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Stakes -- Kimberly, 08:37:51 02/19/02 Tue
Added bonus: It would show that not only are we willing to take the time to do the snail mail thing, but stakes aren't available in your local supermarket; we'd have to make them.
And, at least in the US, it would UPN who would be giving us the eighth season of Buffy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Bloody hearts...that«ll show «em we«re not freaks! -- grifter, 09:39:13 02/19/02 Tue
Or not. ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> lol, oh boy, lol. -- yuri, 02:25:53 02/20/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: From the Austin Chronicle...."Fandemonium"...... -- pagangodess, 10:45:16 02/19/02 Tue
"Researchers who focus on the pathology of fandom say it's rooted in loneliness, the inability to foster relationships, poor self-esteem, an indistinct sense of self, obsessive-compulsive disorder, or the inability to separate reality from fantasy."
I'd like to meet these researchers, I bet they watch Buffy too, just don't admit it.
;)
pagan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: From the Austin Chronicle...."Fandemonium"...... -- Kimberly, 11:12:22 02/19/02 Tue
LOL pagan:
Speaking of how "typical" people view fans of science fiction and fantasy, one of my favorite comic strips (online) put this one up when The Phantom Menace was released:
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=19990516
And the sports fan would be considered nonlonely, able to foster relationships, good self-esteem, a distinct sense of self and an ability to separate fantasy from reality.
;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> lol, Kim... -- pagangodess, 14:30:54 02/19/02 Tue
..."bunch of freaks! Get a life!" rotflmao
It's ok if someone else does it, but if it's sci-fi, then it's all wrong all of a sudden. Hey, we all have our quirks. Live and let live.
pagan
P.S.: Notice I'm not mentioning any TV shows by name, so as not to put my foot in my mouth ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> people can yap about friends for 2 hours, but if I mention BtVS more than once a month I get giggles -- yuri, 02:34:27 02/20/02 Wed
(oop, there went my foot in my mouth. darn.)
And should I blush as hard as I do when I find myself humming "Walk Through the Fire?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> no need to blush, yuri -- pagangodess, 09:03:44 02/20/02 Wed
I humm an OMwF song at least once a day. Sometimes, I have it on really loud in my car (with windows up) and sing along. My kids sing along too, the younger(4yrs)likes 'I've got a theory', the older (6) favours 'Walk Through the Fire'. It's come to a point where they won't let me listen to anything else in the car. Not like I mind or anything.
So, ignore the giggles, yuri, and humm louder, heck, just belt it out loud, why not.
pagan
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: no need to blush, yuri -- dream of the consortium, 09:10:23 02/20/02 Wed
It's strange that watching television for an average of eight hours a day, without discussing anything watched, should be considered fairly normal, whereas watching an hour of television (I will mention for the umpteenth time how many people I know who don't watch television other than Buffy - lots) and actually caring enough about it to discuss it should seem pathological.
And I won't even touch the above-mentioned sports comparison.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: From the Austin Chronicle...."Fandemonium"...... -- purplegrrl, 14:59:25 02/20/02 Wed
Thanks for the transcript, Rufus. That's what I get for not picking up the Chronicle on a regular basis!
:-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buffy,Dawn, and Empire of the Sun question -- manwitch, 06:58:36 02/19/02 Tue
Found the Empire of the Sun thread in the archive. Sorry I missed it. Nice work.
So I wanted to ask, while it seems clear that EotS was the template for Older and Far Away with Dawn having some level of equivalency to Jim, perhaps as a season template goes, they are all Jim in their way, and the Scooby gang itself is the prison?
Alas, it is a flaw in my character that I do not read things like Empire of the Sun, so I don't know anything about it. But from what I read in the earlier thread, it seemed like all the characters have been through their own war for years, and that might be part of the "grow up" aspect. Its time to leave the prison camp, but they are all more comfortable trying to maintain what they had before Buffy's demise. They're all older and far away, like stars flying off into the galaxy, everything moving away from everything else.
Well, I'll stop here, cuz, like I said, I haven't read it. Anyone think its worth working on?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy,Dawn, and Empire of the Sun question -- Sophist, 08:29:29 02/19/02 Tue
When the connection was first made, someone gave a very brief description of the book. From that, I thought that Buffy was the one intended to be Jim. La Duquessa's analysis was very convincing about Dawn, but I'm with you --I think there may be something of Jim in other characters as well. In fact, I think the book may be significant to the whole season arc. I'm hoping someone else will tell us, but I probably should read the book. It's just that I'm kinda with Xander on this: "You mean there's homework?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy,Dawn, and Empire of the Sun question -- ponygirl, 09:01:26 02/19/02 Tue
It's been a while since I've seen the movie, but from my dim recollection I can certainly see a case being made for its significance for the whole gang. Jim's choosing of fantasy over reality, childhood over adulthood is presented in a very negative light. By clinging to his fantasy he loses his family. He is protecting himself from the very real pain and horror of his situation, but this also cuts him off from real emotion or connection. He cannot see the camp for what it is - a prison - and is thus reluctant to leave.
One could argue that the scoobies are clinging to the past, their old ideas of them selves, seeing it as a comfort rather than the trap that it is. I will leave it to someone who has read the book to argue the case, but the image that strikes me in this discussion is way back at the teaser of Bargaining. We had that terrific scene of the gang all working together, a real team kicking ass, they seem whole, healed. Then we see the Buffybot and realize that it isn't the case. They're still living in the past, even if it is a mockery of their memories.
The one thing that stays with me from Empire is of Jim mistaking the light of the blast at Hiroshima for a soul going to heaven. It was a great image, and perfect in the taking of something so vast and making it intimate. How this relates to Buffy I leave to wiser minds.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather an hijack a thread... ;-) -- Solitude1056, 10:11:13 02/19/02 Tue
I'll respond to Marie et al here:
No one is ineligible to talk about issues of race, because it's something we're all part of, whether we want to admit it or not. The problem, I find, is that race is a concept invariably wound up tightly in the same knot with culture... and that makes it especially hard to see past our own noses to the large signs in front of our collective faces, sometimes. And even race and culture can also get in a bind with gender, making it even more complex to untie the various threads and determine which needs the most work, first.
The university I'm attending is not only huge, it's also hugely multiethnic - I walk across campus and hear a dozen different languages in the same of a 15 minute walk. And my classmates are from just about everywhere; I don't have even a single class where white, middle class caucasians dominate. That's an unusual experience, short of the IT corporate world (where a higher percentage of my coworkers are international), but a valuable one. And it's one I'm betting my traditional age (under 22) college classmates don't even realize, but it gives me hope that they're learning to see other people not as dehumanized walking bots o' colored flesh, but as people, even with the messy misconceptions that everyone carries when it comes to race, culture, and gender.
So in some ways, yes, Joss' casting tendencies do lean towards the white, middle-class strata, I enjoy his work(s) because he's always carefully undercutting that appearance with some skillful metaphors. For instance, I would be disappointed if he ever thought to raise the question of whether Fred and Gunn should be together solely on the basis of their skin color. Hell, we've got a guy with green skin being a babysitter. And Buffy spent high school in love with a dead guy, so where's the shock by the time Tara and Willow were together? The fantastical metaphors for 'diversity,' in both circumstances, predates the realistic metaphors for 'diversity,' perhaps setting the audience up for accepting a gradual sidestep into everyday possibilities of diversity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Well put! -- grifter, 13:12:17 02/19/02 Tue
NOT making skin color an issue can be a much stronger positive statement then making it an issue, IMO!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Regarding "color blind" casting -- Vickie, 14:29:50 02/19/02 Tue
I tried to say something about this in the original thread, but I think it got buried in all the trolling and troll repelling.
(Or maybe it was just boring. Anyway...)
Some of the most interesting casting happens when the casting people are able to look at the best actor for the role instead of a particular type. I can think of two examples.
One: Lando Calrissian in episodes 5 and 6 of Star Wars wasn't written as a "black" character (Whatever that means in the eleventy millionth century). He was just written as clever, smooth, very attractive to the ladies. Casting Billy Dee Williams in the role was brilliant.
Two: Dr. Laura Rosen in the Babylon 5 episode The Quality of Mercy. The role was originally written as a male doctor, but June Lockhart became available and they wanted to work with her. Meaty role, nothing specifically masculine or feminine about a physician's ethics. It was great casting and she did a fine job.
It would be particularly difficult to cast a series regular this way, as regulars have to work as an ensemble with each character bringing something unique to the mix. However, I hope that, as we mature as a culture/species, we'll see more of this kind of thinking.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> well, yeah, but... -- anom, 20:45:56 02/19/02 Tue
...Williams was cast after there was a lot of questioning/complaints about the lack of nonwhite actors in the original "Star Wars." (Not that his casting wasn't brilliant anyway.)
"One: Lando Calrissian in episodes 5 and 6 of Star Wars wasn't written as a "black" character (Whatever that means in the eleventy millionth century). He was just written as clever, smooth, very attractive to the ladies. Casting Billy Dee Williams in the role was brilliant."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I didn't know that, anom -- Vickie, 21:04:20 02/19/02 Tue
I'm less impressed with the casting in the light of your information.
Still impressed with the performance though. ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Faith, Kendra and race -- cjc36, 10:29:06 02/19/02 Tue
The topic on Sunnydale and race (now sliding off the home page) got me re-wondering about Faith, Kendra and race. Kendra wasn't African-American, true, but she was a young woman of color.
Pretend for a moment the 'evil Slayer' plot was planned back in Season 2, before they decided to kill off Kendra, and the young woman who played Kendra got to play essentially a Faith-like Kendra in Season 3. How would that have been accepted? Would people say "Cool, an African-American actress gets to play a really juicy role, full of moral dilemmas and such!" Or would the choice to make Kendra evil be criticized because, yet again, American TV is showing a person of color as a villain?
Or another way of looking at it: In killing off Kendra did ME deny a really good role (the evil slayer of S3, occupied by Faith) to an African American actress?
DISCLAIMER: I realize Kendra's arc was nowhere near making her Faith at the time Dru killed her. Many plot arc roads would have to have been made to make Kendra into an evil person. But it wasn't out of the realm of possibility for Joss and Co.
DISCLAIMER 2: If this has been discussed before, mea culpa in advance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Faith, Kendra and race -- Hauptman, 12:15:28 02/19/02 Tue
An interesting question. The bottom line is that the corruption of a slayer would not have been acsessable to a large white audience if the actress was black. Non-whites are considered inherantely flawed by the larger, more dominant culture, and therefore the 'this could have been Buffy were it not for her friends and family' aspect would have been much harder to portray. It would have been a fine line to walk for Joss and Co. Basically, to make it work they would have had to undo all the things we have been wailing about recently, they would have had to eliminate racism, and then move the story forward. But then moving the story of corruption would have undone the undoing and...well, it's just a mess.
Kendra and Gunn are probably the two most involved black characters on the show (I usually refer to Buffy and Angel as one show) and I think that while the show itself is not a white show, it does pander to the dominant paradigm. Everything does.
Kendra was not only a 'good' vampire slayer (vs. the evil that is Faith) she was obedient to the exact edicts of the WC. She was, in fact, a rules following tool of the establishment. So, she was exactly what the viewing audience was liekly to accept from a black character: someone who would try as hard as possible to be exactly what 'we' want them to be, allowing 'us' to look past her skin. Faith, not having this baggage or expectation, could move right in and be a more dynamic character. She could become the anti-Buffy, Buffy's sister, Buffy's rival in ways that Kendra could not.
I think that Kendra's color also allowed an audience that is used to seeing african-americans as supernatural helpers in film saw that Kendra is by-the-book more quickly. My list of supernatural Helpers of color includes, but is not limited to Whoopie Goldberg in 'Ghost', Will Smith in the Ledgend of Bagger Vance', Scattman Crothers in 'The Shining', black actors in 'the Green Mile', 'Family Man', 'The Stand', and even the African-American President played by Morgan Freeman in 'Deep Impact'. These are people of color who have MORE power than the people in the dominant paradigm, but choose to maintain the status quo as a matter of course. So Kendra was exactly what whould have been accepted.
Gunn. I like Gunn. But Gunn exists to serve. What we know about Gunn would fit into a paragraph. I don't think there has been a single story about Gunn. His origin, the death of his sister, the one time he was shown to be a loose cannon, all can be dismissed (and has been cut out) as it does not add to the depth of his character. They were mearly tools of introduction. Gunn cannot be shown to betray or threaten the rest of the group the way Angel (a time bomb) or Wesley can. Gunn has to be shown to be 100% trustworthy at all times. He is static. A helper.
The women on the show suffer from different, but similar limitations dictated to by the larger paradigm. But these limitations are broken by female vampires. So, even though they appear to be white women, those who would be disturbed by their behaviour can always say they are not human.
I would not mind the disproportionate number of vampires of color on the show if they at least had something to say, if they would push the envelope a bit and allow for that little trick (oh, they are vampires) to be used. For example, I try to be cordial most of the time, people have often said that I am able to talk about difficult things dispassiionately. (I take that as compliment, but part of me would rather be as passionate as Rahael and others here.) But what if I were vamped? Then I could use my knowledge of sociology and race relations to be evil. That would be cool to watch for some, but to the dominant paradigm it would be seen as proof of something they already believe. Something they have to believe in order to maintain complacency. That people of color are flawed, maybe evil.
Vamping a woman and having her play with issues of sexuality is easier as the dominant gender paradigm does not seek to separate from women, only marginalize them, control them. Therefore, women can be shown to be less than their idea of ideal as long as there is an explanation.
Chordy doesn't lie, cheat or steal. She doesn't do anything questionable. Nor does Fred. Buffy is a Slayer (read:other), Anya is a former vengence demon, Willow and Tara are lesbians, Dawn is the living embodiment of a mystical key. They are allowed to misbehave because there is a reason for it. Xander, just a regular guy, and top of the food chain in America, is allowed to be disloyal, to hold back information and act selfishly wihtout causing a big stir or being called on it because he's just one of the guys.
So, to get back to the point. You couldn't have done a Kendra the evil Vampire Slayer story in America, because you can't fall or find redemption here if your skin is colored. You can't fall from the bottom and your can't be redeemed without elevation.
Joss and company are doing what they can, but it's a big task. I don't expect them to make it their mission to break out of all the crap we humans have designed. They can't do whatever they want in television though it may seem so sometimes. I would love to get his take on this issue.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> brilliant -- manwitch, 12:28:46 02/19/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> i concur with manwitch. *absolutely* brilliant. -- Sebastian, 13:07:54 02/19/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Gunn and race -- Amber, 13:35:04 02/19/02 Tue
>What we know about Gunn would fit into a paragraph. I >don't think there has been a single story about Gunn.
Actually we had an hour of Gunn this year in "That Old Gang of Mine" and one last year in another episode (can't remember the title) where Cordy convinced Gunn to be careful of his self-distructive nature (something his sister used to warn him about)
Angel:The Series tends to focus heavily on, you guessed it, Angel. Last season we only got about one episode devoted solely to Cordy, same for Gunn and Wes. This year Cordy has more episodes revolving around her, but Wes and Gunn have really only had one each. Personally I don't think race is an issue here, I think it's the fact that David Boreanez's agent ensured he has a really good contract and he gets more screen time than the rest of his ensemble cast.
One thing really bugs me is those Actor Shots the WB does during commercial breaks and before the show starts. (You know, stuff like "Stay tuned for an all new Angel", etc.) For the past two years those ads have shown only Angel and Cordy, this year they added Gunn to the ads, but sometimes show a shorter version that only has pics of Cordy and Angel. When Buffy had the same ads on the WB they featured all the major cast members (Spike, Buffy, Willow, Dawn and Xander) as do the ads for Felicity, Dawson's Creek and Charmed. Considering Angel also has an ensemble cast shouldn't the ads equally feature Gun, Fred, Wes, Cordy and Angel?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Gunn and race -- Hauptman, 15:22:22 02/19/02 Tue
You say potato and I say dominate paradigm at work.
Get this: I said that what we know about Gunn would fit in a paragraph and that there have never been any shows about him. You basically said that the shows are never about much more than Angel and gave a few examples of when Gunn was featured.
We can argue about which is the right viewpoint until we are both blue, but the fact is we see this differently.
I will put the Gunn thing aside for a moment and point to another show to try to make an illustration. Star Trek: the Next Generation.
During this series every main character at one time or another was called upon to be a parent. Every main character that is except Geordie (if I am spelling that correctly). Crusher had Crusher, Pikard was a parent several times (though they were either false, out of time, or part of a cultural exchang--Trekkers will know what I mean), Troi, Data, the Chief, Riker, Worf...all were called on, at one time or another to be a parent. Geordie, however, was not. Why? Because it wouldn't have been interesting television for a character like Geordie to be seen fathering. Not because he was black, but because he was a nothing. Geordie had an abundant lack of personality. He had no drives, no passions. No flaws. No character. Geordie was there to play off the others. He was also a helper. And helpers are rarely shown to have their own lives, their own agendas. By the way, Worf doesn't count as a human of color. I would think that obvious, but best to cover bets.
So, if you had to pick the regular cast member character on that Star Ship Enterprise that is most loyal and most likely to obey an order (excluding data a non-human)who would it be? I say that it would have to be Geordie. Is it an accident that he was played by an african-american actor? I would have to say no. Was this intentional? I would say no. But it is real.
Now in AtS, we know all about Angel's father. We know about Chordy's, we know about Wesley and his father. And hell, they just became regulars but we already know Fred and the Host's parents. They all have history, connection. Not just to a sister who was vamped, staked and never mentioned again. It may seem like a small thing, but once you start to add up a hundred small things they aren't so small.
To illustrate, let's say we all plan to take a vacation together. All of us on this board are going to Alaska on a big boat. Okay. So let's say that we decide that I am in charge of provisions. Everyone has a job and that is mine. Okay so we get to Alaska and you all discover that I did not bring certain things. There is no sun block. There are no sanitary napkins. All the food is food that I like. Would I have done a very good job? I would have to say no. But what if you complained to me and my response was, "Well, I don't use sunblock because I don't tan very much, I don't need sanitary napkins because I am male and the food seems fine to me." Would that be worse than me just doing a bad job? If I consistantly shrugged and said it wasn't my fault would you give me that job again?
