July 2002
posts
Just how is Dark Willow evil? -- ZachsMind,
15:52:05 07/14/02 Sun
According to NewAdvent.
org there are three general forms of evil: Physical,
Moral & Metaphysical. And yes I'm well aware that Willow
was jewish and may or may not claim to be pagan, but I
needed something to use as a measuring stick and a catholic
website was the first one I found in websearches which
specifically and certainly defined the term "evil" in an
understandable way. Personally I'm an ex-Baptist, so I'm
attempting to look at this in a generic way and not trying
to focus on any specific religion. This is just an example.
Physical evil includes "all that causes harm to man"
on the physical level. It includes potentially everything
from natural disasters to constraints of society upon the
poverty-stricken, to mental anxieties, as well as the more
obvious actions of murder and hate that individual members
of Mankind commit upon one another. Quite a broad brush.
Willow did commit many actions which fit the description of
physical evil. She destroyed property at the police station.
She attempted to use an eighteen wheeler to mow down
Jonathan, Andrew, Buffy & Xander. She sent a glowing orb of
energy through the night sky which attacked Xander, Andrew,
Jonathan and Dawn at the cemetary. Willow committed the act
of murder by dispatching Warren, quite torturously. Oh, and
she almost destroyed the world by channelling mystic
energies into the effigy of a demoness.
Moral evil "is properly restricted to the motions of
will towards ends of which the conscience disapproves." This
is much more vague and depends on which religion one
actually believes, but can be summed up into whether or not
one opts to play God. Willow felt a surge of injustice in
the loss of Tara, and even Osiris knew better than to upset
the status quo of what he believed to be a common human
death by human means. Willow went where gods fear to tread.
She decided to take it upon herself to press judgement upon
The Trio. She succeeded with Warren and almost succeeded
with Andrew & Jonathan. When the latter two escaped her
grasp, she turned her wrath of greiving vengeance upon the
entire planet.
Metaphysical evil is the most curious one. It is
argued that the apparent disorder of Nature is not disorder
at all, but rather all part of a much larger picture. Death
is just as natural a part of the cycle of existence as life.
"it is part of a definite scheme, and precisely fulfills
the intention of the Creator; it may therefore be counted as
a relative perfection rather than an imperfection."
Whether one sees The Creator to be an old greyhaired man in
a robe floating above the clouds, or sees The Creator as the
undying and absolute force of the universe which is
reflected in such celestial bodies as the moon and sun, the
effect is the same. An act of mystical power in which a
human being forces one's own will upon the natural order of
things is inherently a blemish if not a complete act of
blasphemy upon the very natural order of things.
The Warnings: This is why Tara and Giles were
constantly cautioning Willow about her frivolous misuse of
her magic power. Every time Willow used her knowledge of
dark magic selfishly, Willow was in effect pissing in the
pool of Nature itself. In seeking vengeance for Tara's
death, Willow was looking in the face of whatever supreme
entity she believed in and telling him/her/it that she
didn't have faith the will of that entity would mirror hers.
She didn't believe her gods would punish Warren properly for
what he had done, so she chose to take the very law of all
reality into her own hands.
The Conclusions: So Dark Willow was in all actuality
evil not only physically, but morally and metaphysically as
well. One can argue that Willow committed more evil to all
reality in her brief time as Dark Willow than Spike had ever
committed in over a century. Not by measure of loss of life
but by measure of her blatant disrespect of the forces of
Nature, compared to Spike's habitual ambivalence to such
forces. Spike has committed evil deeds to be sure, but more
often than not he did so within the confines of physical
reality as it was placed before him. Willow was quite
literally distorting reality to the best of her ability in
order to accomodate her selfish whims.
The Intent: But did she MEAN to be evil? This is the
crux of the dilemma in trying to judge this character, or
perhaps any creature under heaven. It is why many opt to
choose to allow their respective god be judge, rather than
take that responsibility themselves. Willow didn't look at
Tara's dead body and smile, thinking "now I have an excuse
to be evil." Her actions and thoughts never changed. She was
still Willow. However, she was Willow with this insatiable
sudden thirst for justice. Her life as she knew it had been
robbed. When Tara died, Willow felt she had died inside as
well. Happiness was almost stripped from her when Tara chose
to leave her. Willow did what she was asked to do in order
to regain Tara's trust and love. She played fair. She played
the good Willow.
See where it got her? She worked within the confines of the
reality which was presented her, and was rewarded by having
the one soul she loved most taken away from her permanently.
This was more than her soul could bare. Perhaps it's more
than any soul could, or should be asked to bare. Nature, or
Fate, or God, or whatever YOU personally call it,
inadvertently taught Willow a powerful lesson. You be good
and sweet and try not to make waves and you will be rewarded
by being taken for granted, being called a computer geek who
wears silly shirts, and ultimately you will have the love of
your life destroyed in your arms. Being sweet, reliable,
good, kind, helpful, crayon breaky Willow left her empty and
dead inside.
What choice had she in the final analysis? What other choice
could Willow have possibly had other than to turn evil? And
if she can't be evil, and if she can't go back to being
good, what can Willow possibly be now? Is there a choice
left beyond merely existing? And what kind of a life is
that?
[>
Metaphysically Evil -- Finn Mac Cool, 16:14:20
07/14/02 Sun
I diagree with this last term of evil. Yes, Willow didn't
trust any Supreme Being to take care of Warren, but this is
not evil if a)there is no Supereme Being, b)there is no way
to know if a Supreme Being exists, or c)Supreme Being isn't
concerned with justice. In the Buffyverse, c seems very
likely (less so on Angel, since they have the Powers That
Be, but higher powers seem to be very fallible on BtVS and
have their own agendas).
Also, tampering with Nature isn't necessarily wrong. It can
be dangerous and have serious reprecussions, but isn't wrong
in and of itself.
Willow certainly committed physical evil. She also
committed what are commonly called moral evils (there is
never any consensus on right and wrong, though genocide of
the human race is frowned on by most).
[> [>
Genocide of the human race is frowned on by most)?!?
LOL -- Drizzt, 16:36:03 07/14/02 Sun
[> [> [>
That was my dry humor kicking in. =) -- ZachsMind,
18:26:31 07/14/02 Sun
[> [>
Okay so I didn't take aetheists into account. So sue
me. *smirk* -- ZachsMind, 18:25:10 07/14/02 Sun
[> [> [>
Not just Atheists . . . -- Finn Mac Cool,
19:49:24 07/14/02 Sun
Also Agnostics, who aren't sure whether god exists.
Also, I believe in deities, but I don't think they're
infallible, or always have the best moral views.
Given we've never seen any of the Scoobies attending a
religious institute, or questioning how their religion fits
with the gods, demons, and monsters of their world, I doubt
any of them really believes in a Supreme Being who will
ensure justice against the wicked. Besides, given how much
they've been exposed to the demonic and hellish
supernatural, divine justice probably seems like a joke.
[>
Interesting. Much to think about. -- meritaten,
17:38:55 07/14/02 Sun
Angel and Siring -- Finn Mac Cool, 16:00:12
07/14/02 Sun
We all know the drill for siring a vampire. The vampire
drains the human's blood. Then, while he/she is dying, the
vampire forces some of it's blood down the human's throat.
Somewhere from a few hours to a few days later, the human
will rise as a new vampire.
The popular way of looking at the siring process is that the
vampire must first drain the human to weaken his/her spirit.
When the human is at his/her weakest, s/he is forced to
drink vampire blood, which contains a piece of the vampire's
own demonic spirit. The demonic presence enters the dying
body and takes over as the human dies out. If this
reasoning is correct, one must ask:
What would happen if Angel sired someone?
It's possible the result would be a regular, soulless
vampire. However, Angel's blood doesn't contain just a
demon, but also a human soul. It's possible that the human
soul in Angel would prevent the demon part of him from
fulfilling its role, thus leaving Angel with a simple
corpse.
But, there's a third possibility. If Angel sired someone,
he might create another vampire with a soul, since his blood
would pass on both human and demon to the person being
turned. With this power, Angel could recruit humans to
fight against the forces of evil by promising them eternal
life as a vampire. They would not be consumed by guilt like
Angel is since they would be soulled from the beginning, and
would have no atrocious past to haunt them.
Unfortunately, Angel will probably never try it since it
could end up killing the person if the third theory isn't
correct.
[>
Re: Angel and Siring -- meritaten, 17:31:28
07/14/02 Sun
"his blood would pass on both human and demon"
If it passes the demon as well, how could he ensure that the
demon could be contained? Angel has to struggle to keep his
demon contained. Also, humans with les than pure intentions
could prove quite a liability once turned!
AS we've seen with Willow, humans have enough 'demon' inside
already.
[> [>
I always assumed that... -- AngelVSAngelus,
22:25:50 07/14/02 Sun
Angel's blood carried the demon infection, but the soul
was something that was not transferrable or able to be split
and passed on in intervals.
The demon infection itself seems to me non-specific, like
a metaphysical plague of evil, a blank template upon which
that individually turned person is written. Whereas, the
soul seems something individual to each person to which it
belongs.
So if Angel turned a person, I always thought it'd go in
the fashion of option one on your list, just a regular
vampire. His blood would infect that host with A demon,
while it could not infect the person with HIS soul.
[> [> [>
Souls -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:36:16 07/15/02
Mon
Actually, in the Angel episode "Lullabye", Darla is affected
by the soul of her unborn, human child. This shows that a
soul is not something specific to a particular person, but
is a generic conscience.
[>
Re: Angel and Siring -- Purple Tulip, 06:23:48
07/15/02 Mon
But does having a soul equal having human blood?
[> [>
Blood -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:44:19 07/15/02
Mon
All vampires have human blood. Biologically, they're human
corpses. It's only on the spiritual level that they are in-
human.
So the blood must really be a conducter for the vampire's
demonic spirit. The issue is whether Angel's blood will
pass on both soul and demon to a sired person.
Crosses on Vampires -- Harry Parachute, 16:11:59
07/14/02 Sun
Hi all, first time poster here and recent Buffy convert. I'm
pretty new to the show, having only seen S1, S2, half of S5
and bitty chunks of S3 and S4.
I must say, it's a great show. When I was home alone on a
miserable day with nothing to do I noticed it was on next
and decided to stay on and indulge my curiousities
concerning what I expected was some teeny-bopper, girl-power
garbage.
Instead I saw the episode, "The Body". Rest was history. Now
my friends look at me as though I belong in a padded cell.
:)
Anyway, on to the point. I was looking in a neat little
reference book of mine called "Dictionary of Symbols" by
Carl G. Lungman, and I suggest it to anyone who's interested
in that sort of thing, and I came across the Latin cross.
What I read might be a way to rationalize how a cross burns
a Vampire like fire and sunlight without subscribing to a
Christian doctrine.
"Before the time of Jesus, [the symbol] represented, among
other things, the staff of Apollo, the sun god, and
appeared on ancient coins. A cross with arms of equal length
was used in pre-Columbian America, the Euphrates-Tigris
region, and other parts of the world long before and was
associated to the sun and other powers that controlled the
weather. It was only when + was used to represent the staff
of Apollo that one of its arms was lengthened to form [the
cross].
Earlier still, in Babylon, the cross was considered as one
of the attributes of Anu, god of the heavens."
Just food for thought. Figured if anyone was interested, it
would be the folks at ATPoBtVS. :)
[>
Re: Crosses on Vampires -- Drizzt, 17:48:33
07/14/02 Sun
Your a newbie Here? Welcome to the site:)
Your post is a subject that has been discussed in depth
months ago on this site. It never hurts to bring up an
interesting subject again though;) BTW, the subject of
"Spike's soul/redemption/morality & the B/S relationship
have been brought up on many DOZENS of different threads on
this board...
You talked about the power of the cross against vampires
having prechristain origins?
I liked your references.
Anyway here is what I remember on options for the power of
the Cross against vampires.
1. Christian symbol; has a power as a symbol of Jesus the
Son of GOD.
2. The references you mentioned.
3. Have you heard of Fray? It is a comic book set in the
Buffyverse. It meantions that a group of shamans created the
Spirit of the Slayer, wich possesses or otherwise gives
human Slayers their supernatural abilities. On the subject
of those same shamans; they eventually evolved into the
Watchers Council, and the relivant part is that the shamans
might have put a curse on vampires.
4. The Powers That Be could have cursed vampires. Powers
That Be=vauge term meaning godlike forces/entities for
order/good. In the Buffyverse supposedly they banished most
demons from the Buffyverse Earth.
5. The power of crosses is simply because people beleieve
they have power, and ditto in the case of vampires.
Curse=vulnerability to holy water, stakes, sunlight, &
crosses. Also inibility to enter a human home without
invitation. In the eps of Angel when Angel went to Pylea he
was not hurt by sunlight; maby the "curse" on vampires only
aplies to the Buffyverse Earth?
Note; maby there is no curse on vampires, then their
vulnerabilities would simply be part of being in the
"species" catagory...vampire.
[> [>
On Another Note. -- Darby, 06:08:30 07/15/02
Mon
Joss has said that, although he was writing new rules
(vampface to show that Buffy was killing inhuman demons, but
no other kind of expensive FX magical transformations,
dusting so that the heroes don't have to face disposing of
bodies - although dead humans disappear in The
Harvest - or endless return engagements) for the
Buffyverse, he felt compelled to hold over some of the
classic vampire lore just to make the transition easier for
the audience. The tried-and-true weaknesses of stakes,
fire, sunlight, beheading (until Lorne, hard to ignore a
decapitation!) crosses, holy water, and garlic were just
images he used for convenience. And Xander (in the sewers
with Buffy in Welcome to the Hellmouth) became the
expositor as he got "clued in" with the audience.
I've always suspected that Joss avoided giving power to any
other religious symbols was that, back then, he was still a
closet comics nerd (that idea was used in Tomb of
Dracula) and he didn't want to use the ToD corollary,
that symbols only have power when the user believes in them.
But, really, why a cross but not a Star of David?
And, of course, once something slightly illogical becomes
part of the Buffy canon, it's up to us to make it logical.
Your attempt to do this with crosses is an excellent one
(and yet another reason, beyond good taste, why there's
never a tiny little person on any of the crosses in the
show) - it makes more sense than any other explanation I've
seen, and have we seen vamps face off against any other sun
symbols? It'd be neat if they were repelled by a swastika,
and set up an interesting response in, say, Angel's group
when he reacts to one.
Of course, that doesn't explain Holy Water. And in
WttH, Buffy has communion wafers in her trunk, but
we've never seen them used - "I'll hold him down, you pull
his tongue out - watch the fangs - and you stick it on
there..."
Tangentially - Do vampires have saliva?
[> [> [>
Tangentially-Do Vampires have saliva? -- Drizzt,
21:05:37 07/15/02 Mon
Vamps have no sense of taste except for they are conassuers
of the taste of blood...
Vamps CAN eat and drink regular food, however they do not
get any nutrition or other benifits from doing so, except
for texture as Spike explained;) Unlees food dissapears in
some supernatural manner vamps have to go to the bathroom
just like normal humans.
Vamps can breath, but they do not need to.
Saliva? Unknown
Blood or water would have the same functional use as Saliva;
making solid food easier to swallow. I think the other
function of saliva; a minor chemical that is part of human
saliva acts as an enzime to start the digestion process. I
think this part of saliva would be irrelivant for vamps.
[> [> [> [>
I would think they do. -- VampRiley, 06:48:31
07/16/02 Tue
Otherwise, they'd have cotton mouth and when they talk, they
don't seem to have that. But, if they don't, we can always
chalk it up to the magick clause.
VR
[>
Interesting insight, and welcome to the board! --
can I be Anne?, 10:45:31 07/15/02 Mon
Buffy mentioned on "Farscape" -- jbb,
17:53:06 07/14/02 Sun
(Delurking momentarily)
Sorry if this has been posted already, I've been sans 'net
for the last two days.
On "Farscape" (my second favorite show), the main character
(Crighton) says to his arch nemesis (Scorpius) after
discovering him alive when all thought he was dead..
----------------
Kryptonite?
Silver bullet?
Buffy?
What will it take for you to stay dead?
--------------------------
I got a great laugh out of that one.
Back to Lurk mode
[>
Re: Buffy mentioned on "Farscape" --
Amber, 22:44:08 07/14/02 Sun
Cool! There was also a mention of Buffy in Farscape season 2
when John was going to be frozen as a statue for 70 years.
He tells D'Argo something like,"When I'm unfrozen Cameron
Diaz will be dead. EVEN Buffy the Vampire Slayer will be
dead." (Poor John, he left earth before Buffy's Season 5, so
he doesn't know that even death can't keep the slayer
down.)
I think there may have been a Buffy reference back in Season
1 Farscape too, but I can't quite remember. Anyone?
[>
Re: Buffy mentioned on "Farscape" --
LeeAnn, 00:38:26 07/15/02 Mon
That was cute.
Even if I think Farscape sucks donkey dick so far this
year.
(I say it with sadness).
[> [>
Re: Buffy mentioned on "Farscape" -- Rob,
11:08:29 07/15/02 Mon
I don't agree with you so far that it sucks this year, but,
I wasn't enjoying "Farscape" as much this year, until this
past episode, "Promises." I realized that thing that was
missing was Aeryn. Now that she has returned, I am enjoying
this season much more now. I thought "Promises" was a great,
great episode.
Interestingly, I think, while the stories for the first four
episodes this year were weaker than usual on "Farscape, the
character development is at an all-time high.
Also, they are doing something very unusual. Namely not
answering last season's cliffhanger questions until later in
the year. We're already 5 episodes in, and still we don't
know exactly what happened in last year's season finale.
That's an especially risky move for this show, that I think,
will pay off later. Like "Buffy," when you watch an entire
"Farscape" season in a compressed amount of time, it reaps
great rewards. Remember, only two years ago, "Farscape" was
incredibly worried about delaying a cliffhanger's outcome:
the second season premiere, "Re:Union," did not reveal
whether John and D'Argo survived...the producers were
worried that the fans would not like this, so they aired the
second episode of the season, "Mind the Baby" as the first,
and used "Re:Union" as the sixth episode, retitled as "Dream
a Little Dream," and now told in flashback, with opening and
ending scenes of Zhaan telling the story to John. What
they're doing this year, however, is much bolder, more
daring.
So, while I didn't love the first four episodes of this
year, I understand their purpose, and I think they'll vastly
improve when I re-view them at the end of the season. IMO,
the fifth episode was pure perfection.
