.WAFL (lԘA@3kqX{>0qXzYntry(jg0*kw3kqX{>0qXzYAurl http://us.f205.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter?box=Inbox&MsgId=8382_1000999_13590_1034_54363_0_12027_130461_2981182278&bodyPart=2&download=1&YY=89177&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&DataName=&tnef=mime text/htmlhvrsdata January 2003 Archives


January 2003 posts


Previous January 2003  

More January 2003

Re: Does Buffy really love Spike? (No Spoilers) -- mikewill, 22:59:57 01/18/03 Sat

i think buffy may love spike. i think it would be good for the show to have a happy romance. spike has slowly become a good person. he started as a villian but has changed over the years. i think he has become a fitting mate for buffy.
[> Re: Does Buffy really love Spike? (No Spoilers) -- luvthistle1, 23:17:49 01/18/03 Sat

Buffy said that she could never love anyone more than she loves Angel, to me, it means that "she will not allow" herself to love anyone more than Angel. maybe, because she wasn't willing to move on from her childhood sweetheart, she wasn't able to return Spike's love. Angel, had found a
place in his heart for Buffy, but he allowed himself (well, he's older)to love Cordelia. I think you might be right, she really do love Spike, she just not ready to admit it. she is in love with the idea of the way she see Angel and wants to view Angel and Angelus as two separate entity. It's easier for her that way. maybe, it's because of the
thought of Angelus is frightens. .If Buffy had realize Soulless Spike love for her was valid, it would had made her question Angel's love for her, and forever, her so call "perfect love", would be tainted by the fact that
"Angelus" could not love her as well.

In season 4, Riley complain about Buffy not let him in, in season 6 Buffy complain to Tara, that she keep letting Spike in. I think she let him into her heart.
[> [> Re: Does Buffy really love Spike? (No Spoilers) -- Peggin, 04:25:19 01/19/03 Sun

Buffy said that she could never love anyone more than she loves Angel, to me, it means that "she will not allow" herself to love anyone more than Angel. maybe, because she wasn't willing to move on from her childhood sweetheart, she wasn't able to return Spike's love.

I agree that part of the reason Buffy believes that she'll never love anyone as much as she loved Angel is because she won't let herself. But I don't think that's out of a desire to preserve her first love. I think it's because everything that happened with Angel damaged her so badly that she is afraid that all that kind of love can ever bring is pain. I don't think she'll ever be able to admit to loving someone else until she is ready to "risk the pain", and I don't think she's quite there yet.

As for whether Buffy may actually already love Spike, I think that depends on how you define love. In Seeing Red Buffy made it clear that she had strong feelings for Spike, but that because she couldn't trust him, she didn't consider her feelings to be love. Based on her definition, I believe she is being completely honest when she insists that she does not love him. But Spike said that trust doesn't matter, and that real love is all about passion -- his ideas on love had a whole Wuthering Heights kind of feel to it, like love is something that eats you alive until all reason flies out the window. Based on Spike's definition of love, I think maybe you could say that Buffy really does already love Spike.

The thing is, Buffy had Spike's kind of love once and it really did nearly kill them both. (Angel ended up in hell, and Buffy ran away and briefly ended up in hell herself.) In fact, it was exactly that kind of love -- passion without trust -- since there was at least one time (Lie to Me) when she told Angel that she loved him but she didn't trust him, and a few other times besides that when her actions made me believe that she still didn't trust him (one example of this was in Earshot, when she wanted to hear his thoughts so that she could figure out how much he had enjoyed kissing Faith, and possibly if there had been more than kissing).

So, I think Buffy is right -- love without trust doesn't last. Until or unless she decides she trusts Spike, she won't ever be able to call what she feels for him "love". Of course, now that he has a soul and she believes in him, it could be that that day won't be all that far away.

While there's a part of me that won't be too terribly disappointed if the series ends with that never happening, there's another part of me that wants the happy ending. I would like to see Buffy involved in a healthy relationship that has all the passion she had with Angel and all the trust she had with Riley. Since nobody other than Spike seems a likely prospect for this partner, I guess you could say that I'm hoping Buffy falls in love with Spike before the series is over.
[> [> [> Re: Does Buffy really love Spike? (No Spoilers) -- Tess, 07:34:20 01/19/03 Sun

Didn't Buffy throw the trust issue in Angel's face in season 1 of Angel's Santuary? I thought at the time it was just a thing she flung at him to hurt him, but now...

I have to wonder if it isn't so much that Buffy didn't trust Angel or Spike but that Buffy doesn't trust any man.
[> [> [> [> BINGO! -- ZachsMind, 14:57:05 01/19/03 Sun

"I have to wonder if it isn't so much that Buffy didn't trust Angel or Spike but that Buffy doesn't trust any man."

Give that man a plush stuffed animal from the carnival!

In the first season episode "Nightmares" we learned that Buffy's real fears stem from her father. She fears that nothing she does is going to make him happy. Back then, she believed deep down that the problems between her parents had to do with her - with the problems she inadvertently caused in Los Angeles when her Slayer powers first materialized. In the scene between Buffy and her father, which later we discovered was a nightmare of Buffy's and didn't really happen, we see what happened when Buffy's worst fears were realized:

HANK: Well, c'mon, honey, let's, let's sit down. You're old enough now to know the truth.
BUFFY: Is there someone else?
HANK: No. No, it was nothing like that.
BUFFY: Then what was it?
HANK: It was you.
BUFFY: Me?
HANK: Having you. Raising you. Seeing you everyday. I mean, do you have any idea what that's like?
BUFFY: What?
HANK: Gosh, you don't even see what's right in front of your face, do you? Well, big surprise there, all you ever think about is yourself. You get in trouble. You embarrass us with all the crazy stunts you pull, and do I have to go on?
BUFFY: No. Please don't.
HANK: You're sullen and rude and you're not nearly as bright as I thought you were going to be. Hey, Buffy, let's be honest. Could you stand to live in the same house with a daughter like that?
BUFFY: Why are you saying all these things?
HANK: Because they're true. I think that's the least we owe one another.

However, that didn't turn out to be true. Still there was something which kept Hank away. He didn't appear very often in the course of the series. Last we heard he ran off on some kind of ocean cruise with his secretary or something. In season two, Buffy came back dark and hard. In "When She Was Bad" it wasn't until she pulverized the bones of The Master that she seemed to be okay. It was some kind of cathartic act for her. That she was able to move forward.

It's possible that during the summer between seasons one and two that Buffy saw evidence which led her to believe the real problem between Joyce & Hank was Hank, and she couldn't beat her father into a pulp, but she could beat the crap out of The Master, and any evil thing she's come across since. It's the underlying brimming of hatred that fuels her. She blamed herself for her parents' divorce, but has since learned the problem wasn't with her. Her father cheated on her mother. Deep down Buffy hates her father. She hates all men. She doesn't trust them.

From Conversations With Dead People, season seven, we learned the following during her conversation with an old school aquaintence. The Vampire Psychologist Dude. Remember him?

HOLDEN: Just answer me this. Whose fault was your parents divorce?
BUFFY: OK, you know, this is beyond evil. This is insane troll logic. What do my parents have to do with-?
HOLDEN: I'm just curious. Your opinion.
BUFFY: They both have a lot of-
HOLDEN: Off the top of your head.
BUFFY: (hangs her head) My dad.
HOLDEN: Uh-huh.
BUFFY: He cheated. Um, I think he cheated.
HOLDEN: So, of all of these relationships of yours-that you knew subconsciously were totally doomed-Whose fault is that?
BUFFY: It's incredibly different.
HOLDEN: I was just wondering, is it possible, even a little bit, that the reason you have trouble connecting to guys is because you think maybe they're not worth it? Maybe you think you're better than them.

So deep down, Buffy believes all men are trash. They are not to be trusted. Her own father betrayed her family. When he cheated on her mother, he cheated on Buffy too. He left their family for something else. It does explain why Buffy seems only attracted to men who she can't possibly have a relationship with. She's unconsciously proving herself right - that no man can make her happy.

This is a feather in the cap for any Buffy/Xander Shippers out there. One logical direction that the writers can go is that some day Buffy will realize that Xander's the only man who has stuck by her through thick and thin. When even GILES left her, Xander refused to leave her side. He's always been there for her. Forever loyal. Not expecting anymore than friendship with her. Xander learned in "Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered" that he could never have Buffy. She was under a magic spell and threw herself at Xander, but he learned this isn't how she wanted Buffy, and he wasn't going to get her any other way.

BUFFY: Alone at last.
XANDER: Buff, give me a heart attack!
BUFFY: Oh, I'm gonna give you more than that.
XANDER: Buff, for the love of God, don't open that raincoat.
BUFFY: Come on! It's a party! Aren't you gonna open your present?
XANDER: It's not that I don't want to. Sometimes the remote impossible possibility that you might like me was all that sustained me. But not now. Not like this. This isn't real to you. You're only here because of a spell. I mean, if I thought you had one clue what it would mean to me... But you don't. So I can't.

So ever since that day, Xander has pretty much given up on his dream to have Buffy's love. Yet he remains anyway. Not because he believes someday she'll change her mind. He knows she won't, but her friendship has proven to be very important to him, and what they do together - fighting evil - that's more important than his libido. So in the meantime Xander has attempted to find happiness in other women. Cordelia, Faith, Anya. However, just like Buffy, Xander is choosing to get into relationships that will fail.

It's irrational, but it can be argued that both Xander & Buffy are star-crossed in all their romantic endeavours, not because of some external influence, but because internally they make choices that put them into a position of failure. Xander because deep down he's irrevocably in love with Buffy, and Buffy because deep down the betrayal of her father has ruined her for any man.

Sometimes true happiness is right under our noses, and we just never see it.
[> [> [> [> [> Buffy and Xander would never work -- Peggin, 16:18:27 01/19/03 Sun

Do you really think, after all the heartbreak Bufy has suffered personally, that she would get involved with someone who walked out on his own wedding? After she saw how badly he hurt Anya because he couldn't even be honest with himself about what he was feeling, let alone with the woman he claimed to be in love with?

Xander has as many relationship issues as Buffy does, if not more. The two of them getting involved would be a complete disaster unless they both had some serious therapy first to work through their problems.
[> [> [> [> [> [> I never said I was a Shipper... -- ZachsMind, 17:56:55 01/19/03 Sun

"Do you really think..."

Uh. No. I said that this was a feather in the cap of B/X Shippers. I didn't say I was one. I don't want to see Buffy end up with Xander. I was merely pointing out that it IS a possible avenue the writers can opt to go. Not that they will, but they could, and it could be a sufficient way of ending the series.

I'm a Plotter. Romantic relationships between major characters in a tv show inevitably cause adverse affects. It limits storytelling possibilities. The closer major characters are to each other, the further outside the circle the writers have to go to find entertaining conflict.

Back in season one the writers then established through the episodes I mentioned why Buffy & Xander could never get together. It is also how they could feasibly get back together. Buffy could let go of her irrational fear/hatred of men that was established by her father's actions. She could find the love in Xander that's unconditional, and through him realize there is at least one man on the planet that she can trust.

BECAUSE the writers don't go there, this conflict between them remains, and that is what allows them such rich storytelling possibilities. Haven't ya noticed Xander's complete blind spot when it comes to Buffy?

From Same Time Same Place:

XANDER: Well, we could ask some questions over at Willy's place.
BUFFY: (says this without thinking) Or, we could be smart. (pause as she realizes what she just said) Sorry, Xander.
XANDER: (completely oblivious that she just called him stupid) What?

Xander can't see her distaste for men. He can't see that she purposefully looks for faults in Xander because she can't allow herself to believe any man is worthy. She unconsciously believes herself to be above all men, and she may not be too wrong about that.