We in the non-white community for the most part have to watch as the media repeatedly get's the job again and again. The same mistakes are made because they aren't "important."
When you can't do something as fundamental as develope one of your main characters because to touch on it would require doing actual work, I am not impressed. I think they intend to do it with Gunn. I don't see how they can sweep it under the rug unless they somehow get rid of Gunn's former organization, which, considering the kind of work they do, is possible. Maybe their slaughter will be the kind of defining moment missing in Gunn's developement.
Yes, the sister ting is a defining moment. But it happend as soon as we met him. We were not in a position to see it's effect because we didn't know the guy. We still don't and that is the problem.
Choosing to be with Angel Investigations is the hardest thing Gunn has had to do. But, while they built it up, there has been no pay off. He is firmly in with the AI gang. As far as I am concerned, other than that, he's been going with the flow.
Still, his character is a thousand times better than Geordie.
The Fred-Gunn thing. I like them as a couple. I hope that will help define them both. Any love relationship has its ups and downs and we learn from it. But if Gunn and Fred have smooth sailing then that will prove my point. Actually the producers are damned if the do and damned in they don't. So I hope they do have troubles. Then they would be real people instead of whatever Gunn is now.
I know the people who I was arguing with before will probably read this and say, "What else does he want? There's a black guy in the main cast! Jesus!" It's all well and good for Gunn to be there. Yay Gunn! Now if they could bring him to life, that would be great.
And I don't want to be in charge of provision, for the record. I'll take navigation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Gunn and race -- leslie, 15:51:37 02/19/02 Tue
Interesting what you say about Gunn being a "helper" and that "helpers" don't have lives. This seems to me to be one of the defining aspects separating Buffy and Kendra, as well, which also follows this race dichotomy you're pointing out--Kendra was happy to be a helper, the Slayer is the Helper Extraordinare as far as she was concerned, but Buffy keeps insisting on being more than simply Helpful. Part of her estrangement from her friends, now and in the past, has been when they fail to realize that in addition to being a Helper of the World, she is also human and confused.
At the same time, Gunn does--or did--have that sister, which is still family. Cordy, Wes, and Fred all appear to be only children; Angel, given the era of his human life, was bound to have had siblings but they are not featured at all in his psychohistory; Willow and Xander, again, appear to be only children, and Buffy *was* an only child until Dawn was created. You could argue that while Gunn has missing parents, he is the only one who seems to have had a real sibling relationship--the others all have had to create erzatz siblings in their friends and coworkers. And while we know a lot about, say, Angel, Wes, and Cordy's disappointing relationships with their fathers, we know virtually nothing about their mothers. Interesting--the opposite is true in Sunnydale--we know all about Joyce, we have actually once laid eyes upon Mrs. Rosenberg, and Mrs. Harris is a kind of thump offstage, but the fathers really don't seem to have had any impact on their kids' lives. Is Angel the Show of Oedipal Conflict while Buffy is the Show of Ultimately Abandoning Mothers?
Drifting off topic here.... So, Hauptmann, what do you see in Gunn's choice to leave his people-of-origin, where he was a leader among real and social siblings, to become a helpful outsider among people with father issues?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Gunn and race -- Hauptman, 16:46:15 02/19/02 Tue
"Is Angel the Show of Oedipal Conflict while Buffy is the
Show of Ultimately Abandoning Mothers?"
This is a facinating idea, Leslie. I will have to give it some thought.
"Drifting off topic here.... So, Hauptmann, what do you see in Gunn's choice to leave his people-of-origin, where he was a leader
among real and social siblings, to become a helpful outsider among people with father issues?"
Honestly, my brutal answer is that the dom. paradigm has to expect that a minority will abandon his or her social location to join with the dominant one if given an opportunity. It's one of the reasons the boarder is guarded so carefully and why non-whites have to continually swear loyalty in order to belong or at least operate without supervision.
To some Gunn will be seen as a man who organized his social location to do battle with evil forces, got an opportunity to step up the battle on a higher level, made new friends and met a beautiful woman who loves him. To others, Gunn will be seen as a someone who struggled to survive, found an opportunity to work and improve his situation, betrayed his racial obligation to where he comes from and is now poised to shack up with a white woman, which is the secret desire of all black men.
It's so loaded, but that isn't the show's fault. All that has come before it affects it. When Fred was talking to Chordy before the ballet about how commanding he seemed, I could not help but flash on Othello, because that is the situation where a black man and a white woman were famously in love. If there were several other examples, I may not have flashed on that one. That is the overall problem. There are so few examples that when the human mind starts to make comparisons it adds up to Othello. Wesley is perfectly placed to play Iago. He may have already started. But rather than create a mythology that includes black people, mostly we get a legecy of helpers and shells like Geordie, Tanto and Kato.
Keeping Gunn bland instead of the dynamic leader Angel once respected is a slick bid at inclusion, but maintains the limp legacy. So far anyway.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Gunn and race -- yabyumpan, 08:09:37 02/20/02 Wed
I think it's true that they're "damed if they do and damed if they don't". I would love to see Gunn's character fleshed out more, I have real problems with him being only "the muscle", but it's a doubled edges sword. My first reaction to Gunn enjoying the Ballet in WITW was "great, they're not going with the stereo-typical reaction which was present when Angel gave them the tickets", my second reaction was to cringe because there was amusement to be had from the fact that an African-American young man might enjoy the ballet! Dammed if they do etc. going back to Gunn being the "muscle", this has always been a problem for me because it is so much of a stereotype; "black guy as thug", even if it is for the side of good. I want him to be more, so much so that i'm in the middle of writing a fanfic which fleshes out his character and his history. I frustrates the hell out of me, i'm a white woman living in the uk in a very multi-cultral area and know many men of Afro-Carribian origin from consultant surgans to crack-heads and none of them are in anyway as one dimensional as Gunn, including my ex-husband. I just want him to be "more".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Gunn and race -- anom, 11:41:59 02/20/02 Wed
"My first reaction to Gunn enjoying the Ballet in WITW was 'great, they're not going with the stereo-typical reaction which was present when Angel gave them the tickets', my second reaction was to cringe because there was amusement to be had from the fact that an African-American young man might enjoy the ballet!"
That may be why they showed Gunn's earlier reaction, so his later enjoyment could be funny against that background instead of against a default background of race-based expectations (& also balance Cordelia's earlier & later reactions). But his initial reaction doesn't have to be seen as related to his race either; it would have been as much of surprise if Doyle had found he enjoyed ballet. Ballet has a reputation w/a lot of people as something of an elite art that's more likely to be enjoyed by a certain type of people--a very small group, with African-American young men & many other people outside it. (Anyone else remember the ep of "Cheers" in which Diane drags several regulars to an opera? The camera pans over their faces, which show various degrees of interest & boredom, & then to Diane...snoring like Cordelia.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Gunn and race -- vandalia, 16:04:43 02/19/02 Tue
I know the people who I was arguing with before will probably read this and say, "What else does he want? There's a black guy in the main cast! Jesus!" It's all well and good
for Gunn to be there. Yay Gunn! Now if they could bring him to life, that would be great.
I have to agree with this 100%. Gunn is a pretty, pretty man (was it just me, or did he look especially pretty this last ep? I can't even call him handsome, he looked pretty. I guess love'll do that to a man) but so far that's all we've got, is a face and a slapdash background of 'grew up on the streets, formed vigilante monster-hunting gang, lost sister to vamping, threw in with vampire-with-a-soul and friends.' Oh yeah, and now we know he likes opera. Throwing in some slang does not a character make. I want to see Gunn get mad. I want to see Gunn screw up. I want to see Gunn have likes and dislikes that aren't judgemental, but just are (Wesley turn that Spice Girls crap down!) I want to see GUNN. We know just enough about him to want to know more and they haven't given us diddly. The actor's being wasted in the role, and I really hope they give him something meaty in his relationship with Fred. Why Fred? Why not Cordelia? Why not any other woman out there (Wesley had a girlfriend they just happened to bring in as a customer, yes?) At the very least let's have a flashback to his mama! SOMETHING that shows us where Gunn came from, because my guess is he didn't spring full-grown from a manhole at age 18, fighting monsters and leading street kids.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Gunn and race -- ID, 21:36:23 02/19/02 Tue
Complaining about racism will always be with us. It benefits too many people for them to let go.
500 years from now people will still be complaining about what "They" did to "Our" people.
A wolf and a lamb came down the river to drink. The wolf turned to the lamb and said "I am going to eat you." The lamb asked "why?" The wolf said "Two years ago you insulted me" and the lamb said "well it couldn't be me, I am only two months old." The wolf replied "Then it must have been your father," and ate the lamb.
It must be great to have this Atomic bomb to throw in people's face when you don't feel the world is treating you right.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> The Mower -- Rahael, 04:55:19 02/20/02 Wed
The Mower
The mower stalled, twice; kneeling, I found
A hedgehog jammed up against the blades,
Killed. It had been in the long grass.
I had seen it before, and even fed it, once.
Now I had mauled its unobtrusive world
Unmendably. Burial was no help:
Next morning I got up and it did not.
The first day after a death, the new absence
Is always the same; we should be careful
Of each other, we should be kind
While there is still time.
Philip Larkin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Faith, Kendra and race -- Randy Giles, 14:53:08 02/19/02 Tue
This was an extremely insightful post, but I think the realities of the "dominant paradigm" are even more complex. Clearly in U.S. society at large, at least in the white part, there is still the tendency to impute criminality and evil to people of color, especially when people are choosing what neighborhood to live in or what schools their children should attend. However, depictions of blacks and Indians and Latinos in entertainment media are governed by a related but also contradictory paradigm (the "politically correct" one, as some would have it), in which people of color are treated as morally and spiritually superior beings who may get angry and may get killed (in action shows), but never fail to be wiser, more dignified, better dressed, and more loyal than white characters. This is Hollywood's attempt (sincere, I think) to be enlightened, and enlighten the rest of us, on matters of race. For examples, see almost the entire filmographies of Sidney Poitier, Bill Cosby, Morgan Freeman, and Will Smith. Kendra follows in this tradition of black paragons; Gunn presents a bit of a twist, though he is certainly the world's most high-minded gang leader and has now fallen for the whitest white girl going. The Hollywood paragon paradigm obviously does lead to static characters, and unintentionally demeaning ones like the string of black spirit guides to white people that Hauptman mentions.
The problem with this sort of racial analysis of pop culture is the creators can never never never win. Almost any bad thing they let a character of color do or be can be labeled as negative or stereotypical. The paragon approach, in which the person of character cannot do or be anything bad except get tragically captured, beaten, or killed, is then deconstructed a la Hauptman.
The only way out is to make a person of color the protagonist of the story, allowing more complexity to enter into the character, at least if the protagonist is fundamentally powerful and heroic. Then a few weaknesses can be thrown in. But even here there can be problems, because any story with a non white male hero will generate expectations and tensions about how well the character represents his or her ethnicity and/or gender. Sometimes the way out of this one is to ignore the outside society altogether, and create a multicultural group of characters whose differences are never mentioned, as in "Alias" and many advertisements.
White female characters are a little bit ahead of people of color in this cycle. Once they were sex objects, mothers, or damsels in distress. Then they got to be spies and scientists and pilots who ended up as sex objects and damsels in distress. We have now arrived at a pass when most of the superheroes on television are beautiful young girls, with some storylines depicting universes (as in "Alias" and "Buffy," where _all_ the superheroes appear to be beautiful young girls.)
In the end, I am not sure that this "media depiction" stuff really warrants the amount of energy the people, scholars, and think tanks put into worrying about it. Nobody's neighborhood would be improved, nor would the inequalities of wealth in this country be narrowed, if Gunn or Kendra were allowed more character development.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Faith, Kendra and race -- LeeAnn, 22:57:57 02/19/02 Tue
"However, depictions of blacks and Indians and Latinos in entertainment media are governed by a related but also contradictory paradigm (the "politically correct" one, as some would have it), in which people of color are treated as morally and spiritually superior beings who may get angry and may get killed (in action shows), but never fail to be wiser, more dignified, better dressed, and more loyal than white characters. This is Hollywood's attempt (sincere, I think) to be enlightened, and enlighten the rest of us, on matters of race" - Randy Giles
I think this is the reason that someone like Spike cannot, at this point in our cultural development, be portrayed by a black actor. Any negative, nasty or stupid thing that Spike did would then be perceived by some people as an insulting and demeaning to all blacks. That tends to limit the storylines open to black characters.
Briefly imagine Spike played by a black actor. Would Buffy punching him be perceived as the white world emasculating black men? Would their sexual relationship be perceived as more or less exploitive? Would his "helper" status seem to less reflect friendship and love than differences in their status?
Would Spike HAVE to be the noble vampire with a soul instead of the often stupid but endearing sod so many of us enjoy?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> It's more likely the reaction would be the opposite -- Sophist, 09:28:02 02/20/02 Wed
Your post suggested a reaction by some, but I think the majority (i.e., white) reaction would be quite different. Sadly, I think the majority of the audience might find confirmation of it's preconceptions of bad behavior by "them". The writer's efforts to portray a complex moral theme would be lost in the audience's prejudices. That, I am afraid, is what limits the roles available.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Faith, Kendra and race -- leslie, 14:59:24 02/19/02 Tue
It's interesting that while we are all able to accept the metaphoricity of BtVS in terms of its literalizing all manner of teen and twenty-something angst, sexuality, etc., when you get down to race, skin color is only seen as skin color. I've always taken the vampires and demons to be the "blacks" of the series (within an Anglo-American cultural context). What was interesting about introducing Kendra was that, as an Afro-Caribbean woman, she literalized not the black-white dichotomy but brought out into the open the imperialist nature of the Council. Yes, she was the "good colonial subject," obedient and willing to let the patriarchy do her thinking for her.
But then, the difference between Buffy and Faith was one of economic class, and while we tend to look solely at black-white relations here in the US as being based on race, I am rather more convinced by the evidence that this is something based on class. Skin color is merely an easy identifier for "person whose ancestors were probably slaves." It certainly seems to be the best explanation for why one group of people who has been here for a hell of a long time has not, as a whole, achieved the kind of economic success that later immigrant groups have done.
But let's face it (no pun intended), if you look at what vampires and demons *do* on BtVS, in comparison with what, historically, has been represented on cop shows, they do the things that black and Latino gangs do: blood-letting. And they are physically marked by their "difference" as inescapably as having dark skin. In fact, while vampires can "pass for human" when they want to, demons are inescapably marked by the quality of their skin, albeit its texture rather than its color.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Faith, Kendra and race -- Grant, 00:53:31 02/20/02 Wed
I'm going to have to say that I very much disagree with you here. Certainly, I question your comments that the dominant culture views non-whites as inherently flawed and your whole conception of a dominant paradigm. However, that is a longer and much more off-topic discussion and I do not think this is the right venue. Instead, I'm going to question your limited view of the characters Gunn and, to a lesser degree because she is a much more limited character, Kendra.
Your analysis seems to be constricted by your political viewpoints, which is always a dangerous trap to fall in to when you start analyzing works of fiction. You begin to twist around the facts and analyze the characters based on your theory about how the world works rather than analyzing them as characters in their own rights. It is like those who claim that Caliban from Shakespeare's The Tempest is an anti-colonial figure. Now, I'm a pretty fervent believer that Shakespeare was way ahead of his time, but I would never claim that he could somehow create an anti-colonial symbol even before colonialism had begun. But such is the world when you bring a political "paradigm" into your interpretation of a work of fiction.
Take, for example, you views on Gunn. You correctly state that Gunn is very loyal. However, your assumption that he is this way because that is what the dominant paradigm demands of this character. You seem to ignore that his development as a character demands this of him. Gunn became a protector figure for a bunch of kids at a very young age. He came to believe that he alone was responsible for caring for the member of his crew. Whenever one of them died, he felt that it was his fault, and he particularly blames himself for the vamping of his sister. This is why Gunn has become so loyal to his friends; he feels that if he doesn't help and protect his friends, they might end up like Allona or the others he has lost.
If you want a good episode that backs up this view of the character, watch season two's "First Impressions." This is a very strong characterization episode for Gunn, where you get a pretty good luck at who he is and why he does what he does. I believe it even does a better job of that then "Warzone." Also think back to "Over the Rainbow," where Gunn is originally going to leave Angel Investigations. He reconsiders his decisions when Angel leaves a message making it seem like they might not be coming back from their voyage to Pylea. Gunn is the loyal helper in this case because he does not want Angel, Wesley, and Cordelia to possibly die because he abandoned them.
You also argue that we know a lot about the other characters but what we know about Gunn could fill up a paragraph. This is simply not supported by the facts. Sure, we know a lot about Angel, but he was a major character on BtVS as well were many of the season one and two episodes revolved around learning new things about his past as Buffy questioned her relationship with him. He is also the title character, which explains why he gets to be Mr. Flashback within the show and so many episodes are about exploring his past.
Cordelia and Wesley were both also previously on Buffy, yet we really don't know a lot about them. You claim that we know both of their parents, yet that is not true. We don't know the names of either of their parents and could barely fill a sentence with the other details we know. Cordelia's dad was rich but then got caught on tax evasion. Wesley's father is mean and Welsey has a bunch of issues with him. At least we met Gunn's sister and know her name. In fact, we've probably seen more closely into Gunn's early life than most of the other characters. We have no solid information about what Wesley's life was like before he came to Sunnydale. We've never met any of his old Watcher's Council allies or friends from England. With Gunn, we've seen his crew. We've seen him before he was part of Angel Investigation. We can name a bunch of his friends, and by being able to name his sister we can name more family members of his than pretty much every other character in BtVS besides Buffy.