Rob
Anointed One - what happened to him? -- meritaten,
00:19:16 07/15/02 Mon
I didn't start watching Buffy until sometime in Season
three. I'm still caching up on the earlier seasons.
Anyway, I can't figure out what became of the Anointed One.
I just saw the episode where Spike and Dru arrived. At the
end, Spike put the boy in a cage and then ... I'm not clear
on what transpired. I never saw the boy aagain, but I mgiht
have missed a later episode. CAn anyone fill in the
details?
Thanks!!
[>
Re: Anointed One - what happened to him? --
buffalupagus, 00:52:52 07/15/02 Mon
Spike supposedly hoisted him to a sunny death from the shaft
of light pouring in overhead (note the smoke in the cage).
We don't know a lot about the A1 and if he has any special
physical powers that could've made the scene a ruse, but
it's possible (note the lack of a rain of ashes).
[> [>
Re: Anointed One - what happened to him? -- Purple
Tulip, 06:18:48 07/15/02 Mon
I too had wondered about that. And with next season's Big
Bad supposedly being "everyone's worst nightmare", I was
curious as to whether the Anointed One and/or The Master
were going to be it.
[> [> [>
Slight Spoilers for next season in above post! --
Rahael, 07:01:05 07/15/02 Mon
[> [> [> [>
Re: Ooops! It's Monday folks, haven't gotten my brain
back yet! -- Purple Tulip (tired and not thinking
properly), 07:13:33 07/15/02 Mon
[> [> [>
Dubtfull -- Ete, 09:52:41 07/15/02 Mon
Since the reason the AO was killed in the first place was
because the kid actor playing him was growing up too fast
for a frozen vampire. Now that kid os what, fourteen ?
fifteen ? :)
[> [> [> [>
Re: Doubtful (spoilers) -- leslie,
10:11:59 07/15/02 Mon
Hmm, it seems to me that the Annoying One was meant to be,
in essense, a role rather than an individual (like, there's
a Queen of England, and the current one is Elizabeth II, or,
more pertinently, there's a Slayer, and the current one is
Buffy), so there would really be no reason why another One
could not be Annointed. What you first need is the
Annointer... who appears to be contracted to come back for
S7.
[> [>
Will smike do? -- Darby, 06:54:28 07/15/02
Mon
The final shot of the cage shows smoke wafting from the
floor-bars, implying his demise. I expect showing a kid
bursting into flames was considered maybe not so much a good
idea.
'Course, there's nothing to say Anointing couldn't happen
another time.
It's pretty much have to, anyway, since vampires don't age
and the kid's now quite a bit older (in fact, he'd changed
enough between seasons that it was quickly decided to get
rid of him).
[> [> [>
SMOKE! SMOKE! No, I haven't suggested a new
'ship... -- Darby, 06:57:33 07/15/02 Mon
..where, like in the last Freddy Kreuger movie the actors
interacted with the characters.
SMG and Spike was the only "Smike" that came to mind...
[> [>
Re: Anointed One - what happened to him? --
meritaten, 12:29:31 07/15/02 Mon
Thanks!
Now that you say that, I did somehow know that he was a
vampire. However, I never saw his gameface.
Now I understand. Thanks!
[> [> [>
Re: Anointed One - what happened to him? -- Finn
Mac Cool, 14:36:21 07/15/02 Mon
Probably couldn't get the child actor to sit still for the
whole three hours it takes to apply the vamp makeup.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Anointed One - what happened to him? -- Amber,
00:29:46 07/16/02 Tue
The Anointed One never did appear in make-up, nor did he
drink blood, but I'm sure the Master mentioned that he was a
vampire several times. Could have been a WB issue. I seem to
remember Joss saying something somewhere about the network
getting twitchy about having an evil kid on the show. Also I
believe Joss didn't want the audience to see Buffy killing a
child (even if he is a vampire) which is why Spike and Dru
got to do the deed.
[>
Another Question -- meritaten, 13:09:38 07/15/02
Mon
In the episode where the boy in a coma caused everyone's
nightmares to come true (sorry, don't know the name of the
episode), was this controlled by the master somehow? The
Master and the Annoying One kept popping up, making comments
on what was transpiring. They seemed to be playing a role,
but I couldn't determine how. Or did their powers of evil
just keep them appraised of what was going on?
Thanks again!
[> [>
The Master -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:40:56 07/15/02
Mon
In Prophecy Girl, we saw the Master had some kind of
hypnotic powers. This implies that he, and possibly the
Annointed One, have enough psychic stuff in them to sense
something big like the dream happening. The Master liked
all this because one of Buffy's nightmares involves him
escaping, which means he actually escapes his prison. Also,
without them there, there would have been five episodes in a
row where the season's arc villain was absent, which didn't
seem like a good idea.
[> [> [>
Thanks! -- meritaten, 17:06:34 07/15/02 Mon
Polices in S2 (spoliers for S2) -- Sang,
02:08:18 07/15/02 Mon
I bought Buffy S2 DVD and quite happy about it. While I was
watching this (for coutless times now), I just couldn't help
to think about plot problems in S2, especially about
Sunnydale police. (I know that they are the most stupid
people in Buffyverse, but still...)
Some people complained about S6 police storylines. I didn't
have much problems about S6. And I don't care much about
plot holes, if it is entertaining. It is a fantasy
anyway.
But in S2, 'Passion' and 'Becoming 2', it is just too much.
It starts to bug me everytime I watched these eps.
Eventhough I love both of them, it bothers me like hell.
How come the polices let go a man who had a dead girl friend
at home who was spoted arguing at their work place before
and had a lots strange weapons in his place, so easily and
so soon? And, why did the same police try to arrest a tiny
high school girl who didn't have a murder weapon, as a
murder suspect in the crime scene which looked like a whole
biker gang in town stormed for hours.
And is there anyone who can explain me, why, even after the
witness and victim (Xander and Willow) woke up and were
talking, Buffy was still wanted for murder?
Also why did the Sunnydale police never confiscate weapons
from murder scene (Gile's home in 'Passion', library in
'Becoming 2')?
I noticed that Joss is the one among the writers who cares
least about plot details, but this one is just so weird.
[>
I forget Principal Snyder's exact words on the
subject. -- Cactus Watcher, 05:41:17 07/15/02 Mon
But, it is an admission by Mutant Enemy, that the police in
their stories are quite stupid. It has never been a secret
that the police in Sunnydale are virtually worthless
boneheads, that act contrary to how real police act
everywhere. It not unusual for police on TV to behave
bizarrely, to make sure someone else is the hero of whatever
show. At least ME admits they are writing it that way.
[> [>
Police -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:25:53 07/15/02
Mon
Actually, in Season 3 we were shown that the police were
really under the control of the demonic Mayor. So they
might suspect Buffy of murdering Kendra because the name
Buffy Summers is one they've been told to watch out for.
And they would still be pursuing Buffy even after the
witnesses woke up because she assaulted a police officer in
escaping. As for leaving Giles alone after his girlfriend's
death with a bunch of weapons, well, owning medieval weapons
is probably pretty common in Sunnydale. By now the cops
must be thinking: "Okay, does the entire town have swords
and crossbows in their chests?"
[> [> [>
Re: Police -- B, 09:49:08 07/15/02 Mon
And why didn't the police ever press charges against Buffy
for assaulting a police officer? Even if you were unfairly
accused you can still be prosecuted for resisting
arrest.
[> [>
Re: Principal Snyder's exact words -- Robert,
10:35:20 07/16/02 Tue
They were "deeply stupid".
[>
a sloppypop -- buffalupagus, 10:19:26 07/15/02
Mon
I know what you're saying. My first time through S2, I
wanted to climb a grassy hill, rip off my shirt, and shout
to the surrounding villages that I had seen a lovely vision-
-a gem of the species "tele"--wherein pixels were ordered to
speak divinely of truth and beauty. And then the second time
I bleached my hair, shaved my chest, started wearing tweed
bras, and picked up a Carribbean accent with which I scolded
my collection of blind-folded GI Joe's by saying things
like, "Your Gypsy mojo won't work on me, Red!"--it was a
whole character crisis thing, and really I got through it
well enough, so of course I had to give the whole thing a
third try to gain some perspective, but they kept playing
that "Close Your Eyes" music and "Jenny's Theme" with Giles
humming, and I thought what a treat it would be to be able
to hum like that on a show when your lover's just died and
you're standing there thinking what a bastard the fellow is
who stole all the innocence from things, and so of course I
couldn't get any perspective while busy mulling the innards
of passion vs. duty and why hatching creatures are ever
considered scary--I mean, what's a big blob gonna do--it's
too ugly to build a real following and after all Slayers
aren't ever hurt in stand-alone ep's, so why bother trying,
Ted?
So there had to be fourth and fifth times, and by then the
hysteria had rubbed off a little, and I started to get
suspicious--why was Buffy's hair always in her face when she
was fighting? And I could've sworn those blurry people with
swords were not people I knew, and in the middle of Buffy
and Angel's fight they kept cutting away to these other two
people dressed the same and miraculously having a sword
fight of their own in an eerily similar mansion hall thing.
Could this whole Buffy show be a sham? I wondered with some
apprehension. And then I thought of other things: why would
an Irishman mangle his own accent like that, and what kind
of sloppy Slayer trained from birth gets sucked in by a
crazovamp who for all intents and purposes had one hand in
her pocket while the other one was making a peace sign?
Little by little my illusion crumbled. I tried to find a bus
into Sunnydale, but of course it's not a real place, and
didn't I look stupid, and then it turns out it's just a
bunch of "actors" with "scripts"--that's when I really took
the hit, when I figured that out. Damn it! Can nothing be
what it seems? Are we all just puppets in a big conspiracy
script, susceptible to the whimsy of writers who
occasionally knock back a few too many? Actually, that would
explain a lot.
[>
Re: Polices in S2 (spoliers for S2) -- Purple
Tulip, 13:53:38 07/15/02 Mon
You know, I've always wondered about this stuff too. I
mean, when the police are shown, they are nothing short of
clueless fools who seem to have no idea what's going on in
this town. Is that really possible? Could the police exist
there and really not know that there are vampires and demons
running aroung killing people? And when they were after
Buffy in "Becoming 2", (which I just watched the other night
and cried at the end, like I always do even though I've seen
it 10,000 times), they were all "we're gonna get you for
murder"! But that didn't last very long, as they never
followed Buffy out of town, never tracked her down, and when
she came back, it was like all was forgotten. Is that just
for the sake of the story? I don't know....but I know that
with the extreme presence of the police force, and the first
time that we have actually seen someone in prison (Jonathan
and Andrew), that they might be a more focal point next
season. And if we all remember that Buffy's aptitude test
in "What's My Line" said that she would be most suited for
law enforcement---it just makes me wonder if it's possible
that we could be looking at Officer Buffy.
[>
Re: On 2nd thought -- Sang, 14:00:02 07/15/02
Mon
I think the conflict between Buffy and Police in Becoming2
was just a filler. Joss once said, in Season 1 and 2 they
occasionaly wrote an ep too short for 45min, and should put
some fillers. My guess is that Joss's original finale was
too short. So he should write some piece quick. First two
acts of fianle was one of the worst writings of Joss, but it
got remarkably better after Buffy met Spike. And suddenly
all the polices magically disappeared! They are not
patrolling or guarding suspect's house or murder scene. And
all the charges were dropped with no reason (there was no
reason from the beginning).
About watching a show too seriously.
As a scientist who don't believe any magic at all, I enjoy a
fantasy by separating 'real' world and fantasy world. That's
the reason I never liked X-file, it always shamelessly try
to tell us this can happen in real world. Good fantasy, like
Buffy, never try to make that kind of mistake. Only if it is
a good show, I accept other things as an event in fantasy
world and don't mind much about stunt man or strange
F/X.
But I want consistancy inside the story, evenif that is a
just a fiction. Maybe that's the reason that the Becoming 2
is not my favorit season finale. Well, at least Sunnydale
polices have been consistently stupid.
[>
I think the Mayor controlled the police -- Caesar
Augustus, 00:14:06 07/16/02 Tue
There's a line in "Lovers' Walk" about the police actually
covering up Spike's murder of the shopkeeper. I think it's
fair to assume the Mayor has always controlled the police,
and given them some sort of guidelines to cover up the
demonic.
[>
Re: Polices in S2 (spoliers for S2 and for Tales of the
Slayer) -- Robert, 10:47:43 07/16/02 Tue
As Snyder told Buffy in "Becoming, part 2", the police were
"deeply stupid". This leads to the question of why they
were stupid. Mayor Wilkens is the answer. In the story
"The Glittering World" written by David Fury in the Tales of
the Slayer comic book, it is revealed that Wilkens has owned
Sunnydale since it was founded. In fact, Wilkens
deliberately founded the town on top of the hellmouth.
Presumably he deliberately created a police department to
his own specifications -- one that did his bidding without
any imaginative questions. In the season 3 episode
"Choices", it is starkly revealed how the mayor controls the
police department. The Sunnydale police were an instrument
of Wilkens' goal of ascension to full demonhood, not an
instrument of justice and protecting the public.
A disturbing thought for season 7 and a few other
things ( one teensy spoiler from end of season 6) --
Purple Tulip (The faded and wilted), 07:09:49 07/15/02
Mon
Hi all! I've been away from my comp all weekend because my
sister just had a baby on Saturday!!! So I've had a busy
few days. I'm exhausted, but I'm back at work and I've had
a few thoughts about the upcoming BtVS season, and a few
other rambles.
---First---I was thinking about Spike's soul (again, I
know), and what could possibly happen to him in season 7.
Well, this got me thinking about the whole vampire with a
soul thing, and the theme of "back to the beginning". I
posted awhile ago about how I thought that the original
roles of slayer, watcher, sidekicks and vampire with a soul
were going to be addressed, with Dawn sort of taking over
Buffy's role, Buffy assuming more of a Giles-esque role, and
Spike taking over the Angel role, though not becoming Angel.
Ok, so here's the disturbing thought: Buffy was a young
girl in love with a vampire with a soul in the beginning.
If Dawn starts to become a new Buffy figure, and Spike
becomes the recquisent vampire with a soul....see where I'm
going with this? Now, what if Dawn and Spike start to have
a thing and fall in love with each other? What if "what
Buffy deserves" is to see her little sister in love with her
fromer lover because of the way she treated Spike? We all
have been thinking that this soul could mean something good
for Buffy, but what if it's the complete opposite and not at
all what we expected? This thought gave me an icky feeling
in a major way. I am so hoping that they would NOT go this
way for a few reasons: it's wrong, it's gross, in real life
she's 16 and he's 40, and I think that would bother more
than just me, he needs to be with Buffy and no one else,
it's wrong, it's wrong, it's wrong.
---Ok---well last night I couldn't sleep and was flipping
through the channels when I landed on one playing Nash
Bridges. Now this is a show that I have never seen and
really had no desire of ever watching because of my severe
dislike for Don Johnson. Anyway, what made me stop was that
Emma Caulfield was a guest star on that episode, playing
Geraldo Rivera's assistent, or director or something- so
just for the sheer comedy of it all it was funny to watch.
But I always get so excited when I see BtVS people on other
shows, and I have never seen her in a non-Anya role
before.
---Also, I saw a promo for that show Witchblade (I think
it's on TNT), and that chick had the nerve to say "I think I
could give Buffy a run for her money"!!! Whatever metal-
hand---Buffy's saved the world- a lot---what have you
done??!! Anyway, this got me thinking about what female
action star could possible take on Buffy. I was thinking
that Max from Dark Angel and Sydney from Alias might be able
to hold their own. What do you all think??? I was really
curious about this and about other's opinions on it.
---Ok---that's really about it. I know my posts are severly
lacking in creative, deep, philosophical thoughts, adn I
apologize profusly for it. My brain is just tired and this
is the best that I can do for right now.
---One more thing---James Marsters is the sexiest man
alive;)
[>
Re: A disturbing thought for season 7 and a few other
things -- Earl
Allison, 09:22:14 07/15/02 Mon
In no particular order;
COMIC Witchblade could probably mop the floor with Buffy,
because of her massive amount of powers. Of course, comic
Witchblade was also dressed only slightly better than your
average porn starlet -- but what do you expect from the
Image Comics crew of years ago (when Witchblade was
started)? Yes, I have great loathing for Image comics :)
In fact, one might see great similarities between the two --
with the Witchblade selecting women over history to wield
it, and a new Slayer being chosen whenever the old one dies.
As for Yancy Butler's Witchblade -- if she used her gun, she
MIGHT take Buffy out, otherwise, to paraphrase Dark Willow,
Yancy's Witchblade would "get every square inch of her ass
kicked." That, and I abhor Ms. Butler's acting, at least
from the first few episodes of the series (when I stopped
watching even for the train-wreck thrill of seeing if the
show collapsed).
Other roles -- if Emma Caulfield's role was of interest,
she's also appearing on Beverly Hills 90210 as one of the
love interests. At least, she was this weekend -- no idea
how long her character lasted on the show. Also, Mercedes
McNab (Harmony) will be on tonight's "Walker, Texas Ranger,"
on USA Network at 9PM EST in the episode "Six Hours."
Spike/Dawn/Buffy -- I agree that the idea of pairing Dawn
and Spike would border on the lurid and disturbing, and I
doubt the writers would go there. However, I do disagree
with your contention that Spike belongs with Buffy and no
one else (big shocker, I know). IMHO, Buffy and Spike can
be friends, partners in battle, but that should be ALL. But
to say more retreads old arguments, so I'll leave it
there.
Take it and run.
[> [>
Mild spoilers for Mercedes McNab on Walker, Texas
Ranger -- LadyStarlight, 09:38:03 07/15/02 Mon
I saw the W,TR ep with MMN in it, and about halfway through
it, I though "so this is why she hasn't gotten more
roles."
IMHO, her acting was a pale imitation of Harmony on Buffy,
but without the humourous writing. I was actually rooting
for the bad guy to finish his nefarious plot.
Now, this could have been the plot of the ep, or the
writing, or other things, but I was not impressed by her
acting skills.
To borrow a phrase from Earl, take it and run.
[> [> [>
Re: Mild spoilers for Mercedes McNab on Walker, Texas
Ranger -- Purple Tulip, 10:16:54 07/15/02 Mon
In slight defense of Mercedes, that show is completely
lacking in dialogue and acting- the only thing they care
about is trying to make Chuck Norris look like he isn't
saging too much and can keep up with the young guys. I
haven't seen that show in years, so I really can't say what
it's like now. Anyway, I did see her on both Dawson's Creek
and Boston Public a few months ago, and she was actually
quite good. So do I think she could choose her roles a
little more wisely? Absolutely!