Her father left her. Giles had sex with her mom, and then left her too. The variables were different but the end result was the same. It's not that Buffy feels she needs the Scoobies around her in order to help her do her job. They just point out where she should go beat up on things. She doesn't feel she needs anybody, least of all Xander. If anything, her closest friends are just a cold constant reminder that she can't be normal. That she's a slayer.

If she could let go of the past, and the heartbreak that her father left inside her, she could turn to Xander and they could live happily ever after. When you dissect the character this deeply, it's Buffy's dissatisfaction with her father that is holding her back from true happiness with any man. Vampire or Loyal.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I never said I was a Shipper... -- Peggin, 05:41:44 01/20/03 Mon

I think you're taking things to extremes when you say that Buffy has a distate for men, or that she doesn't trust men. I think she very clearly trusts Giles and Xander, and that she also trusted Riley. I just don't think she has yet found a man who she can trust for whom she also has passionate feelings.

Even though Buffy was involved with Riley, I never saw any passion on her part. One of the first reasons Buffy gave as to why she wanted to be with Riley was that he was "reliable", and the main reason she gave Xander about why she was disappointed in him was because she had thought he was "dependable". IMO, she was never with Riley because she was head over heels in love with him, she was with him because, unlike Angel, he was someone she believed she could trust not to hurt her.

That's the main reason I would hate to see Buffy end up with Xander. She has made it clear more times than I can count that she has no passionate feelings for Xander. After six years, there is no way I can believe that Buffy is going to wake up one morning with intense passionate feelings for Xander. This just doesn't happen, IMO -- if she was going to have those kinds of feelings for Xander, she would have had them a long time ago.

How depressing is it if Buffy's only choices are either passion without trust or trust without passion? As much as I don't want the series to end with the message that Buffy must always be alone, I'd find Buffy ending up with Xander even more depressing. If the series ends with Buffy alone, it could play out as "alone just for now" (and not necessarily as "alone because the Slayer must always be alone") which is something I could be happy with. If she ends up with Xander, that's like saying that at the age of 22, Buffy has to settle for a passionless relationship, because she's never going to find anything better.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I never said I was a Shipper... -- ZachsMind, 16:03:28 01/20/03 Mon

"I think you're taking things to extremes when you say that Buffy has a distate for men, or that she doesn't trust men..."

Exagerrating? I'm just responding to what Mutant Enemy has placed before us on the table. *shrug* I don't even know where to start with Riley. Buffy screwed up a month of Sundays with him. Most viewers blame Riley. Say he was lame. I disagree. I know this show's named after Buffy and we're all supposed to look at her as if she's infallible but the truth of the matter is she's so incredibly fallible. She succeeds in killing the bad guys but everywhere else she falls short. She dropped the ball with Riley. Repeatedly.

She so freaked out when he had sex with Faith in Buffy's body, and she had no right to. Riley had no way of knowing, but perhaps Buffy irrationally believes if Riley really was THE one for her, he'd be able to tell the difference between her and a room filled with identical Buffy clones. Riley was self-conscious about losing his special superhuman abilities because he knew deep down that's what held her fascination. And he was right. When he became a human being again, she started losing interest. Riley failed her tests. He became expendable. Xander made her realize she screwed up, but it was too late. Riley had already gotten on the copter. He moved on. Riley was never the screwed up one in that relationship. Buffy almost screwed him up but he came to his senses.

Giles is truly the father Buffy never had. I don't see the character that was Buffy's genetic paternal to really be a "Dad" in the pure sense of the word cuz he cheated on Joyce and then walked. However, Giles has also left Buffy to fend on her own. Twice. He has also had sex with Buffy's mother and then didn't stay with her. I'm not saying this is a rational conscious thought in Buffy. Consciously she does trust Giles and has trusted him consciously before with her life. I'm saying unconsciously, on a very deep intrinsic level, she doesn't trust the men closest to her. When push comes to shove and she has to act on instinct, she counts on herself only and if Giles or Xander HAPPEN to help along the way, that's fine. She doesn't count on them in a pinch. She's always looking for a contingency plan in case, once again, a man fails her.

Buffy is not aware, so far as I know, that it was Giles who murdered Ben in cold blood. If she DID see that though, or if she infers it unconsciously, it would further fuel that irrational thought in her mind. And maybe the thought isn't all that irrational. If she went to see a real shrink, the shrink would probably tell her that this lack of trust and faith in men is actually very well established and substantiated. Her father planted the seed, and the male gender has since given little to no reason for her to doubt it. Any person can only go on what is placed before them.

"Even though Buffy was involved with Riley, I never saw any passion on her part..."

As for passion, I'm not talking about passion. I'm talking about happiness. Ask anyone who's been married more than two years. Passion can burn away. What's left after the passion ends, if it doesn't bring happiness, leads to divorce. It's called loving for the wrong reasons. Buffy's in love with the idea of being in love more than she's in love with any of these guys. The guy doesn't REALLY matter. It's how the guy makes her feel at that moment.

Buffy's love for Riley & Xander is a different kind of love than her love for Spike & Angel. Loving your enemy is playing with fire. It's dancing on hot coals. It's exciting and dangerous and pumps the adrenaline. It also invariably leads to heartbreak and unhappy endings, because it's impossible to dance with fire without eventually getting burned. Loving your most loyal friend is being firmly grounded and mature about your life and the building of a future. It's a more logical and secure approach to showing and sharing love, but let's be honest, it doesn't often make very exciting television.

Buffy sets herself up to fail, because she gets something out of it. When she figures out what that is, then she can stop. When she realizes what's REALLY important, that's when she'll be able to live a normal life and still be a Slayer. When she realized at the end of Season Six that what she needs to do is show Dawn the world instead of trying to protect her from it - when she realized that the reason to live is for her sister and not for herself, Buffy was on the right track. Since then she's been losing that track though.

Look at "Him" again. The scene at the train tracks when Buffy saved Dawn. You'll see exactly what I mean.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I never said I was a Shipper... -- Miss Edith, 16:30:12 01/20/03 Mon

I disagree with your persepective on Riley. I never found Buffy irrational towards him. In WAY for instance Riley slept with a Buffy who turned up suggesting they have sex with the door open, and begs him to hurt her and tell her she's a bad girl. Riley should at the very least have suspected Buffy was on drugs of some sort. It wasn't hard to see the difference and realise something was wrong with Buffy. I don't blame the real Buffy for feeling a little miffed. Someone with an identical twin would doubtless feel the same if their twin posed as them and their partner couldn't tell the difference based purely on outer appearance. Doesn't say much for the relationship.

Riley was the one that constantly challenged Buffy and I would say he was the screwed up one. In A New Man Buffy is embarrased to tell Riley how many demons she has killed and holds back with him, suspecting she will damage his ego. Sure enough Riley wants to test his strength against Buffy and at the end of the episode he tells Buffy "Give me a week or so and I'll take you down". In BuffyVsDracula he is telling Buffy she throws like a girl, it is constantly Riley who has a problem with the imbalance of strenth. Angel was the same in IWRY when he became human Buffy turned up to rescue him and nursed him afterwards only concerned for his welfere, it was Angel who had the problem with being unable to protect his woman. I believe that is something that Riley and Angel both shared.

In OFMM Buffy reassures Riley of how much she loves him and says she isn't interested in superheros. Riley was the one who was constantly measuring himself against others. Xander and Buffy were both under Dracula'a mind control yet Riley's insecurities convinced him that Buffy was attracted to Dracula. I would totally disagree therefore that "Buffy almost screwed him up but he came to his senses". Just look at The Replacement Buffy wonders if Riley would prefer a more normal girlfriend (i.e Riley as the stronger of the two), and in NPLH there is a really arkward silence when Riley finds out Buffy said he is cute and kittenish. Riley was the one that needed to be thought of as some manly stud, Buffy never said when he was having his chip removed that he was no longer strong enough for her. If anything she became exasperated when Riley and Spike joined her on patrols trying to prove themselves as a match for her. When Buffy does the spell that reveals Dawn is the key Riley is the one making a big deal about feeling useless. Buffy not crying on his shoulder was what really upset him because he felt useless and wanted to be needed. I would argue that was Riley's problem, not Buffy's.

And I disagree that Buffy and Angel was about Buffy falling in love with an enemy and setting herself up to fail because she gets something out of it. That could certainly apply to her sex with Spike but she never got much of a thrill from Angelus. I always felt she tried to ignore Angel's past, and just focused on what was convienient for her. In The Prom we see she has written on her school books "Buffy and Angel 4ever". She didn't handle the relationship maturely because she ignored Angel's evil past. Not a case of dancing on hot coals for a vicarious thrill IMO.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Plus, Buffy was drawn to Angel before she knew he was a vampire -- Finn Mac Cool, 16:59:56 01/20/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Plus, Buffy was drawn to Angel before she knew he was a vampire -- Miss Edith, 18:45:31 01/20/03 Mon

Exactly. In episodes like Halloween Buffy wants to look at the watchers diary to find out more about Angel. She doesn't choose to explore his past and start congratulating herself on having tamed him or think wow he was a real bad boy in the past. She skips all the icky details and just goes stright to what kind of women Angel liked in the past. That to me suggests her problem with Angel was that she was living in denial and not mature enough to face certain issues, not that she found said issues a turn-on.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I never said I was a Shipper... -- ZachsMind, 17:17:49 01/20/03 Mon

"Riley should at the very least have suspected Buffy was on drugs of some sort..."

Oh like she's never acted weird before. Buffy'd been a flake around Riley since the first day they met. Dating Buffy's like dating Sybil. One day you get a girl who's distant and.. avoidy, the next day she's a sexpot who won't let you leave the bed and it's not until later that you learn you were both possessed by sexually deviant spirits in a haunted house.

I mean different is the norm with Buffy. By the time Faith switched places with Buffy, Riley had more than enough reason to assume this was just another one of her "moods." You're assuming Riley could read the script. He had no reason to assume Buffy was possessed. Besides, the character was a red-blooded American farm boy from Iowa. You put him horizontal with a cute female and he's NOT gonna be thinking rationally. Which brings me to your next point.

"...it is constantly Riley who has a problem with the imbalance of strenth. Angel was the same... I believe that is something that Riley and Angel both shared."

Allow me to let you in on a little known secret about men, Miss Edith. Men have problems with women who are stronger than they are, and if you ever run into a guy who says otherwise, he's trying to sell you something.

Of course Riley & Angel share this issue. So does Spike and Xander. And Giles. MEN are uncomfortable with strong women. If a woman is too forward, oftentimes a man will be scared off. It's one of men's MANY failings. I know it's something I've struggled with. Fighting it is like training a cat not to chase mice. Denying the true nature.

...Well. Okay. Maybe not Giles, because Jenny was pretty darn forward, but she was also GOOD at being forward. She didn't make him feel insecure. Jenny catered to Giles' sense of logic AND his vanity. Had Angeles not gotten in the way they would have been a great pair.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I say otherwise, and I'm not lying. . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:34:47 01/20/03 Mon

If the woman is strong and forward, the pressure to be the strong and forward one is removed.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I never said I was a Shipper... -- Miss Edith, 18:41:03 01/20/03 Mon

I can accept Buffy and Riley didn't know each other that well. But I still maintain that it was clear something was up with Buffy, and Riley should at least have suspected something was wrong. Buffy tells Jonathon she understands Riley was hardly in a postion to say "Hey that's not your body...get out of that body with your hands up". I would agree with that, but I still think there was something very noticeably off with Buffy. Your example of WTWTA just has Buffy being horny basically and wanting to stay in bed with her boyfriend. A pretty big difference from her noticeably out of character behaviour in WAY. I would say Riley did have a significant reason to believe Buffy was possessed. But that's JMHO.