And as for whether Gunn is allowed to be disloyal, did you see "That Old Gang of Mine"? You know, the one where Gunn hid evidence and lied to the AI gang to try and do things his way, which lead to a lot of death and the first destruction of Caritas. Or "First Impressions," where Cordelia decided she needed to protect Gunn from himself and his self-destructive tendencies? Gunn is a much more complicated character than you seem to give him credit for.
Leavin Gunn, I want to briefly address your views on Kendra. You contention seems to be that because Kendra is black, the writers decided she needed to be a highly obedient character. However, I would argue that they came up with the attributes with the character in the opposite order. They first decided to have a character who was the different from Buffy because she was the perfect slayer, which helped Buffy learn important lessons about herself in "What's My Line" 1 and 2. I'm going to assume that their next step was not to decide this character must be black so that they could assert the dominant paradigm. They most likely did this to show that Slayers come from all around the world, and not just from America and England. And what better way to do that then to pick an exotic looking actress and give her a kooky accent ;-)
It is always tempting to use characters from different stories and works of fiction to support a political viewpoint. This is a mistake, though, for these characters have their own world. They don't belong in ours.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Faith, Kendra and race -- yuri, 03:22:33 02/20/02 Wed
Your analysis seems to be constricted by your political viewpoints, which is always a dangerous trap to fall in to when you start analyzing works of fiction. You begin to twist around the facts and analyze the characters based on your theory about how the world works rather than analyzing them as characters in their own rights. It is like those who claim that Caliban from Shakespeare's The Tempest is an anti-colonial figure. Now, I'm a pretty fervent believer that Shakespeare was way ahead of his time, but I would never claim that he could somehow create an anti-colonial symbol even before colonialism had begun. But such is the world when you bring a political "paradigm" into your interpretation of a work of fiction.
"How the world works" affects the writers of fiction just as it affects the readers. The environment that leads to art is worth considering, IMHO, at least when you start really making a detailed analysis. Analyzing Gunn in terms of race in america today is different than analyzing Caliban in terms of colonialism, because the first interprets fiction with respect to its own era and the second interprets fiction with respect to an era five hundred years after it was created.
I don't watch Angel regularly (she says sheepishly) so I haven't seen most of the Gunn - oriented episodes you reference, and what I see when I turn on that show is a bland character with not much personality, regardless of whether or not he has an equal background story as everyone else.
You contention seems to be that because Kendra is black, the writers decided she needed to be a highly obedient character. However, I would argue that they came up with the attributes with the character in the opposite order. They first decided to have a character who was the different from Buffy because she was the perfect slayer, which helped Buffy learn important lessons about herself in "What's My Line" 1 and 2. I'm going to assume that their next step was not to decide this character must be black so that they could assert the dominant paradigm. They most likely did this to show that Slayers come from all around the world, and not just from America and England. And what better way to do that then to pick an exotic looking actress and give her a kooky accent ;-)
I think you could be absolutely right that the Kendra's race was decided last, but, as Hauptman points out, there is something to be said that they _did_ choose a black actress rather than a white one. No one is saying that the casting directors counsciously thought "because Kendra is black, she needs to be a highly obedient character," it's more about an unconcious prejudiced thought process that leads to casting the same sorts of people in the same sorts of roles without necessarily intending to.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Faith, Kendra and race -- Grant, 12:42:58 02/20/02 Wed
I understand your argument that it can be useful and important to examine the environment that leads to art. My counter is that while you are doing this you must make sure you keep the two worlds separate. It is possible that the character of Gunn was created simply to play along a dominant paradigm, whether the writers decided this unconsciously or consciously. However, beforer you make that assumption you should examine whether there is another reason contained within the fictional world of why the character is how he is. With Gunn, I argue that there are clear reasons why he is such a loyal character, that based on his developement this is what we expect from him. It takes almost no assumptions to arrive at this conclusion, as it is strongly based on textual evidence. It takes some pretty big assumptions to decide that Gunn is the way he is because he is fullfilling a paradigm, not the least of which is the assumption that there is a dominant paradigm and all members of the dominant culture automatically and subconsciously believe in this paradigm. These kinds of assumptions also completely ignore the textual reasons for Gunn's character development, which is something you should never do when discussing a fictional character.
You are also right that the Caliban example does not have a perfect relation to this discussion. The reason I used an example out of Shakespeare is that his works are probably the most examined and written about in history. And throughout these examinations, a number of people have put forth interpretations that talk about Falstaff as the emblem of materialism or King Lear as a male chauvenist. Unfortunately, in order to make these interpretations the characters are separated from the text. The interpreters ignore the fact that Falstaff and Lear are the way they are for reasons related to the story, and thus their interpretations are based on Falstaff as related to the modern world and not Falstaff as related to the world of Henry IV.
Your comment that you don't watch Angel much but when you do and you see Gunn you find that he fits your viewpoint only supports my argument. You haven't taken a complete view of the character in his own right as he relates to the world of Angel, but simply assume from the snippets you have seen that he fits your views that are based on the real world. Before you ever even think about taking a character out of his world and relating him to something in the real world you must first spend time examining the character against his own world. And if there is a textual/character development/plot reason why the character is the way he is, I would say that it far outweighs attributing his characteristics to external forces.
I would also have more caution in asserting the idea of a subconscious thought process that the majority shares which tells them how to act. Considering how pluralistic society, particularly American society, is, it would be very hard to prove that the majority would all have the same unconscious prejudices. America is a country whose people have an overwhelming sense of individualism, and the other aspects that might also unite people in an unconscious belief, such as religion and culutre, differ violently across the nation. Moving from New York city to middle of nowhere Nebraska, you are going to encounter vastly different cultures and people, which makes the concept that they share the same unconscious worldview difficult to maintain. Especially when skin color is the major factor used to denote who has these unconscious prejudices. A person from Alaska and a person from South Carolina will have lead very different lives in very different circumstances, and it is huge stretch to believe that because they share the same skin color they automatically but subconsciously subscribe to a dominant paradigm which denotes that blacks on television or in the movies must be one-dimensional characters who exist only to be obedient and help out the other characters.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Faith, Kendra and race -- Sophist, 14:16:16 02/20/02 Wed
Your comments are fair and thoughtful, but I disagree with what I interpret as your conclusions. I'm only going to address your second point (about the many different cultures in America), but I think there may be implications in what I say about your textual point.
I'd like to start by asking if you agree that racism was pervasive in American society at least through the 1950s. This doesn't mean everyone was racist, but it does mean that it was overwhelmingly common, that an apartheid system existed in the South and parts of the North, and that it was common to hear derogatory comments about individuals based on their perceived race. Lots else, of course, but at least this.
Any fair person would agree that our society has made very substantial progress since then. IMO, the moral legacy of MLK (and many others) is the greatest feature of American society post-WWII. Our society today observes far higher standards of moral behavior today than it did in 1950 because so many more people treat others as individuals deserving of respect. Legal apartheid has been abolished, and we no longer hear racist epithets from major politicians.
That being said, it seems clear to me that we still have quite a ways to go. Some examples: neighborhoods and school systems are segregated de facto, even if not legally; studies consistently show that black citizens are denied housing in favor of white applicants; debates on affirmative action result in racist comments by those opposed to it; ethnic profiling is used in circumstances where it can't be justified from a statistical analysis.
Where I think the point of disagreement comes is in how much our society has changed. IMO, racism has been reduced but is far from eliminated. By no means is it true that all whites are racist; by no means is it true that no whites (or any other ethnic group) are racist. Our judgments about how far the problem extends very likely vary according to our personal experiences.
People in Nebraska certainly are different than those in NY or LA. But race has such a long history in this country that it transcends those differences. A person moving from NE to NY may throw off the surface attributes in accomodation to the different culture, but attitudes toward race (and sex, and religion, and gender) cut much deeper and are more fundamental. They don't change as much as dress styles or music tastes. That makes it fair to talk about general attitudes across the country at large.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> and yet another "brilliant!" I expected no less. -- yuri, 03:23:57 02/20/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Faith, Kendra and race -- anom, 11:53:45 02/20/02 Wed
"The bottom line is that the corruption of a slayer would not have been acsessable to a large white audience if the actress was black."
Hmm...I wonder if it might be more possible now that they've already shown Kendra in the good-girl role. I'd like to see it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Faith, Kendra and race -- cjc36, 01:17:12 02/20/02 Wed
Thanks for all the insightful comments. Wow! My take is this: By asking the Kendra/Faith question to myself months ago, I realized there was no PC way for ME to win w/o incurring some criticism: either they are denying a great role to an African-American actress or pandering to stereotype by making her turn evil.
The answer for a writer? To tell their story from the heart and leave politics out of it, unless of course that *is* the story of the heart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I said it before, and I'll say it again -- RichardX1, 10:29:58 02/19/02 Tue
If those "Previously, on Angel" scenes weren't obvious enough for you, let me re-iterate what I said about a couple of weeks ago...
THE GROOSALUG IS CONNOR.
Which would explain how that prophecy might come to pass...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: If you said it before, and if I'll say it again, then it's my turn to say it -- Micky, 10:40:56 02/19/02 Tue
Angel transcripts and wildfeeds at www.chez.com/jimprofit/twiz/index.html
Plus Buffy, Roswell, Undeclared, Will & Grace, Ally McBeal, Dawson, etc
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: I said it before, and I'll say it again -- Apophis, 11:51:57 02/19/02 Tue
As I said before: "EWWWWWWWWWWWWW!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: I said it before, and I'll say it again -- Deeva, 12:09:05 02/19/02 Tue
I'm gonna wait and see on that. Something just occured to me on the "The Father will kill the Son" bit. Some are saying to not forget that Holtz is a father, too. Well, what about Linwood at Wolfram & Hart? Angel made Linwood a godfather to Connor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: I said it before, and I'll say it again -- Amber, 13:21:45 02/19/02 Tue
>If those "Previously, on Angel" scenes weren't obvious >enough for you, let me re-iterate what I said about a >couple of weeks ago...
>
>THE GROOSALUG IS CONNOR.
>
>Which would explain how that prophecy might come to pass...
Okay, but could you say it with a little more detail? Is this a wild guess on your part, or a spoiler you've actually read? What's your theory on how, why Connor would be the Groosalug?
The "Previously, On Angel" is there to show people everything that has come before which they will need to view and understand the episode that's about to air. Of course it shows Groo and Connor in it because those who haven't watched every episode need to have some idea who Connor and Groo are so that they can understand "Couplet". It doesn't necessarily mean there is a link between the two characters.
Also if you go back to the Pylea (I think I'm spelling it wrong) episodes, Groo seems to believe he was a "cow" born to the green demon people (Lorn's race,whatever they're called) Others in Pylea believe the same thing. If Groo/Connor was actually given to a green demon family by Angel investigations I'm sure they'd remember that and some people, especially the older generations would complain about it.
Besides unless Angel reverts to Angelus, I really can't see him killing Groo now. He knows how much it would hurt Cordy, and ultimately he seems to love her enough to let her go.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I said it before, and I'll say it again (SPOILER WARNING) -- RichardX1, 14:05:54 02/19/02 Tue
I didn't say I had all the answers, but let me add a few bits now that I've had time to see the ep:
1. After Cordelia gets Gru cleaned up, everyone mentions how much he and Angel look alike.
2. When Cordy's patching Gru up after the fight, she mentions that he heals almost as fast as Angel.
3. When Angel and Gru were traveling through the sewerways to find the Root of all Evil (I had to say it ^_^), didn't anyone else think the tension between them was kinda pre-Xcutioner's Song Cyclops-Cable (if you don't understand the reference you are unworthy of the title of Geek)?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Connor is human -- Scroll, 14:16:20 02/19/02 Tue
But Connor is pure human. Gru is part demon, part human. I don't think they can be the same person. Besides, that tiny little scratch Connor got on his cheek in Lullaby is long gone. Gru's scar is quite distinct. You can't really use the scar to draw a parallel between them. But who knows? They may be linked in some other way...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beloved, gaze in thine own heart (Spoilers for AtS: Couplet) -- vandalia, 11:06:39 02/19/02 Tue
A wonderful Angel episode! I'll tread on the edge of blasphemy and say it was even better than the Whedon-penned episode of the previous week. It reminded me of a poem by Yeats:
The Two Trees
Beloved, gaze in thine own heart,
The holy tree is growing there;
From joy the holy branches start,
And all the trembling flowers they bear.
The changing colours of its fruit
Have dowered the stars with metry light;
The surety of its hidden root
Has planted quiet in the night;
The shaking of its leafy head
Has given the waves their melody,
And made my lips and music wed,
Murmuring a wizard song for thee.
There the Joves a circle go,
The flaming circle of our days,
Gyring, spiring to and fro
In those great ignorant leafy ways;
Remembering all that shaken hair
And how the winged sandals dart,
Thine eyes grow full of tender care:
Beloved, gaze in thine own heart.
Gaze no more in the bitter glass
The demons, with their subtle guile,
Lift up before us when they pass,
Or only gaze a little while;
For there a fatal image grows
That the stormy night receives,
Roots half hidden under snows,
Broken boughs and blackened leaves.
For ill things turn to barrenness
In the dim glass the demons hold,
The glass of outer weariness,
Made when God slept in times of old.
There, through the broken branches, go
The ravens of unresting thought;
Flying, crying, to and fro,
Cruel claw and hungry throat,
Or else they stand and sniff the wind,
And shake their ragged wings; alas!
Thy tender eyes grow all unkind:
Gaze no more in the bitter glass.
Yeats' poem is about the triumph of hope over cynicism and despair, and looking within yourself for happiness. Yeats was very much into mysticism and the occult and seemed to constantly struggle between hope and despair in his own life, becoming increasingly bitter towards the end. I think it fits in many ways with last night's _Angel_.
Angel is confronted with a woman who insists that her fiance of eight years must have been bewitched by a woman he met on the Internet, because why else would he leave her for another woman? Angel, the cynic, obviously disbelieves her claims that the other woman is a witch, but Wesley jumps on the chance to split up Gunn and Fred by assigning Gunn to what he thinks is a wild goose chase (another cynical ploy). He is taken aback by Fred's assumption that she's also assigned to the case. Fred and Gunn must rein in their passion for each other and keep their minds on work, almost losing their tail because of the mututal distraction.
The other 'couplet' would appear to be Cordelia and Gru. Cordelia wants to consummate her relationship but is afraid of losing her visions that she gave up her humanity to keep. Angel (again cynically) encourages this belief, even over Wesley's suggestion that some kind of metaphysical prophylactic might solve the problem, because of his own feelings for Cordelia. Angel is obviously jealous of Gru, who remains quite sweetly naive of all the machinations going on around him. Angel's realization of Gru's status as a 'better' him is brought home hard when Gru is able to pursue and defeat a demon that runs out into the sunlight, the one place Angel cannot go. Gru is just as good a warrior and a man as Angel with the added benefit of being (at least partly) human. This point is further made when he finds Cordelia has dressed him in Angel's clothes and given him what's basically Angel's haircut. In this case, for Angel, I would say Gru is the 'bitter glass,' filling Angel with 'ravens of unresting thought' about how Gru could replace him, not only in Cordelia's affections, but on the team as a whole. While Wesley assures him this isn't the case, the bookseller's having three copies of the rare, unique book to which Wesley has compared Angel undermines this argument.
In the end, though it is Angel who saves the day, both against the tree beast (representing the cynicism of taking advantage of those longing for romance by preying upon their needs and desires to be loved) and against the barriers standing between the consummation of Cordy and Gru's relationship (by buying the potion at the bordello and making sure it was kept safe through the fight. I was certain it would break, especially when Angel was tossing it in the air at the end. Kudos to the writers for avoiding that cliche). Angel realizes that Cordy loves Gru and Gru returns her love, that they have a much better chance at happiness than he himself would ever have with Cordy and does his best to facilitate their relationship, even to the point of giving Cordelia money and a few weeks off to take Gru 'somewhere sunny' and enjoy his company. Angel realizes that his happiness rests inside himself and his love for his son, and that he isn't alone; he has Connor, and friends who love him. His love for Cordy overrules his cynical side and he helps her achieve happiness.
Wesley in his own way also comes to grips with Gunn and Fred's relationship. He tells Gunn at the end that he'd better not hurt her, but doesn't come out and say office romances are a no-no, something that he could do as boss. He rises above his own feelings, though the ending of the episode gives me cause to think that perhaps Wesley isn't going to deal as well with this as Angel; Wesley doesn't have a child's unconditional love to bolster his feelings in these lean romantic times, and Wesley does have a ruthless streak.
The symbolism of the tree in Yeats' poem represents hope and cynicism. Hope within the heart of the 'beloved' the poem is addressed to, and cynicism, its mirror image, in the 'bitter glass' that warps the reflection. The tree in _Angel_ could be said to reflect the same: for the fiance who's the subject of the investigation, the tree represents a woman he's met online who may be better than the one he's got, his 'fiance' of eight years with whom he has seemingly never felt comfortable taking to the next plausible step, i.e. marriage. To me, this shows the man has had his doubts about their relationship, or perhaps used the engagement as a safe harbor from whence he could go out and look for someone better while still being involved in a relationship (i.e. not be alone). The online lover/tree represents his hope that he has found someone special, unique, and someone that feels the same way about him. This is shown to be but a cynical ploy by the tree monster, however, who just uses humans as an energy source, branching out in all directions to draw as many to it as possible to sustain its parasitic life, much like 'the Anne Rice routine' Spike accuses Angel of using back in Season 2 of _Buffy_ or the _Lonely Ones_ outlook on vampires the teens in the Succubus Club have. Angel does turn this 'routine' on its head when he tempts the monster into having a taste of him while beating on her current (apparently amazing) power supply, Gru, all the while yelling about how he doesn't think Gru can be that great with his strength and good looks and 'emotional openness.' The tree takes the bait and gets a rootful of corpse. Angel remarks that its 'cold in there' and mocks the tree as his undead heart poisons it and weakens it to the point where Gunn and Fred can escape, and Gunn uses Gru's sword to pierce the monster's face and end its existence. Its significant that Gunn is the one to slay the demon of cynicism in love, as he is the one who truly loves Fred and whom Fred loves in return; there is nothing cynical or plotting in his relationship advances. Gru, too, is refreshingly open and honest about his feelings and intentions, and these are the ones rewarded by the love of their objects of affection. 'He who hesitates is lost' seems to apply to Wesley and Angel both.