[> [> [> [>
Choosing Roles -- Dochawk, 11:05:09 07/15/02
Mon
With someone like Mercedes, or even someone like James
choosing roles is much easier said than done. As an actor
or actress in Hollywood you have vicious competition for
jobs. And you have to survive, to eat, pay your rent etc. A
speaking role on a regular series pays very well. You have
to have a significant reason NOT to do it. Poor writing is
not one of them.
Obviously this isn't as important for someone like Sarah,
but in fact she has a future to consider too. You don't
take work that goes against your morals (a role that
requires gratiutious nudity for example), but making choices
is sometimes very difficult (SMG did Harvard man for a
chance to work with James Toback, wehn she signed on did she
know the script was going to be turned into a dud?)
[>
In defense of the Witchblade quote -- Vickie,
09:35:58 07/15/02 Mon
If you see the entire ad, you will realize that she's
talking about the fight scenes and not whether her character
could "take" Buffy.
[> [>
Re: In defense of the Witchblade quote -- Purple
Tulip, 10:23:10 07/15/02 Mon
I did see the entire ad- three times actually- so I do know
what she was talking about. I have never seen the show
because I thought that it looked cheesy, although it may be
very good if that's your thing. What I meant in my above
post, was about the fight scenes, not whether she could
"take" Buffy in general. I'm a Buffy fan, so of course I
would choose her over anyone else to win in a fight. Again,
I have never seen an episode of Witchblade, only the promos,
so therefore I have no idea what kind of strength she has.
I was really just trying to make a joke, so if I offended
anyone by saying this, I'm sorry.
[> [> [>
Re: Witchblade -- Brian, 10:36:55 07/15/02
Mon
I enjoy Witchblade quite a bit. I like the characters, but
it's a very different show from Buffy. Sarah Pazini is
trying to figure out how to use her powers, and that is the
focus of the show. I'm not sure that the show will survive
it's 2nd season as they have not found the right format yet.
Time will tell.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Witchblade -- Drizzt, 20:43:34 07/15/02
Mon
I have not seen the Witchblade show, however I thought the
movie was pretty good.
I talked to a comic geek about the movie; he said that the
Witchblade comic is much better than the movie.
RE Fight scenes; I think that interesting villians and plots
are much more important than the quality of fight scenes,
the Buffy show is awsome in that department. Most of the
Buffy fight scenes are cynimanatic and campy, however they
do have brutally realistic combat on BTVS once in a
while...or at least as brutal as is feasible on a PG
show.
;)
[> [> [> [>
Re: Witchblade -- Sofdog, 07:08:53 07/16/02
Tue
Agreed. I love "Witchblade." It's a very adult show and
operates on a completely different base than other genre
shows. The editing is usually impressive, the music is
flawless and the acting is mostly pretty good. All the male
costars make it a positive drool fest.
Can't get through the summer without it.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Witchblade -- Robert, 11:03:33 07/16/02
Tue
>> "I'm not sure that the show will survive it's 2nd season
as they have not found the right format yet."
Yes, I agree that the future of Witchblade is uncertain.
They pulled an audacious stunt at the end of the first
season by having Sarah reverse time, thus nullifying
everything that had happened in the season. The second
season is telling a completely different story with the same
characters, as if the first story had never occured. All
the previous character development was also nullified. This
makes for sometimes a very uncomfortable viewing experience.
Last season Sarah's captain was a murdering crook and now,
this season, appears to be a straight up law enforcement
officer. Last season, Jay was an FBI plant, investigating
corruption. This season, he doesn't appear to be
investigating corruption and there is no indication that he
is an FBI agent and, furthermore, he himself has been
corrupted. Nothing so far has been presented to account for
these differences.
Nevertheless, I find Witchblade to be very interesting and
fun to watch, and I will continue to do so.
[>
We had to live through Spuffy--Spawn couldn't be much
worse. -- Q, 17:16:37 07/15/02 Mon
I know there will be those that will say "Dawn will be the
same age Buffy was when her and Angel became involved--what
is the difference?"
The difference I think that will cause the most ICK from the
audience is simply the medium using to tell the story. If
this was a novel or comic book, that would be a legitimate
argument. The problem is it is a tv show that uses real
actors. SMG was a young 20 something playing a teenager.
Michelle *IS* a teenager. The ick factor ISN'T Spike/Dawn
(Spawn), The ick is James/Michelle!
(The title to this post has nothing to do with the post
itself, it is just another opinion I felt I had to
express)
[> [>
Re: We had to live through Spuffy--Spawn couldn't be
much worse. -- Drizzt, 20:52:52 07/15/02 Mon
Dawn could have one or more boyfreinds that are her age on
the show, then when MT is 18 she could have a non-icky
relationship with Spike.
Spike as fellow outcast.
Spike as freind and confidant for Dawn.
Spike as Watcher/mentor for Dawn if they make a show about
her after season 7.
Spike as the lover of Dawn in season 2 of "Dawn the Bitty
Buffy Vampire Slayer"...if such a show is made MT would be
18 in season 2.
There is a different ick factor that might come up; if Spike
is portrayed as a Watcher/Father figure for Dawn it would be
like B/G...
Personally I prefer Dawn and Spike to just be buddies like
Xander/Buffy.
The S7 halloween ep had Dawn kissing an actor who was
obviously over 18;) What are the odds that a love interest
for Dawn would be played by an actor who is under 18?
[> [> [>
Re: We had to live through Spuffy--Spawn couldn't be
much worse. -- Purple Tulip, 06:18:51 07/16/02
Tue
Probably not very likely, since she's the only one on that
show who actually plays her own age. I'm a Spuffy fan, so
any thought of a Spawn thing happening is just disgusting to
me. Who knows what'll happen---and if Michelle does get her
own show after Buffy's over, then it's entirely possible
that we could see Spawn start to develop. But for me the
ick factor is still there. He should be a father-figure to
Dawn, not a lover.
[>
Maybe "Spawn" is a pov issue? -- Vickie,
11:48:48 07/16/02 Tue
I don't mean your point of view vs. mine. I mean the point
of view from which ME tells the story.
In the early seasons, we saw the Scooby gang from their own
point of view (and, rarely, from Giles'). In their own
minds, they were perfectly capable of managing their own
lives. They were teens, but considered themselves able to
live more or less on their own and make their own
choices.
Buffy, occasionally, explicitly positioned herself as a
teen. "Of course I'm immature. I'm a teen; I have yet to
mature." But generally, she considered herself independent
and capable of making her own choices.
In these later seasons, we're still seeing the gang largely
through their own eyes. And, in those eyes, the kid sister
is and forever will be a kid. Until and unless Dawn manages
a breakthrough paradigm shift for the Scoobs, she'll always
be way too young to patrol, to date (especially a vampire,
most especially Spike), or do any number of things.
Of course, she'll do them anyway. Should be an interesting
season.
Take it and shred.
[>
never mind all that other stuff--mazel tov, auntie!
@>) -- anom, 11:54:36 07/16/02 Tue
If you've ever -- buffalupagus, 12:07:29
07/15/02 Mon
If you've ever rubbed your eyes and yawned as you chuckled
your way through the discussion threads and thought how
smart it would be to sleep and then finally tried and while
you did you subconsciously wondered what subconscious
spanking your mind was getting from the spray of words it
just sifted--like "Tara" and "Willow" and "lesbian" and
"kittens" and "Buffy" and "erotic" (you added that one
yourself)--and naturally did finally sleep but only after
reciting the 144 titles of the Buffy episodes in order
because what else is there to think about and then dreamed
yourself into a camp scenario in which you were mistakenly
placed in the lesbian dorms but you're a guy so that's just
great and it turned out that Buffy and Willow were in the
same room but not Tara because she was shot by the evil
writers who don't even have hands and naturally Willow was
sad because, hey, no lover, and Buffy's like "I'm here, but
I'm not much for the girl sex stuff" but for some reason she
wasn't wearing a shirt and so you were a little embarrassed
but couldn't get past the notion that it was your obligation
to help Willow by grabbing Buffy's breasts which weren't
even real but just some squishy well-formed lovely impostors
mounted on a body harness which you promptly removed from
her and fitted on yourself and then looking down at your new
fake breasts finally at last thought "Hey, something here's
a little askew" but couldn't quite pinpoint what it was,
then man, you've got some issues.
[>
been there, man. -- GreatRewards, 13:30:19
07/15/02 Mon
[>
Re: You're Funny -- Purple Tulip, 13:39:09
07/15/02 Mon
[>
LOL! -- Rob, 14:39:12 07/15/02 Mon
[>
Sandwich Boards -- obvious child, 15:04:54
07/15/02 Mon
I've thought about walking into a church wearing a sandwich
board that reads "Buffy is Near/Xander Loves You (girls)." I
can picture the parishoners sitting stunned and indignant, I
would be very quiet, and pretty much keep to myself, only
with that big ol' sandwich board. And when they asked what I
was doing there, if there was time between the asking and
the spitting sidewalk out of my mouth I would say, "everyone
needs competition, competition is what makes America great,
isn't it?"
[>
ROTFLMAO -- VR, 15:15:45 07/15/02 Mon
[>
I have not done anything similar to that, but... --
Drizzt, 20:33:17 07/15/02 Mon
I did do something very strange and dysfunctional while
watching an ep of Season 5.
PS. LOL on your weird imagination;)
Justifying Vampires -- Finn Mac Cool, 22:53:05
07/15/02 Mon
One basis of BtVS is that human lives are sacred, while
vampires should/must be killed. What if that's backwards,
though?
The people Buffy saves from vampires aren't really being
saved. They have, at most, a few, paltry decades left until
they die. Their lives are by no means sacred, since they
will end with or without vampires. They may as well provide
sustenence for other creatures when they die rather than
rotting away later.
Meanwhile, vampires can live forever. Unless someone kills
them, they're immortal. Unlike humans, their lives mean
something because they might last until the end of the world
if it weren't for Buffy. It is this timelessness that makes
them sacred.
This means that Buffy is really the villain. She kills
vampires, which is a big no-no, to save humans, who really
don't matter except as food.
(Devil's advocate, much?)
[>
Re: Justifying Vampires -- Arethusa, 05:48:48
07/16/02 Tue
Some people say that life is meaningless without death-death
gives it form (beginning, middle, end) and purpose (make the
most of your time because it is short). Most people find
their own lives very valuable, and would not enjoy existing
only to be food for others. All timeless things are not
sacred-age is not necessarily an indication of how sacred
something is. Some rocks, trees, buildings etc. are very
old, but they are not sacred unless they are worshipped for
some reason. If we worshipped longevity, we'd revere our
elderly a heck of a lot more.
So:
Humans are not meat sacks, waiting to die before they rot.
Vampires are not worshipped for their longevity. (Unless
you're Ford, and he's dead.) Therefore, Buffy is not a
villian for killing vampires.
[> [>
Re: Justifying Vampires -- Finn Mac Cool,
10:01:51 07/16/02 Tue
The main point I was driving at is "why is it wrong to kill
a creature that's gonna drop pretty soon anyway". Suppose
Angel was stranded on a barren island with someone who was
only a few minutes away from death. Angel drinking his/her
blood in order to nourish himself would not be perceived as
wrong. Why not extend that some more? All humans are going
to die pretty soon by vampire standards. What's the point
of letting them live, then?
[> [> [>
Re: Justifying Vampires -- Arethusa, 10:30:17
07/16/02 Tue
It's not the vampires' decision-say the humans. Whether
vampires live or die *is* Buffy's decision, but hey, nobody
said the undead life was fair.
It all comes down to one thing-do you believe human life is
valuable?
[> [> [> [>
Re: Justifying Vampires -- meritaten, 12:42:26
07/16/02 Tue
I think the presence of a soul is the key. Humans have them,
vampires don't. ...and, unless I'm mistaken about the soul
in Buffyverse, the human soul IS immortal.
[> [> [> [> [>
Source, please ? -- Ete, 13:02:31 07/16/02
Tue
Where is it said in BtVS or AtS that the soul is immortal
?
[> [> [>
Changing you point! -- Robert, 10:32:44 07/16/02
Tue
>> "The main point I was driving at is "why is it wrong to
kill a creature that's gonna drop pretty soon anyway"."
NO ... THAT WAS MOST CERTAINLY NOT YOUR POINT. From you
first posting;
>> "This means that Buffy is really the villain."
Your point was that Buffy was a villain for attempting to
protect her own life, the lives of those she loves, and the
lives of people in general. This is a distinctly different
point than saying that it is not wrong for a vampire to feed
on people.
Vampires do not require human blood for their existence. In
fact, they don't require any blood at all for mere existence
(according to the mythology as given by Spike in season 4).
They need blood for their health (whatever that means), but
it does not need to be human. Angel is proof of that.
Vampires merely prefer the taste of blood, especially that
of the slayer. If vampires wanted to avoid battles with
humanity, then they should have based their diet on a safer
food supply. By the same token, I have little sympathy for
people who get hurt while hunting bear.
[>
Re: Justifying Vampires -- Robert, 10:04:43
07/16/02 Tue
>> "This means that Buffy is really the villain. She kills
vampires, which is a big no-no, to save humans, who really
don't matter except as food."
I'm sure I am an idiot for responding to your obvious
baiting, but here it goes. So, are you arguing that Buffy
should bare her neck for the first vampire to come along, in
furtherance of a noble race?
Your argument appears to assume that people don't have a
right to exist. Some people actually do believe this. There
are those who advocate the extinction of humanity, for the
good of the planet. If however you assume that people do
have a right to exist and that individuals have a right to
live (ie. protect their own lives), then your argument
doesn't hold.
Let us assume that vampires have every bit as much right to
exist as people do. Who then is the villain? It is not
people who eat vampires, but vampires who eat people.
Therefore, people should be allowed to protect themselves
and to have a protector or champion.
By extension, one could argue that cattle have a right to
protect themselves from slaughter. I would agree to this.
Notice however, I never said that vampires don't have a
right to attempt to feed on people, only that people have a
right to protect themselves. The difference is that cattle
lost their war with humanity centuries ago, while the war
with vampires is still ongoing (with several near defeats).
>> "It is this timelessness that makes them sacred."
By that definition, all demons and satan himself are sacred,
which only works if you happen to worship satan. According
to the mythology of BtVS, the vampires are not people made
immortal, but are demons who have taken residence in
people's bodies.
[>
Practically speaking -- Rahael, 10:47:36
07/16/02 Tue
If Vamps were allowed to kill their food source as freely as
they do, they'd starve to death eventually.....
Would they be able to exercise restraint en masse? Or would
they start jumping up and down and talking about ludicrous
pyramid schemes? (a la 'Disharmony')
Anyway, longevity, as has been noted, by itself has no moral
connotations, so that's irrelevant as a consideration of
moral worth.
I persist in seeing Vamps as these metaphor type things, so
they are enshrouded in the mortal fear of death. If they are
frozen adolescents, then they show are their own true fear -
forever dead. Because those who cling to youth, afraid of
death, only end up spending their eternity in the arms of
death.
Buffy's just allowing them to go free!!
[> [>
"Buffy the Vampire Liberator" -- has a nice
ring to it... -- redcat, 11:03:39 07/16/02 Tue
[> [>
An interesting issue...slayer or liberator... --
shygirl, 12:14:46 07/16/02 Tue
If the human soul is "captured" and held "prisioner"
somewhere like in a "well of souls" that a demon like Lurky
has guardianship over... if the body is dusted... does that
liberate the human soul to an afterlife and "unfreeze" them?
It would make Buffy's mission a bit more meaningful than
simply ridding the world of evil vampires!
[> [> [>
Re: An interesting issue...slayer or liberator... -
- Sophist, 12:36:38 07/16/02 Tue
I suggested this in a post a couple of months ago (or maybe
it was in chat). Anyway, welcome to the club. It seems to be
a small one, so far.
[> [> [> [>
and since I read Kristen's review of S6 on Tabla
Rasa.. -- shygirl, 15:30:44 07/16/02 Tue
I really hope that this next season shows her facing up to
her own personal monsters and getting back to the heroine
she was apparently intended to be. In the few early episodes
I have seen, Buffy was a pretty cool heroine...assertive,
funny, and compassionate.
But in S6 Buffy got away with her own version of "evil
behavior" and it appears at the moment that it's scot free.
Spike may be an obvious monster, but Buffy was a monster
too. As Kristen points out in her review which is apparently
a letter she mailed to Joss and ME, because we are so
embedded in gender sterotypes, some excuse her behavior and
insist that she was not any way responsible for the "rape"
scene. I agree with Kristen and I hope ME has read her
letter and understands that putting Buffy with an evil
souless vampire may send the wrong message, but turning
Buffy into an abuser also sends the wrong message. The
being dead thing just doesn't excuse her behavior for me. I
know some on this board disagree with what I am saying about
this, but perhaps they should read Kristen's point of view
before jumping on the evil male rapist bandwagon. Kristen
appears to be a college student who sees more and more of
this type of behavior and finds it disturbing. It was an
abusive relationship... and Buffy was NOT the one being
abused in case no one noticed.
I am very glad they will be going "back" to some of the
lightness of earlier seasons, but, and it's a big but for
me... if they don't resolve some of the dark issues that
came up this year, the light will make the characters look
shallow and irrelevant. I'd like to see all of the monsters
called out and confronted... who knows, maybe a group
intervention! ;-)
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: and since I read Kristen's review of S6 on Tabla
Rasa.. -- Sophist, 15:49:48 07/16/02 Tue
Kristin's letter was posted here, I believe. If it's the one
I'm remembering, I didn't agree with her.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: and since I read Kristen's review of S6 on Tabla
Rasa.. -- shygirl, 20:29:26 07/16/02 Tue
and I think your opinion appears to be the general take...
although I don't remember seeing that letter on this
board...and that's mainstream when looking at abusive
relationships... women are victims and men are the
aggressors. I used to know the the stats on the reverse
situation but I don't anymore. It's very underreported of
course, but it happens. Men are even more reluctant than
women to admit physical abuse. And that makes sense given
the dominant cultural view of male/female relationships..