As for your argument about men being threatened by strong women, in a lot of cases that's true. But I would say Riley was a lot more insecure than the other males in the show. For instance in TR I don't recall the males having a problem with following Joan's orders. Randy simply says "that's your plan...Right then" and Giles also goes along with Joan fancying herself as boss. No attempts at manly swagger.

In fact Giles took a fatherly role towards Buffy in earlier episodes but by season 4 he had a very equal relationship with Buffy, and respected her strength. I would argue that Spike also admired Buffy's strenth. In Smashed he appreciates her punches matching his. I can't think of him wanting to overpower Buffy as much as have a fight between equals. Something he has enjoyed since the first meeting in School Hard. "I'd rather be fighting you anyway" is something he tells her in WML and he fantasises about fighting Buffy in Family but I don't believe he managed to overpower Buffy in his fantasy. I don't recall Spike ever becoming insecure and wishing Buffy wasn't a superhero as Riley did. So I wouldn't say all men would become insecure with Buffy just because she was a woman and stornger than them. I would say it depends on the person and Riley was very much at fault.

Even Oz seemed happy with Willow taking the lead in episodes like Choices when she left to save the day with Buffy and Angel. Or Willow ordering the others around in teacher mode in Earshot. If anything Oz seemed proud of Willow's self-assertion. I wouldn't say all men necesserily have problems with a strong woman.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I never said I was a Shipper... -- Peggin, 02:50:47 01/21/03 Tue

I would argue that Spike also admired Buffy's strenth. In Smashed he appreciates her punches matching his. I can't think of him wanting to overpower Buffy as much as have a fight between equals.

I think this is absolutely right. Before Spike fell in love with Buffy, he wanted to overpower her, but once he realized he was in love with her, he never had any problem with her strength -- in fact, he seemed to revel in it. Spike liked their "dance" and for the dance to continue, they had to be equals in strength. If either of them ever overpowered the other, the dance would be over.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: BINGO! -- Miss Edith, 18:29:12 01/19/03 Sun

I agree. On other boards some people have suggested it would be empowering for Buffy to end up alone with the realisation that she doesn't need a man. But there just seems to be something really sad about that to me. No Buffy shouldn't be with a man because she needs one, and she does need to be happy with herself first. But humans are social creatures and we are by nature happier when we have a companion. I would find it really sad if it is suggested that Buffy is destined to end up alone.

For the record though I don't think she loves Spike. It's just becoming demeaning the way he trots around after her like a loyal puppy dog. I really wish the writers would allow him to move on, and accept Buffy can't love him in the way he longs to be loved. Buffy and Spike have done to much damage to each other to be a romantic couple. They would never be equal as Spike sees himself as unworthy and is suffering from severe self-loathing. They both deserve better than what the other can offer them IMO. In fact Spike needs to build up a degree of self-worth before he is ready for any relationship period. He has only just regained his sanity and he is still trying to figure out who he is. A reconcilation with Buffy is just not that likely.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Only partially disagree -- Finn Mac Cool, 18:42:33 01/19/03 Sun

But she has ended seasons before without a romantic partner (see Seasons 2, 3, 5, and 6), and Joss has said before he designs each season to act as the last one. Now, I agree it would be depressing and disenheartening to give the message that Buffy has to always be alone, but they could end the season without her in a couple, but not say that this is how it always has to be.

Agree on your assessment of S/B, though I'd add in the fact that the friction they always seem to generate around each other, while fun to watch, isn't the most healthy for them as characters. If you're constantly generating friction, somebody eventually gets worn away.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Only partially disagree -- Miss Edith, 19:11:24 01/19/03 Sun

I was actually a shipper for B/S in the beginning so I was cheering when they kissed in OMWF and TR. I even found Smashed kind of sexy. What that says about me probably isn't all that flattering lol. But seriously it was good entertainment whilst not a relationship I would choose for myself. But then it just became the most tedious, depressing relationship I had ever had the misfortune to watch (IMO). The dumpster sex and, the AR etc suggests ME were deliberately making the couple unappealing and they succeded in my case.

As for me wanting to see Buffy end up with someone that's partly because she has had so much angst and seems to constantly be denied a happy ending when it comes to her love life. I just can't agree with the people saying it is empowering to show Buffy doesn't need a man and they would rather she ends up alone as it's a healthier message. No one should be with a partner solely because they can't face being alone. But if someone is happy and complete in themselves (which I hope Buffy will be) then I see having a partner as an added bonus. I don't see why Buffy can't have it all. Her destiny as the slayer, as well as a positive relationship to bring love into her life.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I agree saying that Buffy never will have a partner -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:29:51 01/19/03 Sun

Would be a depressing message. But they don't need to actually show her getting together with someone to allay that. They can end the series, leave Buffy alone, but not neccessarily say she'll always be that way, she just isn't at this point in time.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Only partially disagree -- verdantheart, 06:54:17 01/21/03 Tue

I'm afraid I certainly didn't cheer as Buffy and Spike came together even though I have a tendency to identify with Spike (don't ask me why; I'm not remotely like him) because there was no way that it was going to work out very well and that Buffy was going to treat him with any kind of respect. Therefore, things were going to end with in a "Seeing Red" kind of scenario one way or another.

But this season there have been many signs that Buffy is awakening to her own attitude. She even expressed regret for how she treated Spike, something I doubted I might ever hear. She realizes that she sees herself superior--and even beats herself up about it (her inferiority complex about her superiority complex?). Her growing awareness gives us hope that she can eventually give of herself in a mature way--and accept of another as well.

Perhaps it won't be her loyal dog Spike, but someone.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: BINGO! -- Miss Edith, 18:44:54 01/19/03 Sun

I posted in the wrong place. I was meant to be replying to Peggin with my post. I agree with her when she talks of wanting to see Buffy in a healthy relationship with passion and trust. Buffy should be able to survive without a man but I don't want to see the series ending with the message that she will always be alone.

But I just don't feel inclined to watch B/S go through another shambles of a relationship. In BY he was emotionally shattered and could not reconcile Buffy touching him with concern. He thought she wanted sex. And in the same episode Buffy is flashing back to the AR. To me BY tells me everything I need about why I don't think B/S are getting back together any time soon.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> BY was a starting place, not an ending place... -- Peggin, 04:23:22 01/20/03 Mon

If there is ever going to be a healthy relationship between Buffy and Spike, they have to start by moving past the unhealthy aspects of the relationship they had last year. The only way that can happen is if they admit to the things they each did wrong and admit that they have both changed. I saw a lot of that happen in Never Leave Me, when Spike acknowledged that he now understood that Buffy hadn't really loved him last year and had just been using him to punish herself, and when Buffy told Spike that she no longer saw him as the person he had been before he got his soul -- he had risked everything to become a better man, and now she believed he was one.

But I just don't feel inclined to watch B/S go through another shambles of a relationship.

I don't want to see them go through another mutually destructive relationship like they had last year either, but I think the point of everything that happened last year was that, as long as Spike didn't have a soul, he could never be a good partner for Buffy; and as long as Buffy was suffering from severe depression over simply being alive again, she could never be a good partner for anybody.

The relationship as it was last year could never have turned into a healthy relationship because Spike was still evil, and he had no real intention of changing to become a good person. He believed that even if he wasn't "good", he was "okay", and as far as he was concerned that was good enough and there was no reason Buffy shouldn't want to be with him. It also couldn't be healthy because Buffy was just using him to feel something -- but I do think it was significant that, of all the men in the world, she chose Spike as the person to help her feel, rather than just going down to the nearest frat house and picking up any one of a dozen Parkers who would have been more than happy to have Buffy use them for sex.

Buffy was very conflicted about her feelings for Spike. On the one hand, she knew he was still evil. On the other hand, she was attracted to the man who had risked his life to keep her secret and who had spent 147 nights dreaming up new ways he could have saved her. This is the real problem with the allure of evil. This is the reason that so many people turn down the path of evil -- because it has an attractive side; it is seductive. Buffy wanted to spend time with "Mr. Every Night I Save You", but you can't divide a person up into parts, and Buffy couldn't have a relationship with just the appealing parts of Spike. Any time she spent with him, she was also spending with the evil parts of him. Buffy knew she couldn't love him because of how much evil he had in him, but the only way she could justify using him was to gradually start denying the very thing that had attracted her to him in the first place. I kind of loved the way they showed that the more Buffy spent time with "Evil" (as represented by Spike), the closer she came to becoming evil herself -- a line I think she even momentarily crossed in Dead Things. The relationship they had last year could never have been healthy. You can't have a casual relationship with Evil, and if Buffy had stayed in that relationship, she would have ended up just as evil as he was.

They could never have had a healthy relationship as long as Spike didn't have a soul and as long as Buffy was depressed. But Buffy seems to have, for the most part, gotten over her depression, and, as for Spike, I don't think the same rules apply now that he has a soul.

I agree that in Beneath You, Spike was quite insane and couldn't figure out the difference between Buffy touching him out of concern and out of a desire for sex. If Buffy had decided that she loved him at that point purely based on finding out that he had gotten a soul (as I think Spike was hoping for when he decided to get a soul), then I would agree that it could only have led to another unhealthy relationship. If there is any chance for them to have a healthy relationship, it couldn't just be based on, "Oh, he's got a soul now, so it's okay if I fall in love with him." They need to get to know each other as people before they could ever have a healthy relationship.

As of now, I don't think it's necessarily true that they couldn't have a healthy relationship. Spike has remained sane through the last few episodes, despite the horrible torture The First has put him through. He knows that Buffy believes in him now, that she now thinks of him as a man and not a thing. And Buffy seems to have gotten over the AR -- she believes that he has changed and is no longer the same person who did that. (And IMO he really isn't the same person anymore, any more than Xander is still the same person who tried to rape her in The Pack.) They both seem to be in a much healthier emotional place than they were last year, or even just a few months ago when BY aired.

While I don't necessarily want Buffy to end up with Spike in particular, I *do* want to see Buffy in a healthy relationship. I don't want to be left to the depressing conclusion that the Slayer must always be alone. To date, Buffy has either had relationships with men where there has been trust but no passion (Giles, Xander, and Riley) or where there has been passion but no trust (Angel and Spike). I want to see her have both, and I frankly don't think that anyone on the show other than Spike has the potential to be this partner for Buffy. That's not to say that it *has* to be Spike, but I just don't think there's anyone else on the show right now who has even the tiniest chance of being the guy Buffy deserves -- someone who she can trust and still have a passionate relationship with.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well- -- Spike Lover, 10:58:52 01/20/03 Mon

"Any time she spent with him, she was also spending with the evil parts of him. Buffy knew she couldn't love him because of how much evil he had in him, but the only way she could justify using him was to gradually start denying the very thing that had attracted her to him in the first place. I kind of loved the way they showed that the more Buffy spent time with "Evil" (as represented by Spike), the closer she came to becoming evil herself -- a line I think she even momentarily crossed in Dead Things. The relationship they had last year could never have been healthy. You can't have a casual relationship with Evil, and if Buffy had stayed in that relationship, she would have ended up just as evil as he was."

Except that they were doing a big comparison/contrast with Spike and Warren last season. I might buy your argument if Warren had not been so evil, but because he was, it seems to me the (clouded) message last season was that there is evil in everyone -whether they have a soul or not.

By your argument, you are sort of saying that a relationship would have worked between Buffy and Warren, if the attraction had been there. To me, it seemed that the humans were embracing their dark side, and the demons were embracing their light side.

Just $.02
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Well- -- Peggin, 11:52:36 01/20/03 Mon

By your argument, you are sort of saying that a relationship would have worked between Buffy and Warren, if the attraction had been there. To me, it seemed that the humans were embracing their dark side, and the demons were embracing their light side.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. What part of trying to kill someone, brokering in demon eggs, and attempting to rape someone falls under the definition of Spike embracing his light side? Last year's Spike came across as still pretty damn evil to me.