Cordy has also been affected by those 'ravens of unresting thought' when it comes to relationships; afraid to open herself up completely to another person romantically because she's afraid she'll lose part of herself. This is a not-uncommon fear in relationships; look at the man who thinks the tree demon is a woman he met online. He took a chance on love and almost got his heart sucked out for it. Cordy is wise to be cautious. However, caution is one thing, closing oneself off utterly to any relationship because of fear of pain is quite another, and Cordy realizes this when she sees in Gru the kind of man she wants -- strong, heroic, modest, honest, kind, gentle, open emotionally. All those could also describe Angel, except the last. Its telling that at the end of the episode when Angel tries to give all the credit to defeating the tree demon to Gru that he demurs and says Angel is the one who truly saved the day while he himself had been reckless and impulsive and almost gotten himself killed. Cordy gushes 'can you believe that? What other man would selflessly admit something like that and let someone else take all the credit?' Well, Angel obviously, as that's what he had just attempted to do. Angel surrenders the field with a graciousness bordering on martyrdom, however, supplying Gru and Cordy with the potion, money and time off to be alone together.
Other points of significance:
I think its significant that Fred and Gunn still 'split the check' at the restaurant where they've apparently been eating breakfast together for quite some time, even though their relationship has now changed towards the romantic. Fred feels she is getting more than she's paying for, referring to the food, because she ate more, but Gunn says he thinks he's getting the better deal (its a small price to pay for spending time with Fred). I think this shows that their relationship is on equal footing, and not following the 'traditional' relationship wherein the guy pays and the woman feels obligated to reciprocate in some other way. Gunn obviously doesn't want her to feel obligated in any way, and always tries to make her feel comfortable with both herself (he doesn't tease her about her eating habits) and with him.
Wesley's positioning of himself so that he only sees Fred while Fred, Gunn and Cordy are listening to Gru recount their sewer adventure in the main room. This quite literally shows that Wesley does not want to see Gunn and Fred 'together.' He still carries a torch for the daffy physicist. Wesley's 'ravens' are still flapping, and while he's trying to fend them off, he's not quite as successful as Angel.
The prophecy:
I think we've seen one too many mistranslated or double-meaning'd prophecies for this to cause me undue worry. 'The father will kill the son' does not mean Angel is going to kill Connor; after all, Angel isn't the only 'father' currently in the series. Holtz too was a father, after all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Bordello beauties and CSI -- neaux, 11:45:45 02/19/02 Tue
great post!! btw
I was wondering if any other posters are CSI fans... and have seen the episode "Slaves of Las Vegas"?
The lady of the fetish club in CSI and the lady of the bordello in last nights episode of Angel.. both seemed very interested in their main characters..Grissom and Angel. The interaction between the Grissom and the lady was great..leaving me wanting her to come back in future eps.
Last nite's lady asked of Angel.. "so why are you here??" a question that I believe was unanswered.. (i'm not sure)Making me want to know more about this Bordello Mistress.
Is there a chance we will see this character again in future episodes..?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Bordello beauties and CSI -- Deeva, 12:25:15 02/19/02 Tue
It's possible that if there is enough positive reaction to the bordello that it may be revisited. Didn't Angel and gang visit one before? But this one didn't look to be the same as the one from earlier, like season 1 or 2, I think.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Love and Adore CSI -- WW, 18:13:42 02/19/02 Tue
...and the bordello mistress on that was wonderful! The one in Couplet didn't do much for me...but maybe she wasn't supposed to!
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> The Prophecy -- Cactus Watcher, 11:57:33 02/19/02 Tue
Nice post! I agree with you about the prophecy. As the Master once said to Buffy, "...prophecies are tricky creatures."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The Prophecy -- vampire hunter D, 12:49:22 02/19/02 Tue
Or, as a Minbari (from Babylon 5) once said: "Prophesy is a poor guide to the future
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Couplet -- Robert, 12:39:02 02/19/02 Tue
So, how do you suppose the tree went about ordering and installing the DSL line? I'm fascinated by the mechanics of such an endeavor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Couplet -- vandalia, 15:03:26 02/19/02 Tue
Well, if its anything like me, it put the call in, waited three months to hear anything back, got given three separate install times none of which panned out, the company they ordered it from went bankrupt, then the phone company refused to send a guy out to flip a switch that would turn it on, which of course didn't show up on the DSL company's side as a problem so the problem didn't exist, and finally, six months after it was requested, was installed, only to promptly go down for three days for 'service.' Yeah, I'd be hunting people down over the Internet and sucking their heart's blood, too. Wanna meet up, Robert? ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Couplet -- Robert, 15:42:43 02/19/02 Tue
>> "Yeah, I'd be hunting people down over the Internet and sucking their heart's blood, too."
Jeez vandalia, I thought I had it bad getting my ISDN line from Qwest. They told me up front that it would take 6 months and, big surprise, it took only 6 months. Thus, they set and met all my expectations. Aside from that it works fine.
On a more serious note (if such a thing could possibly be said of this topic), how did the tree place that initial order call? Was the tree more mobile in its youth (ie. a quick jaunt down to the corner public phone)?
>> "Wanna meet up, Robert?"
Sure ... send me email. I'm not a chat room type of person. Without sufficient time for quiet reflection, I tend to shove my foot into my mouth, up to the knee joint.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Geeks ahoy -- vandalia, 15:51:48 02/19/02 Tue
On a more serious note (if such a thing could possibly be said of this topic), how did the tree place that initial order call? Was the tree more mobile in its youth (ie. a quick jaunt down to the corner public phone)?
Why Robert, the answer should be self-evident. Its got root access to the system! (insert rimshot here)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> baaaaaaaaaaaad! ;-) -- Solitude1056, 20:25:17 02/19/02 Tue
Yup, just tapped into the trunk line. Sheesh! ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> thought i'd branch out... -- anom, 00:10:29 02/20/02 Wed
& join the punfest, but now that I've twigged to van & sol's prowess, i think i'll just leaf it alone....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Geeks ahoy -- skeeve, 08:59:28 02/20/02 Wed
If the tree had wandered in from Xanth, that is probably the right answer: Xanth is made out of puns.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> great post! -- pagangodess, 21:03:16 02/19/02 Tue
Nicely compared to the poem and well summarized. Thank you.
Did anyone else notice, in the library where Wesley and Angel went to pick up the "rare and unique" greek texts, there were a couple of books that seemed familiar. Both were from Pylea. One was the book that opened the portal, the other was one of the 'Wolf', 'Ram' and 'Hart' copies. I'm not sure of the significance, if any, of this specific placement. Maybe others can enlighten me.
Also, the translations can be tricky, especially with ancient texts. Kill - save, live - die. Wesley has already pointed out to us, on several occasions, that these things are not that simple. Besides, it's not like Wesley is working with the original scroll, he's looking at a book that someone else wrote. It's likely that the writer/researcher of the ancient text wrote it up the way he/she interpreted it, not necessarily the way it would apply to today's Angel.
In the end, although I really enjoyed the episode (especialy the soundtrack, it was almost comical), all that gushy-mushy stuff is almost too much. :)
pagan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: great post! -- Doriander, 23:37:35 02/19/02 Tue
I enjoyed this episode as well. I know the quality of writing in BtVS had been debated, but this "Angel" episode provided me with a comparison between the shows, and I'm left feeling unsettled. I haven't invested that much in the characters over at "Angel," I just watch it out of habit, but this episode amused more than any ep in this season's "Buffy." You already mentioned the musical score, which I have to say, conjures the "The Zeppo," one of the funniest episodes in BTVS history IMHO, and that alone added to the hilarity of the comical scenes. The humour ranged from subtle to predictable yet surpisingly hilarious nonetheless. An example of the former is Wesley adjusting his stance to crop off Gunn from his view of Fred. Funny, but cuts deep. As for the latter, Angel-fashioned Groo makeover, nuff said. Then there were scenes that make you go Awww...The stellar one, beating even Angel handing over money to Cordy (too much of a martyr for my taste), is Wesley and Gunn's one-on-one talk.
Finally, there's the ominous scene in the end. The scene that preceded it implied the connection between Wesley and Angel, both lonesome, passed over, for lack of a better term, because they didn't act soon enough. Wesley's expression when he looked up from his work and saw Angel with Connor, can initially be read as disappointment upon realization that he has no kindred after all. Then pan to the translation on his notepad and we know better. Talk about about misdirection.
While, I'm a die-hard fan of every BtVS character, none of the episodes this season, save for OMWF, left me with that feeling of, WOW! That was a solid hour of television! "Couplet" has that schizo aspect I love about BtVS, which unfortunately it rarely accomplishes this season.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spielberg vs. mole (Spoilers for OaFA, Empire of the Sun (book and film), The Exterminating Angel -- matching mole, 12:32:35 02/19/02 Tue
I intended to post this in the thread started by manwitch but it vanished out from under me. Here it is.
If I was OnM I would have a clever and meaningful segue into this but I don't. I've sort of wandered away from the strict parallels between EotS and OaFA but hopefully some will find this interesting.
I'm going to discuss OaFA in the context of both Empire of the Sun, which I reread over the weekend as well as watching the filmed version last night and The Exterminating Angel, a 1962 Mexican film by Luis Bunuel which I went out and rented right after watching OaFA Saturday evening so I could rewatch it as well. So I guess you could say I've done my homework. OnM mentioned The Exterminating Angel in passing in his review but as far as I know that has been the only mention of this film on this board. So I'll begin by briefly describing it and how I think it relates to OaFA. I'll repeat the process for EotS and then consider how the influence of both these works might be related to season 6 as a whole.
The Exterminating Angel, like OaFA concerns a party at which the guests can't leave. The film is primarily a satire on the falsity of social interactions. A group of aristocrats return from an evening at the opera for a late dinner and conversation at the mansion of two members of the group. After dining they move to the music room and socialize. They, to their bewilderment, find themselves reluctant to leave and bed down for the night on the furniture. The following morning they realize that none of them can bring themselves to walk through the doorway out of the room. I won't reveal any more of the plot other than to say that the situation continues for an extended period and that no mechanism is ever proposed to explain the entrapment.
Prior to entrapment the guests make comments that reveal very different feelings underneath their urbane exteriors. As their captivity continues the refined exteriors fall away and their true selves and desires are revealed. It's not a pretty picture. Obviously the setting for tEA and OaFA are similar although not identical (e.g. the Scoobies and guests are free to roam the entire house and events only continue for a day so there is no shortage of food and personal hygiene). The most obvious parallel is the ever-widening gap between the Scoobies' inner and outer worlds mirroring the separation of the artificial interactions between the aristocrats and their true feelings. On the first morning in tEA one of the aristocrats comments that the situation is utterly insane and completely normal (paraphrasing here). What better description of Sunnydale in general and the personal worlds of our heroes in season 6 could there be? There have been several comments about the Scoobies losing their distinctive voices and I think that may be deliberate. OaFA contains far more conversation among the members of the group than we've seen in any of the recent episodes. Increasingly they seem to live in their own private worlds.
Recent episodes have lacked the urgency and the dialogue that we've come to expect from BtVS. My suggestion is that this dreamlike state is a natural outcome of the state of the characters. Their old external world no longer fits their new external selves and they have yet to create a new one.
Empire of the Sun might seem superficially very different from tEA but fundamentally it is similar. The war strips away the faŤade of British colonial society. Jim's great discovery is that to continue to think and feel as he did before is not only detrimental to his welfare but it is false. The empty houses and drained swimming pools symbolize the fragility of our idea of civilization. Jim's remarkable success in surviving the war on his own comes in large part from his psychological acceptance of the ambiguities and realities of his personal situation even as he remains staggeringly, but not surprisingly, na•ve about the war as a whole. So on one level Dawn is similar to Jim in her rather na•ve nature, her relative powerlessness, and her attempts to manipulate Buffy to get what she wants. However, at this point it is Buffy that faces the challenge that Jim did, to face up to who she is rather than who she thinks she ought to be, and live in the world. And, as manwitch and others said, the Scoobies could be seen as similar to Jim's parents - who don't experience the 'war' the same way Dawn (or Buffy) does. They cling to the comfortable past, eagerly returning to it when the 'war' is over (i.e. when Buffy comes back to life). Without picking specific characters it seems very clear that BtVS, tEA, and EotS are all dealing with the issue of living in a new world, realizing that a lot of the old one was largely artificial.
Obviously how you relate EotS to BtVS depends on your interpretation of both works. I point this out because when watching the film of Empire of the Sun last night I became aware that Steven Spielberg and I had very different interpretations of the book. I'm not particularly surprised at our difference of opinion as Spielberg and J.G. Ballard have always seemed to have very different sensibilities to me. The latter part of the film, in particular, tends to portray Jim as being more helpless and manipulated than the book does. I found the last part of the film fairly confusing so any interpretation I have of it is pretty tentative. The film seems to focus more on depicting Jim's experiences as a harrowing rite of passage and a moral awakening, as evidenced by his reaction to Basie's bandits shooting the young Japanese aviator. I also saw the book as portraying Jim's war experience as life changing but more mixed. Harrowing (like the fight with Glory) but also fulfilling (like Buffy's stay in heaven) and giving him a liberating view of life that others don't have.
So how do we relate this ambiguity to OaFA? I think it relates really well to the ambiguity of what it means to grow up. I don't really like the term growing up because it implies too much directionality when applied to something as general as becoming an adult. In general growing up is depicted as having two aspects: finding out who you are and learning to be responsible. These two things almost always are somewhat contradictory. Hence ambiguity. Spielberg seems to weighing down more on the responsibility side and Ballard perhaps more on the knowing yourself side. Buffy's struggle is with parts of herself she doesn't wish to acknowledge, her affinities with the anti-Buffy, Faith. She is comfortable with this as long as she thinks it isn't really her, something analogous to actions that individuals might do without shame during wartime but would never consider otherwise. However she breaks down when confronted with the fact that it is the 'normal' Buffy that is doing these things. And this is where I think BtVS definitely moves into Ballardian territory. Ballard is saying that people are that way all the time, they have strange and complex things inside them - it's not just a wartime thing. Similarly The Exterminating Angel shows us that the aristocrats have obsessions and savagery as part of their nature all the time, not just when trapped in the music room. The trap and the war just serve as a devices to release what's there.
Ballard and Bunuel have a strong link, one that I think is worth exploring as a final part of this post. Bunuel was associated with the surrealist painters and tried painting for a while before turning to film-making (including early films done in collaboration with Salvador Dali such as Un Chien Andalou). Ballard is a devotee of the surrealists and also tried painting briefly before turning to writing. An ideal of the surrealists was to create by directly going from the unconscious to the page/canvas bypassing the conscious editorial mind. They wanted to see with 'the Savage Eye' and employed various techniques and games to avoid thinking too much about what they were doing. Obviously this ideal was ignored a lot of the time and artists such as Dali abandoned it altogether.
BtVS has always had a strong surrealist bent. Apart from the very premise of the show, there are a number of other surrealist aspects. The heavy emphasis on dreams, dreams coming to life in Nightmares, the mystical dreams in 'Restless' come to mind. In some way it seems to be as if Spike and Buffy are acting as each other's muses, teaching the other to see with the 'Savage Eye'. For you could argue that, as much as Buffy, Spike is denying his true nature. His comic and noble aspects seemed to be declining as the relationship progresses, he is becoming darker. Note that I am not advocating this scenario, I'm just outlining what seems to be one logical outcome from the current events.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Yet another wonderful post. And as it should, it raises more questions. -- Sophist, 14:08:33 02/19/02 Tue
First, thank you for doing a lot more than your homework. You (and others) have done mine as well.
Now the follow-up question(s). As far as Buffy is concerned, at what point of the book should we see her as Jim? Is it at the point where he loses his parents and his secure world, to be cast into the chaos of war, or is it at the end, seeing his parents again? The former point seems representative of how Buffy might well feel after being "expelled" from heaven; the latter how she might feel now, coming out of her experience over the last few months. Any thoughts on this?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> When is Buffy? -- matching mole, 06:05:20 02/20/02 Wed
It's a difficult question you've posed because the analogy between Jim and Buffy, just like the one between Jim and Dawn is inexact. I guess I would argue for the following interpretation although it is definitely imperfect.
Prewar Jim = preslayer Buffy
Jim's initial experiences in Shanghai after separating from his parents (living in the empty house, cycling around) = Buffy's early experiences as Slayer.
Jim's existence in Shanghai becomes precarious, he surrenders, the trip to the camp = Buffy's later, more troubled existence as Slayer, culminating in the struggle with Glory
Life in the camp = Buffy in heaven
Buffy season 6 = period of uncertainty and instability between abandoning the camp and the end of the book.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Intruiging. Thanks. -- yez, 14:26:43 02/19/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> You don't need a clever and meaningful segue, mole-- that was just brilliant! :) -- OnM, 16:35:51 02/19/02 Tue
One, I'd recommend that you arrange to have this posted at the Existential Scoobies Site.
Two, attn: Rufus-- If you think the folks at the C&S might enjoy this post, how about placing a link for us?
You can guest host my movie column anyday, mole!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Done.........I feel like a Justice Demon..;) -- Rufus, 17:20:53 02/19/02 Tue
I did a link and copy and paste.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I agree OnM... just say the word, Mole & this will be posted on FC -- Liq, 01:19:59 02/20/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Thanks -- matching mole, 05:43:16 02/20/02 Wed
I'd be honoured. However looking back over it after posting I noticed a few cases of awkward phrasing and at least one missing word. I'd like to do some minor editing before submitting a copy that would be preserved on display. Just let me know what the procedure is and I will send it in - probably tomorrow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Metaphysical Consequences of Spike's Redemption -- Shabidoo, 15:58:25 02/19/02 Tue
To make Spike capable of acquiring a soul by being a do-gooder may undermine the entire metaphysical basis for the show. Joss has stated in several places that certain rules are vital to the internal integrity of the show. However, in the DVD commentary, he says these rules are important so that when they are broken, it means something.