But as women become more "emancipated" we seem to not only
be more comfortable with standing up for our rights, we also
seem to be quite capable of taking on what have been
traditionally considered male behaviors some of which are
very negative (have you read anything about female gangs,
it's kind of scarey)... I'm not condoning the behavior, just
pointing out that this particular relationship was turned on
end and perhaps that was deliberatly done. However,JM
certainly holds with the traditionalist view from his
comments about the scene. Personally, I have always felt
that women will never be truly emancipated until men are
too, and IMO a step in that direction is to acknowledge the
same potential in women for the behavior considered
reprensible in a man.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
The traditional view? -- auroramama, 20:38:13
07/16/02 Tue
I wouldn't assume JM takes the traditional view of
male/female interactions on the basis of his reaction to
Seeing Red. I thought it might just be that he found it
more disturbing to play the aggressor than the victim. That
doesn't mean he hasn't noticed that Buffy's been abusing
Spike, or that he thinks men are fair game for women in real
life.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: The traditional view? -- Finn Mac Cool,
22:36:32 07/16/02 Tue
Imagine how Marti Noxon must feel. She based Spike's
behavior this season on her own experiences with a "bad
boyfriend". Now she find the fans think Spike is the victim
and the good guy here.
I think it would be best to say that Buffy and Spike abused
each other.
Buffy wanted just the sex part of Spike, and none of the
vampire, evil, or murderer part. Meanwhile, Spike wanted
the sex part, but found he needed/wanted the rest of
her.
"Dead Things" was the only time Buffy physically abused
Spike, and I think there is some significance that it wasn't
a sexually related attack. The other abuse is sleeping with
Spike even though she knows that he loves her, but also
knows she could never love him. This is psychologically
damaging, and is rather uncaring of Buffy.
Meanwhile, Spike knows that Buffy is dealing with some
serious angst over her ressurection and splits with her
friends. Instead of encouraging her attempts to get her
life back on track, he tries to bring her into his "world".
This alienates her from her friends and Dawn. He also
sleeps with her when he knows that she is needy, and will
probably regret it later.
I don't think the rape was out of character. Ever since
Once More With Feeling the delusion that Buffy is secretly
in love with him has been the crutch that's kept him up. In
Seeing Red, Buffy admits she has feelings for him, but that
they are not, and will never be, love. Buffy's frankness
and honesty finally gets through to him here. Spike
realizes that Buffy really can't love him. But, not being
able to deal with the truth, he turns back to his delusion.
In order to blot out the truth, the delusion becomes bigger
until Spike is convinced that all he has to do is have sex
with Buffy and she'll show love to him.
Add the fact that Spike has trouble distinguishing violence
and sex (a notion that is confirmed in his relationship with
Buffy, witness "Smashed" and "Dead Things") and was probably
at least a little drunk in the bathroom scene, and you have
an in character rape.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: The traditional view? -- Finn Mac Cool,
22:42:46 07/16/02 Tue
Ooh, forgot to add that Buffy isn't traditionally seen as an
abuser because it is yet to be determined if vampires, even
harmless ones, have any rights. The issue would take on
different tones if Spike were human.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: bathroom scene -- Brian, 02:17:01 07/17/02
Wed
Having just rewatched the last 5 episodes of Buffy, I would
have to restate that the bathroom scene is not about rape.
Rape is about power, dominance, and ego; it's not about sex.
Spike desperately wants Buffy to love him. He tries one last
time to reach Buffy, but she once again rejects him. This
time he realizes that he has hurt her (something he said he
would never do, and Spike is a man of his word), and he is
horrified by what he has done. Back in his crypt he realizes
that he is neither a monster or a man, and he needs to be
one or the other. His quest to Africa is his search for
resolution.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Good Lord -- Rahael, 02:24:05 07/17/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Rape and PC Sensibilities. -- Darby, 06:23:54
07/17/02 Wed
When did everybody get together and agree that rape is
never about sex? That is one of the most pervasive
myths of our culture. What you're saying is, if Spike had
succeeded in forcing himself on Buffy, thinking that's what
she wanted/needed, because it was about sex it
wouldn't be rape?
I am in no way saying that rape is not about power, or
violence, or any of the horrible things it can be
about, but when do we throw away any pretense toward
critical thinking and agree on these absolutes that are
merely political and ridiculous if given half a thought?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
Re: Rape and PC Sensibilities. -- Brian,
07:35:24 07/17/02 Wed
I based my opinion on what I saw in the bathroom scene. I
saw a wounded man trying to communicate with someone that he
loved deeply. In his despair, he made a mistake and tried to
use force to express his love. To me, that is not rape. He
quickly realized his mistake, that he had betrayed his own
beliefs, and that drove him to reconsider who and what he
really was.
The concept of rape being about power not sex is what I have
gathered from reading various reports and articles, and what
I hear psychologists talking about on TV shows.
So I would still say that rape is never about sex.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [>
Re: Rape and PC Sensibilities. -- Arethusa,
07:56:24 07/17/02 Wed
You can't totally divorce the act from its motivations.
Since rape is (broadly) forceable sex, rape is *also* about
sex, virtually by definition. You saw a wounded vampire
trying to communicate with someone he is incapable of loving
(according to Darla and Angel) trying to use forced sex to
get a girl to (falsely) admit she loves him.
Let's just face it-ME (*cough Marti Noxon cough*) screwed
up. They gave us an interesting villian, made him too
sympathetic and likable because he was popular, and then had
to backtrack to force the events to lead to his actions at
the season's end-just like with Willow. Her actions were
manipulated to make her go bad. We can tie ourselves into
knots trying to justify it, we can stop weatching BtVS, or
we can shrug and wait for Sept. 24, hoping ME clears the
mess up.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [>
Agree and regarding rape -- shadowkat, 09:03:50
07/17/02 Wed
Agree with you, Areuthsa, except on evil Willow - I actually
saw that as working until they went overboard with the real
world drug metaphor. ME's mistake?? Trying to make the real
world metaphors too obvious. Also for some bizarre reason
they didn't seem to know that "drug abuse" and "fatal
attraction" story lines have already been done too death. We
were all hoping they'd give us a new twist on this time
honored cliche.Up until Seeing Red, I was convinced they
would. They didn't. Dang. But they did make them more
interesting then the stories I'd seen in the past.
So I forgave them. And there was groundbreaking writing...in
places.
"You can't totally divorce the act from its motivations.
Since rape is (broadly) forceable sex, rape is *also* about
sex, virtually by definition. You saw a wounded vampire
trying to communicate with someone he is incapable of loving
(according to Darla and Angel) trying to use forced sex to
get a girl to (falsely) admit she loves him. "
Agree here as well. SR is very complex. But rape legally
means sexual penetration. Attempted rape? Forcing someone
into having sex with you against their will. Forcing
yourself on them. Re-watch the scene again if you can,
Brian, Aresutha & Rah are right -
Spike grabbed Buffy, knocked her on the ground, and kept
after her even though she repeatedly screamed no, tearfully
did. He only stopped b/c she kicked him across the room.
He was horribly shocked by his actions as were we.
Completely and utterly upset. He looked as upset as she
was.
That, however, does NOT excuse his actions. Any more than
beating Spike to a pulp in Dead Things and then looking
horrified and upset excused Buffy's. Couldn't watch either
scene without flinching. Find Deknight's ability to get
across the complexity in both amazing, as both a viewer and
a writer. Yes - it was attempted rape both legally and
figuratively. I wish it wasn't. I would have preferred that
he try to bite her as Spike Lover suggested, but ME wanted
to drop the metaphors and go "real" this year. That
said...
I find it a little hard to go real when it's still a
"VAMPIRE" and a "SLAYER". Now as Areustha put it so well -
Let's move on. ;-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [>
Oh about intent...here's where the debate continues
-- shadowkat, 10:11:43 07/17/02 Wed
(Can everyone tell I'm bored at work today??)
Wanted to qualify the above post with a qualificat
Sophist
made in another thread - legally it is only attempted rape
if there is intent.
Here is where everyone differs. Some are convinced Spike
intended to rape buffy. Some aren't.
Me? On the fence on this one. Part of him never wanted to
hurt her - the William part, part did - the Spike part. He
intended to recreate that violent sex scene in Smashed. He's
a demon, remember. To Spike - sex and violence go hand in
hand. He was taught this by Angelus and Drusilla and Darla.
Angel does it with Darla and yes in that scene there is a
feeling of intended rape - it's in Epiphany. He doesn't have
a soul. OTOH - I think the Spike/demon honestly wanted to
hurt her, to make her suffer like he is.
He even confesses to this conflict in the next scene.
"What have I done? Why didn't I do it? What has she done to
me?"
Good questions. Part of him wanted to. Part didn't. They
are in conflict. Whether the soul will solve the conflict or
not, remains to be seen. It didn't resolve it completely for
Angel.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Oh about intent...here's where the debate
continues -- J, 13:11:48 07/17/02 Wed
Well, I'm a lawyer too, and that qualification that Sophist
made is a bit muddier than what you're describing here.
'Intent' in the criminal law is distiguished from 'motive'--
for criminal liability purposes, Spike 'intended' to rape
Buffy if it was his specific intention to cause the result
of having sex with Buffy irrespective of her consent. While
I agree that he never wanted to hurt her, that doesn't mean
that he didn't 'intend' to rape her as that term is
generally defined in the criminal law.
- J
p.s. A couple of qualifications of my own:
(1) I have used the Ohio law definition of 'purpose' when
discussing 'intent'; Ohio law defines the two identically,
and Ohio follows the model penal code approach regarding
culpable mental states.
(2)I actually don't think referencing the criminal law is
all that edifying when we're talking about the complexity of
human interaction. The criminal law isn't designed to
punish or even uncover motives--it's designed to stop or
alter certain behaviors. As a result, courts tend to shy
away from trying to understand why people act they way they
do in difficult circumstances, in favor of just examining
the conduct itself.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [>
California law -- Sophist, 13:33:52 07/17/02
Wed
I made a long post in response to redcat in the Xander
thread above (how the hell did we get from X/A to attempted
rape in that thread anyway?). I'd be curious about your
reaction. Here's where I think we may be differing:
irrespective of her consent.
I would say without her consent. As I interpret CA
law, Spike must have known she was not
consenting, not just been indifferent to her consent. That's
where the problem comes in (IMHO).
The criminal law isn't designed to punish or even uncover
motives--it's designed to stop or alter certain behaviors.
As a result, courts tend to shy away from trying to
understand why people act they way they do in difficult
circumstances, in favor of just examining the conduct
itself.
Yes, up to a point. What we do, as I see it, is infer
mental states from conduct because we rarely have direct
access to a person's mindset. But that means we have to look
at all the conduct that may be relevant. In the case of SR,
and in a real life case also, the entire relationship
between the both perpetrator and victim is relevant. It's
that history which muddied the waters, IMHO.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: California law (mostly OT) -- J, 15:20:23
07/17/02 Wed
I would say without her consent.
Actually, I agree . . . I think I should have used 'without'
even in my discussion.
Moreover, the I agree with the 'infer' aspect of your
comments . . . to a point. Rape shield laws enacted in some
states have rendered 'the entire relationship' between an
aggressor and a victim irrelevant to the question of whether
consent was given or not. In Ohio, the history between the
parties is still relevant to that question.
Watching SR, I think there's sufficient evidence (even in
light of the history between Buffy & Spike) for a reasonable
juror to conclude that Spike acted with purpose to have sex
Buffy and that he had knowledge of her lack of consent. As
I understand it, your argument is that Spike may not have
known that Buffy wasn't consenting based upon their past
history of rough sex. I just don't see that as a feasible
reading of the text, particularly in light of Spike's "I'll-
make-you-feel-it" dialogue.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [>
Re: Rape and Power -- redcat, 09:42:31 07/17/02
Wed
Brian,
Like most of your responders, I strongly disagree with your
interpretation of what happened in the infamous
“bathroom
scene.” Like some here, my reaction to your stance comes
from personal experience. In my case, and in
combination
with other factors, that experience eventually led to more
than a dozen years of academic feminist research, writing
and
teaching, the bulk of it on the issues of sex, gender and
violence against women in all its forms, and literally
thousands
(perhaps tens of thousands, I’ve lost count) of hours spent
working in women’s centers, rape crisis centers, on rape
hotlines and in battered women’s and children’s shelters. I
am not some TV psychologist, but neither am I some scary
“femi-nazi” from patriarchy’s worst nightmare. What I am
is someone who has personal, intellectual and community-
activist experiences on which to base my understanding of
the links between sex, gender and power as those links
are
worked out between women and men during situations of
sexualized violence and violent sex.
Therefore, I agree with Rahael when she argues, “Rape is a
crime of power because it infringes the human dignity
and
personal consent of the human being who is attacked.” As
Arethusa notes, “Since rape is (broadly) forceable sex,
rape
is *also* about sex, virtually by definition.” As these
statements confirm, rape is an act of domination by one
person
over another person enacted, usually violently, through sex,
and is therefore intimately and absolutely *about* sex.
However, it seems that you are working from a definition of
rape that excludes sex or love as either primary
motivators
or goals. As I understand your posts (and I’m trying to be
very clear here and not mis-interpret you), you’re
arguing
that because Spike loved Buffy and primarily wanted Buffy to
admit love for him, what he did in the bathroom when he
tried to force his penis inside Buffy’s body as he held her
on the floor, and as she struggled against him and begged
him
to stop, was not rape because what he really wanted was love
expressed through sex, rather than power or dominance
over her, and that his actions came from his desire for love
rather than from his ego. Well, working only within
your
definition of rape, with which I disagree but which I’m
willing to accept is your own personal framework for
interpreting
the scene, my question to you is this: How does Spike’s
“us[ing] force to express his love” (your phrase) NOT
constitute rape even within your definition? Spike was
using his physical (and emotional, I might add) power to
attempt
to dominate someone else and to force them to do what his
own ego wanted them to do. The use of a specific type
of
force, sexual force, linked to a particular type of
violence, sexualized violence, in an act intended to
dominate another is,
ipso facto and within your own (very limited) definition,
absolutely RAPE.
I’d like to add that it has become quite commonplace in our
society for feminist research into issues of rape, as well
as
sex and gender, to become twisted into apologies or
“explanations” for men’s bad behavior. This seems to occur
most
readily when only the surface of that research gets skimmed
and the hard, time-consuming work of understanding the
culturally-revolutionary potential of that research is
elided. Such is the usual tactic of TV psychologists and
celebrity
pseudo-feminists. However, once one does take the time to
actually do that hard work, and the deep personal
interrogations of one’s own conceptions about the links
between sex and power in one’s own life that often come
from
it, amazing insights are possible. Feminist researcher and
leader in the “men’s liberation movement” John
Stoltenberg
once argued that one of the hardest things for both men and
women in our culture to understand is the way in which,
in
patriarchal cultures, violence, dominance, force and power
MUST BE MADE TO LOOK LIKE sex and love in order
for much of the social inequality of our system to continue.
The notion that “if rape is about power, it cannot also
be
about sex” is grounded in the same putative separation of
them that has been a necessary aspect, for literally two and
a
half millennia, of patriarchal social structures world-wide.
I neither condemn nor excoriate you, Brian, for your
interpretation of the scene. But I do urge you to think
more
carefully, critically and thoroughly about what you saw and
what you make of it. The terms of your own argument
defeat your case.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [>
Thanks for the detail... I was afraid to really go that
deep -- shygirl, 11:40:20 07/17/02 Wed
I agree with your analysis, and I almost made a comment
about penetration and the use of sexual force as a display
of power, but didn't want to get bogged down in an
explanation that I couldn't have done nearly as well as you
have. I particularly like your reference to John Stoltenberg
(recommend something to me). I look around our culture and I
see not just women needing liberated, but men as well... and
the institutions, customs, and to a certain extent the legal
system staunchly maintain the status quo. Because of this,
it is often very difficult, unless you've been there
personally and finally recongnized your own "brainwashing"
to really understand how the culture uses "sex" as a tool of
control.
I should have said that my counseling training did not focus
on rape counseling which from my understanding is a
different kind of counseling. And, I should say, I've not
worked officially as a counselor for a number of years now
either. Burn-out is a *B* and listening to the horrible
things people do to each other and the resulting pain is not
easy to hear.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [>
Re: Thanks for the detail... I was afraid to really go
that deep -- redcat, 12:01:24 07/17/02 Wed
My paraphrase of John Stoltenberg's work is from his
_Refusing to be a Man: Essays on Sex and Justice_, New
York: Meridian Books, 1990. Also interesting and widely
reprinted is his 1990 keynote speech from the 15th National
Conference on Men and Masculinity, entitled "A coupla things
I've been meaning to say about really confronting male
power...."
Just to put him into perspective, he's also a nationally-
famous anti-pornography crusader and was therefore a major
and quite controversial player in one of the major conflicts
among feminists of the 1990s, the anti-pornography v. free
speech debates; is a task force chair for the National
Organization of Men Against Sexism in NYC; and is a major
"queer theorist" among gay political activists. Despite the
controversy around his political activism, his research on
rape and the ideological links between rape and homophobia
is excellent, among the best in the field.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [>
Thanks for the references... it will help bring me up
to date! -- shygirl, 15:09:27 07/17/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [>
Yeap, 'cause sex is /never/ about power. Right. --
cynical Ete, 10:29:47 07/17/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
Rape and sex -- Rahael, 08:00:53 07/17/02
Wed
I think (mho) there is a misunderstanding here.
When rape was once considered a sexual act, it contained
these ramifications - that it is just something on the
spectrum of sexual encounters between men and women. That
the woman may have been giving out sexual signals. She may
have been wearing the wrong kind of clothing. She was
wearing make up. She dared to venture out of the house. If a
man fancied a woman, and tried it on, well, that was just
sex, wasn't it?
Rape is a crime of power because it infringes the human
dignity and personal consent of the human being who is
attacked. It is the expression of a human being who at the
bottom, cannot respect the human being who he/she claims to
love (yes, women can rape too).
Saying that Spike was in love with Buffy and that therefore
excuses what happens is to blatantly ignore the fact that he
tried force her to give something she did not want to; that
he infringed upon her rights. (I am trying to be unemotive
and as detached about this as possible. The actual
experience of course, is hard to describe). That is to
ignore the fact that Spike was expressing his strength and
his dominion over a woman in the name of love.
Most of my impersonal experience of sexual assault was the
act of blatant aggression, that of soldiers upon civilian
women. But my personal experience did not have those
overtones. Nevertheless, its lasting effect was the denial
of my human dignity, and all I remember is my terror and
fright. So yes, the bottom line - my powerlessness was the
lasting impression I was left with.
I am no expert however - I have not studied the politics of
rape at any length. This is just gut feeling talking.
I feel scared that people can think that because someone
loves you and is feeling bad, they can do that to you.