As for a potential relationship between Buffy and Warren, I think if Buffy had had a relationship with Warren, it would have gone pretty much exactly like the her relationship with Spike did, with Buffy becoming a worse person as a result. Human or not, Warren was still evil, and he could have easily stood in for Spike as a metaphor for the allure of evil.

I guess I was unclear in my original post, because I can see how it might sound like I was saying that having a soul makes everything better. That's not it at all. I just think *not* having a soul makes you evil, with no choice in the matter. Having a soul gives you a choice, but you can still choose to be evil even with the soul.

If you're interested in a really long essay about what I think it means that Spike got a soul, you can read it here:

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/6065/97033

but what it boils down to is that I compare not having a soul to a kind of mental illness, similar to depression in the sense that, even if a person knows he is suffering from depression, he can rarely if ever recover from it without some kind of medicine. I also compare getting a soul to a kind of metaphysical Prozac -- I know in my own experiences that getting Prozac did not guaranty that I was going to recover from depression. I still had to deal with all of the problems that had caused the depression in the first place. Prozac just gave me the ability to work through those problems, something my own brain chemistry kept me from doing without it.

In your comparison between Spike and Warren, I would definitely call Warren more evil because I think Warren had a choice in the matter. He *wanted* to be evil, whereas I think Spike may very well have wanted to be good -- even if only for Buffy's sake -- but that not having a soul made it impossible.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> B/W: Eeewww! -- vh, 06:57:46 01/21/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: BY was a starting place, not an ending place... -- Miss Edith, 19:12:02 01/20/03 Mon

My opinion is simply that I did not enjoy watching Spike and Buffy my two favourite characters sink into an abusive relationship. Saying she and Spike have changed so things could work out is just to me a disturbing message. The old cliche of women convincing themselves they can change a man. Perhaps I've just been hanging out in too many scary places, websites I now make a point of avoiding. The number of women that were saying Buffy deserved to be raped by Spike and Spike's actions were all her fault make me shiver. It's not just a few isolated crack pots either. The writer David Fury was actually asked if he felt "the bitch got what she deserved" because of all the feedback from fans saying she did.

I do want to see Spike redemed and I have always been behind that particular storyline. But seeing him back with Buffy after he tried to rape her in the bathroom scene is just not something I'm comfortable with. I always felt it was the man who tried to rape Buffy, not the demon, so how could Buffy reconcile herself with getting involved with Spike again? Didn't the writers say Angel specifically killed Jenny in vamp face so in season 3 when Buffy was kissing him he wouldn't be wearing the face of the man who killed Jenny? I do want to see Spike forgiven for his evil past, and I hope Buffy does offer him forgiveness for the AR. But my personal wish list would not be for B/S to have sex again. I just think the writers took them too far for them to be a healthy on-screen couple. JMHO. Plus I think the two characters are better when they're not together. I would much rather see Spike share scenes with Giles, or Willow both of whom have pasts they are not proud of, giving him something in common with them. Even snarkiness with Xander, as opposed to his world revolving aroud Buffy, and what she thinks of him. For story purposes I just don't want to watch another season where the only character Spike shares scenes with is Buffy. I'm still bitter about losing the Spike/Dawn friendship but that's another story.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: BY was a starting place, not an ending place... -- Peggin, 03:34:16 01/21/03 Tue

The number of women that were saying Buffy deserved to be raped by Spike and Spike's actions were all her fault make me shiver.

Wow, that is disturbing. I wasn't on-line much last season, so I haven't seen these types of comments, and that is just plain frightening. I have seen some of the discussions trying to manipulate Spike's attempt to kill that girl in the alley in Smashed as a good thing -- like, "oh, look how good a guy he is now, he had to talk himself into it before he tried to kill someone" -- and it really frightened me that anyone could see attempted murder as a sign of Spike's impending redemption. But this "Buffy deserved it" crap is even more disturbing than that was.

I do want to see Spike redemed and I have always been behind that particular storyline. But seeing him back with Buffy after he tried to rape her in the bathroom scene is just not something I'm comfortable with. I always felt it was the man who tried to rape Buffy, not the demon, so how could Buffy reconcile herself with getting involved with Spike again?

If Spike had been human when he attacked Buffy, or if he had already had a soul at the time, then I would agree -- the idea of the two of them together would make me upset. But I think it makes a huge difference that Spike now has a soul. I don't agree that it was "the man and not the demon" who attacked Buffy because I don't believe there's as clear a distinction between man and demon as you seem to think there is. I think it was a combination of both. In order to explain this a little better, I'm going to talk a little about the other time we saw someone try to rape Buffy -- Xander in The Pack -- because I see Spike's attempt to rape Buffy in SR as being eerily similar to that earlier attack.

I don't believe for a minute that Xander would have ever even begun to consider doing anything like that if he had not been under the influence of a dark power. At the same time, unlike the rest of the hyena pack eating Principal Flutie, there is no reasonable way that Xander's behavior can be blamed solely on the hyena possession. Hyena's don't typically try to rape human females, and it was very specifically the girl that Xander was most interested in who he sought out and attacked. The attempted rape was clearly something that came from inside of Xander. The hyena possession may have removed the moral restraints that normally prevented Xander from trying to force his desires on an unwilling Buffy, but the underlying sexual attraction that lead to the attack was not caused by the hyena possession; that was all Xander. Even some of the things that Xander said while trying to force himself on Buffy -- "We both know what you really want," and "Do you know how long I've waited until you'd stop pretending that we aren't attracted," -- are echoed in Spike's "I know you feel like I do. You don't have to hide it anymore," and "Let yourself feel it."

So I guess the question becomes, if Buffy had agreed to go out with Xander when he asked her out in Prophecy Girl, would you have been horrified at the idea of a woman dating someone who had tried to rape her? Or would you have recognized that Xander, the person he was after the hyena possession was over, was no longer the same person who had tried to do that? I look at it in the second way. Even though the impulse for the attack clearly came from inside of Xander, I don't blame Xander for the things he did while possessed.

That is exactly how I look at the difference between soulless Spike and souled Spike. The sexual attraction that led to the attempted rape may have come from "the man" and not "the demon", but I don't think "the man" would have ever acted that way with a soul any more than I think Xander would have ever acted that way unless he was possessed by the hyena spirit. Spike's lack of a soul removed the moral restraints that would have prevented him from trying to force his desires on an unwilling Buffy. The soul makes a huge difference, and I would therefore be no more upset by Buffy falling in love with soul-having-Spike than I would have been if she had fallen in love with Xander sometime after The Pack.

Didn't the writers say Angel specifically killed Jenny in vamp face so in season 3 when Buffy was kissing him he wouldn't be wearing the face of the man who killed Jenny?

Yes, but at that time the Buffy world was still very black and white. They wanted to make it appear that the person who killed Jenny was all Angelus and not even a little bit Angel. I, for one, never bought it. I never thought there is nearly as much a distinction between the two as a lot of other fans seem to want to believe there is. I think Angelus is exactly the same person as Angel, only with all moral constraints removed, and that Angelus never did a single thing that Angel wouldn't have at least thought of doing under similar circumstances. The only difference I see is that Angel has a soul, a conscience, and that he therefore doesn't act on his every violent impulse.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: BY was a starting place, not an ending place... -- Miss Edith, 10:31:54 01/21/03 Tue

There were many females who were arguing Buffy got what she deserved, led Spike on etc. The official chat rooms at the Bronze were full of such threads around the time SR aired and impossible to avoid. Many said they were cheering Spike on, wanted Buffy taught a lesson etc. It was just sick and horrible.

I agree with your lack of distinction between Angel/Angelus. I don't see the vampire and the souled version as all that different so I would say Spike and Angel both need to work towards redemption, it's not a case of saying they were possessed at the time so former actions shouldn't be held against them. Slightly hypocriticly perhaps I would not have had a problem with Buffy dating Xander in PG. The storylines were more lighthearted then, and Buffy herself was not particularly traumatised by the rape attempt. After seeing Buffy try to fight Spike off in the bathroom scene in such a graphic way I just would not find anything romantic about Buffy desiring Spike sexually again. Television is a visual medium and I am not saying I am even being consistent in my attitudes, I am just stating what I would feel comfortable watching on screen. I do want to see forgivness and for them to become friends and working partners so I don't necesserily blame and hate Spike for the AR and say he should be denied forgiveness.

But to me the AR is the reason I would not want to see B/S taken further. That was why I was unhappy about the subject of rape being used in the first place. With all its real life contatations I feel ME should handle it responsibly, they knew the reaction it would get and I took it that B/S was definately ending and it was a sign to the shippers that spuffy were not a couple to root for.

Also I did see the AR as coming from the man. My perspective was that Spike was on the verge of a nervous breakdown. He was completely closed off to Buffy's protests, he wanted to get through to her with sex and make her love him. I did not see the AR as inherently evil, I saw it as a very human action, and I can sympathise with Spike. But nevertheless he did make a horrible mistake, and I just don't want to see spuffy happen again. I'm not saying I'm morally opposed to the couple. I'm just saying it's not my preference for something to happen between them. The bathroom scene took all elements of sex appeal from the couple for me. I would say for me it's too late to change that.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: BY was a starting place, not an ending place... -- Peggin, 14:06:42 01/21/03 Tue

But to me the AR is the reason I would not want to see B/S taken further. That was why I was unhappy about the subject of rape being used in the first place. With all its real life contatations I feel ME should handle it responsibly

I can understand your feeling that way, but I actually had the exact opposite reaction to it. I think the way they handled the situation in SR and the episodes since then has been a lot more responsible than the way then dealt with the similar situation in The Pack. I hated the way they made it seem like the attack was no big deal to Buffy and I hated that Xander never admitted any responsibility for his actions and chose instead to pretend he didn't even remember any of it. Even if he wouldn't have attacked her without the hyena possession, it was still him that did it, and I would have liked some indication that he actually felt responsible. I hated that the whole thing was just brushed under the rug like it never happened.

I can also understand why seeing the AR would make you uncomfortable about the idea of any future relationship between Buffy and Spike, but again I had the exact opposite reaction. I was very uncomfortable about them being together after Spike tried to kill that girl in the alley in Smashed. To me, that just proved that Buffy was right about him, he was just evil, and she could never have a real relationship with him. The only reason I could enjoy their relationship after that point was because, based on what I saw, it was being portrayed as very unhealthy for both of them. (I enjoyed season six in the same way that I enjoy Othello or Romeo and Juliet -- I saw it as a story about people making bad choices that lead to their eventual downfall.) After Smashed, I would have been horrified if Buffy had decided she was in love with Spike until or unless he started showing some form of remorse for his past actions.

In a weird way, it was the AR that made me start to think there might be a chance for them to have a real relationship. Not the attack itself, but the fact that Spike felt bad about it afterwards and that, as a result of that remorse, he went out and got a soul. I'd actually be a lot more comfortable with Buffy falling in love with Spike now than I would have been at any time between Smashed and Seeing Red.

Of course, I'd also be okay with Buffy not falling in love with Spike. I mean, I'd prefer for a story where Buffy ends up with *someone* she can love, whether that person is Spike or not, but considering the fact that this is Joss Whedon, I'm really not holding my breath for a happy ending. Even if Buffy doesn't get that happy ending, I'm sure there are plenty of ways Joss can end the story that I'll be happy with. I just really hope the series doesn't end with the message that the Slayer has to be alone. If they end it with Buffy being alone, I hope they make it clear that it's not because that's the way things have to be, but only because she still hasn't found the right person yet.