Will Spike, our hellmouth clockwork orange, break the rules? If he does so, that is, if he manages to muster a soul on his own power, that completely devalues the idea of a soul as a metaphysical reality which one possesses or does not possess through no merit nor fault of one's own.
There are ways around devaluing this concept of a soul. Since, as Masquerade has said, the soul is almost exclusively represented as moral conscience, would Spike's acquisition of a moral conscience be a sufficient condition for him to acquire a soul, or is it simply a necessary condition. Is a soul something larger than mere conscience? If so, then, perhaps, Spike can get a conscience without a soul.
This would obliterate our belief in the identity of soul and moral conscience, but would preserve the idea that soul possession is independent of the possessor's actions. Taking this route would require the writers to detail the delineation between soul and moral conscience. Something tells me ME would probably not be willing to spend valuable airtime on such metaphysical minutiae. I, on the other hand, have dishes to do, so this minutiae is well worth my time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Maybe that's not the right question -- Sophist, 16:07:25 02/19/02 Tue
The way I see it, the question is whether a soul is necessary for redemption. This phrasing, of course, contains my own assumption about redemption itself. If your view of redemption (or Joss's) requires a soul, then your point is well taken.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> More recent comment by Joss on the Soul as a Conscience -- Rufus, 17:11:51 02/19/02 Tue
The Paley Festival, March 30, 2001
Audience Member: "I'd like to know what your definition of a soul is? And what distinguishes Angel from the other vampires, because it becomes clear from both Buffy and Angel that vampires have human emotions and human attachments. So is that a conscience? And then what separates vampires from humans if it is a conscience?"
JW: "Um, very little. (laugh) Essentially, souls are by their nature amorphous but to me it's really about what star you are guided by. Most people, we hope, are guided by, 'you should be good, you're good, you feel good.' And most demons are guided simply by the opposite star. They believe in evil, they believe in causing it, they like it. They believe it in the way that people believe in good. So they can love someone, they can attach to someone, they can actually want to do things that will make that person happy in the way they know they would. The way Spike has sort of become, an example is Spike obviously on Buffy, is getting more and more completely conflicted. But basically his natural bent is towards doing the wrong thing. His court's creating chaos where as in most humans, most humans, is the opposite, and that's really how I see it. I believe it's kind of like a spectrum, but they are setting their course by opposite directions. But they're all sort of somewhere in the middle."
If Spike is just an empty shell with a resident demon, then that resident demon has already done the impossible by loving someone human, and a slayer to boot. His current actions are of an interest to me because it shows that the human content of the demon may control more actions than first thought. The vampire is a hybrid, the demon needs the human and the human needs the demon to survive. The above quote makes more sense of human behavior as if the soul is the only thing needed for one to be good then the human capacity for evil makes me question the soul's input to either good or evil.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: More recent comment by Joss on the Soul as a Conscience -- Shabidoo, 18:27:40 02/19/02 Tue
"that resident demon has already done the impossible by loving someone human, and a slayer to boot."
The miraculous thing about Spike is not just his loving a human but his loving a human who largely listens to her moral conscience. How could anyone that is completely evil be drawn on such a basic and uncontrolable level to someone good? (One can imagine a vampire falling for a human who consistently shuns her own conscience. The vampire may even love such a human all the more for overcoming the scourge of her own soul.)
All of his other good deeds can be explained as a result of his love for Buffy. But the singularity of Spike falling for Buffy reveals that somewhere deep inside Spike is something that is not rotten and dead.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Good question -- Rufus, 18:57:01 02/19/02 Tue
But as Darla said to Angel when he killed his family..........
"What we once were informs all that we have become. (Angel looks at his father's body) The same love will infect our hearts - even if they no longer beat. (Angel looks at his mother's and his sister's body) Simple death won't change that."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: More recent comment by Joss on the Soul as a Conscience -- Cleanthes, 19:12:49 02/19/02 Tue
Does Spike get it, though? He understands intellectually good and evil, he can see alternate points of view, but, does he feel it in his soul? Folks like Charles Manson or Jeffrey Dahmer are often said to be soulless. They ignored the feeling if they had the feeling at all.
I don't see Spike as completely evil, nor do I think that he can't be redeemed, but I don't see him ever getting a soul in the way that Angel did. Angel immediately felt remorse for his evil deeds when he received his soul. But why? If only the demon did those things, then Angel should be able to rationalize them away. Angelus's deeds though, stemmed from malignant thoughts of Liam & Angel.
If Angelus's deeds are somehow Angel's fault, then Angelus must have had some choice in the matter. This would hold true of Spike as well. He can't be all rotten and dead. He can't find a soul. He may get to grace along an even harder road.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> I agree -- Rufus, 19:31:13 02/19/02 Tue
Look to the worst humanity has to offer....we would like to think they are soulless but the fact is that we don't even know or can prove the existance of the soul. If there is a soul these people have one, they just ignored the conscience that would tell them that what they are doing is wrong. Vampires are much like that, they have no conscience to ignore, so the worst thoughts they had as humans are acted out on instead of just being mean spirited daydreams.
Angel and Spike were very different people alive, both had strengths and weaknesses that never fully were developed. Angel seemed on the road to being at the least a drunkard or petty thief, Spike was a shy, introvert who was teased. His thoughts were of beauty, but he like all of us had unkind thoughts..what Spike became acted out on his dissapointments and anger. Angel is on the road to redemption because of the return of his soul coupled with the interactions of people who are a good influence upon him. Who knows what will happen with Spike with no conscience but the memories of what he once was coupled with the good influence of his current peers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I agree -- O'Cailleagh, 14:31:16 02/20/02 Wed
I don't think that ol' Spikey will get a soul as such because of the whole prophecy thing in the scroll of thingy about the vampire with a soul (shanshu n all that). However...he is almost definitely in love with the Buffster, and if 'what we were before informs who we are now....' as Darla said, then Spike wouldn't need a soul to love. (William the Bloody loved very easily-and Spike loved Dru madly)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Angel's guilt -- Shabidoo, 19:39:52 02/19/02 Tue
I guess I don't think Angel's guilt is justifiable, but it is emotionally understandable. He has memories of his hands and teeth committing atrocities. Justifiable or not, those memories will cause guilt.
Most other people do not condemn Angel for Angelus's actions. When he returned from hell, Buffy did not hold him in any way accountable for the tortures he put her through. Even Xander, with his huge grudge against Angel, thought Angel should be killed only because he may revert to Angelus.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Clarification -- Shabidoo, 18:47:00 02/19/02 Tue
What I meant to do in my post was to pose two different avenues for Spike's redemption--one via soul-gettin' and the other sans soul but with the acquisition of a conscience. My point was just that either of these routes will drastically alter the concept of the soul which has heretofore been communicated by the series.
Either the soul's traditional ontological status will be threatened, or we will no longer be able to equate having a soul with having a conscience. If the latter is the case, then the difference between a conscience and a soul must be addressed by the writers for Spike's redemption to be plausible in the Buffyverse.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Clarification -- Cleanthes, 19:19:34 02/19/02 Tue
I hope the writers are cleverer than I. Spike can give his unlife for a far, far, better thing than he's ever done before. That will prove plausible: I bought it in the case of Darla. But that's really the only way I can see it working. He can't ever become a "good guy" on a day-in, day-out basis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Clarification -- Rufus, 19:23:24 02/19/02 Tue
Part of that was addressed in what Joss had to say about the soul.....it sure is a non answer in that is opens the door for both the souled and soulless to behave either way, good or bad. What he does say is that the soul predisposes the souled to follow the star of good, but doesn't say that the soul is the only quality that ensures that a person will be good, the opposite is true of the soulless, they are predisposed to evil, it's what feels good to them, but the lack of a soul doesn't preclude some of them from deviating from that evil norm, it just isn't going to happen often. With that, the door is open for the souled and soulless to behave along a spectrum of good and evil, they all start in the middle the soul or lack thereof causing them to head in the direction of the star they prefer, but some can lose their direction and you will get evil behavior from those with a soul and good behavior from those without. With the vampire it seems to be all about what you once were. If you had a real creep in life, I can't see the guy finding he prefers good behavior when he becomes a vampire, but, if you get someone who once was good, their former memories and personality can create the potential for some good behaviors out of a demon considered only evil.
The only status of the soul that counts is what the creator of this Buffyverse decides it will be, not necessarily what the traditional ontological status dictates.
This is where I insert the quote from Marie Louise vonFranz about redemption....
The word redemption should not be associated with Christian dogma and theology, where it is a concept with so many connotations. In fairytales, redemption refers specifically to a condition where someone has been cursed or bewitched and through certain happenings or events in the story is redeemed. This is a very different condition from that in the Christian idea.
Even though this was meant to define fairytales, I think it is relevent to the Buffyverse, which borrows from the fairytale and myth. I see the vampires as beings created because of a curse on mankind, the last demon who created the vampire wanting revenge, wishing evil to befall man. But what isn't considered if you only look at vampires as animals, is that they once were human. What they once were informs all that they become, simple death does not change that. Can a curse not be defeated by a being that once knew what love and goodness was? Can good infect the vampire, just as the vampire was an infection to man?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Clarification of my clarification -- Shabidoo, 19:59:10 02/19/02 Tue
When I referrred to the "traditional ontological status of the soul," I was referring to the tradition in the series, not generally, that is, the tradition of possession of a soul not being causally related to the good or bad deeds of the possessor (or non-possessor).
Goodness as an infection in the demon certainly seems like a route ME could take with integrity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Clarification of my clarification -- Rufus, 20:15:04 02/19/02 Tue
That's what (the series) I unclude in the ontological status of the soul, as the only place we get that information is from texts and anectdotal evidence...of course this is Buffy's first fairly benign experience with a soulless vampire (and he has a leash on).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Sorry that was include.......... -- Rufus, 20:16:26 02/19/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I know that my materialism is showing, -- Sophist, 09:12:13 02/20/02 Wed
but I equate "conscience" with socialization plus. By "plus", I mean the willingness to examine one's own life and try to move it in a particular direction on the basis of that introspection. If that is the same as conscience, then I would say Spike has shown over the last year or so that he has a conscience.
I think Rufus and Caroline have made excellent points about the path the show itself has taken. The show seemed to start with the simple equation of soul/conscience/humanity. That stark distinction no longer exists. Now, it seems, "The mind is its own place, and in itself/Can make a heav'n of hell, a hell of heav'n." Since that shift in view began at least with Riley learning that all demons were not necessarily bad, I think there is enough room for the writers to explore the options while remaining consistent with their own metaphysics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: I know that my materialism is showing, -- Shabidoo, 11:29:40 02/20/02 Wed
"By "plus", I mean the willingness to examine one's own life and try to move it in a particular direction on the basis of that introspection."
The "socialization" part of conscience must be doing a lot of work here because the "plus" part by itself doesn't get us very far down the road to what most would intuitively call conscience.
For instance, any completely self-interested, Hobbesian character could examine his own life and try to move it in a particular direction in response to that examination. That seems like a description of having an end and trying to achieve it which would be more an act of pure rationality than one influenced by conscience.
Additionally, the result of the mentioned introspection needn't be a desire to change one's ends to those called for by a moral concerns. Could I impose on you to discuss a little more what role socialization plays?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I know that my materialism is showing, -- Sophist, 13:25:37 02/20/02 Wed
Fair points you make. Here's how I see it:
Socialization should provide the moral guidance for the introspection. Sometimes, of course, it guides people in directions that, from a larger perspective, we understand as wrong. Assuming we teach justifiable moral behavior to others, that teaching (temporarily) solves the problem you pointed out of the person who merely wills evil acts. The introspection=>conduct process starts with certain rules given to us by our society.
The larger problem is how to arrive at standards of moral behavior without recourse to the divine or mystical. IMO, societies arrive at moral standards by a constant, recursive process of evaluation and consensus. People have thoughtful conversations about the correct behavior in given circumstances, and they pass on those thoughts (or more general rules generated from those thoughts) to others.
I do not believe that this process ever allows us to arrive at absolute first principles. I don't believe such absolute standards exist. Instead, I think we make certain axioms that tend to pass unexamined, and to reason from these. The greatest moral dilemmas we face come in situations in which axioms collide, or in which we find that a previously unchallenged axiom leads to a result we can't justify.
Since you mentioned Hobbes, I'll give an analogy that depends on your familiarity with John Rawls. If you aren't familiar with Rawls, my apologies. One criticism of Hobbes, Locke, and other social contract theorists is that the state of nature is a fiction, as is the claim of any "contract" actually having been made. Rawls suggests we assume a state of nature as a thought experiment to decide what social contract we might make if we ever were in the hypothetical state of nature. The rules we deduce from that thought experiment then serve as the basis for civil society.
I see the moral axioms in this light. They were not given to us from on high, we deduced them from reasoning about our own wishes and desires if faced with certain situations calling for moral action. That's the job of philosophy -- not to tell us there is a divine law and apply it mechanically to a moral dilemma, but to reason out the basic rules of behavior and modify them as the need arises.
Fire away.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Sophist, you answered my question with aplomb -- Shabidoo, 17:35:48 02/20/02 Wed
No apologies necessary. John Rawls is my bud. We hang out. Also, I am a liar.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> You must live in Sunnydale to hang out with him. Or you found another urn of Osiris. -- Sophist, 20:55:02 02/20/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> No urn of Osiris. It's a zombie John Rawls. He drools a lot. -- Shabidoo, 21:18:03 02/20/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: ontology of souls -- leslie, 09:16:40 02/20/02 Wed
Just to get things even more confusing, I'd like to point out that the Western, Judeo-Christian model of the soul is not the only one going. One thing that I find tantalizing about the process of vampirization as presented here is that it actually seems to be an inversion of the concept of soul as found in Haitian voudoun. There it is believed that everyone has *two* souls, the "gros bon ange" and the "ti bon ange" (the "big good angel" and the "little good angel.") One of these is your personal soul--the part that makes you you--and the other is a more general soul that makes you human. When a person is possessed by a loa--a god--the personal soul gets kicked out and the loa takes its place, but the general soul remains. What appears to happen when a person becomes a vampire (in the Buffyverse, at any rate) is that the general soul gets kicked out and the personal soul remains.
Now, in voudoun, it seems that it's the personal soul that is responsible for conscience and actions. If you are possessed by a loa and do something--steal something, hit someone, have sex with someone--it isn't YOU that is doing it and you aren't responsible for the consequences--it's the loa. Along this line of reasoning, a vampire would still be responsible for his or her actions and their consequences--it's just that, no longer having the general human soul, he or she wouldn't care.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: ontology of souls -- Rufus, 19:54:13 02/20/02 Wed
Didn't the two souls bit start with the Greeks? I know Cleanthes could tell us.
There it is believed that everyone has *two* souls, the "gros bon ange" and the "ti bon ange" (the "big good angel" and the "little good angel.") One of these is your personal soul--the part that makes you you--and the other is a more general soul that makes you human. When a person is possessed by a loa--a god--the personal soul gets kicked out and the loa takes its place, but the general soul remains. What appears to happen when a person becomes a vampire (in the Buffyverse, at any rate) is that the general soul gets kicked out and the personal soul remains.
That could translate well into the creation of the vampire, where the soul (conscience) gets kicked out but the personality and memories of the person remain. It makes more sense than the vampire being a "demon" in a human shell, because then the redemption of Angel makes no sense, and the developments with Spike can be questioned.
The demon may become the "general soul" where what you were remains or your "personal soul".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: ontology of souls -- fresne, 23:43:26 02/20/02 Wed
Also the ancient Egyptians - thus the urn of Osirus I guess.
Khat - the rotting corpse. Less so via mummification.
Ba - life force or spiritual double of a person. That's what hangs out in the afterlife.
Ka - a human headed bird that goes and gets sustenance for the ba.
Khaibit - Your shadow
Sekhem - the personification of your life force.
Sahu - a person's incorruptible spiritual body, not to be confused with your ba. This is what goes off to the afterlife, while the ba hangs out.
And the coolest bit the Akh - which is the shining intellect of a person that goes on to become one with light, which then goes to the stars and exists with the gods.
Also, nicely complex is that with so many kinds of "souls", everyone gets several different after lives with different bits doing different things.
Also, (sorry if I'm repeating what someone has said) some Christian theology makes a distinction between the spirit and the soul. The spirit is your will, the part of you that knows, seeks, desires, makes decisions, and generally speaking animates you. The soul is what makes you, you. You're emotions and thoughts. (Thus the plane is the Spirit of Saint Louis, not the Soul of Saint Louis). All of which makes humans tripartite, having a body, soul, and spirit, like the Christian tripartite Godhead.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> wow, leslie, fascinating! but about that "judeo"-xtian part... -- anom, 20:45:59 02/20/02 Wed
"...I'd like to point out that the Western, Judeo-Christian model of the soul is not the only one going. One thing that I find tantalizing about the process of vampirization as presented here is that it actually seems to be an inversion of the concept of soul as found in Haitian voudoun. There it is believed that everyone has *two* souls...."
Judaism has 3 different words that connote different aspects/levels of a "soul." But they're not thought of as 3 separate souls.
Nefesh is the most basic; related to words for "breath," it applies to animals as well as humans & has the connotation of life or life-force. It's also used to mean a person, as in English. The expression for saving a life is pikuach nefesh, which overrides almost every commandment; for example, it's not only permissible but required to violate the Sabbath in whatever way necessary to save a life. Ba'alei nefesh (literally, owners/masters of a soul, or, as Spike would put it, "soul-having") means living things (well, the animal kingdom, anyway).