God preserve any human from being the recipient of such
love.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [>
Re: Rape and sex -- Arethusa, 08:45:39 07/17/02
Wed
Let's step back for a second and look at the big picture.
This is what humans are. This is what they do. The normal
state of humanity isn't a search for enlightenment-it's
beer, cigarettes and sex (insert gratification here). We
are animals-sentient animals, but animals all the same. We
can't accept that, so we try to find logical reasons for our
behavior. Some people try to move beyond the animal, but
most don't.
I could, of course, be wrong. I often am. But after 39
years of thinking about the hidden nature of humanity, I've
come to believe that the only way we can conquer "evil" in
this world is to admit it is a fundamental part of human
nature and drag it kicking and screaming into the light.
(Start satire font) I think I've found the secret to the
universe. Why are we here? Because our parents had sex.
What is the meaning of life? Meaning is an artificial
construct. Are people good or evil? Morality is an
artificial contstruct. What happens afer we die? The same
thing that happens to other animals. Is there a god(s)?
Divinity is an aritficial construct. (End satire font.)
Take it and shred it to peices. Please. I'm not kidding.
(much)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [>
Re: Spike's situation -- Brian, 09:18:54
07/17/02 Wed
I certainly agree that what Spike did was wrong, very wrong,
and he quickly realized how wrong he had been. But I can't
call it attempted rape, even if the writers said they wrote
it to be one. Perhaps it is due to the acting talents of JM,
and perhaps it is more due to bad script writing, just
another example of "forced" writing that seem to twist the
characters into a plot device.
From the other scenes after the bathroom event, it appears
that Buffy didn't call it rape either.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [>
Mistreating the deceased equine -- Arethusa,
09:24:30 07/17/02 Wed
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, God says it's a
duck, it's probably a duck. You just don't want to believe
it, which is to your credit.
And I hereby make a public vow to never discuss the AR
again.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: I agree with you, and take the pledge -- Brian,
09:34:00 07/17/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [>
Artificial just means "created by
humans". -- auroramama, 15:02:52 07/17/02
Wed
I tend to agree with you (agnostic here) but I'm willing to
go with Angel on this: meaning (and by implication morality
and perhaps divinity) is what we're here to create.
"Artificial" includes both good creations and bad. Would
humanity really benefit from discovering a natural
outcropping of meaning, a crater lake full of morality, or a
definition of divinity printed across a rainbow? Even if
these things were somehow incontrovertible to all humans, I
still think I'd be more scared than inspired. After all,
what if the next rock affirmed a moral law that we didn't
agree with? What would we do?
If we choose to assume that the nonsentient universe is
morally neutral, that if we want goodness to exist we have
to generate it ourselves, that we're all we've got, maybe we
can get cracking.
auroramama
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
Re: Rape ain't sex.....and I say this because... --
shygirl, 11:12:12 07/17/02 Wed
I was trained as a counselor and I can assure you that all
of the literature on the subject I was required to read
indicated that rape is NOT about sex.. it's about power and
dominance and the rapist is often someone who has
significant self-esteem issues.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [>
Re: Rape ain't sex.....and I say this because... --
Arethusa, 11:26:34 07/17/02 Wed
Then why do men rape those over whom they already have power
and dominance? Like children.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [>
Why does a dog take a daily whiz all over his
territory? -- shygirl, 11:44:42 07/17/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [>
Re: Why? -- Arethusa, 11:54:38 07/17/02 Wed
There are many ways to claim dominance-controlling someone's
actions, physical beatings, verbal abuse, mental
manipulations, etc. A personal can do all of the above, and
sometimes does. But to make a sexual attack-that's adding a
new dimension, something that is not solely expressing
dominance. The act of rape satisfies something specific in
a person that must-must-be related to sexual satisfaction.
I can't explain it, but it's there-otherwise, why rape?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Why? -- shygirl, 14:27:38 07/17/02 Wed
When I studied counseling, it was at the beginning of the
modern (read 60's-70's) feminist movement. The challenge
then was to get the definition of rape OUT of the realm of
sex. Back then, it was considered a bad thing, but the woman
was most often blamed for what happened to her. We worked
very hard to get the "establishment" to understand that it
was an act of violence based on a need for power and
dominance by a man who basically felt powerless,hated women,
and made them victims because they were the "weaker sex." I
am simplifying the argument of course, but that's pretty
much where we were then... I hate to see sexual satisfaction
put back on the table for fear of what that will mean for my
little granddaughters when they become young women. Of
course, each generation must find it's own way and define
it's own experience. But it makes me a little sick to my
stomach to hear a woman express the opinion. Having said
that, you have to believe what you have to believe and I
respect your right to that opinion. It's a complex issue and
every conversation about it holds the potential to add to
our personal understanding of ourselves and how we relate to
our lives and the world at large. Sophist gave me an insight
on the subject today that has apparently been nagging me for
a very long time. It was a deeply appreciated gift.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Why? -- Arethusa, 15:00:42 07/17/02 Wed
You should fear for your little granddaughters right now.
CNN is filled with accounts of little girls raped and
murdered. Was this done just so the men could express their
dominance over 5-year-olds? Back in the seventies, families
put into incest counseling sat in a group meeting to feel
the pain of the perps, then everyone had a big group hug.
And no, I am not kidding. It was following the studies of
the time on how to deal with the problem. Of course, the
therapists didn't exactly know what they were doing then,
and nobody does now either. I just want everything out in
the open, so the situation is finally dealt with correctly.
That can't happen when we refuse to examine every aspect of
the problem, especially the nasty bits.
I don't mean this to be a personal attack, and I'm sorry I
made you sick to your stomach. I'll stop writing about this
now. This isn't really the place to do that, anyway.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Why? -- redcat, 15:56:23 07/17/02 Wed
shygirl,
First, I’d like to say that your name confuses me a bit
since, from your posts, I take it that you are not a girl
and you
certainly are not shy. But I do think you are always quite
sincere in your responses to other people’s posts.
However, I’ve been reading (and contributing some) to this
and a few of the other sub-threads currently on the
board
about issues of rape, intent, the law, contemporary history
and society, and the now-infamous bathroom scene in SR.
I’m quite puzzled by your response to Arethusa, above. In
my reading of what she says, she neither condones rape
as
merely an act of sexual satisfaction, nor dismisses the
interpretation that rape is primarily an act of domination
and
power. I read her as making some important and necessary
corrections to the early feminist interpretations that
you
write of, by arguing that rape is a *sexual* crime that is
both distinct from (because of its sexual aspects) AND
related
to other types of crimes of domination and abuse. I do not
know if it was your intent (reference intended) to mis-
understand her, although I suspect that you did not intend
to silence her on this issue, as you apparently have done.
But
may I suggest that a more objective, careful and nuanced
reading of Arethusa’s posts in just this sub-thread,
sustained by
reading her posts in other related sub-threads, would have
led you to realize that your accusation of her – “But it
makes
me a little sick to my stomach to hear a woman express the
opinion” – is based more on your mis-reading of her than
on
her own stated opinions.
Personally, I think you owe her an apology.
redcat
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [>
Yeah, well, when you've been on the receiving end -
- Someone who doesn't know this from books!!, 11:42:57
07/17/02 Wed
of all that power and dominance being forcibly shoved up
into one of your sexual organs over and over and over while
you're being forcibly held down, it sure does FEEL like sex
-- just not like love. Are you sure you're not confusing
the two?
And since when does saying that rape is a crime of power and
dominance equal the same thing as saying that it's not also
a crime of sex?????
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [>
Re: Yeah, well, when you've been on the receiving
end -- shygirl, 11:46:05 07/17/02 Wed
I have been there and it didn't feel like sex at all... you
shouldn't assume.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [>
Re: Rape and accepted definitions -- Darby,
12:33:45 07/17/02 Wed
The reason I started this with the "PC" label is exactly
underlined by shygirl's remark - the current literature
virtually ignores the sex aspect of rape, which to me blinds
them to a critical aspect of it. Sexual assault is not
equivalent to any other type of brutal assault, but to
remove sex as a factor puts it there.
The primary motivator is what I generally call "The Pendulum
Effect," although I'm sure that I haven't coined that - when
a concept has been swung to an unreasonable extreme, the act
of "righting" it has a tendency to swing it out almost as
far (or farther - this is human behavior, not physics) to
the other side. Since for years it was perceived that the
culture regarded rape with too much of a "men will be men,
it's just about sex" attitude, so much insistence was made
on looking at the non-sexual aspects of it (and they are
there, I would never deny that) that somehow the generally-
accepted concept became that rape wasn't really ever about
sex at all, which is just as skewed an attitude as saying
it's only about sex. And, as we can see anecdotally
in this very thread, it is a continuum of both. Kind of
like Ete pointed out from a slightly different
direction.
I'd put Spike's act on the "it's about sex as an indicator
of feeling, pushed forcefully as part of a prevailing
pattern" end of the continuum - it is so close to fitting
the B/S established foreplay that many of us treat it as
only "sort of" attempted rape. Very far removed from the
metaphorical rape perpetrated by vampires on the show over
and over, which even then has aspects of sexual-type
satisfaction in the perpetrators as a prime motivator.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [>
Just a general comment -- Caesar
Augustus, 21:35:18 07/17/02 Wed
I'm certainly no expert, but it would seem to me every rape
is different. Different rapists have different motives - for
some it's certainly about power - for some about owning
property - for some it is about the sex. Likewise, different
victims would react and interpret the events in different
ways. I think it's fairest to analyse a particular rape,
e.g. the Spike incident, as an isolated incident with its
own motivating factors, rather than assuming things about it
from other incidents.
[> [> [> [>
p.s. I think you posted the idea on this board... -
- shygirl, 15:46:41 07/16/02 Tue
because I didn't do chat, but have read past messages... and
I like the idea very much. No one should be condemned to be
a killer, even in a good cause... of course we need a
definition of what that good cause really is! ;-)
[> [> [>
well, dracula seemed to think so! -- anom,
14:21:55 07/16/02 Tue
"... if the body is dusted... does that liberate the human
soul to an afterlife and 'unfreeze' them?"
Dracula as played by Bela Lugosi in the original movie, that
is. "To be truly dead...it must be...glorious!" It's been
too long since I read the book--anyone know if that line is
in it?
[>
Holes in Logic -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:10:51
07/16/02 Tue
I know that my logic has holes in it. That's what happens
when you try use a viewpoint that justifies the murder of
human beings.
However, I would like to see this point brought up on Buffy.
Religions have been founded under less logic, so we might
see a new, slightly less dorky vampire-worshipping cult.
[> [>
Re: Holes in Logic -- Robert, 14:57:05 07/16/02
Tue
>>> "... so we might see a new, slightly less dorky vampire-
worshipping cult."
What vampire-worshipping cult are your speaking of?
[> [> [>
The cult from "Lie to Me" of course. --
Forsaken, 21:23:52 07/16/02 Tue
[>
This may sound crazy ... -- Caesar
Augustus, 18:05:51 07/16/02 Tue
but I think it's a moral issue .... not a length-of-life
issue. Y'know what with vampires bein' evil 'n all.
[> [>
Re: This may sound crazy ... -- Finn Mac Cool,
22:50:46 07/16/02 Tue
When saying vampires are evil, you are doing so based on a
certain definition of right and wrong. Numerous views on
good and evil exist. And some of them paint vampires as the
good guys.
You must consider, if a creature is going to die sooner or
later, what difference does it make if it is sooner? And,
if it happening sooner helps someone, namely a vampire, why
shouldn't it happen?
Of course, all of us, being humans, are probably gonna
disagree with this. I do, too. But still, there is some
logic to it.
[> [> [>
Re: This may sound crazy ... -- Caesar
Augustus, 01:05:14 07/17/02 Wed
To be picky, the PtB created the slayer, so it's really
based on their sense of morality, but your point is well
taken. There's no objective way to say that human morality
is the "right" morality but vampire morality is wrong. We,
as humans, do kind of have vested interests.
[> [> [> [>
to be REALLY picky... -- tim, 06:17:54 07/17/02
Wed
If we take Fray to be part of the canon, then the
ancient shamans who became the Watcher's Council created the
Slayer, not the PtB. Which really takes things more back to
Rob's point about us having a right to defend ourselves.
--th
An odd spoiler for next season -- Alvin,
05:23:27 07/16/02 Tue
The post below about the Annointed one got me wondering
what, if anything, the kid who played him has been doing so
I went the Internet Movie Data Base and was shocked to see
that Tim Curry is listed in the credits as Uther, The First
Vampire(2002-????) ! (I guess the first vampire would fit
in with the theme of Back to the Beginning) Anyway, I
usually check out the spoiler boards, but I hadn't seen
anything about Tim Curry before. How reliable is the IMDB
and where do they get their info?
[>
imdb can be unreliable -- Rahael, 05:33:15
07/16/02 Tue
It's information comes from people who write in, as I
understand it. There have been numerous mistaken casting
reports re Buffy on there.
You might want to check out www.spoilerslayer.com
[>
And consider... -- Darby, 05:53:33 07/16/02
Tue
Tim Curry is committed (and maybe should be for it) to
Family Affair. Although I'm figuring five eps tops
before it gets axed, I'm sure the producers have him
contracted through this season and beyond.
Curry does have the talents to be a good Buffy
villain, though. And if Giles was around, we could have the
Battle of the Frankenfurters! Maybe David Arquette could be
worked in as well. That's something UPN would promote the
hell out of! Make some sort of WWE theme
week...Star Trek has used wrestlers before, why not
tranvestite wrestlers?
[> [>
Curry is brilliant but -- Arethusa, 06:00:52
07/16/02 Tue
thanks to his many campy roles, he might not be a good
choice as villian. I'd love to see him as a Watcher,
though.
I grew up watching the original "Family Affair." My sister
had a Mrs. Beasley doll. I give it three weeks.
[> [> [>
Re: Funny Curry Movie -- Purple Tulip, 06:22:36
07/16/02 Tue
Tim Curry cracks me up--- I agree with you that he would
make a great watcher- I could deffinately see that. If you
want to role on the floor laughing, watch The Worst Witch
with Curry and Faruza Balk. It's hystericaly funny and sooo
bad---my friends at school and I watch it whenever we want a
good laugh.
[> [>
Re: And consider... -- CW, 07:02:08 07/16/02
Tue
Way O/T. Wasn't the name of the younger girl in the
original Family Affair, Buffy?
[>
Re: An odd spoiler for next season -- Arethusa,
06:54:37 07/16/02 Tue
I just read in our local paper (their motto: We're the only
paper in town, so you have to read us!) that Tim Curry has
guest starred in BtVs. Somebody did a google search instead
of doing his homework-tsk, tsk.
More on artistic responsibility. (Spoilers for
American Gods, sort of) -- Darby, 08:36:41 07/16/02
Tue
My motto: anything worth beating to death with a stick is
worth beating for at least a week. Hell, it's still
wiggling, let's take a shot.
Anyway, my wife is reading American Gods and
mentioned that it gets quite raw in places, not for prurient
reasons but enough that she doesn't really believe it
appropriate for anyone but adults - too much stuff that
would present a very distorted view of adult sexuality for
someone with no or limited experience. She understands why
the passages are there but, since our son would really like
the rest of the book, wishes they weren't. It's an adult
novel, Neil Gaiman certainly had a right to include adult
themes.
To the point. Say there is a Buffy movie, and the
story Joss finds he wants to tell - after all, the Scoobies
are still largely adults now - is much more explicit than
what has been allowed on television. Given for this
discussion that the cast and studio is willing, is it
reasonable for Joss to go ahead and create his hard-R
version of the Buffyverse, and younger fans be damned?
[>
Re: More on artistic responsibility. -- Robert,
09:21:14 07/16/02 Tue
>> "... is it reasonable for Joss to go ahead and create his
hard-R version of the Buffyverse, and younger fans be
damned?"
This question has a much greater scope than just Mr. Whedon
and BtVS. Some individuals (such as Roger Ebert) have argued
for years that artists should be allowed to create movies
which tells adult stories and exclude children (under age
18) from viewing them. Ebert specifically has lobbied for an
adult movie rating which is not tainted by pornography. The
X rating became so tainted because the MPAA never protected
it (with trademark or copyright) as they had done for G, PG,
PG-13, and R. Consequently, the pornographers were allowed
to use the X rating in any way they chose in furtherance of
their dubious artform.
Contrast this with the opinion of some that there should be
nothing on the TV or movie screen which in not suitable for
children. My parents hold this opinion, though I do not.
Neither of these two extremes addresses your question of
whether Mr. Whedon can reasonably create an R rated Buffy
movie. There seems to be two parts to your question. First,
is it reasonable to make a Buffy movie which excludes the
teenagers, who make up the core of the viewership on the UPN
show? Second, if Mr. Whedon did create a R movie, should he
bear the responsibiliy for all the children who snuck in and
saw the movie anyway?
The first question addresses both the marketing of such a
movie and the responsibility Mr. Whedon may, or may not,
hold toward specific demongraphics of the viewing public.
The second question is an indication of how screwed up the
whole movie industry, and this country in general, is. If
this country is serious about preventing children from
seeing R rated films, then maybe we shouldn't let children
see R rated films. As it stands, there is nothing to stop a
determined child from seeing such a film, and our society in
general doesn't have a problem with that.
Having said this, is it fair to blame the writer or producer
of an R rated film, when a child sees the film in the
theater or on DVD? I would like to suggest that either
everyone is to blame, or that it isn't such an important
issue after all. My personal belief is that by the time a
child is 14, he or she should be making their own reasonably
informed decisions about what movies they view.
The conclusion is that I believe that it is quite reasonable
for Mr. Whedon to make a R rated Buffy movie and I believe
that parents should take their teenage children to see it
(assuming that it is any good) and then discuss what they
saw afterwards. If the movie is truly a work of art, then
the gore, violence and sex will not be gratuitous.
[> [>
Good Question... here's the answer you don't want to
hear -- neaux, 10:56:29 07/16/02 Tue
I guess I'll answer your question with another question.
Dont ya hate that!!
Have you ever seen a television to Big Screen translation
get higher than a PG-13?
(although I just heard today they are thinking of making a
Big Screen version of The Sapranos which would definately
get an R.
[> [> [>
Re: Good Question -- Robert, 11:19:34 07/16/02
Tue
>> "Have you ever seen a television to Big Screen
translation get higher than a PG-13?"
I don't know why you think I wouldn't want to hear a
question in answer to my question. It is quite an effective
way to lob the ball back into my court.