I also don't want them to end it with Angel suddenly popping up out of nowhere with some contrived reason about why it would now be okay for them to be together. Not that I'm totally opposed to B/A, it's just that, if it should happen, I want a story building up to it over the course of a few episodes, not a tag stuck on the end of the story at the last minute.
[> Buffy and the one thing she fears most of all......Love -- Rufus, 19:54:16 01/19/03 Sun

Buffy is a hero, and as a hero she tends to isolate herself from others. Part of that is that inferiority about her superiority that Holden mentioned in CWDP, but I think it was better explained in the CBC interview with Marti Noxon.....

And as we watched, eventually we found that Spike was a real romantic foil for Buffy. And also what we've seen is Buffy attracted to her own darkness. To her own aggression, to sex without love, to sex where love is really subdued, all of the things that she can't permit, because she is a hero. Marti Noxon

Buffy has a problem with expressing love and trusting others because she has known betrayal in both her love life and with her relationship with her father. Spike came along and became her foil in the issue of love. He is the one that has made Buffy take a look at herself.....and she was frightened by what she could see. In Intervention, Buffy asked the Guide about love.....romantic love, being able to love at all....

BUFFY: (to Giles) I don't know. To slay, to kill ... i-it means being hard on the inside. Maybe being the perfect Slayer means being too hard to love at all. I already feel like I can hardly say the words.

FIRST SLAYER: You're afraid that being the Slayer means losing your humanity.

BUFFY: Does it?

FIRST SLAYER: You are full of love. You love with all of your soul. It's brighter than the fire ... blinding. That's why you pull away from it.

BUFFY: (surprised) I'm full of love? I'm not losing it?

FIRST SLAYER: Only if you reject it. Love is pain, and the Slayer forges strength from pain. Love ... give ... forgive. Risk the pain. It is your nature. Love will bring you to your gift.

Buffy is a hero, and to her being a hero means being someone to look up to. Her time with Spike caused a conflict. She clearly had feelings for him, she continually sought him out. But unlike season five where she had firmly established boundaries, her return to life weakened them. What Buffy ended up doing was having sex with Spike, something she could never have allowed herself to do in the past. This only made her feel worse as she found she was using him, she also found that he made her feel alive in a way that caused her to want to hide in the dark with him. This caused a violent reaction in her mind and in how she treated Spike. As an unsoulled being, Spike was the very thing she was to hate the most, was supposed to kill. To be with Spike was impossible because it went against what Buffy thought she should be like as a hero.

The undexpected consequences of this affair with Spike was that he found that he was willing to do whatever it took to get Buffy to treat him like an equal, even if it meant getting a soul. Unsoulled Spike didn't care about much, just being evil was enough.....getting a soul has made him look inward at what he has been and search for more.

Buffy's calling is to serve mankind, and it connects her to a greater good, and I know I struggle to feel connected to something, and connected to something larger than our daily existence, and Buffy's plugged into it. And I think the idea of destiny and serving God in a way, and Joss, by the way, is a rabid atheist, but his work is full of yearning for belief. And I think the show speaks to people who also have that yearning. I mean, the whole show in a way, the whole show ping pongs between the darkest night of the soul and this whole yearning for belief. Marti Noxon

Spike has found that he still loves Buffy, but he also understands that there is more to existing than the persona he had constructed as a vampire. He now yearns for belief, the one thing that Buffy has told him she has in him. I feel that more than any ship they may eventually evolve to is the gift that is worth all the pain both Buffy and Spike have endured up to now.

MOC: Do you think this is Joss Whedon's personal belief? That saving the world is an endless struggle, to do good?

MN: I think that he does feel like it's sort of a meaningless void, and what matters is the struggle to find the good. And the relationships you build with people while you struggle. And in some ways you'll never find it, but the quest and the questors, and the people that you find, who are not necessarily your family, are the only thing that lends the journey meaning. I think that is his major theme. Marti Noxon

Buffy has been a work in progress just like all people are, we constantly change in reaction to our experiences. The same goes for Spike. Before, Buffy couldn't love him because of her status as a hero, her need to live up to the expectations of others. Spike now has a soul, and I feel that now Buffy feels the need to believe that Spike can be a man worth knowing....after her experiences with her father and Angel, I feel that Buffy is now working out her issues with love with Spike....will that mean they walk off happily ever after....we shall see.
[> [> Good post -- shadowkat, 20:38:38 01/19/03 Sun

Someone pointed out to me recently why the relationship evolving between Buffy and Spike this year is actually far more interesting than any of her previous relationships including the Spuffy of last year and the B/A idealized romance of Seasons 1-3.

It's hard to see if you're hard-wired to "only" appreciate the sexually romantic or true love heart-beating, heavy breathing passion of most romances on television or the movies. (Not saying you are Ruf - actually you seem to be delightfully free of this hard-wiring;-). )(Something popular culture and the media work overtime to do to us). Think about it - when was the last movie or tv show you saw where the romantic leads waited more than two hours after their first meeting to hop into bed and fall in love? I watched several movies on tv and on tape this week where that's what happened. I started to time it. I even began to root for the person not to jump into bed with the other lead. (sigh...they always did usually in the first half of the movie).

This year and actually including all the seasons before - we're seeing the building of a mature adult relationship.
Where two people learn how to see each other for who they are and grow to respect and possibly care about one another as beings. Last year, Buffy didn't respect Spike or admire Spike. Buffy didn't respect or admire herself for that matter. And Spike? I'm not sure he was mature enough to really respect Buffy. (But they did jump into bed together and had hot passionate sex.) When you love someone - you share them with your friends and family, you admire them, you are proud of them. An example of this might be Dawn - Dawn was the love of Buffy's life in season 5 - Buffy shared Dawn with everyone. She felt admiration in Dawn. No - it wasn't "sexual romantic" love, but there are other more important loves out there. It's really not all about sex and romance...which I think Spike/William is finally beginning to learn. Buffy learned that lesson long ago with Angel and Riley. We need more.

I watched two movies recently that hit upon this concept:
1. Unfaithful - a story about a bored housewife who engages in an extramarital affair with a sexy hot bookdealer. Their relationship is all about sex. It's hot. It's dangerous.
It's wild, violent and passionate. But they don't love each other. They don't talk. They don't confide really, well just a little. On screen all we see is the sex. The talking, the confiding - is between the woman and her husband, who she still loves and cares for. She admires her husband.
2. About a Boy - a story about a single man who has nothing and meets a boy who teaches him about life. Not as cheesy as it sounds. In this story the boy turns to the man and states - "I have a crush on this girl" The man asks - "is it a "girlfriend" crush? Do you want to touch her?" The boy states (he's 12): "Well I don't know, i want to be with her, I want to share things with her I don't tell anyone else, I want to make her laugh, I want her to meet my family and share her with my friends, I want her to admire and respect me...is she wants to touch me too? Well I guess I can deal with that." (not exact but you get the point)

Buffy is beginning to want that. So is Spike. What I've been seeing in the past few episodes is an odd sort of respect and friendship growing between the characters - they seem to be trying to share their strength with each other, trying to support one another and doing it slowly.
This season I think is coming to grips with the fact that there are elements of dark and light in all of us. There is a killer inside all of us. Just as there is a hero. At our core we are in a sense both. But more often than not - the hero wins out...because what we want deep down is to be admired, to be respected, to be cared for, to share our lives with others, to discuss our dreams.

This is what Marti states so well:

I think that he does feel like it's sort of a meaningless void, and what matters is the struggle to find the good. And the relationships you build with people while you struggle. And in some ways you'll never find it, but the quest and the questors, and the people that you find, who are not necessarily your family, are the only thing that lends the journey meaning.

It's not about who you have hot and heavy sex with. And it's not about hot passionate love. It's about friendship, which people seem to treat so lightly. Odd. I've known some friendships to last longer than romances or marriages.
About building a relationship with someone, getting past the pain, not hiding from it or running from it, but somehow learning how to forgive one another and seeing the darkness and light in each other. Finding the good in others - no matter how dark they might seem on the surface, finding some redemptive quality and finding that in life as well.

Adult relationships - I've found at least - tend to be built on earned trust, and a tendency to forgive past wrongs, because let's face it it is impossible not to get on someone's bad side once in a while or to hurt someone you love. But if you really want that person in your life? You'll work it through, somehow.

Not sure this made sense. Just wanted to bolster Rufus' post, which I agree with.

The problem I think with anti/pro shipping - is people tend to look at the relationships in purely sexual terms and Btvs/Ats has always emphasized that best relationships are in a sense the ones that aren't necessarily sexual or "just" sexual. (Don't misread this to mean I'm saying sex isn't important - it is. I'm just saying that there are some relationships that are longer lasting and better than the purely sexual ones.) Think about it? Are there any B/D ships or W/B ships or W/X ships (nonsexual)? No. Because in our collective heads - ships are about sex. And I think that is sooo limiting and unrealistic on our parts where Btvs and Ats are far more expansive and realisitic in comparison. (Fandom just needs to get it's collective heads out of the gutter, i guess? ;-) )

SK
[> [> [> Which brings us to: what are people's favorite 'ships? -- HonorH, 21:54:03 01/19/03 Sun

I've already stated my investment in Buffy-Dawn. BTW, for clarity, I tend to use a hyphen for non-sexual/romantic 'ships and a slash for sexual/romantic ones, as in: Buffy-Dawn; Buffy/Spike. Until S5, my favorite 'ship was Buffy-Giles. Their father-daughter relationship was the heart of the show for me. That's been supplanted by Buffy's relationship with Dawn, though. To me, it's an incredibly complex, intense relationship as Buffy tries both to grow up herself and to raise Dawn to adulthood.

Anybody else care to share?
[> [> [> [> Re: Which brings us to: what are people's favorite 'ships? -- Arethusa, 23:05:12 01/19/03 Sun

I liked Giles-Willow. The way he couldn't look at her bosoms in Halloween and Dopplegangland, the concern he showed over her growing carelessness with magic, her revelation that she once had a crush on him, the huge hug he gave her when he found out she wasn't Vamp Willow. And Cordy-Angel, becuase she punctured his ego and mocked him at any opportunity-"Tonight I'm going to catagorize my sins and brood. Oh, and I'm thinking of snapping on Friday." (A rough approximation; psyche's down.) To bad it all went horribly wrong.
[> [> [> [> [> Only one /ship most are -ships for me..... -- Briar Rose, 00:29:31 01/20/03 Mon

Giles and Jenny! That was the absolute total end of shipping for me and Buffy the Vampire Slayer OR Angel.

As for the relationships that I am definitely for, they are; Buffy-Giles, Willow-Giles, Buffy-Willow-Xander JUST FRIENDS, and Dawn-within the Scoobies.

As far as /shipping - I truly wish that the writers would go through this season with absolutely no further couplings for anyone. Between all the loss and pain of the last few years, it is not real for people to just "get over it" and move on. Besides, not one of the Scoobies has been alone and completely on their own to grow without basing their worth on another's thoughts and company since year one, except maybe Willow, and even that isn't true because she was looking towards Xander, Xander was looking towards Buffy and then Cordelia.

I know - I know... Yes - time heals all wounds. "They're 20" "You move on." Everyone seems to think that you just "get over it and move on" when you are jilted at the alter, or your true love is killed in your arms. But I think that ME knows better - they have life experience that some people don't, maybe? They sure didn't just move Giles on "18 months later" when Jenny died. In fact he barely looked at another woman for almost two years and even then it was a past lover. THAT is mature and true love that is being honored by a mature and true lover, he wasn;t even with her more than a yaer and he knew ot take it slow and heal himself first before "moving on."

I'm going to try and not make a rude statement when I say this, because it's not what I mean, but sometimes I don't think that all the viewers watching what is on the screen are quite aware of what true love is, let alone what it feels like and how it changes your thinking and how you react to things. I'm not saying they are wrong, just that they haven't yet experienced what the writers are putting forth.