Ruach is often translated as "spirit." It's the word used in the Creation story when "the spirit of God hovered over the waters." It also means the wind (& can mean the breath--versatile but confusing language, Hebrew). Ruach has more to do w/the personality and feelings: Solomon had a ruach chochmah, or spirit of wisdom. Jacob's ruach revived when his sons told him Joseph was still alive (after "his heart fainted"). It may go through changes: if you feel touched, your ruach is moved; if you're scared, it may "melt." Interestingly enough in the context of this board, in Yiddish ruach can mean a demon, though not the kind we see on Buffy & Angel. A common form of invective is A ruach in dein tate! (A devil in your father!). (BTW, does anyone know of another language in which verbal attacks on a person can go through the father?)
Neshama is used only of human beings. It's deeper & has more of a feeling of warmth. I'm on more shaky ground here (working more or less off the top of my head), but I think it has more of an implication of connection with God & is where you actually have your feelings. This is where you're soulful (& I don't mean big longing eyes). It can be said that a person has a beautiful neshama, something that would never be said w/the 2 other words. There's a prayer that starts (if I'm remembering right) "The soul You gave into me is pure." I don't think that would work w/the other words either. In Yiddish children are sometimes called n'shomele (little soul) by doting relatives.
As far as I know (& I think I do), there's no concept of the soul as something that can be "sold" or otherwise given up, or of a Devil who tries to convince people to. It's not something that can be lost while you're still alive, & I don't think there's any concept of "saving" it. It belongs to God, or maybe is a little bit of God. There is a punishment for certain sins in which the soul (nefesh) is "cut off from amidst its people," but it's uncertain what that means. I'm not even sure the idea of a soul in Judaism has to do w/an afterlife, at least originally; "shades" were believed to wander in She'ol, but that's yet another word in Hebrew, & it would take too long to look it up now. I think it's more like a ghost than a soul. Judaism--more like "folk Judaism"--has absorbed some Xtian concepts, though, like a heaven/hell dichotomy where souls are rewarded/punished.
There is a belief (definitely post-Biblical) that every Jew gets a 2nd soul on the Sabbath, & part of the sadness when the Sabbath ends comes from losing that 2nd soul. But somehow I doubt it's the same arrangement as in the voudoun belief.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Metaphysical Consequences of Spike's Redemption -- Caroline, 21:09:17 02/19/02 Tue
Wow, just finished a post further down on whether Spike can change and was talking about the metaphysics of it over there. I'll just add a few points here.
1. I think that Angel and now Spike have been exceptions in the vampire scene in that both have performed good acts. Angel has done this via the agency of a soul, Spike through the chip. Angel when he has his soul is good, but soulless he is extremely evil - way over on the evil side of the Joss moral conscience spectrum. Spike as a vampire has always been pragmatic (Becoming 2) often putting love ahead of evil. With the agency of the chip, he has managed to delve down into himself and create a new identity which he is invested in, such that when he does lose his chip, he'll have a choice about how to behave, good or evil or somewhere inbetween. (Because his identity is contructed, not ordained like Angel's - I explained this point more fully below in the can spike change thread). I think Spike may fall in the inbetween category, or at least I'm hoping so because the journey and struggle that Spike is going through is much closer and much more real to the trails that we humans go through each day in terms of our desires and choices. So I kind of hope that there is not instant of redemption and he keeps plugging away like the rest of us.
2. I would actually welcome the idea that the metaphysics of the show change as Buffy as the scoobies realize that the world is not as black and white as they used to think. So the metaphysics change as the maturity of the scoobies grows. And since for me the show operates primarily in a metaphoric sense, I would have no trouble with that. We have always had hints that the world in Buffy is constructed according to your internal expectations - Marcee's invisibility etc. I also remember Giles saying in Beauty and the beast in season 3 that there are 2 types of demons - purely evil and the ones less so, etc. but Buffy has not really allowed this view to hold sway internally until this season. Perhaps one of the benefits of the 'oh grow up' theme this season is that as the scoobies grow in self-knowledge, their actions will be based more on choice rather than compulsion coming from the unconscious - Willow/magic, Buffy/dark side, Spike/good side, Anya/humanity etc. The most successful case of this that we have seen is Tara. She was really dependent in her relationship with Willow (see I'm under you spell in OMWF - 'you make me complete') yet in OAFA she has emerged as her own person, still obviously able to love Willow but no longer dependent and more aware of her own individuality. (In previous posts I've likened the overarching myth for this year as the Persephone myth, just like season 5 is the whole sacrifice/crucifixion thing and season 4 is the Genesis myth, and when I get some time, I'm going to flesh this out)
3. I know that I'm avoiding the whole ontological status of the soul-thingy but I've always had problems with the ontological status of metaphysical things. But I don't think that the world Joss has set up says that everyone with a soul=good. In fact, this season he is driving the opposite point home. Previously we've had evil humans like Ethan, Ripper, Marcee, the coach in Go Fish, Faith, etc. They've had souls but somehow took a wrong turn somewhere. This season we have the troika. Juxtaposed with Spike, the latter looks like a choirboy. So where previously Joss has said soul does not necessarily equal good, this season he is saying that non-soul does not necessarily equal bad. Voila the whole evil-good spectrum. And I think that he has already made this point in the Angel show.
Okay I really have to go to bed now 'cos I'm writing things like viola.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> What makes you think Spike is being redeemed? -- change, 04:01:53 02/20/02 Wed
I don't understand why everyone seems to think that Spike is being redeemed, or is even changing very much. In season two Spike was deeply in love with Drucilla and had been in a relationship with her for a hundred years. He protected her and cared for her when she was sick, and tried to please her. The Judge sensed some human qualities in him. He seemed to like Willow and Joyce. During the previous hundred years, he worked together with Drucilla's friends, Angel and Darla. He also was a vicious killer who apparently killed thousands without mercy, and had a thing for slayers.
Now he is deeply in love (or in lust) with Buffy. He protects and cares for her and Dawn, and tries to please her. He works with Buffy's friends. We also know from Crush and Smashed that he would still kill humans if the chip wasn't there.
I don't see that there is really much change to the character. Spike was always able to love, and he always tried to please the woman he was in love with. I don't think his friendships with the other scoobies are that different or any deeper than the ones he had with Angelus and Darla. The indications from Smashed and Crushed are that he would still kill if he could. We know from season 4 that one of his motivations for helping the scoobies kill vampires and demons is that he likes to kill things. He also likes to drink blood from kittens. This is not a nice guy.
His relationship with Buffy is not healthy. He has not been trying to go up to her level as much as bring her down to his by convincing her that she is a demon. We even saw a little of this in Life Serial before Spike found out the chip didn't register her as completely human. He has also tried to seperate her from the scoobies and from her normal life.
I don't seem Spike as being redeemed. I think his purpose in this season is to tempt Buffy. Buffy is the one who is growing up, and she is learning the lesson of letting herself get caught in an unhealthy and abusive relationship.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> What makes me think Spike might be redeemed (general S6 spoilers) -- Sophist, 12:58:13 02/20/02 Wed
has been set out in some detail by me, by Anne, by Caroline, and by others. There are long threads which I'm reluctant to repeat entirely. Let me just give a quick summary, which is by no means complete:
1. Before he was in love with Buffy, but after he was chipped, Spike fought demons. This benefitted humans, while alienating him from his own kind.
2. He brought flowers for Joyce without a card.
3. After Buffy died, and with no knowledge that she would return, he aided the SG and cared for Dawn.
4. Most recently, he clearly was taking Willow's side in OAFA when X and A tried to get her to use magic.
All of these acts, and many others, are ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations. You've offered one possible interpretation above. I'm not saying you're definitively wrong, but I do think the evidence supports at least the possibility of redemption. I find the ambiguity exciting for what it says about the process of redemption and the nature of humanity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: What makes you think Spike is being redeemed? -- Spikebitch, 19:50:18 02/20/02 Wed
In response to your question of why it is assumed Spike is being redemned many viewers may well argue (and with good reason) that there is no clear sign that he is on the way to being reformed. But it is such an intriguing idea many people are hoping to see it play out. Spike has always been a complex character and I would love to see him become more than the evil vampire or Buffy's whipping boy. I prefer him grey and would not want to see him completely redemnded but I find it fascinating to have our ideas about humanity and the greyness of life explored.
Spike did reinvent himself for Dru and would have been likely to do the same for Ceceily. Therefore he has always been to some extent loves bitch rather than his own person. Even now he is behaving in the way he thinks Buffy wants him to be. At the beginning of the season he was understanding and IMO the true Spike was represented in his concern for Buffy. Again in The Gift and Intervention we see flashes of humanity. But Spike is insecure and constantly trying to prove himself and make himself into the image he believs others expect. Hence in Smashed Buffy's rejection of him as an evil disgusting thing caused him to question his recent behaviour. He had been helping the good guys and was still seen as inherently evil. He tried to confirm Buffy's impression of him by attacking a human but because of his recent socialisation he struggled with this showing he has begun to question his worldview.
He is being cruel to Buffy and trying to draw her away from her friends in episodes such as Dead Things because he believes she will never accept him unless she views herself on a similair level to Spike. He is also being rewarded for vicious behaviour with sex from a turned on Buffy. Therefore his socialisation his IMO backtracking. He needs to spend time interacting with Dawn and the scoobies as his relationship with Buffy is simply not healthy at the moment.
What interests me about the character is the occasional flashes of humanity and the potential for change. Buffy is a good person in a way that Dru never was. Personally I see nothing wrong with believing in the redemptive power of love. He is nowhere near becoming a truly good person but he is starting to question his behaviour and my interpretation is that the writers do have something exciting planned for the character. Incidently I am loving the story arc with the three nerds and the look at human evil which throws an interesting light on Spike's humanity.
And in response to your examples of Spike not being a nice guy. I'm sorry but I don't believe that Spike drinking from kittens as opposed to humans is necessarily a bad thing. Spike does not have the luxury of choosing to become a vegatarian and lest we forget Angel the warrior for good drinks pig blood. In Western culture it is considered more acceptable to use pigs for nourishment rather than kittens but I do not feel comfortable imposing a certain cultures morality on Spike.
And in Crush and Smashed what people found interesting was not Spike choosing to kill but his reaction whilst doing so. His psyching himself up for the event in Smashed and the hesitation and tears in his eyes in Crush offer promise for the future and in my eyes hint that Spike does have a chance at reforming.
I would much prefer to see a worthwhile expansion of the characters potential rather than see him being reduced to a lesson for Buffy. JMHO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Nicely said. -- Sophist, 21:02:25 02/20/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Spike's Drinking Problem - Minor S6 Spoilers -- Philistine, 00:35:01 02/21/02 Thu
He likes to drink blood from kittens? I must have missed that bit - when was that shown? I was under the impression that kittens are currency for Underworld types - thus poker for kittens in LS (and referenced in OaFA), and the Loan Shark demanding Spike pay him in kittens in TR. And though people play poker for all sorts of stakes - usually cash, but sometimes nothing, and occasionally something obscenely biological - just *try* paying off a loan shark in fried chicken. You'll be lucky if it's just your legs that get broken.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Metaphysical Consequences of Spike's Redemption -- Kimberly, 09:10:32 02/20/02 Wed
I have been following Spike's path to redemption (and my personal opinion is that he will eventually reach it) with a great deal of fascination. Here is what my current thoughts on the whole situation are:
I don't think Spike will develop a soul. Been there, done that. Plus, a soul would make his journey less interesting because it would then be easier. The reason Spike has become so compelling is because he is changing without a soul. Yes, there is a chip, but that only prevents him from the direct physical harm of others. There's more to what's happening with Spike than his stopping of biting people.
It is Spike's love of Buffy that has started him on this path of redemption, just as it was his quest for love that turned him into a vampire in the first place. Spike is defined by the woman with whom he is in love. It will only be when Spike decides to define himself by himself that he will be able to find redemption.
Much has been made in this discussion about Spike's attack on the girl after he believed the chip had stopped working. To me, he resembled a child who has been told that he is bad. If you tell a child he is bad, he will act badly. If you tell a child he is good, he will (eventually, after much hard work and discipline moments) act good. Buffy had just told him he was evil, so he acted evil. The whole "pep talk" he had to give himself beforehand showed how much he had changed: he didn't want to attack that girl for himself; he wanted to show Buffy he was as evil as she said he was. The kittens: well, he has to get his blood from somewhere. Better kitten blood than human blood.
At this point, Spike is still letting others define him. IMO, his next step is to say to hell with everyone else's opinions and definitions and to define himself. He will not be able to reach redemption until he does. (And, yes, that includes getting rid of the chip.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The Metaphysical Consequences of Spike's Redemption -- Dochawk, 12:02:04 02/20/02 Wed
I have 3 seperate points which I have tried to make before, but at least now I do not feel I am flying alone.
1. I don't believe that we ever saw that Spike had a touch of human in him. In fact, the Judge noticed the humanity of Dalton (gained by his love of books) and fried him. if there was any humanity in Spike the judge would have fried him too.
2. Shabidoo has eloquently described the metaphysical consequences of Spike's redemption. Much better than I could ever do., but what are the Buffyverse consequences of Spike's redemption (without an external agent to change things)? If Spike is a run of the mill vampire and he is able to be redeemed for mostly good deeds, why can't other vampires? if they can be, how can Buffy kill them without thought? Wouldn't Buffy's job be to capture vampires, arrange for them to be chipped and then work with them towads redemption. A perfect example would be Billy Fordham. He only desired to have a longer life (something Buffy expressed only 6 months earlier in Prophecy Girl). he would have been happy to have been vamped and then redeemed. Immortality would be the result. And Buffy, by staking them, would be committing murder.
3. "Vampires are Evil. Evil I tell ya" The basic moral of Buffy is that Vampires (not necessarily Demons) are evil. There is nothing in the canon to tell us otherwise and the writers have been at great pains this year to reinforce this.
the above brings me to my speculation (and this is pure speculation). I think Spike must have some externally brought about change. Otherwise a year from now he is either going to be boring or pathetic (or both). Into this mix, ME brings Halcily. As we know, ME rarely has a wasted character. I think the Spike metamorphosis has been planned since midseason 5 and Halcily will be the agent of that change.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The Metaphysical Consequences of Spike's Redemption -- leslie, 13:07:32 02/20/02 Wed
"2. Shabidoo has eloquently described the metaphysical consequences of Spike's redemption. Much better than I could ever do., but what are the Buffyverse consequences of Spike's redemption (without an external agent to change things)? If Spike is a run of the mill vampire and he is able to be redeemed for mostly good deeds, why can't other vampires? if they can be, how can Buffy kill them without thought? Wouldn't Buffy's job be to capture vampires, arrange for them to be chipped and then work with them towads redemption. A perfect example would be Billy Fordham. He only desired to have a longer life (something Buffy expressed only 6 months earlier in Prophecy Girl). he would have been happy to have been vamped and then redeemed. Immortality would be the result. And Buffy, by staking them, would be committing murder."
I think this is precisely the point, and also precisely the point why Buffy is so resistent to the idea that she might love Spike. Falling in love with Angel was bad enough--he was pre-redeemed, as it were, and therefore obviously a special case. She has been resistent to loving people in general before--she was resistent to Riley, she just didn't want to get into something she felt was doomed, again--but there is a note of hysteria in her rejection and repudiation of Spike that, to me, can only be explained by her unwillingness to address the moral ramifications of an independently redeemable vampire.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Thanks so much for that point, leslie. -- Shabidoo, 18:42:14 02/20/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Spike's souls -- skeeve, 13:37:13 02/20/02 Wed
The example of Darla shows us that a vampire can be affected by a soul not its own. Most vampires only hang around other vampires. Spike hangs around humans. How close to the owner of a soul does a vampire have to be to be affected by said soul? For how long? Spike has been very close to Buffy and not quite as close to other humans. Even the demons Spike hangs around with are mostly harmless. Their demon souls, if any, wouldn't do any damage. Well there is kitten poker.
Apparently there are demon souls. Sometimes Angel mentions having to fight the demon within himself.
Here's couple of questions to keep the thread going:
What should the scoobies do if Spike asks to be resouled?
Absent resouling, what affect would Mohra demon blood have on Spike? (Mohra demon blood is what restored Angel's humanity)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Spike's souls -- leslie, 14:33:20 02/20/02 Wed
Oooh! Oooh! Maybe he's absorbing kitten souls! They have nine apiece, they can spare a few! He certainly seems to exhibit Frantic Random Activity Patterns, dashing around madly as soon as the sun goes down.
Actually, are we really sure he drinks kitten blood? I thought he was incapable of harming "any living creature." I just assumed this was where all the feral cats on UC campuses were coming from...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Spike's souls -- Anne, 14:52:16 02/20/02 Wed
First of all, I have to apologize in that I am having to reach back literally decades in order to remember my training in philosophy. So I crave the indulgence of the many people on the board who are more currently conversant than I am.
Now -- It seems to me that there are some schools of thought, notably existentialism, according to which the central event which encapsulates morality is the act of free will; and according to which there is by definition an infinite gap between the entire army of things we normally think of as determining action -- genes, upbringing, beliefs, friends, feelings, loves, hates -- and that act of will. To that extent the truly moral act is based on nothing, and all other acts, to the extent that they are causally determined, are not truly moral, even though in tenor they might correspond to our normal ideas of what counts as "good". The concept of "existential courage" is the idea of the courage needed for us to go ahead and leap that gap; to understand that the value of our acts does not come from outside, is not given to us in any way, and to be willing to act anyway.
I'm not trying to say this is a correct picture (I have not the least idea in the world what I think morality is); but I have always found it a powerful and provocative one. And I think my reaction to Skeeve's interesting question is related to it. Perhaps one of the things that interests me about Spike is that, precisely because he has no soul, he is in some ways a very raw illustration of this idea. If Spike chooses good (and I belong to the school that believes that he has done so upon occasion) it is well and truly out of nothing. The soul, after all, can be viewed, given this model, as a kind of construct posited to explain the inexplicable: yet another attempt to establish a cause for the good in an act in fact chosen freely, and therefore without cause. I think that to "resoul" Spike in some way would take away something very powerful, the idea of the possibility of good being posited over nothing but the abyss. And to that extent I would be sorry to see it.