In answer to your question, no I haven't seen any movie
versions of TV shows go any higher than PG-13. I can see
likely reasons for this. It is a marketing decision in an
effort to garner the greatest revenue. In the same vain,
most of the tv shows which have been selected for adaptation
have been child or teenage oriented to start with.
I tend to agree with your implication that a BtVS movie
would also likely be PG-13. Again, it would be for
marketing reasons, instead of some moral imperative. If Joss
Whedon could finance the film with his own resources, then
he could make it any way he chose, though he would still
have to find distribution. But, as long as it is somebody
else's money, then such decisions will also belong to
somebody else.
[> [> [> [>
Yeah.. I totally agree.. and do wish so. -- neaux,
11:52:50 07/16/02 Tue
Yeah... I'm sure everyone would rush to see an "R" rated
Buffy. I know I would at least.
But when it comes to alienating fans... the younger crowd
would get left out in the cold, and like you said, there is
the money issue as well. The movie companies need their
dollars... and ad tie ins work better with PG-13 and lower
titles.
in fact, has there ever been a rated R movie tie in with a
fast food chain?
[> [> [> [> [>
If there's gotta be ad tie-ins... -- Dariel,
17:59:20 07/16/02 Tue
I think I'd rather skip the whole thing!
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Then you can skip Minority Report, too. Ugh! --
Can I be Anne?, 08:53:27 07/17/02 Wed
[> [> [> [>
Re: Good Question -- cjc36, 07:49:14 07/17/02
Wed
And in this imaginary R-rated BtVS movie: Not only does Joss
have to keep the studio/distributor/theater chains happy, he
has to keep his stars happy, too. Say SMG wants this, and JM
wants that, and AH threatens to walk, and ASH doesn’t' care,
but his new bossy agent does, etc. There would be way to
many cooks in the kitchen for any movie, much less a
'radical', narrower interpretation of a broader story
universe, to really work and still have Joss being auteur-
guy.
By the time it's done, I wouldn't be surprised if what comes
out of the sausage machine resembles very little of what we
loved of Buffy the series.
Star Trek has had, what, nine movies? Only one, IMHO, really
captured the feel of the classic series, and that's II.
[> [> [>
Sopranos would be a different case, though... --
Rob, 11:43:25 07/16/02 Tue
...since, if any episode of the regular series were taken
directly off the television and screened as a theatrical
release, it would be rated "R." As it is now, HBO rates it
TV-MA (mature audiences only; for violence, sex, language,
etc).
So that show would be an exception...and the film rating of
"R" wouldn't be any higher (or more adult) than the TV show
content. Same goes for any HBO show, should any of them ever
be given the big screen treatment.
Rob
[> [> [>
Sopranos would be a different case, though... --
Rob, 11:46:23 07/16/02 Tue
...since, if any episode of the regular series were taken
directly off the television and screened as a theatrical
release, it would be rated "R." As it is now, HBO rates it
TV-MA (mature audiences only; for violence, sex, language,
etc).
So that show would be an exception...and the film rating of
"R" wouldn't be any higher (or more adult) than the TV show
content. Same goes for any HBO show, should any of them ever
be given the big screen treatment.
Rob
[> [> [> [>
Damn! Damn! Double damn! -- Rob, 11:48:10
07/16/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Damn! Damn! Double damn! -- Masq, 12:04:42
07/16/02 Tue
I was going to erase one of your double posts (hey, I'm
bored here at work, it's something to do), but your response
to it is so amusing, I don't think I will.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
LOL! Why, thank you! :o) -- Rob, 14:47:04
07/16/02 Tue
[> [> [>
Please don't tell me "Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With
Me" was PG-13!!!! -- leslie,
12:23:57 07/16/02 Tue
[> [> [> [>
Re: "Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me" was rated
R -- Brian, 13:08:30 07/16/02 Tue
[> [> [> [>
Good Catch.. but look at the numbers. -- neaux,
13:47:25 07/16/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Good Catch.. but look at the numbers. -- leslie,
14:26:13 07/16/02 Tue
I think it makes the point that the rating of a movie of a
television series corresponds to the "rating" of the series
itself. As another example, I would say that the X Files
movie was about as sexy (i.e., not so much explicitly) as
the series; likewise, I found it interesting that in the
interviews that came out around the Scooby Doo movie, it
appeared that the possibility of "upping" the rating with
sexual suggestiveness (especially Velma's putative
lesbianism) was considered, and then dropped, apparently to
conform to the perceived rating of the original series. When
a movie seriously breaks the tone of a series it is (claimed
to be) based on, it tends to enter the realm of parody.
Consider "Flash Gordon" versus "Flesh Gordon" for
instance.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
However. -- Darby, 14:46:07 07/16/02 Tue
My point was not really about what is most likely to
happen, but given Joss' attitude toward what happened to
Tara (greatly discussed here), I don't think that it is
beyond imagining that he could decide that, in order to do a
movie significantly different from the show (or what's the
point?) he might decide to explore themes just touched on
this past year. Could Spuffy, or Warren, or Dark Willow
have been clear "R" extreme? And, if he decided that this
was the Story He Wants to Tell, do reservations by those
"considering the audience" have any impact at all, or should
they? You could make a case that such considerations should
have arisen going into S6.
And also, I'm not invoking the ratings system except as
shorthand - I figured everyone would understand what a "hard
R" was.
[> [> [>
Monkees and Head -- parakeet, 22:22:43 07/16/02
Tue
The Monkees followed a PG-type show with an R-Rated feature
called Head. It tanked, of course, but has survived as a
cult favorite, apparently. I haven't had the opportunity to
see it, but it was written by Jack Nicholson. It's
interesting because, arguably, the Monkees were already over
as a phenomenon. They might have extended their initial
popularity with a PG hit movie, or it might just have seemed
like a pathetic attempt to avoid being has-beens. A PG
movie would have probably been the smarter move, but I like
the thought of the darkly psychedelic Head being out there.
It makes them seem a little cooler now, even if they didn't
mean it that way. Heck, go out with style.
Sorry, I'm too tired right now to tie this in with
Buffy.
[> [> [> [>
oh, and artistic responsiblity -- parakeet,
22:40:52 07/16/02 Tue
So the kids couldn't see it then. They do grow up, you
know. If they snuck in and grew up a little sooner (or got
confused), well, what is the yardstick for such things? The
responsiblity should lie with the parents and, ultimately,
the adults that the kids (hopefully) grow up to be. I'd
hate to live in a society where culture is always aimed at
what is appropriate for the little ones. The ratings system
is reasonable enough protection of delicate
sensibilities.
[> [> [> [> [>
Head -- dream of the consortium, 08:35:02
07/17/02 Wed
It's pretty entertaining on some strange level. Definitely
worth watching as a cultural artifact if you're interested
in the late sixties. Rather tame, though - it certainly
wouldn't get an R-rating today. Maybe there was some brief
female nudity, I don't remember, but I think, other than
that, there were just a few jokes about pot and slightly
steamier kissing than the tv allowed. The boys are quite
obviously stoned through most of the film, maybe that was
the problem. They certainly had a lot of fun poking at
their own image - one scene had a waitress address Davy
Jones thus: "Well, if it isn't God's gift to the eight year
olds."
Yeah, so I was a Monkees geek in my youth - what of it?
On artistic responsibility - I'm pretty traditionalist. I
believe an artist is reponsible to, well, I guess you'd have
to say Truth and Beauty. Parents are responsible for their
children and what their children are exposed to. Of course,
studio executives are responsible for creating a product
that will sell, and complications (perfectly legitimate
ones) will no doubt result, if Joss feels that the material
he needs to cover is adult. Personally, I would love to see
more adult material in movies. Not more sex and violence,
there's plenty of that, but it's generally very adolescent
sex and violence, laid on just to get the adrenaline going,
with very simplistic underlying themes (if any). I've said
it before, I'm saying it again - Buffy this year explored
sexuality in ways I've never seen on television, ways that
were adult in the best sense of the word. I would hope that
tendency (to look at adult issues in adult ways) would
continue onto the big screen.
[> [>
Movie Ratings -- Rattletrap, 15:09:16 07/16/02
Tue
Censorship in movies has been a thorny issue for nearly 100
years now, that seems unlikely to change. The present
system was an attempt to _inform_ people about content
without attempting to _control_ that content and was, in
that respect, a significant departure from the heavy-handed
moralistic censorship laws that predated it. How successful
it has been remains open to debate.
Robert wrote:
"This question has a much greater scope than just Mr. Whedon
and BtVS. Some individuals (such as Roger Ebert) have argued
for years that artists should be allowed to create movies
which tells adult stories and exclude children (under age
18) from viewing them. Ebert specifically has lobbied for an
adult movie rating which is not tainted by pornography. The
X rating became so tainted because the MPAA never protected
it (with trademark or copyright) as they had done for G, PG,
PG-13, and R. Consequently, the pornographers were allowed
to use the X rating in any way they chose in furtherance of
their dubious artform."
'trap responds:
The MPAA attempted to address Ebert's concerns in 1990. On
27 September of that year, they introduced the NC-17 rating.
Jack Valenti explains that they decided early on not to put
a trademark on the "X" rating so that producers could self-
apply it without submitting the film for rating to the MPAA
like they had to for a G, a PG, or an R rating. Over time,
however the X became associated with pornographic filmmaking
and the MPAA decided to replace "X" with "NC-17". Unlike an
"X", filmmakers cannot self-apply the "NC-17" rating. While
this does not _strictly_ mean that an NC-17 film has
"artistic merit" (whatever that means), most pornographic
filmmakers don't bother submitting their stuff to the MPAA,
they just continue to use a self-applied "X" designation.
More on this subject at the MPAA's website here
. Valenti's version of the history of the rating system
tends to be a bit self-congratulatory, but it more or less
tracks with everything else I've read on the subject.
Just my $.02
'trap
[> [> [>
Re: British video ratings -- KdS, 04:44:07
07/17/02 Wed
If anyone is interested, most BtVS videos and DVDs (since
Surprise/Innocence) and all AtS videos and DVDs have been
rated 15 in Britain. This means that shopkeepers can be
fined for selling/renting them to anyone who's under 15.
That may be because we have a slightly more restrictive
attitude to violence on this side of the Atlantic though.
I'd also say that a few BtVS episodes we've already seen in
television have had a distinctly dark attitude to adult
sexuality, going back as early as the Xander/Faith/Angel
scenes in "Consequences". I've been disturbed to hear some
people I know talking about ten-year-olds watching it. Am I
being prudish?
[> [> [> [>
Re: British video ratings -- Sophist, 09:24:26
07/17/02 Wed
Well, my daughter was 9 when the show began, so that made
her 11 when Consequences aired (and 10 for Surprise), etc.
She's seen every episode. My personal view is that
sheltering kids is a mistake. Instead, we need to be
available to discuss things with them when they do happen.
JMHO.
[>
Re: More on artistic responsibility. (Spoilers for
American Gods, sort of) -- LadyStarlight, 15:49:06
07/16/02 Tue
This reminds me of a conversation I once had with a fellow
'fan' of Piers Anthony's work. He had put out a book called
Firefly, which dealt with child/adult sex as one of
the themes. (as far as I remember, it's been a really long
time now)
Anyways, my friend & I were discussing that book vs.
Anthony's other major series, Xanth. Now, Xanth has many
teenage/preteen fans, and Anthony openly admits this, and is
proud of it.
I had taken the position that, because of these younger
fans, perhaps he should not have published the book as Piers
Anthony. My friend argued the opposite side. We went
around this topic for a while and couldn't resolve it.
I still feel this way, but with an added twist: could that
book have been published if the authour hadn't been
Piers Anthony? Are 'established'
writers/filmmakers/painters allowed to push the envelope
more because of the name attached to the work?
I never would have read Firefly if it hadn't been for
the name on the book, and never have felt the need to reread
it.
[>
Re: More on artistic responsibility. (Spoilers for
American Gods, sort of) -- Rahael, 03:23:01 07/17/02
Wed
I must admit I come at this from a completely different
perspective – one thing I have always been grateful for
growing up was the complete lack of supervision I had re
books. We didn’t have television or the internet, so perhaps
there would have been a different policy if so, but
basically I had free reign over a large library. My mother
was content for me to read anything, as long as I remained
critical of it. I often read aloud in the evenings, and she
would interject sharp comments (this occurred most
especially during some more ….interesting…parts of the Old
Testament, or Enid Blyton). So basically, she handed me a
set of critical analyses: question what books say. Look at
askance at caricatures, question truth claims and compare it
with your life. Is this credible? And so on.
So I remember learning a lot about sex reading Lady
Chatterly’s Lover (age 8). My sister who read it at the same
time, aged 6 became convinced that the birth of baby
chickens had something to do with the act of sexual
intercourse. I didn’t disabuse her lol! I learnt about
lesbian relationships reading The Colour Purple (age 10). I
read everything from George Bernard Shaw, the Bible, Enid
Blyton, PG Wodehouse, Gray’s Anatomy and Jane Austen. I can
even remember reading the Kama Sutra – the stuff about
social rules sticks out more in my mind than the sex (it was
a non illustrated version). To give you some idea of the
eccentric ideas of my parents, my father sent me ‘Crime and
Punishment’ for my 10th birthday with strict instructions
not to start reading it until my exams were over (as if! I
may have been a fan of Dostoevsky, but light reading he is
not).
Perhaps they were more concerned that I’d absorb my
culture’s disturbing ideas about what women should do (put
up and shut up, marry who your told to, do what your husband
tells you). At the end of the day, it may have simply been a
beneficial neglect. I’ve never had the words “you aren’t
ready to read/see/view this” said to me.
I understand and sympathise with the point about distorted
views of adult sexuality, and I haven’t read American Gods,
so I can’t really comment on that. But I receive a more
distorted view of adult sexuality from the constant,
unchosen bombardment entailed with living in a culture than
I do from books/films I deliberately seek out. I’d have to
ask, how does one protect children from some of the more
distasteful ideas out there? It’s a question I don’t know
how to answer, apart from constantly setting out the
opposite view to them.
As for Joss producing an R rated film – I always trust that
he does it within a context and a framework. BtVS is one of
the most strongly moral shows around (in that it asks one to
consider serious issues, and reconsider one’s own
behaviour). I’m far more disturbed by the video games I’ve
seen in passing, where people are encouraged to kill. And be
rewarded for repetitive skill rather than original
thought/solution. You simply learn what moves to do to pass
on to the next level.
I’m not someone who goes to see a very violent film (I’ve
never seen anything of Tarantino’s) but I’d go and see
anything Joss does. I think there are some very dark things
out there in the world, readily available for viewing on the
news that are far more likely to present a distorted view of
the adult world than a dark adult themed BtVS film; in fact,
I see BtVS as a counterbalancing force. I loved Miller’s
Crossing despite the graphic violence, because I thought it
had a really thought provoking message about violence and
the people who commit it.
Speculation on Season 7 -- Spike Lover, 09:34:05
07/16/02 Tue
Well, last week I posted a message about rumors that "Oz"
was coming back to Buffy next season and the ugly inference
that Seth Green made about Buffy on Jay Leno. I posted it
and promptly forgot to check back to see if anyone had
responded.
Anyway, I was watching a rerun of 'lover's walk' where Spike
has been dumped by Dru and he comes back (drunk) to S'dale.
In that ep, Willow is dating Oz, but Xander and she are hot
for each other. I keep wondering, will there be a love
triangle in Season 7 between Will, Oz, & Xander, or do you
think the writers have gone too far (beyond the point of no
return) with the lesbian story line. Rather than simply
being a lesbian, couldn't Willow actually be bi-sexual? I
mean, if you look at 'The Wish', evil Willow is definately
Bi. She is 'with' evil Xander, but has definate interest in
females.
What do you think?
Also, is it for certain that season 7 is the end?
[>
Re: Speculation on Season 7 -- Purple Tulip,
10:39:04 07/16/02 Tue
I'd love to see Oz come back, but I think it's very doubtful
that that will happen. I heard that when he left the show,
he broke contract and basically up and left because he
didn't think his character got any good stories---hello?
like the whole warewolf thing wasn't major! But anyway, it
just seems very unlikely that he'll come back, but I wish
that he would because I loved him and Willow together. I
mean, I liked Tara too, and I think that the show will miss
something without her, but I just thought that Oz and Willow
were cuter together.
About life after season seven---I've heard rumblings that
there might be a season 8. Nicholas Brendon stated in an
interview (I think it was with YM) that he's contracted for
three more seasons. I think that most of the cast is
contracted past season 7, accept for Sarah Michelle Gellar,
whose contract is up after this season. So, does this mean
that we might be seeing Dawn the Vampire Slayer following
the end next May??? Who knows...but I really hope that they
don'tkeep the show minus SMG, because that just wouldn't be
cool---I'd rather there be no Buffy than a replacement.
[> [>
More options than "Dawn the Vampire
Slayer"... -- Drizzt, 20:31:39 07/16/02 Tue
Angel has his own spinnoff show, wich has a signifigantly
different style and feel than the Buffy show.
The show about Giles will obviously be different than
BTVS.
Willow is an interesting character; they could do a show
where Willow is the main character and Dawn plays a
supporting role.
[>
Re: Speculation on Season 7 -- meritaten,
12:36:13 07/16/02 Tue
While I loved Oz (but hated Seth Green in every other role
I've seen him in), I don't think he'll be back. Willow has
insisted so many times that she is no longer interested in
men. I don't see the writers reversing that. Besides, many
people are upset over the loss of Tara/Willow as a symbol.
I think the writers must realize that that would only
intensify if Willow takes a renewed interest in men.
[> [>
Re: Speculation on Season 7 -- ahira, 14:07:01
07/16/02 Tue
I just have a thought on the whole Willow always saying
"Gay now". It really seemed to me like it paralleled Spike
and his "Remember I'm evil" statements. Personally, those
statements always gave me the feeling of someone saying it
more to convince themselves than the people they were saying
them to. I have always held a belief that Willow is bi.
From the episodes listed above, vampwillow sure had bi going
on. Also, all the talk about the Tara/Willow relationship
losing meaning or being trivialized if Willow falls for a
guy. Did anyone feel that Willow falling for Tara
trivialized her relationship with Oz? Someone a while back
made a post that I really liked. Willow is not about male
or female. She is about love. She found love with Oz and
was very happy. Then, Willow found love with Tara and was
very happy. Personally, I always preferred the Tara/Willow
relationship and am very happy they did it. Should Willow
fall for a guy in season 7, I would really not have a
problem with it as long as it was done right. I feel the
same for if she falls for another woman. Personally, there
is enough ambiguity involved in the Willow persona to be
able to support bi-sexual orientation pretty easily. Even
in Tabula Rasa, she doesn't say, "I think I am gay.". She
says "I think I am a little gay." All I want is for the
quality of shows to continue and for these incredibly
interesting characters I love to watch stay true to what has
come before.