Anyone who has lost a loved one... And I mean someone who is loved DEEPLY and not just sexually or in passing or whatever - and lost that person understands that no you don't just "move on" especially if you are also trying to find yourself, it takes a lot of time. There is no "too long" when healing needs to be done, you take as much time as it needs.

Some time back I read a Kensey Report that stated that it takes at least as long as we are within a relationship to even start to LOOK at others and see the possibility of another relationship when the relationship ends in divorce/breakups. And that it usually takes at least twice as long as the relationship lasted if they are taken from us by death or other truly devastating means.

You can even relate it without talking about sexual/lover relationships. Think about a family member that you truly knew and loved and was a big part of your life. Did you "get over it" in a week, year, two, three or even now?

My Father died when I was 25. I am going to be 40. I still am not "beyond it" as in I still miss him and always will, I still love him and always will. Sure, I stopped actively grieving after about a year and a half. "Firsts" are always bad; First Christmas, First Birthday, First relationship that he wasn't there to see, First GREAT Job, etc.... And this is a beloved FAMILY member, not a lover.

Buffy has lost a parent and turned into a mother -let alone death and resurrection - she needs to learn about herself and her role in the world before anyone else can ever mean much to her.

Willow and Xander and Anya are still learning who they are, so time to learn to love themselves is needed more than shipping.

I would like to see Dawn feel first love! That is the only other shipping I have in mind, that I want to see if this is truly the last season.*L But even she needs to learn more about herself first. Between her Motehrs' death, Buffy's death, Tara's death and all the trust issues she probably has with Willow, Giles and Spike? She needs a breather before taking on teenage love angst as well.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Only one /ship most are -ships for me..... -- Rahael, 02:32:41 01/20/03 Mon

Anyone who has lost a loved one... And I mean someone who is loved DEEPLY and not just sexually or in passing or whatever - and lost that person understands that no you don't just "move on" especially if you are also trying to find yourself, it takes a lot of time. There is no "too long" when healing needs to be done, you take as much time as it needs.

Yes. Thank you. I've been told so often to forget it, to move on, not to brood or think too much about it. But what I can't make them understand is, to move on - it's to leave everything you have behind. Today, all I have is some photographs, some of her dresses, some costume jewellery, a notebook stained with her blood. And everything else is memory. And if I move on....I'll lose the memory. Sometimes grief is all you have left. And you'll hold on to it after everything else has faded.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> My deepest thoughts of love and empathy to you Rahael.... -- Briar Rose, 13:59:09 01/20/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thank you -- Rahael, 14:23:33 01/20/03 Mon

It means a lot.

Apropos to this thread, I once thought I would never be able to love again; or even if I did, nothing would come close to that intensity, and everything else would fade into dullness beside it.

I've learnt now, with much relief that that isn't true. It's possible to love many people during the course of our lives. Sometimes you can simultaneously grieve, and find new love. Of my mother's former partners, one got married within a year, one found someone else after about 8 years, and my father, he's still not ready to move on, after all this time. This was all despite the fact that my mother was single when she died.

I know all of them still must miss her, and still love her too in their way. It's just that our capacity for love can prove more resilient than our grief. I think we're able to love and grieve at the same time. If Willow loves again, I have no doubt she'll still be grieving for Tara, for a long long time.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You also brought up a very good point, as did Alison... -- Briar Rose, 15:01:13 01/20/03 Mon

What does anyone ELSE know of what we feel?

It is true that society is all about trying to ignore personal feelings and set a standard "norm" that is impossible for anyone to meet, simply because we are each an individual. And the societal norm changes over time as people change their focus from One to All and back to One.

Only each of us can choose what we will do or not and only when faced with the actual situation. No one else can even begin to understand, let alone guide us.

Specifically in the BtVS topic... When people compare how Willow reacted after Oz with the recent loss of Tara, I'm sorry but I have to ask this question: Doesn't anyone realize that Oz LEFT Willow after cheating on her? That shows that something was amiss in their relationship. ME played it all out with Willow finding herself willing to kill Oz (and Veruca) because she found herself hurting so much that morality didn't matter and seeing that her own feelings were twisted by the experience. Hence allowing herself to assume that there might be someone else who could soothe her is to be expected. This is the classic rebound. When we see that the person didn't truly love us, based in our opinion of their actions - we will onbviously look for someone who we think does, and sometimes we find it - sometimes we don't.

Death of a loved one rarely includes "re-bound" it requires serious healing, because we are left with a vaccuum where the memory of that person is unsullied by any emotional hurt caused BY them toward us. In fact it can make us even more loathe to try again because now we know that life can be cruel and our trust that everything will be okay is shaken to the core. We now know it will NOT always be okay, death can happen at any moment. That is what needs the healing. Because hope and trust are tied together for most of us. Love can not thrive without hope and trust or it's not love because it's void of emotional investment to curtail hurt at the inevitable.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Very good points -- Rahael, 16:23:10 01/20/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> not necessarily -- anom, 19:24:15 01/20/03 Mon

"And if I move on....I'll lose the memory."

Why would you ever lose the memory? As long as your memory's working, you'll never forget her. She's part of you in ways you may still be discovering years into the future, as well as all the ways you're aware of now. And your earlier posts about your mother have made it clear you have much more than grief left, starting with love & pride. "Moving on" doesn't have to mean forgetting, or even that you don't hold on. Maybe you can loosen your grip enough that the memory becomes something that accompanies you even as you move on, without your needing to hold on so tightly, and eventually grief won't be the dominant note in it. If you let that fade, you might find other aspects come to the fore.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I hope you're right -- Rahael, 01:56:26 01/21/03 Tue

I kind of panicked about 5 years ago when I realised that I had forgotten what her face looked like. The only thing I see now are photographs, no true memory.

Well, I guess memory is a funny thing - what do we ever really remember that is 'true'? I don't have a photographic memory. I have a mishmash of ideas, words that were said, colours and smells and emotions.

I have to find a way of moving on which doesn't lose anything. I'm not very good at letting go. I guess that goes on the to do list!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Moving even farther OT: grief -- vh, 09:44:36 01/21/03 Tue

When my father died, I looked at my mother's grief and I had to wonder if I was broken because I didn't really feel that way. Of all the people on the planet, he might be the one person who was most like me and could understand me the most--and I wonder if it was mutual. Yet I wonder if I even grieved at all. Was it that I was prepared? Or unfeeling? I don't think I'm unfeeling. It was so hard to see him suffer, letting him go was the easy part.

Is it because I am a spiritual person? I seem to have an innate belief that we continue--I couldn't become an Atheist if I tried. (And who cares if I'm wrong, anyway? I'm happier this way. And I'll never find out!) So from my perspective those we love are always with us. In some ways my father seems closer to me now than when he was living many miles away. I've come to realize since he died how much a part of me he is and how alike we really are. Is that because he died or because I'm now seven years older?

My husband is an agnostic, and it seems to be a lot harder on him when even our pets die, so (we lost a pet recently, and I've been thinking about this) I've thought it might be easier on him if he died first because I'd probably deal with it better.

I live in a place where there are a lot of overtly church-going people and you get a lot of "Oh I'm happy for him; he's gone to a better place," that kind of rings hollow. I hope what I've said doesn't sound like that. I've droned on too long. I hope this helped.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thank you -- Rahael, 15:29:55 01/21/03 Tue

That was very touching. No droning of any kind!!
[> [> [> [> [> [> moving on -- Helen, 03:31:06 01/20/03 Mon

"Some time back I read a Kensey Report that stated that it takes at least as long as we are within a relationship to even start to LOOK at others and see the possibility of another relationship when the relationship ends in divorce/breakups".

So you're saying that if a couple are together twenty years, and one partner dies, it will take the survivor FORTY years to get over the relationship enough to build a new one with someone else? Won't they be like, dead first?
This suggests that people only get one shot at such a significant relationship. I have to disagree with you very strongly there.
[> [> [> [> [> [> I absolutely agree.... -- Alison, 11:00:19 01/20/03 Mon

In our culture we are contantly told to get over it and move on...people are encouraged to start dating again within a year of a lover or spouse dying...but greiving doesn't work like that...as much as we'd like to rush it, or get the pain over with, it doesn't just go away....it would be wrong, IMO for Willow to just forget about Tara and get involved in a relationship with Kennedy- for both of them....
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I only half agree... -- Peggin, 12:23:28 01/20/03 Mon

I don't think Willow should *ever* just forget about Tara. Even though Tara is gone, she is always going to be a part of Willow's life. However, to me, that is no reason Willow shouldn't ever be able to fall in love with someone else. Life is short, and if being with Kennedy (or anyone else) can bring Willow a little happiness, then I have no problem with it.

I just think there comes a time when you have to start thinking about living for now. How long that takes is different for different people. For some people, that may take years, for some six months may be enough. Willow was so upset over the Oz and Veruca thing that she almost did a spell calling down the power of the devil to destroy them both. She was devastated over losing him, something that didn't begin to change until she met Tara. That was only about a month later, and she still wasn't "over" Oz when she first started seeing Tara. Finding Tara helped Willow find the joy in living again. If she had waited until she was completely over Oz before she started dating again, she would never have fallen in love with Tara.

Since Tara's death, Willow has struck me as completely joyless, and I want her to be happy again. If starting something with Kennedy can help Willow find some joy in living again, then I'm all for it. If Willow decides she can be happy on her own without needing someone else, I'd be all for that, too. I just want to see Willow be happy again, but that doesn't mean that she's ever going to forget about Tara.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Helen, how many people have you known that were very deeply in love and together a long time? -- Briar Rose, 14:16:35 01/20/03 Mon

I have known many - and at least half of those DID died soon after their spouse passed. Many people say that they died of a broken heart.

Of the few that did remarry (or at least started to date again) they did so in a completely differnet mind set - more for financial security or physical comfort than for truly love based reasons, and even at that - most of them also died soon after their beloved spouse.

My Mother has yet to even consider dating, let alone anything more deep. She loved him with all her heart and feels that no one could ever make her feel as she did with him, so why bother? He died 14 years ago - they were married for 27 years. Maybe after another 10 years she might actually look, maybe not.

My Grandfather rushed into remarriage after my Grandmother died, 1 year after her death. My Grandmother and Grandfather were married for 40 years. One of their old friends came around, also a widow and "arranged" a marriage of convenience with him. Sure, he was happy - but in the way that she was told that "what you bring in here is yours, what I bring in here is mine and you will never replace Nell." He died less than 8 months after they were married and never even considered Stella his "wife" in that whole time.

My Great Uncle did the same.... And for some reason there is a higher ratio of older men who aren't as self sufficient who remarry quickly after a spouse dies. But is it truly for love? In my experience, no. It's more about needing care. I would love to hear stories otherwise, but I only know of one; Maggy and Jonathan were married for 25 years. She loved him but he was abusive and not a warm and caring person, so she actually cooled towards him aftr a time. They never had what would be called a perfect love. When he died, she was alone for about 6 years, then she met Dan. They have been together for 10 years now. But as Maggy puts it - when she and Dan are seperated at the end, it will be enough for her as far as relationships go because they finally found the love they had always looked for.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> quite a few thanks -- Helen, 00:46:09 01/21/03 Tue

A lot of people who have been happily married (or happilt together) will seek to recapture those feelings. They liked being in a loving relationship, and want to get that feeling back. Several acquintances of my family and my husband's grandmother remarried realtively quickly after being widowed.

Many people say that it is more likely that if you have been UNhappy in a relationship, you will not seek out another.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Actually - that's good news! I would hope it woud work that way and happy to hear some do. -- Briar Rose, 16:59:23 01/21/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I only half agree... -- Dochawk, 11:52:49 01/21/03 Tue

Peggin - I totally agree with you. Willow has seemed joyless since Tara died and I look forward to seeing a brief semblance of happiness in her.