One thing that I think might still be possible, however, even using this model, is to have Spike in effect grow a soul. But the idea here would not so much be that he grows a soul, and therefore becomes capable of good acts (which again establishes a "cause" for free will), but that out of the existential courage with which he performs good acts, he grows a soul.
One more, slightly different point (if anyone is still reading): I can't help wondering (with due respect) whether the entire question of this string might not be phrased backwards in terms of the fact that we are dealing with a work of art. We seem to be trying to determine a metaphysical framework for Buffy, and then in terms of that try to figure out what is permissible artistically. But isn't it the job of a work of art rather to give us a concrete, sensory image (viz T.S. Eliot's "objective correlative") that will in a non-rational way illuminate the structures of our world view? Rather than try to figure out the philosophy that Joss and the staff have established and conclude what they are allowed to do, I would rather see what they actually serve up in terms of concrete events and characters and see what metaphysics that illumines. It might be something quite new, wonderful, and unimaginable by normal rational channels . . . Isn't that what art is about?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the dusk. -- Sophist, 16:41:51 02/20/02 Wed
This quote (from memory) is from Hegel. He means that knowledge only comes after the event, when we look back and analyze it. That's how I understand your last paragraph, and you said it beautifully.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Thanks Sophist! Great quote -- Anne, 16:50:46 02/20/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Illuminating post, Anne -- Shabidoo, 18:37:38 02/20/02 Wed
"We seem to be trying to determine a metaphysical framework for Buffy, and then in terms of that try to figure out what is permissible artistically."
The series has communicated rules about the way the Buffyverse works which according to Joss are important so that the breaking of them is important. It was never my intention to imply that the rules ought to determine what is "permissible artistically," but rather to discuss the implications of the rule breaking embodied by Spike's possible redemption. I meant to encourage reflection about the new Buffyverse rules which Spike's redemption would imply.
ME can throw any non-rational, concrete, sensory images at me that they want, and I will compulsively try to derive rules from those images (mostly so I can assess the significance of breaking those rules). The rules I've derived are simply my own mental frameworks that help me think productively about the show.
"out of the existential courage with which he performs good acts, he grows a soul." That really is a possibility, one which I acknowledged in my first post, but I found your existential spin on it intriguing. Conjuring a soul from moral courage would be unprecedented in the series and would significantly change the rules.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Point taken -- Anne, 19:21:57 02/20/02 Wed
"It was never my intention to imply that the rules ought to determine what is "permissible artistically," but rather
to discuss the implications of the rule breaking embodied by Spike's possible redemption."
Okay, I see that what I said shot wide of what you were actually asking us to do. But let me ask you, since it sounds like you are a lot more familiar with the rules of the Buffyverse than I am: do you have any idea what some of the implications would be for the rules if Spike "conjured a soul from moral courage"? I know that that's just kind of throwing your own question back at you; but at least it's in a slightly more specific form than you started out with.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Point taken -- Rufus, 19:45:33 02/20/02 Wed
The vampire is the result of an infection, call it a curse of evil from a departing demon. This infection leaves this genetic impulse to prepare the way for the Old Ones to return to this reality.
The first vampire was a primative man with an uncomplicated brain. The infection causes the soul to leave, death, the infection (or demons soul) keeps the vampire "undead", what the host provides is the body and mind, the demon soul the evil supplement that keeps the package moving about.
I was talking to someone last night and we spoke of the vampire infection having hold of the oldest parts of the brain (reptillian) that dictate feeding, fighting, fleeing, sex drive. But the personality and memories of the host are intact, only perverted with evil. The infection can stave off death from disease (think Darla), but can't cure mental illness, so insane in life, insane in undeath(Dru). Man evolved, the brain becoming more complex, society no longer a cave but a structual thing....man has been a busy bee..there's more to life than feeding, fleeing, fighting, and that last f-word. Man has a complex society, comfort. Spike helped Buffy save the world in B2 because he liked those comforts going against his genetic drive to prepare the way for the Old ones to return and destroy all the works of man. That is because Spike had motivation for more than the four f's. Then the Initiative gets their rubber gloves on him, and he's neutered...a muzzle put on the part of the brain that makes him play with the puppies. Leaving the rest of his memories and personality to kick in slowly. At first he wanted to kill, get back to what he knew, then came motivation in the form of love. Spike has all the stuff in his mind to do more than be a slave to an infection. He tried to kill that girl (yes he did) in Smashed, not cause he was hungry but because he was pissed off at Buffy. He found it a bit harder than he thought (he would have gone through with it though), but the chip stopped him ....can't hurt, can't kill. Because he can't do what has kept him occupied for over a hundred years, can Spike move past that and actually overcome the control of that infection to evolve into more? Didn't even mention the soul.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Point taken -- Shabidoo, 20:48:15 02/20/02 Wed
I like having my own questions thrown back at me. No worries.
Well, the consequence that I mentioned in my first post was "if he manages to muster a soul on his own power, that completely devalues the idea of a soul as a metaphysical reality which one possesses or does not possess through no merit nor fault of one's own."
This change of rules opens the possibility of being able to lose one's soul via one's own actions. The change certainly does not entail that logically. It just opens a door.
It would also make other vampires morally culpable for not attempting to conjure their own soul. Likewise, it abandons any concept of vampires as animalistic, unable to control their own impulses. These two consequences may equally well stem from Spike achieving any sort of conscience at all, soul conjuring or not. The only way this culpability could be avoided is for there to be something unique about Spike, aside from his chip.
Doesn't it seem that if the soul is not identical with the conscience in the Buffyverse, the concept of a soul becomes, if not meaningless, at least, irrelevant? Vampires and humans would have to be held to the same moral standards.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Point taken -- Sophist, 21:10:17 02/20/02 Wed
These possibilities are what I find so exciting about the apparent path Spike is now on.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the Ether exactly? -- Angelus1, 18:10:54 02/19/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What is the Ether exactly? -- Rufus, 18:25:49 02/19/02 Tue
eáther Pronunciation Key (thr)
n.
Any of a class of organic compounds in which two hydrocarbon groups are linked by an oxygen atom.
A volatile, highly flammable liquid, C2H5OC2H5, derived from the distillation of ethyl alcohol with sulfuric acid and used as a reagent and solvent. It was formerly used as an anesthetic. Also called diethyl ether, ethyl ether.
The regions of space beyond the earth's atmosphere; the heavens.
The element believed in ancient and medieval civilizations to fill all space above the sphere of the moon and to compose the stars and planets.
Physics. An all-pervading, infinitely elastic, massless medium formerly postulated as the medium of propagation of electromagnetic waves.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: What is the Ether exactly? -- Angelus1, 18:33:44 02/19/02 Tue
From in the buffyverse it is where souls go when they get vamped. I think it is like supernatural energy vault that hold human souls.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: What is the Ether exactly? -- Rufus, 18:54:06 02/19/02 Tue
The thing is, they don't tell you and ether basically means clear sky. Whatever the Buffyverse means I get the feeling it just means that the soul isn't in the body but a unspecified space outside the body...they don't make it clear where that is.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: What is the Ether exactly? -- Cleanthes, 18:56:57 02/19/02 Tue
Great dictionary definitions to exactly answer the question asked, Rufus! In a way, though, I think both the question and your answer are off-topic in a specific way. First, the question asks what "the" Ether is exactly. But the answer involves poetry and mysticism with regard to the Buffyverse. So, an attempt to answer exactly, while excellently done, absolutely describes what the word does NOT mean for Buffyverse purposes. Nevertheless, let me add another dictionary definition, because I'm as much in love with dictionaries as Rufus!:
Etheric body A term used by occultists to denote the sheath of vital forces which permeates the physical body. It was called by the philosopher and occultist Rudolf Steiner, the "Body of Formative Forces" and in some occult systems, the etheric DOUBLE.
Dictionary of the Occult, Brockhampton Press, 1996
The Ether often was equated with the fifth substance, the quintessence, represented by the pentacle. In Greek myth, Aither, the sky, was the father of Tartarus.
In this way, the Ether is beyond the normal four elements or the normal mundane experience.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: What is the Ether exactly? -- Rufus, 18:59:48 02/19/02 Tue
You may have the flu but never let it be said that a man with a dictionary can be kept down when a definition is needed.;)
The ether is always more the stuff of poetry because, how do you describe something you can't see but can only be made real by words?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recap of "As We Were" Promo (Spoilers) -- LeeAnn, 21:09:51 02/19/02 Tue
Recap of "As We Were" Promo
Voiceover: Tuesday on an all new Buffy!
Buffy in a black leather jacket fighting a demon. It throws her against a wall. She's wearing horrible orange dayglow pants. Guns. Explosive flashes. Buffy fighting someone in black.
Buffy up against a wall.
Voiceover: Only one thing could stop a Slayer cold.
The colors invert and the image stretches.
Buffy looks at Riley and says "Riley, it's you," all soft and breathy.
Buffy and Riley gaze at each other while the announcer says "The man she loved is back."
Buffy against a wall, shock in her face. They move together like they are about to kiss.
Riley says "Hold on to me."
Buffy replies, "If that's what it takes."
Buffy climbs up Riley till she's in the same position she was with Spike in Smashed and they cling together.
Two figures are pulled up into the light under a helicopter.
Voiceover: But will she get carried away?
Topless Spike in his crypt saying, "Over my dead body." (At least the bruises are gone.)
Riley in his black military stuff holding a gun pushes Naked!Spike out of the way with the gun and says, "I've seen enough of your dead body."
Buffy in black rolls her eyes.
On UPN next Tuesday at 8, 7 Central.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> And Also.. -- neaux, 04:34:56 02/20/02 Wed
You forgot to add that (although I am not a big Riley Fan) Riley was outfitted in some badass black stealth gear. He looked like he walked right out of Metal Gear.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Riley.........sigh.....my cupboards await thee........;) -- Rufus, 06:15:44 02/20/02 Wed
I know I'm about the only perverted soul that likes Riley (except for OnM who likes him in a totally hetrosexual way)(hmmmm but then again he wrote like..War and Peace on the guy....but that was for me...right???)Back to Riley.....what can I say..he's a nice guy (don't be goin on about vamp hookers, Spike shagged Harmony and did order the ultimate Barbie with outfits)but....back to Riley....he's tall....nice looking....nice, polite...can reach my highest cupboards (I wonder if he does windows).....so ladies, I know some of you dread the return of Riley....just tolerate it...for little ol me....I say nice things about Spike....so bite a lip and give my fav his one night run....he won't be back (I think)....and you will even get half naked Spike to make the Riley medicine bearable (bear.....no that's Spike that's bare)......so next week when Riley arrives, just think of Rufus and her cupboards....:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Riley.........sigh.....my cupboards await thee........;) -- Cleanthes, 07:06:16 02/20/02 Wed
I grew up in Iowa. Iowans don't get much respect on TV. They make up better than 1% of the US population, but, boy, it's always Riley's that show up to demonstrate the Hawkeye face to the world. Sigh.
I liked Riley, too. He did a lot of stuff I might have done. He wasn't right for Buffy, but he was right to want her. Who wouldn't?
His failures seemed understandable, and all to realistically damnatory. He sinned and he failed. I saw his final corruption as ever so ruth-enducing. Most commentators, though, saw him with ruthless eyes, IMO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Cleanthes, you never told me you did windows...... -- Rufus, 07:11:20 02/20/02 Wed
How tall are you...;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Nope, no Microsoft system engineering skills here at all -- Cleanthes, 07:32:07 02/20/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Now you're just being cute....not allergic to Windex are you?;) -- Rufus, 08:06:06 02/20/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Now you're just being cute....not allergic to Windex are you?;) -- Cleanthes, 11:34:24 02/20/02 Wed
Allergic, no. However, I'm not particularly bothered by dirty windows, except on my car.
Riley's much taller than me. Plays better basketball, too.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Riley.........sigh.....my cupboards await thee........;) -- Anne, 08:14:20 02/20/02 Wed
I didn't like Riley to begin with, but wound up liking him quite a bit. Just don't think he's right for Buffy.
But I have to say I thought the final scene between him and Buffy in "Into the Woods" was kind of a tour de force. Before that scene, I could not possibly have imagined a confrontation between the two about the vamp "whorehouse" that would have made him come out as sounding in any way justified. But I thought it was done absolutely brilliantly. And when I say justified, I don't mean that Buffy had done anything bad for which she deserved to be betrayed, or that Riley was right to behave the way he had. I just mean, the dialogue somehow made it clear how completely understandable the behavior was, how it fit into what was lacking in the relationship. I also thought a great acting job was done in that scene by both actors -- and one of Riley's problems during his tenure as a whole was, he got some pretty thankless lines. (EG: "Can we put this whole night on rewind?" "Absolutely!".)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> We both have our Rileybots on order. -- JodithGrace, 06:29:14 02/20/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> People? This isn't the trollop board . . . -- d'Herblay, 06:32:15 02/20/02 Wed
. . . no spoilers in subject lines please.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Oh, wait. Previews aren't exactly spoilers . . . -- d'Herblay, 06:33:57 02/20/02 Wed
. . . as you were.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Well, um, yes they are, for some... but we Trollops don't mind! -- Trollop#1, 06:55:39 02/20/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> I didn't know my Cupboards were spoilery material....;) -- Rufus, 07:12:53 02/20/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> It depends on what's in them ;-) (Sorry. Couldn't resist.) -- Kimberly (blithely ignoring her own cupboards), 08:15:43 02/20/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> yeah...some of that stuff should really be in the fridge -- anom, 11:15:19 02/20/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> yeah...some of that stuff should really be in the fridge -- anom, 11:15:20 02/20/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hate and "Philosopical" Buffy Discussion -- ID, 21:59:49 02/19/02 Tue
I just got on this board tonight. And I have been shocked at the narrow, closed minded, political edge this board seems to have.
There seems to be a few sane people on it, but most of this board seems to have a pretty intolerant "only I am right" arrogance to their statements that is really offensive.
I don't follow politics much. I don't watch Buffy for left-leaning or for that matter any political leaning preaching. But for some, obviously politics must be in everything.
To attempt to force a show into supporting any political agenda will drive viewers away. If you want politics go watch a news channel. If you are on some crusade, fine, take it elsewhere.
I am off to find a real Buffy Board. Not some political active site attempting to use Buffy to push their agenda.
Can you believe that most people who watch Buffy isn't into all this political crap. Most people aren't. There's only a few zealots out there who will not tolerate any show that doesn't re-enforce their narrow political mindset.
Of course, I know this won't change anything. I know what you will say. You are right, and I am evil. I think you should look in the mirror. People who think they are right all the time seldom are.
Thanks for trying to ruin a perfectly good show for me. But you know what. I am not going to let you win. I will enjoy and watch Angel and Buffy free from all your political agenda stuff.
Why don't you be honest and call it the how we can force our agenda upon people by twisting Buffy and Angel chat board. Well again, this is isn't for me. For a board that pretends to have "disagreements" you seem to echo each other a lot. I don't know how other newcomers are treated on this board, but if they are treated any way like the posts they have have read today, I see why they don't come back. Different opinions aren't tolerated here.
It seems like the guidelines are you can say whatever you want on this board as long as it agrees with the dominant agendas being promoted.
Have fun agreeing among yourselves. Must be fun thinking that you are so above other people. That you are so more enlightened than the evil ones out their who don't share your agenda.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Hate and "Philosopical" Buffy Discussion -- Hauptman, 22:38:09 02/19/02 Tue
I am sorry you feel that you have to leave the board because of the discussion we have had. I wish you and anyone who has been made to feel uncomfortable would reconsider. I am going to stay despite the fact that you and many other posters disagree with me. I do not understand why you feel that you cannot co-exist with someone who does not think the same way you do, with someone who is different than you. Buffy means what it means to me and I feel that I have a right to post my opinion here. You do to. Best to you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> and I would like to add.... -- Liq, 22:49:03 02/19/02 Tue
Strange enough is the fact that there have never been accusations of this type before in my tenure with this board (and I have been here for quite awhile).
The first accusations of intolerance that we have ever experienced was this past week. If those discussions are where you have based your opinions, I suggest you read back a ways in the archives. Diversity of opinions are dominant here as is respect for all opinion... creates excellent fodder for discussion which we thrive on.
If you are not interested in sticking around because you feel uncomfortable, it is your perogative. Hopefully you did not cruise in to defame the board and then run off with a grin on your face. If so then shame on you. If not, stick around and give us a subject to discuss. You'd probably be surprised at how many people may agree... or not. Regardless, you are guaranteed thoughtful discussion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Promoting a dominant agenda -- fresne, 22:52:14 02/19/02 Tue
Or now for something completely different.
Danger Will Robinson
*****Spoilers******
for
Couplet
La
La
La
No really, I meant it!
So, I had a number of thoughts about Couplet. I could start my own thread, but why, when I could hijack this one to promote my diabolic agenda for world domination? In my other clothes, the black leather ones, I'm an evil villainess. My evil is not numbered, but is like kinda legion. Or am I not evil, but have a keen fashion sense?
Anyway, the tree chamber. An interesting parallel and reversal to the phallic lamprey of DM. The tree, in feminine guise, lures would be lovers to a park. It encircles them with its coils and pulls them into the earth into a dark (well actually quite well lit) womb like chamber. Having been dragged down in a reversal of birth, the tree strikes its lovers/victims with an umbilical cord, which rather than sustaining life, sucks it away. At this point, I would also like to blame Willow and Tara for talking about disturbed roots in AtW, which only helped promote these meanderings. But I digress, it is the fashion of the time.
Anyway, the face of the creature rather than a separate entity is part of the wall of the chamber. Very monstrous feminine. All distressed voice and teeth.
The tree takes out our young lovers (who are as cute as buttons, but really guys, not on the job) and wraps them round for later eating. Did anyone else think of Alien(s) 1, 2, (not 3 don't like that one) or ahem, 4?