[> [> [>
Re: Speculation on Season 7 -- meritaten,
14:20:15 07/16/02 Tue
I agree that the character could easily be bi. However, I
really doubt that Willow will be written that way in the
wake of the furor over Tara's death.
I was never a fan of Tara. I missed Oz and thought he was a
much better character. Still, I don't see him coming back.
While the character Willow could fall for a guy again, it
might not be the best choice politically.
I don't want the show to become an arena for political
debate... ...but why would they need to make her bi?
Wouldn't it be better not to ruffle feathers
unnecessarily?
[> [> [>
I agree -- shygirl, 15:40:15 07/16/02 Tue
I like that.... Willow is about love... Love is a pretty
powerful force...and it's a good point.. I think she may be
bisexual... she loves and is happy... when loves goes, she
is sad.
[> [> [>
Re: Speculation on Season 7 -- Caesar
Augustus, 18:32:02 07/16/02 Tue
I'd personally prefer to see her more involved with her
friends, playing more of a best friend to Buffy and Xander.
I think she has a lot of growing to do as a person before
she should really be consumed with another relationship.
What demon on both Buffy and Angel is the most powerful
so far? -- daemon, 11:54:21 07/16/02 Tue
[>
Re: What demon on both Buffy and Angel is the most
powerful so far? -- leslie,
12:21:04 07/16/02 Tue
Okay, I have obviously been spending too much time in
extremely nit-picky proofreading, but do you mean "which
demon on Buffy and which demon on Angel are most powerful,"
"which demon of those we have seen on Buffy and Angel
combined is most powerful," or "which demon that has
appeared on both Buffy and Angel is most powerful"? If the
latter, I would have to say it's Angel himself--he was
powerful enough to get spun off into another series
altogether!
[>
Buffy -- Ete, 12:36:14 07/16/02 Tue
Since she's still alive, she was stronger than them :)
[> [>
Interesting ... so Buffy is a demon! -- Robert,
14:21:04 07/16/02 Tue
[> [> [>
The Slayer is, yup -- Ete, 14:32:10 07/16/02
Tue
[> [> [> [>
Slayers and Demons -- Finn Mac Cool, 22:55:14
07/16/02 Tue
Not neccesarilly. After all, before her ressurection snafu,
Spike couldn't hurt Buffy without the chip going off. That
shows that, biologically at least, she is a living human,
not a demon. A demon may or may not be the source of the
Slayer powers, but that doesn't make the person with the
powers a demon. I've always had a theory that the Slayer
doesn't get her powers from an external source, but is
actually releasing an ability that's been in her from
birth.
[>
Re: What demon on both Buffy and Angel is the most
powerful so far? -- meritaten, 13:05:39 07/16/02
Tue
I vote for GLory.
Awfully hard to fight a god, you know!
[> [>
My Vote -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:04:56 07/16/02
Tue
Glory was technically a god, not a demon. I vote for either
the Judge or the Post-Ascension Mayor. The Mayor was bigger
and it took a bigger explosion to kill him. On the other
hand, if anybody with an ounce of goodness in them comes
near the Judge, their fried.
[> [> [>
Re: My Vote -- Forsaken, 20:31:47 07/16/02
Tue
I'd have to vote Olvikan too. That thing was big and bad,
and it took a volcano to kill the first one.
[> [>
... except that Glory wasn't a demon! -- Robert,
14:22:20 07/16/02 Tue
[> [> [>
Ok, but she's still my favorite villian, with the Mayor
second -- meritaten, 14:26:54 07/16/02 Tue
[> [> [> [>
Re: The Mayor was my favorite villain- he was so funny
to watch -- Purple Tulip, 10:21:15 07/17/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
He made S3 very enjoyable! -- meritaten,
10:43:54 07/17/02 Wed
[>
Re: What demon on both Buffy and Angel is the most
powerful so far? -- Majin Gojira, 11:48:34 07/17/02
Wed
Most Powerful forces of evil in Both Series (in no
Particular Order):
1) Glory
2) Olvikan
3) The Judge
4) The Senior Partners
5) The Master
Both Buffy and Xander managed to bring out the worst in
their partners. -- VHF, 18:31:55 07/16/02 Tue
I just realized after watching Hells Bells that both Buffy
and Xander played a very large role in bringing out the
worst in their sexual partners. Both Spike and Anya have
been members of the Scooby Gang not because they really care
about riding the world of evil. They do it because of their
love of their respective partners. They both have horrid
pasts and a strong potential dark demonic streak in them,
but they were willing to fight against it for love.
When Buffy and Xander threw that love in their respective
faces they turned to each other in Entropy for comfort.
Spike and Anya’s evil demonic potential also came to the
forefront in episodes like Seeing Red and Entropy. It was
Anya that tried to erase Xander Harris from existence in
Entropy and it was Spike that lost control in Seeing
Red.
Anya in the end stopped Spike from making a wish against
Xander and Spike did stop him self and go out to get his
soul. What some people keep forgetting that Spike’s greatest
weapon is his vampiric nature. If Spike really wanted to
rape her he could have easily before or after she kicked him
off, simply by vamping out and sucking enough of her blood
to make her weak and defenseless, or he could have killed
her or turned her. The reason he didn’t was because he never
really wanted to hurt her. Anya never really wanted to hurt
Xander either; I guess the message is that love can bring
out the best in us like it did to Anya and Spike in season 5
and the first half of season 6 and it can also bring out the
worst in us.
[>
Would "Hell's Bells" have gone the way it did
if Xander were marrying Cordelia? Willow? -- cjl,
19:36:22 07/16/02 Tue
I agree about the parallels between Buffy and Xander and
their respective partners, but I also get the feeling this
horror was waiting for Xander the first time he was serious-
-as in "I want to marry you" serious--about a woman. His
parents are SO horrible--and watching the repeat, it was
Xander's Mom, Jennifer "The Martyr" Harris, who got my
stomach acid churning this time--he seemed almost destined
to chicken out when it came to a "lifetime commitment."
Would it have made any difference if Cordelia or Willow were
the bride? Granted, neither is a demon (OK, if you want to
pick, Cordy WASN'T a demon when she was dating Xander), but
in this case, demonhood is just a metaphor for "baggage."
Cordy and Willow could have brought their own supernatural
disaster to the wedding....
Option A) Cordelia is very similar to Anya--straight
talking, take no bull, high libido (just ask Groo)--and
she's perfectly willing to discuss everybody else's flaws in
great detail. Would she have let Xander repress his way to
the wedding, or would she have verbally bludgeoned him until
he 'fessed up? Hard to tell, but it's worth noting that it
took a while before Cordelia was aware of her feelings for
Angel. (She and Angel were apparently the last to know.)
Since Xander seems to be an expert at swallowing his fears,
it's quite possible that Cordy would have been blissfully
unaware of huge problems until it was too late.
Option B) Much tougher call, but same result. Willow is
also big with the repression, and they might have skated
right through to the wedding. Let's say Buffy and the
monster don't show up for ten extra seconds in "When She Was
Bad," and Xander licks that ice cream off of Willow's nose.
S1/2 Willow's dream come true. But given Willow's mammoth
self-image problems, she would have held on to Xander the
way she tried to hang to Tara. She would have desperately
pushed away every conceivable problem, squeezed and
manipulated circumstances and events until they begged for
mercy. And in the end, the wedding probably would have
turned out the same.
So...a pre-ordained disaster. JMO, though. Dissenting
opinions?
[> [>
Re: Would "Hell's Bells" have gone the way it
did if Xander were marrying Cordelia? Willow? --
meritaten, 20:44:16 07/16/02 Tue
Am I the only one who thinks that Buffy played a very large
role in Xander's vision? Everything in the visoin seemed to
revolve around Xander missing Buffy and feeling guilty over
her death. Yes, there was a lot about XAnder and Anya
becoming estranged, but it all started when Buffy dies. X/A
problems revolved around Buffy.
Or is it just me?
[> [> [>
Re: Would "Hell's Bells" have gone the way it
did if Xander were marrying Cordelia? Willow? --
parakeet, 21:39:48 07/16/02 Tue
I think that Buffy was the convenient excuse for Xander's
unconscious desire to screw up the nuptials.
Buffy is obviously a large part of his life and would be
even without any romantic or sexual desires. She's the
hero, and a lot of his self-image comes from helping her
battle the forces of evil. While he's carved out his own
identity with Anya and the construction job, his role as
Scooby Gang member is just too important to be supplanted by
ordinary success.
So it makes sense that that would be the excuse used to
justify turning away from Anya, even if it is used
indirectly (i.e. "Buffy's dead and I can't cope"). Of
course, the real problem is that he doesn't think that he
can provide Anya and himself with a better life than his
family taught him to expect, and he's too afraid to try.
It would probably be the same with Willow or Cordelia. The
only wild card would be if he and Buffy had gotten together
(not that I would at all want that). He might have allowed
himself to get further out of some perverse sense of hero-
worship. If Buffy's the kick-ass superhero, then surely she
would bear the responsibility of failure (he might "think"
subconsciously). Or maybe not.
[> [> [> [>
A disaster waiting to happen -- Spike Lover,
08:12:30 07/17/02 Wed
W/ Xander's ego problems, (remember Riley's and Angel's when
he was human again), I doubt he could handle staying home
with the kids babysitting, while his superhero wife is out
kicking ass. His ego would self destruct as Riley & Angel's
did.
Spike (yes, I am bringing him up again), I believe, could
have handled staying home with the kids while mom is out
kicking ass. Maybe because he was never really into 'saving
the world'. He could be supportive of Buffy doing that (w/o
his active participation or his ego being involved) because
he seemed to have the attitude, of well, that is Buffy's
interest. (His interest was creating chaos, remember.)
I don't have a clue what the 'new' Spike will bring. If he
is more like William, one has to ask, (if he and Buffy are
an item next season), could William's FRAGILE ego deal with
a very powerful, goal oriented woman? Personally, I think
it is a recipe for disaster. Buffy needs a Giles in her
life.-- No, not Giles, but a Giles type. A good listener,
but an -in the background guy-. Giles never got upset that
the slayer got all the credit.
If I were on the payroll (as writer for the show and this
was definately the last season) I would get rid of Spike's
soul and vamp Buffy. No one really knows if a slayer could
actually be turned or not. (There must be a reason that
slayers were usually slain rather than turned.) Would she
turn out to be sort of like Angel, vampire strength, etc-
but still an agent for order? (Ok, I guess that is why I am
not a writer for the show.)
[> [> [>
Re: Would "Hell's Bells" have gone the way it
did if Xander were marrying Cordelia? Willow? -- Caesar
Augustus, 00:46:49 07/17/02 Wed
I've asked myself this question too. Does Buffy still have
romantic feelings for Buffy?
I'd take both sides I think. The fact that Buffy turned up a
few times in the visions is significant. But I
certainly don't think that's the reason Xander
couldn't work it with Anya. It's his own insecurities and
his parents' screw-ups that haunt him. Nonetheless, what are
we to draw from Buffy's presence? Is his love deep down for
Buffy so great that no other woman could ever compete?
Probably not, but worth a thought.
[> [> [>
Re: Would "Hell's Bells" have gone the way it
did if Xander were marrying Cordelia? Willow? -- Cactus
Watcher, 06:01:06 07/17/02 Wed
My opinion changed slightly last night watching again. The
vision was supposed to give Xander a nightmare version of
his future. What does Xander fear most these days? Being a
failure. It wasn't so much about Xander loving Buffy (he
always will, at least in a fraternal way), but failing her.
Remember he says Buffy needed him, then Anya replies that
she died anyway. Then we see him a failure as a father and a
husband. Finally, when he attacks Anya over his disgust
with himself, he is a complete failure as a person in his
own eyes.
I'm not sure how or why the demon would want to hurt
Cordelia or Willow, but if he did, I have to believe
Xander's nightmares would be very similar. It wasn't about
Anya having been a demon. It was Xander's loathing of his
own worst traits, and his fear of turning out like his
father.
[> [> [> [>
CW: The supernatural wedding crasher wouldn't have been
the same in the C/X or W/X weddings... -- cjl,
06:54:23 07/17/02 Wed
Okay. Alternate universe time.
In the C/X wedding, the gate crasher could have been Marcie
Ross (or perhaps Anyanka I), taking one last shot at Queen
Cordy by sabotaging the ceremony; in the W/X wedding, a
demon might have come calling to collect on a Faustian
bargain made by Willow to ensure eternal happiness with
Xander. (Hey--maybe Sweet!)
Either way, the Harrises would have fought with the
people/creatures on the other side. (Harrises v. Chases?
Would have been even messier than the fight we saw in
"Hell's Bells." Harrises v. Rosenbergs? Ira and Sheila
would try to spot psychoanalyze Tony, and he'd punch their
lights out.) Xander would have had his panic attack, and it
would all end up the way it did last night...
[> [> [> [>
Xander and failure...(spoilers up to Grave..) --
shadowkat, 08:00:11 07/17/02 Wed
"It wasn't so much about Xander loving Buffy (he always
will, at least in a fraternal way), but failing her.
Remember he says Buffy needed him, then Anya replies that
she died anyway. Then we see him a failure as a father and a
husband. Finally, when he attacks Anya over his disgust with
himself, he is a complete failure as a person in his own
eyes."
I agree. This is clearly echoed in Two -to -Go and Grave
where Xander complains to both Anya and Dawn about his
failure to save Buffy.
In fact Xander's discussion with Anya in the magic box
echoes Hells Bells nightmare discussion. In Two-To-Go Xander
is convinced that Anya is upset with him b/c he didn't
prevent Buffy from being shot. He did nothing
and she almost died. But Anya isn't upset about that, she
didn't blame him for that, she blamed him for standing her
up at the alter. In Xander's head - Anya blames him for
failing to help Buffy. We often project our own fears and
insecurities onto others. Xander believes Anya hates him for
the same reasons he hates himself - his failure to be a
hero, his cowardice. Anya believes Xander stood her up
because she was a vengeance demon. Nope. cjl is right - he
would have stood up Buffy/Willow/Cordy or the Inca Mummy
Girl for the same reasons.
It's not until Grave when he stands up to Willow (the scene
oddly enough reminds me of a scene from HArry Potter and the
Socerer's Stone or Star Wars...where the unlikely character
who always runs suddenly stands up to what he fears).
Xander's worst nightmare? Failure. Being the Coward.
It always was. See Nightmares in Season 1 - what scared him
most? The Clown chasing him. When he stood up to it? It was
gone. In Fear Itself? Failing to be seen. Being invisible
because he couldn't do anything to help. In Restless?
Running away from his problems, failing, being nothing
more
than a sacrificial lamb, being heartless like his
father.
In Hell's Bells up to that scene in Grave - we see him
live
that nightmare.
[> [> [> [> [>
Running in Place: Xander's Dream in Restless --
cjl, 10:22:14 07/17/02 Wed
And, for the first time, Xander's dream in Restless now
makes perfect sense. I've read the transcripts of Joss'
Season 4 DVD commentary, and last night's repeat finally
crystallized some of his points in my mind...
Xander is in constant motion during his dream, but he never
seems to go anywhere. School, work, playground, he keeps
jumping from place to place, but he always winds up back in
the basement, with his father upstairs waiting to
pounce.
The ride in the ice cream truck is equally telling. The
truck is bolted to the floor, but the background scenery is
moving. Xander is supposedly "in motion" with his life in
S5 and S6 (fiancee, career, ADULTHOOD), but he hasn't
confronted the damage of his childhood--he's frozen in
place, and the illusion of movement is only distracting him
from a drastically needed self-appraisal.
He finally lets go of his fear of failure (and his mother's
self-pity?) by saving Willow and the rest of the world in
Grave. Let's hope the lesson sticks this time.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Running in Place: Xander's Dream in Restless -
- Rahael, 10:24:43 07/17/02 Wed
Yes, Joss kept repeating the fact that he wanted to show
that Xander wasn't going anywhere, (and that he always ended
up back in the basement) and this tied into all the camera
effects he was using. A lot of work was put into this, it
seemed, from the set, the shooting, etc etc.
[> [> [> [>
"Hell's Bells" and the Yellow Crayon
speech -- alcibiades, 09:26:11 07/17/02 Wed
"What does Xander fear most these days? Being a failure. It
wasn't so much about Xander loving Buffy (he always will, at
least in a fraternal way), but failing her. Remember he says
Buffy needed him, then Anya replies that she died
anyway."
I hadn't really made the connection before this except in a
general way, not a "textual" way, but this vision he is
shown by the wedding demon of failing Buffy and then one by
one failing everyone else (and notice his life in this
vision is Willow free), does tie beautifully into the
forcefulness of Xander's attempt at rescuing Willow in
Grave. He's had a vision of what a world where he failed to
rescue Buffy would feel like and look like. And then in
Grave it's clear that if no one turns Willow back, not just
Xander's future will be at stake. And now he has just
learned the solution is not to withdraw and silently despise
himself but to engage the other through love.
It's as though his experience in Hell's Bells has given him
a clear moral imperative on how to act. Spend yourself,
don't withdraw.
[> [> [> [> [>
"spend yourself, don't withdraw" I like
that.. it's brave. -- shygirl, 14:44:01 07/17/02
Wed
[> [> [>
I got that too. Xander loves 2 women: Will & Buff, but
seems to 'settle' for A -- Spike Lover, 07:59:37
07/17/02 Wed
[> [> [> [>
Re: I got that too. Xander loves 2 women: Will & Buff,
but seems to 'settle' for A -- meritaten, 14:15:57
07/17/02 Wed
Actually, I believe that loves Anya. ...but I think he's
confused about his feelings for Buffy.
..or at least I did. I'm still thinking through the other
responses to my question.
[> [> [> [> [>
Willow is his best friend; Buffy is his hero. --
cjl, 15:01:22 07/17/02 Wed
For most guys, those spots are filled by men. Xander's
problem is that these normally Platonic roles are occupied
by sexually desirable women. If Xander were 30 (like, say,
Nic Bredon), I think he'd be capable of both committing to a
wife/sexual partner and keeping Buffy and Willow as
important people in his life. (It would take one heckuva
woman to deal with Xander's significant others--but if Anya
could do it, somebody else could, too.)