As for those people who make judgements about how long someone should mourn, thats what you are doing making judgments. I have seen many young people die (because of what I do for a living) and the range of mourning and of grief is all over the place. I will relate one story just to exemplify. During my residency I worked with a fellow resident who found his soulmmate - she was his everything. She died in a car accident that was his fault (he had been on call and fell asleep at the wheel). Can't get more devestating than that. TWO months later he met a woman who was wonderful. He was racked with guilt over falling for this new woman, but he didn't let it get in the way of their relationship. They've now been married happily for 17 years. he hasn't forgotten Lucy, but if he had kept to some rigid formula about how long to mourn he would have never fallen in love with Karen. The concept of not mourning long enough is ridiculous.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Re: I only half agree... -- Alison, 13:29:31 01/21/03 Tue

I agree that the length of mourning should not be dictated. However, I feel that people are often rushed through greif, and told to "deal with it and get over it". If Willow was distraught enough to commit murder because of Tara's death, I very much doubt she can move on quickly. Not only does she have to come to terms with the death of someone she deeply loved, but the darkness it awakened within her, and how that might affect any future relationships she will have.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Alison, ya hit it on the head! That's exactly what I'm talking about. Will's reactions to her death. -- Briar Rose, 17:07:14 01/21/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> We'll just have to disagree here (future spoilers) -- Dochawk, 17:46:43 01/21/03 Tue

But, I see no problem with what ME has already planned for Willow. Hopefully you'll be able to enjoy it inspite of your preconceived notions of how mourning shall go. For myself, we saw what a year of wallowing Buffy did, don't really want to see a year of Wallowing, joyless Willow.
[> [> [> Lovely post, Rufus. And shadowkat, your post made me realize... -- Ixchel, 23:16:08 01/19/03 Sun

Some of my favorite moments of BtVS and AtS are the small friendship moments between characters. I had never really thought of this before. Some examples would be Tara and Anya in TR (pre-spell), Spike and Dawn in TL, and Buffy and Oz in LC. One thing I very much liked about DD was Fred and Gunn's care of Connor, so a recent moment that (sort of) qualifies is Fred's happy reaction to Connor being alive in HC.

Ixchel
[> [> [> Friendship -- Rahael, 03:35:55 01/20/03 Mon

Good points SK.

I think, in fact, despite the excessive amount of interest paid to sexual 'ships in the Buffyverse, the main focus is non-sexual relationships. I think BtVS also does another very good thing - it doesn't sentimentalise friendship, or pretend it's always positive. All relationships have their darker sides, all relationships have their tensions. Our baggage isn't just carried into our romantic relationships. We can see that with Buffy and her friends.

I come at this from a slightly different point of view. In the culture I was raised, familial relationships are hugely important, in a way that a lot of my Western friends just cannot understand. There is nothing unusual with me still living with my father. And if we were living back home, and I got married, I would be living with my husband's extended family. At one time, all the land in our little part of the town was owned by my maternal ancestors. So when I was very little, everyone of my neighbours was a relative. When my oldest aunt got married, my grandparents built another house in the garden for her to live in. During the only time when my mother and father were able to live together, we all lived in a wing of my grandmother's house. Our reputation, who we were, our place in the community, our relationships with each other - this was the foundation of my childhood.

Whenever I have a fight with my family they remind me: "Who are you going to rely on, your 'friends'? They won't be there for you. You only have your family". There's an idea that the Western thing of leaving behind your family and having a select group of friends who fulfil that function, is alien to my culture. Sometimes it's totally claustrophobic and it makes me want to scream. But they are the people who really fulfill in my life the idea of 'true' friendship.

I am lucky because over the last couple of years, I've managed to find some really good friends. But for a long time friendships were intensly painful, the place where I hid from others who I really was. I paid lip service to the idea of friendship because I was supposed to have friends. And the friends who are now closest to me understand how important my family are. One of my friends who wanted to organise a dinner out for my birthday got mortally offended when I chose instead to have dinner with my family.

Even now, I know I couldn't talk about half the stuff - the war, my nightmares, my fears, how painful life is sometimes with any of my RL friends. They get guilty - should they tell me about their latest bitter encounter with their ex? One of them just has a habit of an embarrassed pause if I happen to mention my mother in passing, and changes the subject. I've just learnt to pretend that it doesn't matter, I don't get affected by it, and make light of it, laugh about it even. Someone even commented to me, in a discussion about what cheers us up (I said that my grandmother tucking me into bed would cure me of nearly any bad mood) "you really haven't felt much pain in life, have you?" It's not that I can't be open, nor that I can't talk about it in a positive, healing way. They just don't want to hear it.

Whereas, with my family, we have a delicate understanding - when we laugh about our past, when we get angry about it, when we cry, and how we smile through the tears at a happy memory. Just one word, one look - that's enough.

Could be why Dead Man's Party was my favourite ep for ages and ages.
[> [> [> [> addendum -- Rahael, 05:06:49 01/20/03 Mon

Where's dH when I need to delete hastily posted posts?

I guess I feel guilty about whining. I don't have it so bad. All my friends are interesting, good people. It's just one of those things.
[> [> [> [> [> No guilt -- ponygirl, 07:08:01 01/20/03 Mon

I don't think there was any whining in your post, Rahael. For me my friends (and my family too) alternately make me crazy and make me glad. Oddly enough a friend and I were having a conversation about friendships vs. families this weekend. Both of us consider ourselves close but not physically close to our parents, and long term romantic prospects are iffy. We're thinking about what's going to happen as we get older, and our parents age -- can we depend on our friendships to fill the gaps left by absent families? Not just for good times and minor crises, but also for the major things, the illnesses, the long term problems?

Friendships are like any sort of relationship, they wax, they wane. Friendships no matter how strong seem to me to have some sort of fragility about them. Unlike families, or romantic relationships, there's often a bit of hesitation about how stress and obligation you can put on them. There's no certainty because no one is sure exactly where the all the lines and boundaries lie. And they can change without warning. It's like Buffy suddenly telling Xander that her personal life is not his business. On the one hand good for her, on the other where does that leave either of them? Dead Man's Party is an episode that hits me pretty hard too-- it's a lonely moment to discover that a friendship that seemed strong and secure has its cracks and resentments. It's normal, necessary even, but the ground never feels quite as sure as it did before.
[> [> [> [> [> [> That's beautifully put -- Rahael, 07:30:37 01/20/03 Mon

and very comforting. I'm definitely saving this to reread when I start getting angsty.

I especially liked this bit:

Friendships are like any sort of relationship, they wax, they wane. Friendships no matter how strong seem to me to have some sort of fragility about them. Unlike families, or romantic relationships, there's often a bit of hesitation about how stress and obligation you can put on them. There's no certainty because no one is sure exactly where the all the lines and boundaries lie. And they can change without warning.

I think this is very relevant to BtVS too
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks! Except now I'm noticing my post is full of typos. Ack! -- ponygirl off to get caffeine, 08:16:52 01/20/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> Seconding the points made here -- shadowkat, 08:55:22 01/20/03 Mon

Was going to post this as a reply to Rahael's but you actually state the points I was going to make far better.
So..I'll just add mine on to yours, if that's okay.

My feelings about friendships and family aren't all that different than Rahael's and yours...actually quite similar.
My experience with friendship - at least in my early years was much like Dead Man's Party - an episode that makes me cringe. It was not until I reached college that I began to make friends who stayed with me for more than a few years - lasting friendships if you will. Prior to college the friendships I made were very transistory, and often dissolved into painful partings. Now...I have several people in my life that I would consider "close" friends. My mother continues to be my "best" friend - I can literally discuss anything with her, including oddly enough Buffy. She gave Buffy a chance because of my fascination with it and her view was anything on tv that fascinated me that much to write about it - must be worth a second look, so one Thanksgiving (2001) she joined me as I watched the Buffy marathon. Now she makes a point of taping it and Angel. It was my mother who pointed out to me that a growing friendship of respect and caring between Buffy and Spike was better than anything deeply sexual or romantic.
Yet - I've been oddly embarrassed to say to people - I discuss Buffy with Mom, because in the society in which I live, it's odd to be that close to one's mother, to literally call her every day.

Like ponygirl - my mother does not live close to me. My parents live at least 13 -15 hours away. I take a plane to visit them. But we are in constant contact. My dad sends me emails of jobs he locates on the net. And when I left law school - I house sat and lived with them for a while.

While my friends often come and go, my family remains essential to me, as I told my friends once - I know my parents love me unconditionally - there is nothing I can say or do that will drive them away. Nothing. While with my friends...well see Dead Man's PArty...there's a multitude of things that can drive them away. People are in a way very much like landmines or dealing with them can be.

I think those of us who can rely on our families in this way are incredibly blessed. Buffy's relationship with Giles and her mother is a gift neither of friends had with their parents - they don't even really have the same close relationship she has with Giles, not that any of our relationships with others are the same. Xander's relationship with his parents and Willow's with her's sadly enough appears to be the norm. The people who create families of friends do it partly from desperation just as the characters on Btvs and Ats have. That said - my friends, at least the majority of them, mostly single, do have close relationships with their families and closer than mine with extended families. One of my friends feels tremendous guilt at not moving back home to live close to hers, she lives in NYC, they live in Missouri. She wishes to see her nieces grow up. OTOH her friends and life is here. And there is no place for her there, so like many Westerners - she lives far from them, yet visits on all holidays.

Before I close I want to remphasize this great point ponygirl made: Friendships are like any sort of relationship, they wax, they wane. Friendships no matter how strong seem to me to have some sort of fragility about them. Unlike families, or romantic relationships, there's often a bit of hesitation about how stress and obligation you can put on them. There's no certainty because no one is sure exactly where the all the lines and boundaries lie. And they can change without warning.

For another single person who sees the prospects of a long-term romantic relationship as iffy...this really hit home.
Great posts. PS: didn't see many typos or any errors, but then I'm no copy-editor ;-)

SK
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Friends and family -- ponygirl, 10:14:50 01/20/03 Mon

This is kind of the dilemma of the times isn't it? What are families? How do we maintain them? What are our obligations to the people in our lives? And it is definitely on-topic since it has been stated that Joss is interested in examining the families we create for ourselves. It's especially evident in AtS, Angel is so eager to have his family, so quick to expel its members when they transgress.

It sounds like you and Rahael have great relationships with your families. I do consider myself close to my parents, yet there are any number of things that we don't talk about, all sorts of old patterns that we fall into when we're around each other. I can also see my younger brother struggling with some issues I dealt with a few years back -- the realization that family relationships, like all relationships require work and effort (mostly I just want to smack him on the head, but that's probably more my stuff than his).

I liked the idea from About A Boy, that we need lots of people in our lives, so that we don't depend on only one or two people. People fail, just as they can surprise you, so it would be best to a have a large net of people around you.

As I get older I seem to want my family to behave more like friends, with respect and boundaries, and my friends like family, with dependability and security. Is this possible? And am I capable of providing the same to them? So this isn't entirely All About Me, I'd say that a lot of this stuff could be applied to the characters on BtVS and AtS. Are any of the members of these fictional families getting what they need from each other? Should they be -- since that could cause the units to become static and insular?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Friends and family -- shadowkat, 10:35:18 01/20/03 Mon

(mostly I just want to smack him on the head, but that's probably more my stuff than his).

LMAO. Me too with mine. I mostly just want to smack my brother but him being well over five inches taller than me...makes that not very practical. Besides he smacks back. ;-)

I liked the idea from About A Boy, that we need lots of people in our lives, so that we don't depend on only one or two people. People fail, just as they can surprise you, so it would be best to a have a large net of people around you.