For a moment, I wondered if Angel, himself a parasite would bite the tree, but rather in a scene evocative of Vampire Hunter D, (no not you, the movie) the tree attempts to feed off Angel. However, unlike D (whose enormous energy like the Grusilags overwhelms the serpent maidens), the tree is stunned at Angel's lack of life.
Angel welcomes, accepts the pain. He isn't using his heart anyway. Like Spock famously pondering, "The Pain, The Pain." the tree cries out at the cold. And I wonder, what does that mean in context with a BtVS season that has been all over fire vs. ice, death, cold.
Okay, vampires I know, room temperature, unless they've fed. Flushed on another's life force. It's all about blood. Life. Given Angel's response, do vampires feel the cold? Do they long to be warm? Perhaps, that in itself is part of their impetus to drain their warm siblings. To feed on their changeable human fire. And perhaps, why we see so many violent, emotional vampires. Pretending the emotion is the thing, when really they are so very, very cold. Angel standing in that doorway. Shut away from the light. His friends. Love. Or maybe we just aren't seeing all the slacker vampires, who sit around popping popcorn and well, you know slacking. That's it. Our control group is filled with over achieving vampires. We need a more representative sample from a larger demographic.
And skating the thin ice (get it, ice, cold. Eh, eyebrows wagged. Come on it was kind of amusing. Well, anyway,) I turn to Cordelia's sad loss of any fashion sense. A) What's with turning your cute honey into an Angel clone? What are the writers trying to tell me? Because come on, why would you inflict Angel's hairstyle on anyone? (Here I would like to apologize to anyone who likes hair that sticks straight up.) B)Methinks we're going somewhere with the prophylactics. No not there. Well, actually yes, there, but not...anyway, Cordelia isn't the only one who could loose something if she has sex. Suggestive hmmm. C) If Gru is taller, then why did the pants fit?
As to Angel's gesture, it was nice of him to give Cordelia money to go away. Clever too. Less with the suffering and the seeing every day. More with the baby and the playing and cooing.
Once again Wesley impresses me with his class act and dealing. More and more he reminds me of Giles. Which given Giles current emotional state, may not be a good thing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Nice one, fresne! Hijack away! Pleeeeaaase. -- Marie, 06:04:32 02/20/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Thank you, our own little fresnel lense! -- Vickie, 08:40:02 02/20/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Fresne Lenses -- fresne, 12:17:40 02/20/02 Wed
Now, there's an intriguing thought. A lens of Fresne. Le fresne being an ash tree. Thus they would lenses that lack clarity, being opaque wood and all.
Also, one of the key points in the story Le Fresne is that ash trees bear no fruit.
Thus lenses of fresne would both lack clarity (i.e. obfuscate issues) and bear no philosophical fruit. Although, they do make good walking sticks for the journey.
As a fresne, am I then therefore akin to the tree in Couplet, which also bears no fruit. Instead, grabbing prey to hang from its branches in a parody of reproduction and fruitfulness, like a hanging tree. In which case, both Gunn and Fred represent the Hanged Man, who in the tarot deck can represent a pause to contemplate and accept of one's situation or a sacrifice for a higher good. After which, both Wesley and Angel accept their situations and make a sacrifice. Or could it mean that the Father will kill the son as a sacrifice.
And could that sacrifice be the same as Abraham and Isaac, with God/PTB preventing the sacrifice at the last minute, or allowing it to occur and then reviving Connor from the dead. Cause you know, Omnipotent.
Of course, if Omnipotent beings do not play well in group, how is it the Powers (plural) That Be?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Yes, but... ;o) -- WW, 20:32:22 02/20/02 Wed
fresnel lenses, or lights, (as opposed to "fresne") are those lovely big, heavy stage lights, that can kill you in several different and interesting ways, like falling down while you're on stage, when they haven't been locked off and chained properly by the lighting tech, or like dragging you down to your death with their huge weight if you're stupid enough to help the lighting tech (or be the lighting tech) and you're trying to climb a 15 foot ladder with one hand while you lug the stupid thing up there up to the lighting grid, and, of course, I don't have any personal experience of this at all, no, not me...
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Cracking Knuckles in Piffle Preparation -- fresne, 22:43:42 02/20/02 Wed
So, are you telling me that you are an unearthly presence, who having died tragically via Fatefully Falling Fresnel, has decided to spend your afterlife watching Buffy and contributing to the board. Well, that's what I call diverse and for my part, may I say magnanimous.
And come to think of it, lighting did play a part in Couplet. The even lighting in the tree chamber, perhaps lit by the monitor lights. Odd that the tree would have eyes and not just teeth and feeler sensors. Then again how else would we know it's diabolical plans for delivery dinning.
And of course that rare bit of sunlight, with the clear delineation between Angel's world and well, everyone else's. So, often they de-emphasize Angel go poof in sunlight, look Boo Boo a labyrinth of tunnels in earthquake prone LA. Then again there is Spike and the amazo blanket of transportation.
Something to that. Something about Spike hiding under his blanket when he goes out into the light. The way we rarely see Angel with blanket. I'll think of something later.
Anyway, lighting. Gunn and Fred eating breakfast in a bright sunny restaurant. In the morning of their relationship. In the evening, they get into trouble. They need to stay in the light. Interesting that they are choosing to keep their relationship under wraps. Under the blanket, in the dark. Wait, this sentence isn't going where I started. Gosh, they're cute. Angel needed a cute couple. Balance out the Willow factor. Hmmm...again with the trees that don't fruit and Fred with the masculine name. I once had a hundred snails that were all named Fred (I couldn't tell them apart. There was a great deal of confusion.). Not that Fred is like a snail, nor like Fred Astaire or Frederick the Great. But I digress...
Well, actually no. I have in fact, run out of piffle. Back to Busman's Honeymoon.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Cracking Knuckles in Piffle Preparation -- vandalia, 12:22:03 02/21/02 Thu
Something to that. Something about Spike hiding under his blanket when he goes out into the light. The way we rarely see Angel with blanket. I?ll think of something later.
Spike, I think, refuses to accept the limitations of his existence ('I can change' 'I'm not a monster') and finds any way around them that he can. Angel has always struck me as a rather fatalistic person (of course, with all those prophecies about him, how could he not be?) Thus, you get Spike flambe' vs. Angel cowering in the shadows. Spike isn't about to let a little thing like sunlight (or being a vampire) interfere with his desires.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Hate and "Philosopical" Buffy Discussion -- parakeet, 23:51:59 02/19/02 Tue
For you regulars, I am basically a newbie; for ID, well, even if you check this board again, I'm not sure how to respond to you. I think I'll begin with a personal anecdote. I was in college, and I don't really remember the exact class (it was some literature/sociology hybrid). There was an open discussion, and a young women raised her hand and was called on. She complained that she was being discriminated against because of her conservative views. Everybody in the class was respectful and listened. She complained that she was made to feel out of place because she didn't agree with the "liberal" mindset. We all listened, and when she was through, we began to discuss what she said. We talked about censorship, accepted views, preconceived notions; we very much disagreed with one another.
The young woman once again repeated her complaint; she was a conservative and we were victimizing her by not taking her view properly into account. Of course, we weren't disagreeing with her any more than we were with one another, but all she heard was the parts where people said that she was wrong.
This is when a theory formed in my mind, and it is just a theory; I really didn't and don't know much about this woman. I theorized that this woman came from a small community (not necessarily a small town, just a background that involved a limited number of players). This probably wouldn't be the first time that she'd had to confront a different opinion, but it might be the first time that her opinion wasn't the dominant one. Suddenly, people didn't agree with her, and they couldn't easily be written off. Suddenly, she was faced with either having to think or mindlessly repeating what she "knew" to be true.
Heck, while I don't think that that's the case, maybe she was right. Maybe she was the beacon of truth; maybe we were all repeating what we "knew" to be true and disregarding actual facts.
Of course, we were discussing and analyzing, thinking and speaking. I, at least, knew that truth is complicated and needs checks and balances. This is not to say that I don't get angry when faced with a radical difference; I do try to keep it in perspective and continue the discussion.
Anyway, Buffy... Personally I really like this season and am pleased by the moral ambiguities. Is Spike evil? Yes and no. Are the three nerds comedy or threat? Yes and no. Et cetera, et cetera. All that's worth thinking about is worth discussing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Welcome, parakeet!! :o) -- Wisewoman, 11:45:56 02/20/02 Wed
It's a strange time to be a newbie here, but you're welcome, just that same!
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Welcome, parakeet!! :o) -- parakeet, 00:56:00 02/22/02 Fri
thanks for the welcome, Wisewoman; it is appreciated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I don't understand why so much negativity has appeared about this board all of a sudden... -- Rob, 04:57:08 02/20/02 Wed
I have been at this board for a year, and I have never encountered a more open-minded, loving environment on the internet.
As far as the political agenda, I don't even know where that's coming from. Yes, there may have been a post somewhere about politics (although I'm not exactly sure which is being referred to), or perhaps this is a response to Boke, a recent poster who has attempted to cause trouble by irritating the other posters...but this is absolutely not a political board. This is a philosophical board. All threads are welcome, as well as all opinions. I would advise you to look back in the archives. We have had some brilliant discussions and insightful posts here. We have some right now. I assume you read the race thread. Perhaps that's what you got your opinion from. But I'd advise you to read the "Empire of the Sun" posts...look in "Existential Scoobies" and read the essays and short stories.
By writing us off after one visit, and judging us so harshly, and so quickly, you might come off as one-sided as you call us (and believe me, we have had heated debates here...from serious issues to whether we like or dislike the sixth season--believe me, we can't all agree on that). So please come back a few more times to make a more educated, and fair, opinion.
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> It's our good buddy Lisa/Scott/Fred again... -- M, 07:43:42 02/20/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> So... -- Darby, 10:59:58 02/20/02 Wed
...they're initiating a controversial thread, ratcheting up the fire of the responses, and then swooping in later to criticize us for it? That seems kind of pathological.
My tender sensibilities are getting seriously scorched here...
But I don't want to grow up!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Bad timing for your arrival, unfortunately. -- mundusmundi, 05:59:46 02/20/02 Wed
So I can understand why you'd feel this way. For the past week or so, we've had to deal with a new troll whose relentless worldview (and I'll be damned if I can fathom exactly what it is) was attempting to suck down the entire board, along with the return of our beloved regular little trolls. (Who assume different pseudonyms every time, but the little scamps will always be Bonhoffer to me. ["Vilkommen"!]) On even all of this many of the folks here disagree: It's been tense, or amusing, depending on who you talk to.
A "troll," btw, is not somebody who disagrees with the board consensus, if there even is one; a troll is an excessively rude or confrontational poster. More or less civil debate (and usually less about politics, more about the bleached blonde one) is the natural order of things around here. Peruse through the archives and you may see that the only thing most of these people have in common is that they are smart, witty, thoughtful and tolerant. I am not one of these people, but I know 'em when I see 'em.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Say what mm? You are definitely one of us "smart, witty, thoughtful & tolerant folks" -- Liq, 13:34:17 02/20/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Hate and "Philosopical" Buffy Discussion -- manwitch, 07:05:10 02/20/02 Wed
"I am off to find a real Buffy Board. Not some political active site attempting to use Buffy to push their agenda.
Can you believe that most people who watch Buffy isn't into all this political crap. Most people aren't. There's only a few zealots out there who will not tolerate any show that doesn't re-enforce their narrow political mindset."
You are definitely right about this bunch. And it makes my blood boil as well. The kind of left-wing fascism that would suggest that a work of art might make some kind of comment on social or political issues of the day is truly frightening. Or the further suggestion that a television show might use visual images as symbols for things beyond what they simply appear to be, well, I just don't know where that attitude comes from.
But especially, considering Buffy, one of my favorite shows EVER, the idea that this board consistently expresses that there is some kind of thought behind it, that any of its writers might actually have read a book at some point in their lives is too much for me.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone on this board express, with appropriate dignity, the view of the non-zealots, that Riley is soooo cute! and Buffy has a nice ass!
Dude, if you don't like someone's agenda, argue with it. Or else ignore them. Your exclamations about "agendas" along with your inability to express what one is I think makes you a great candidate for discussions of how cute Riley is. Art DOES comment on politics, culture, society, economics, and yes, race. But don't let's get suckered. The race and ethnicity discussion, while it has prompted some really nice thoughtful posts in subsequent threads, was not the only thread on the board, even at its most monstrous. Even so, there are times in life when race and ethnicity will be discussed, even in relation to art. Politics and aesthetics are branches of philosophy, dude, that you put in quotation marks. If you go on for your diploma, you might come to recognize that.
I think there would be somthing perversely hilarious about seeing Buffy through your eyes, stripped of all its intelligence, thought and comment. Not the idea that it doesn't accord with my view, but the idea that it doesn't have one at all.
If you want to learn about agendas, consider why you berated a whole discussion board for talking about race and ethnicity in relation to art.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> This is not bringing out the best in us... -- Darby, 07:59:57 02/20/02 Wed
I try to live by the "worst case scenario" rule: if the absolute worst event comes to pass, how will I feel about my response? It's the same approach that makes me wonder how any of the characters on BtVS leave the house without crosses and other defensive paraphenalia - don't they feel really stupid when they run into the vampires that they know could be out there?
Sometimes this makes me seem annoyingly optimistic, but I'm not really. I don't know if this current message is serious, but what if it is (to ID - read the archives to see what has been going on and find out you've stepped into an unusual situation for this board)? The board of the last few days has been uncharacteristically contentious, and although it doesn't fit my definition of "political" discussion, I could see how it might fit someone else's. If this is really a person looking for a haven, do we want to alienate them (and maybe other new visitors) because we're feeling defensive and are a bit off our game?
Okay...must...write...exams...now...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> my apologies -- manwitch, 08:34:48 02/20/02 Wed
Yeah, I shouldn't have posted that nasty message. My feeling was that, given the millions of buffy boards in the world, someone who came to a specifically "philosophical" board and then objected to the philosophical nature of its content, and who then, rather than moving on to one of the other boards, took aim at ALL the posters for the nature of the discussion while carefully avoiding saying anything substantive, was well aware that they were the one advancing the political agenda. The point they were making, in my view, was not that we weren't welcoming, but that we were discussing a topic that was not approved.
But its the same old same old pressing buttons. Sorry to have gotten pressed. I apologize for reflecting poorly on the board.
I'll get back to being distressed about Riley.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Hear! Hear! -- darrenK, 10:21:45 02/20/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I'm not sure why your post -- Sophist, 08:35:04 02/20/02 Wed
took the form it did. If it's a hit and run, fine. You go your way and we'll go ours.
If you're serious, then it seems to me that the solution is to try to engage people in a serious discussion about your concerns. Point out what you see as political biases; deconstruct the deconstructions.
You may very well get strong responses. People here have strong opinions and don't hesitate to express them. They get emotionally involved, not just about race, but about whether Spike is evil or redeemable. But in my experience, everyone here is willing to accept the challenge of reasoned disagreement. That includes yours, if you stick around to try.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Ha! If this was a political group, I sure as hell wouldn't be here. -- Dedalus, 09:44:19 02/20/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> BOKE, GET THE HELL OFF OUR BOARD! -- vampire hunter D, 12:39:30 02/20/02 Wed
If you don't, I'm coming to your hoise, busting down the door, and beatting you bloody wit ha shovel!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> He won't leave. No matter what we do vhd... -- VampRiley, 13:36:51 02/20/02 Wed
I was in the chat room with Masq last night and she said that she has already banned like three different ISPs and he keeps changing them. If ID isn't Boke, sorry. But if he is... If ID is Boke, he's just making himself an even more of an ass than he already is.
VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> No, it's definitely at least 2 people with bad manners out there... -- Ms. Masq Manners, 13:53:46 02/20/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Is this the third or four time Scott/Lisa/whoever has paid us a visit? -- CW, 14:12:51 02/20/02 Wed
I remember the last time, people were saying she/he had been here before. The trouble is she/he is reasonable enough to start with, that you can't assume it's the same person.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Hard to say. -- Masq, 14:23:36 02/20/02 Wed
I lose the ISP #'s of folks once the post falls off the edge of the archives. I don't archive the version with the ISP #'s on my hard drive.
Plus, Lisa/Fred/Scott picked very everyday names to post under, unlike our friendly neighborhood Boke, whose aliases and real names were quite colorful.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Sometimes they pick names like RavenEye or Riley's Ghost, when they're feeling especially feisty. -- mundus, 14:33:29 02/20/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hard to say. -- anom, 23:20:24 02/20/02 Wed
"Plus, Lisa/Fred/Scott picked very everyday names to post under, unlike our friendly neighborhood Boke, whose aliases and real names were quite colorful."
Boke's MO was very different. I think we have 2 different population problems.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hard to say. -- d'Herblay, 00:03:17 02/21/02 Thu
Oh, everyone's certain that Boke is not Scott/Fred/Lisa/ID. Boke is just too idiosyncratic to fit with the tedious trolls. The question is whether or not Scott/Fred/Lisa/ID is also Kim/Andy/Sue/Max; Ben/Kirstin/Kristin (generally, only trolls forget how to spell what are supposed to be their own given names); Maple/Sue/Sean/Karen/Susan (this thread contains an interesting post where a troll attacks Kerri, but forgets, and signs his name as "Kerri"); Jean; Moonbeam/Ladybug (reverse troll psychology?); advocate/Raven Eye/Watcher in training/Sean; Riley's Ghost/Bambi Slayer; Willows End/Riley's Ghost/Ben; and, in recent memory and unarchived, Skip's Movie Date. All share the same style, but I'm never sure until they start quoting Bonhoffer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> holy shoot. why do people bother? -- yuri, 00:43:48 02/21/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I figure these turkeys have some idea of what an intelligent converstion is... -- Cactus Watcher, 06:16:31 02/21/02 Thu
but, never quite understand they can't butt into the middle of one and start preaching (as if everyone else was a nitwit), without eventually being told to sit down and shut up.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> My personal favorite is when they agree with themselves -- celticross, 18:44:39 02/21/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Very impressive Compendium of Trolls, d'Herb -- Masq, 07:00:19 02/21/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current board
| More February 2002