As I get older I seem to want my family to behave more like friends, with respect and boundaries, and my friends like family, with dependability and security. Is this possible? And am I capable of providing the same to them? So this isn't entirely All About Me, I'd say that a lot of this stuff could be applied to the characters on BtVS and AtS. Are any of the members of these fictional families getting what they need from each other? Should they be -- since that could cause the units to become static and insular?

What's great about Btvs and Ats...is that they show how difficult this is to do. Just in a way that the movie About a Boy does - the relationships are messy, people embarrass each other and screw up, but somehow it works. As the kid in About A Boy realizes one day - if something happens to mum, maybe it would be good to have a backup. Couples aren't really that practical - you need other people as well. None of us are islands, even though we occassionally feel like them. ;-)

Angel has struggled with this dilemma since his series started. Doyle tells him - if you isolate yourself from humanity, you risk losing your soul just as much as you would with that moment of happiness. That's not how you help - not as the mysterious stranger - you help by being a part. So Angel struggles to build the family, but he keeps screwing up - first he fires them - treating them like employees that he can dismiss when things get rough. Then he asks them to hire him back. When they betray him - "we're over", when he decides to forgive - "everything's fine"...he's struggling with the give and take a bit, which makes sense for a vampire - whose spent two centuries taking. The transistion, the balance is one he struggles with. For Angel - the most important, intrinsic thing is family and it is the one thing which keeps slipping from him as it did in his dreams in Deep Down. When Wes pulls him up from the depths and he resurfaces, becoming a part of humanity again, to the extent that someone like him can become - he realizes that life is a series of up and down staircases but the uniting thread is his family or rather the one he has created and immediately goes out to attempt in some way to re-unify it.

I think part of the reason he pulled so far away from Buffy is the scene in Pangs - where he is outside watching Buffy have Thanksgiving with her family of friends. He has always been outside her life. Not part. Just as Riley was...in The Body - Riley is not around the table eating with The Family.
Buffy has yet to bring in the romantic love interest. Notice how Joyce mentions she hadn't met Riley until literally the end of season 4? And in Seasons 1-3, Angel is a part from that family as well - he's not even able to re-enter her house until Lover's Walk, the episode they break up. While in Seasons 1-2 he could enter her house - it was never in the open really or as a friend, but rather the forbidden boyfriend. Angel is part of Buffy's life but not part of her family. Just as Buffy may have been part of Angel's life but never part of his family. Spike oddly enough has been more a part of Buffy's family than Angel or Riley for that matter ever were.

Whedon makes the lines and boundaries of Family clear in the episode FAMILY - where Buffy includes two demons, a witch, her mentor, her sister, and her friends as "family".
To Buffy - once you're family - it does not matter what you are.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Quick correction, s'kat -- HonorH, 10:58:43 01/20/03 Mon

In "Into the Woods," Giles was setting up for holiday promotions in the Magic Box. I think it's safe to say that the reason Riley was absent from the Christmas dinner scene in "The Body" was that he was in Belize or somewhere by that time.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Dead Man's Party and Family -- Dochawk, 13:07:18 01/20/03 Mon

I was going to reply that Family was the true measure of friendship in the Buffyverse not DMP, but you already started. In DMP it was great to open the door for Joyce and Xander to spill their venom about Buffy's leaving town and Buffy took all the guilt onto herself. Both Xander and Joyce had significant cotnributions to Buffy's leaving and neither were willing to admit they had any fault at all. Freindship is about accepting the others faults, not blaming them.

Family on the other hand, Tara has just done a spell that almost cost Buffy her life. Tara and Buffy were not really friends at this point at all, but she was Willow's girl and that was enough for Buffy. When it came down to it, her friendship and respect for Willow was all that was needed to proclaim Tara as part of the family. It was also the episode that showed that it is the love trust friendship and respect each had for each other rather than blood that makes a true family.

I'm going to continue to lurk in the discussion of personal family dynamics (though I would add I wish I could share Buffy with any member of my family but for soem reason even though their is alot of interest in other genre material one of them have gotten into Buffy), I respect all of youfor being so open about them.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> interesting thing about both those episodes... -- anom, 21:33:57 01/20/03 Mon

...in each it takes a threat from outside to bring the "family" back together. Now that I've finally seen DMP (thanks, dochawk!), it seems to me that just as everything--& everyone--is about to fall apart, the zombies pour into the house & all the emotional conflict is forgotten, at least for the time being, as the characters fight the zombies. Is the zombie attack a reminder that, as the main character realizes in "About a Boy," you need these people, & you could lose them? That the things you try to keep buried, as Xander says, will come back to bite you? That the kinds of hurt the characters are expressing just before the attack can tear you apart--both inside & from each other? We never see Buffy, her mom, & her friends talk everything out (Willow & Buffy start to, but they don't get very far)--does that happen offscreen, or is the zombie stuff a metaphor for hashing out their feelings, or for violent emotions themselves? Maybe it symbolizes their finally seeing how much they're hurting each other, & that that's more important than whose fault it is.

In Family, it seems more clearcut. The "outside" threat is Tara's birth family, in the sense that it comes from outside of her new family. The demons that attack them are Tara's secret, her supposed demon nature, which she tries to hide from her friends. Maybe they're more than that, namely her family history of abuse. Or maybe they just mean that keeping secrets causes wider repercussions. But your real family will forgive you for them & accept you in spite of them. And if you come from a family like Tara's original one, that real family is what you need to find, or build (not literally, although on Buffy you never know!).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> with some families, only way a bf will ever fit in to your life is if he is purposly kept apart.*L -- Briar Rose, 15:14:37 01/20/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Friends and family in a new world -- luna, 17:47:07 01/20/03 Mon

I grew up in a world of close family (as in two or three children, each living with their husband, wife, and at least two kids in each room of a three bedroom house) and that was not unusual for the times. But life has really changed since then. Divorce, money, easy travel and communications--it's easy for families to slide apart. But strangely, just as cousins twice removed and great-great aunts disappear from our lives, something takes their place. Now I have friends that are like family in some ways--we've been close for decades, our friends are close, and yet. We could choose to end it. I think that's the big difference. Families can't end. They may not be bound by love or even toleration, but the family you have is the one you have. I see mine shrinking, and the next generation is not appearing!

So what we do is make up families that are a close approximation, and clearly that's what the Scoobies are--but there's always the chance that someone will opt out. Xander's pleas to Willow at the end of S6 were the demands of family, in a way--and yet we almost wondered if he would stick around with Buffy once he found out about Spike.

In some ways, as I think about it, it seems that family is THE most important issue in BtVS. Buffy's loss of her father and mother, and her evolving relationship with Dawn, seem almost more central than her relationships with men. And the big questions always seem to be whether this made-up group can really stay together as a family, warts and all, or whether they will blow apart.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> friendships family weaving -- fresne, 15:23:02 01/21/03 Tue

You know it's odd really how often the board reflects things that I have been thinking about in my own life. Well, okay and far too many interesting posts when I just don't have time to read them. Anyway...

Pondering. Puzzling the structure of my life. What is a family? Traditional. Nuclear. Modernly cubist.

At thirty-one it would be inappropriate of me to say that I'm never going to get married, but at this juncture most importantly I don't want to be married. Don't want to form some romantic entangle. I've found the relationship that I want to be my primary emotional relationship. It just isn't romantic.

There is episode of Next Gen that often comes to mind as I consider my Platonic. It was the episode with the Metamorph, who as a sub-species change their emotions and personalities based on who they are with at that moment. In one scene, the Metamorph expresses' her kind's desire to find that person in whose company the Metamorph becomes the strongest best person they can be. Becomes someone they want to be.

I have that. Well, not so much the changing myself as the feeling that I am the fullest expression of me when I am in regular orbit. Not necessarily all good and all eloquent, but that all parts of me, even the strange absurd bits, are okay.

While I suppose it's true that this situation could change - how could I not when my parents have been cumulatively married seven times - I'm not really changing by nature.

However, it's the sort of thing that's practically impossible to express properly. Because it isn't a romantic relationship and everything in Western culture is about romance and clash and durum and angst. Happily forever after. Where we slash every friendship. The toothache that is Buffy/Xander or Willow/Xander or whatever.

Because it's not a relationship based on blood. What does family mean in a world where parents do divorce? Form new families. Where parents and children and siblings do walk away.

I have a half brother that I barely know. Half of the same DNA flows and pulses and builds and yet his life is a mystery. I could know. I could pour energy into the knowing. For that matter so could he. We don't because when all is said and done he is an acquaintance by blood. An acquaintance whose views are skewed just so from mine that conversation is at best the weather, grandma's health, dad's health, the weather. No common history. No growing up together. Fourteen years of perspective shift. Just genetics.

I have friends that I have chosen to lend forth years of effort. Written letters. Made calls. Been the proactive. The supportive. The listener. I've lent money with nary a pay you back mind. Money I'd begrudge a cap in hand relative. What's money when you've already given the keys to your emotional kingdom.

Friends can walk away. These days so can family members. Although, I should note that I'm very close to my parents. However, I'm not at all sure where the dividing line between friend and family lies.

As I form my lattice of relationships, my primary, my secondaries, my strings of satellite nations, I'm not trying to re-create a nuclear family, so much as I am creating my own tribe. As each of us creates our own circles and tribes. A sort of family I suppose, but more like a support structure. Neither continents nor lone islands, but the silken strings of islands mentioned in About a Boy. A complex web. Because anything I puzzle on turns complex and curling strange before mental gaze. Elusive to the mental grasp.

I'd call it the modern family, but I'm not sure it's so much a new world as something old reworked into a new weft and weave.
[> [> [> Love and Friendship -- luna, 11:09:58 01/20/03 Mon

One of the more surprising things about the Buffy/Spike relationship, but one that is true, I think, is that the friendship can come AFTER the sex. People do have that experience, I think--starting out with sex almost like a drug, for sensation/escape, and then realizing that really doesn't do it for them, or that they really were trying for intimacy after all, and sex on its own is not a way to get it. That's what I saw happening with Buffy in S6--she began to be able to break out of the destructive sex with Spike only when she really began to come back to life and want to be close to Dawn, recognize how much she needed the Scoobies, etc. She connected with Spike originally in ONMWF as an attempt to come back to life, but once her real emotions started reviving, the sex was too clearly not what was right--and Spike seemed not what was right, too. But in S7 she's here and whole, and she can see that Spike has made some difficult choices and is one of the few that like her is part of two worlds, human and something else, and like her has been through death and now is trying to come back to some kind of life. So to me, now, she's able to have some real feeling for him. Unless the plot goes in some weird direction where he loses his soul again, I think they'll continue to have that bond.

But whether they have sex again or not is not predictable from this.
[> [> [> [> Re: Love and Friendship -- Peggin, 12:37:32 01/20/03 Mon

But whether they have sex again or not is not predictable from this.

I agree completely. It could be that Buffy and Spike will both realize that they are both happier with a platonic friendship and that nothing else will ever come of it. It is equally plausible that forming a real friendship may be just a starting point, and that from there they can go on and build a healthy romantic relationship, one they never could have had as things were last year. I can honestly see the story going believably in either one of those directions.
[> [> Great post Rufus! And CBC Radio is supposed to be airing the interview tonight @9 EST -- ponygirl, 06:44:41 01/20/03 Mon

[> [> [> I trust this ends the 'Marti Noxon is a dingbat' comments? -- cjl, 13:27:15 01/20/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> LOL! Probably not... Half the fun is calling ME names;-) -- shadowkat, 15:56:14 01/20/03 Mon

Current board | More January 2003

post3kqXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXcate jg3kqL[  Acat @jg3kqL[  Aaux SURLhttp://us.f205.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter?box=Inbox&MsgId=8382_1000999_13590_1034_54363_0_12027_130461_2981182278&bodyPart=2&download=1&YY=89177&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&DataName=&tnef=