Unfortunately, Xander is still only 21/22, and he's not
mature enough to juggle three male/female relationships with
complicated and vastly different subtexts for each. (EEK!)
Hence, confusion.
(You gotta feel for the boy. But then again, since he gets
to hang with Buff and Willow and had Anya as a G/F for two
years, I don't sympathize TOO much...)
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Willow is his best friend; Buffy is his hero. -
- Kurt, 01:44:10 07/18/02 Thu
Buffy is the unattainable. Perhaps you never had the
experience but often when you finally resign yourself to the
fact that you have no chance with that girl you put her on a
pedestal. Sexual love is transferred to hero worship. You
see the girl as a saint. Someone who to your eyes can do no
wrong. So when Xander found out that Buffy was sleeping with
Spike, it wasn’t jealousy he felt but a supreme
disappointment. It would have been like if you found out
that Ghadhi kicked his dog and ate meat. Say it ain’t so
Buffy.
Willow was the girl he grew up with. She supported him and
he supported her when they grew up. It was almost a brother-
sister relationship until they became teenagers, and Xander
stopped seeing Willow as the little neighborhood girl he
played with in the sandbox, his pal, but hey Willow isn’t
his sister, and she is quite hot.
No Anya is his true love. But, and I almost hate to mention
it, have you noticed how many times Anya and Giles have been
together? When they lost their memory Giles and Anya thought
they were husband and wife. And in this last episode, at the
end in the magic shop it was only Giles and Anya. Is this
foreshadowing?
I don’t think Buffy is destined to have a man, so Buffy and
Dawn being together in the end makes sense because that will
be the most important relationship she will have.
So are we going to see this year Xander and Willow, Anya and
Giles? And of course we have the new souled Spike coming
back he thinks for Buffy, but actually he is going to fall
in love with Dawn. Dawn is now about the age Buffy was when
she met Angel. And Angel was much older when he met Buffy
(around 200) than Spike is now (100 or so).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Willow is his best friend; Buffy is his hero. -
- Nic, 03:31:55 07/18/02 Thu
Just the mental image of Dawn and Spike together is enough
to make me go blind. Practically speaking, it just wouldn't
work because JM is like 40 (though he looks younger, maybe
around 30 or so) and Michelle Trachtenberg is not even 20
but her character is 15(16?) and the actress looks likes
she's 13!
Thematically, it would be a total betrayal of the
redemptionist arc. How do you spend two years carefully
constructing a relationship clearly based on a surrogate
father/daughter model or maybe more appropriately protective
older brother/adoring little sister? The writers had to
maneuver like crazy to make B/A's relationship seem less
creepy by implying that B/A were soul mates and even
symbolically married (the claddagh ring) and even then the
issue of a clearly older guy (even if you disregard his true
age and consider Angel to be in his mid-twenties) moving in
on a young virgin didn't really die. BtVS has been
completely unambiguous in the portrayal of Spike/Dawn, with
no latent sexual or romantic undertones. He's never
threatened her life, even indirectly. It's Dawn, not Buffy,
who brings out the best in Spike because he loves her
without the obsession. His attitude towards Dawn is
reminiscent of Dru- protective, loving, tolerant and far
less overtly sexual than what he has with Buffy. How could
Buffy possibly trust him with Dawn's safety if there was
even a hint of something different? She is so certain of
Spike's attitude that that trust survives even the AR.
You'll never see Spawn for the same reason you'll never see
Giles/Buffy- it smacks too closely of emotional incest.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
MT looks like she's 13 ? -- Ete, 04:44:32
07/18/02 Thu
Obviously the though of Dawn and Spike together did make you
go blind, that girl is gorgious... I'm ashamed to say I
don't stop noticing it. But then I'm not 40...
Well apart from that I agree, their relation ship has too
many big brother - little sis tone to be transformed into a
romantic ship. And it would be sick to see Spike in love
with Buffy settle for her sister.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Blind and Sick to Stomach Now -- Spike Lover,
09:25:53 07/18/02 Thu
Ick. Dawn and Spike? Ick. Dawn and William? Ick.
I think Xander 'settled' for Anya.
I am in favor of a X/Willow pairing and a Giles/Anya
pairing.
[>
Re: Both Buffy and Xander managed to bring out the
worst in their partners. -- meritaten, 20:39:31
07/16/02 Tue
I've never understood how the writers expect up to believe
that Spike tried to rape Buffy. Yes, he's evil - we all
know that. However, even given that evilness, it was still
so out of character, at least out of the character of the
last two seasons. I think Buffy brought out the best in
Spike. It seemed that the writers turn an abrupt U-turn. I
don't think it worked.
Spike didn't want his soul back - he wanted the chip
removed. The mo-jo guy misunderstood (perhaps
intentionally) what Spike had requested.
[> [>
Re: Both Buffy and Xander managed to bring out the
worst in their partners. -- VHF, 20:54:16 07/16/02
Tue
Thats what you think Spike intended.
[> [> [>
It's been pretty well established by the Powers that Be
(the writers) that Spike wanted a soul. -- Forsaken,
21:29:59 07/16/02 Tue
[> [> [> [>
Not sure I'd agree with that assessment ... -- Earl Allison,
02:24:40 07/17/02 Wed
I have to disagree here.
Well and established are NOT the words I would have
chosen.
Poorly-written, perhaps, or poorly-executed. It doesn't
speak well of the writing and execution when the writers
have to EXPLAIN what they've just showed you.
A clever twist would (or should) have had the majority of
the audience going "Oh! Of COURSE! NOW I see it!" As
opposed to the large numbers that still feel cheated by what
they see as poor writing, or worse, calling it an out-and-
out lie.
And it's not the first time this season, either. Writers
have had to spell out that what Spike did was attempted
rape, and yet there are still those who claim that it either
didn't happen, or wasn't "really" an attempted rape.
Before that, Marti and others had to practically TELL
viewers that Spike was still EEEEVIL -- something that
should have come across a lot clearer -- had it been well
and consistently written.
Don't get me wrong, some people saw ALL of this without
writer explanation, others saw it and didn't care for it
(but still got it), and others feel cheated overall.
But why the massive differences in interpretation THIS
season, and not in others?
That's the biggest problem, IMHO, with this season, poor
writing/execution. Whatever happened to SHOW, don't TELL
your audience?
Intentionally vague is one thing, but when you (again, IMHO)
all but TELL the viewers one thing, and switch it, you're
not clever, you're a barely passable writer. And I expect a
LOT better from ME's stables of writers -- they've proven
capable in the past.
Frankly, like with jokes, when you have to explain it, it
ruins things -- and here, it implies that you didn't do a
good job initially.
Take it and run.
[> [> [> [> [>
agreeing with you -- Rahael, 02:34:19 07/17/02
Wed
Personally, I think Joss is still playing us. Giving away
everything about Spike's motivations, his reasons - way too
much could be then inferred for Season 7, non?
And as for the attempted 'rape', I saw a pretty vicious
attack. I was obviously spoiled for it, had seen the
discussions on the board about it - when I saw SR, I gasped
with shock. EA, that denial has nothing to do with what was
on the screen - it has everything to do with the viewers
watching it.
I thought, actually, SR was a great ep. Beautifully done. On
the one hand we argue for subtlety (overheavy drug
analogies) and on the other we try to erase away undeniable
scenes to suit our needs. What can ME do?
[> [> [> [> [> [>
I think Forsaken meant well established by their post-
comments, not by the script :-) -- Caesar
Augustus, 04:03:36 07/17/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Agreed, but I felt it needed adding because ... --
Earl Allison,
04:23:46 07/17/02 Wed
I was trying to give what I felt was equal time and billing
to events I might personally have seen as "obvious," like
the attempted rape of "Seeing Red." Especially since I am
one of those who STILL doesn't agree that Spike was seeking
a soul -- equal time for all, as best I could :)
I mentioned the rape because the issue seems to be far from
decided by some fans ...
There are a few heated exchanges going on at the alt.buffy
newsgroup where some STILL contend it wasn't rape -- an
attack, but not rape. I've also seen at least one poster
who won't even acknowledge the action from SR at all -- I
wanted to group it with the rest of the items.
And, since there are some who are as certain that Spike
sought a soul as I was of Spike's actions in SR -- I wanted
to be as fair as possible in pointing out the "vague" points
of the season -- because it WAS spelled out by writers
before AND after the fact -- much as the soul/chip, Spike =
EEEEVIL, and other items were.
Take it and run.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I understand -- Rahael, 05:12:34 07/17/02
Wed
It's very fair of you!
I must say, that despite a couple of comments in chat, I had
totally not realised that there were fans who didn't think
it was rape. Despite the writers writing it as such, and
despite James Marsters thinking of it as such. So you are
right - perhaps I'm too easily shocked. Perhaps others are
more used to these kind of incidents. Actually, I'm just
bemused, I have no kind of compass for this - the terms of
the debate are different to what I'm used to, and that's
completely a limitation on my part, I get that.
All in all, it's an educative experience.
I'm suddenly thinking that I've been wearing rose tinted
specs re sex/relationships. ( a side comment re the debate
at the bottom of the board)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Agree -- shadowkat, 08:29:12 07/17/02 Wed
You're Not wearing rose-colored glasses IMHO. Most
successful relationships are not that violent or visceral.
Unsuccessful ones usually are - just speaking from my own
experience. And I pray you haven't experienced them, it's
not fun.
I agree with both posts you made here Rah.
It was a vicious attack and I for one have had troubles
watching it. I literally squirmed and left the tv when it
was on. No doubt in mind that it was an attempted rape. But
I don't believe Spike intended it to be - I think he lost
control - which to be honest is how most attempted and
actual date rapes happen and is precisely the reason they go
unreported.
The rapist didn't intend to do it. There is a prevalent
fiction on college campuses in US that guys can't stop
themselves once they get worked up - not true by the way,
but often used as an excuse.
The lack of intent does not make them less vicious or not
"attempted rapes". They still are. Losing control is not an
excuse. But you have to remember that Spike is not a man and
does not have a soul - he is a demon and was always in
danger of losing control if and when she spurned him. The
attempted rape
was probably inevitable...and that's why she had to break it
off and that's why she said she should have never gone there
to begin with. She can't trust him. Did I like how this
storyline turned out? Nope. Sorry, seen it done too many
times - it's becoming cliche.
But I appreciate the risk they took in doing it and I think
they did it amazingly well. Better actually than anyone else
has that I've seen to date. I still have very disturbing and
complex feelings regarding it. Feelings I'm not sure I'm
comfortable exploring...PArtly because they showed the
relationship and the attempted rape in such a way that
neither character came out very well...and that is not only
risky but also extraordinarily difficult to do. After SR I
was left uncertain how I felt about a lot of things.
I also hope and pray that ME can bring both characters back
from it and do a more positive relationship between them
next year and not spend half the year rehashing the
attempted rape and punishing Spike over and over again for
it - that gets really old, really fast. Do it in two
episodes, do it effectively, then please please move on.
Do I think Spike wanted a soul afterwards? Difficult to
say.
When I watched it, without knowing the writer's comments? I
think he unconsciously did. I think Spike is a character in
constant conflict with himself. PArt of him wants to be a
good person for Buffy, part wants to stay evil and doesn't
understand why he has to change. Very realistic struggle for
adolescents. Agree with you on this as well Rah, I think
vamps are a metaphor for arrested development, frozen as it
were in time. The soul will either end his internal conflict
or just increase it.
SR really demonstrated that conflict in an incredibly
painful fashion for both the viewer and the characters.
Probably more painful than was absolutely necessary. Wonder
if they will live to regret it? Because as much as I
appreciated and like SR, because it was very well done, I'm
not sure I can sit through it a third time. Twice was more
than enough.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Agree -- Rahael, 08:34:22 07/17/02 Wed
Nice post, SK, agree entirely.
I think SR was very well executed by Stephen de Knight (I
like All the way!!). I think he took a very difficult idea
and did it as well, and in the most complex way that he
could. Waiting with interest to see his eps next season
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Agree -- shadowkat, 08:46:33 07/17/02
Wed
I did too, have liked all his works, even the much malinged
Spiral...but unfortunately Stephen DeKnight is off
Btvs and on Angel now. They moved people around
according
to someone who posted on B C & S - Deknight went to
Angel,
Greenwalt left Angel for some other show, and Fury
jumped
to Firefly. So Whedon may be writing more Buffy next
season.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Agree only up to a point -- Sophist, 09:01:34
07/17/02 Wed
Here's the key point:
The lack of intent does not make them less vicious or not
"attempted rapes". They still are.
Legally speaking, the lack of intent is precisely what
makes it not an attempted rape. That's the problem with
the scene as written.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I didn't know this..it explains the conflicted
reactions of -- shygirl, 09:15:40 07/17/02 Wed
myself and perhaps others... I was unconsciously responding
to the fact that I never saw an "intent" to rape Buffy. It
just turned out that way for many of the reasons S'kat
metnioned above. Thank you, you've helped me understand my
feelings about the scene.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Thanks for pointing that out and I think that's what ME
intended -- shadowkat, 09:33:43 07/17/02 Wed
Yep...that was exactly what disturbed me about it.
"Legally speaking, the lack of intent is precisely what
makes it not an attempted rape. That's the problem with the
scene as written."
And it's precisely why so many attempted date rape
situations/scenerios are impossible to convict.
I remember doing a scenerio like this in law school, the
biggest hurdle was proving intent, and it is close to
impossible in these scenerios. No matter what we did, we
couldn't prove it. So I guess in a way that made the
scene
more real. Hmmm...now that I think about it, I believe
that's what Marti and company wanted. JM stated in the
recent Shore Leave interview that Joss Whedon encourages his
writers to put their deepest darkest fears on paper.
And Marsters suggested that Spuffy and the whole SR
scene
was MArti's darkest fear. Not the obvious "attempted rape"
but that horrible murky one -"attempted rape" without
intent, which leaves the victim and the attacker both
wondering what happened. Far more disturbing and common
that
a legally proven "attempoted rape".
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
Re: Thanks for pointing that out and I think that's
what ME intended -- Sophist, 09:54:21 07/17/02
Wed
Maybe so. If they intended that, they should say so. Not
just in public comments, but in the show itself. And
then they shouldn't contradict that point in their published
comments. I'm ok with "nuance" even on such a serious
subject. But if that's what they intend, they need to make
the nuances really clear; it's irresponsible
otherwise. And they don't help matters by writing the scene
badly and then muddling the water afterward in their public
comments.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [>
public comments -- meritaten, 10:19:36 07/17/02
Wed
Does anyone know where I could still read these "public
comments"? I'm getting the feeling they are required
reading!
Thanks!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [>
Re: Thanks for pointing that out and I think that's
what ME intended -- leslie,
11:31:04 07/17/02 Wed
"But if that's what they intend, they need to make the
nuances really clear; it's irresponsible otherwise. And they
don't help matters by writing the scene badly and then
muddling the water afterward in their public comments."
I am slowly coming to the opinion that what ME really needs
to do is not only plan out the real arc of the season, but
then also plan out their "fake" arc so that they're all on
the same page when it comes to interviews. The key to good
lying is consistency! Part of the problem is that whenever a
writer/producer is interviewed, he or she gives an
interpretation of what's going on that is completely at odds
with what anyone else has said. Then everyone is confused
and feels betrayed. So: Consistent lies during the season,
then it's a free-for-all when the season is over and
everyone can look back in retrospect at what's happened.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [>
Agree...and maybe .. -- shadowkat, 11:35:12
07/17/02 Wed
They shouldn't let some of the writers do interviews.
Joss and Jane seem to be the only ones who do them
without
pissing off the audience. ;-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [>
Well that sounds like fun!!! -- shygirl,
14:30:55 07/17/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [>
I agree entirely Sophist & warning rant on SR --
shadowkat, 11:32:40 07/17/02 Wed
"If they intended that, they should say so. Not just in
public comments, but in the show itself. And then they
shouldn't contradict that point in their published comments.
I'm ok with "nuance" even on such a serious subject. But if
that's what they intend, they need to make the nuances
really clear; it's irresponsible otherwise. And they don't
help matters by writing the scene badly and then muddling
the water afterward in their public comments."
Been holding back my criticism of this season for far too
long...now that it's over and I've had a chance to think
about it?
What you state above is exactly why I disliked the rape
scenero. While I don't believe it was necessarily written or
acted badly, I think that the way they did it was so
ambiguously vague as to give mixed messages to viewers who
already receive way too many mixed messages on this
topic.
The public comments - meritian can be found on Succubus
Club, Bronze Beta, some of Wanda chat archives - check
www.slayage.com to see the articles where writers have been
interviewed.
Rant ensues - you were warned!
It bothers me that television continues to examine the
issue of attempted rape and rape so irresponsibily. When I
learned they planned to take the "no I mean yes" S &M
sex
between B/S in this direction, it bothered me. I prayed they
would handle it well and not too ambiguously. For a while I
convinced myself that they had. Now after months of reading
posts on the topic and having seen said scene two times,
even reading the shooting script, no, I'm sorry I agree with
Earl Allison and Sophist, they did NOT do this responsibly
or well. They put it in last minute and it felt like a last
minute decision designed to remphasize Marti's view that
soulless, Spike is a bad dude. She did it because of the B/S
reaction and she implied this in two interviews with Wanda
and in an interview with SFX, in the SFX Vampire edition she
said - a soulless vampire was similar to a sociopath and
they thought they'd gotten that across. Apparently they
needed to reiterate their thesis. Okay fine...but do it
earlier, not three episodes away from the end. And not with
a scene that can be misinterpreted by viewers in dangerous
ways.
It was not clear to the viewers that it was an attempted
rape. Many viewers went away with the feeling that it was
Buffy's fault - a feeling that I myself felt which continues
to disturb, frighten and sicken me to my core.
I hate that I felt that. But the writers manipulated me in
that direction by episodes such as Dead Things, Smashed, As
You Were, Wrecked, Gone, and Entropy. By the time SR
happened I was as confused about Buffy's feelings as
Spike.
It took many rewatchings, several essays to realize what
they intended.
While I love ambiguous writing and don't want to be told
what to think - there are some issues that should not be
told too ambiguously. This also was not just ambiguous
writing - it was vague and at times confusing. It could have
been done better. They could have had it happen somewhere
other than the bathroom (it still makes no sense to me that
he visited her in there - we've never seen anyone go in her
bathroom before). They could have had her injured in the
fight with Warren first or even worse by the
saws. A tomb stone didn't cut it. Or a tub. They could have
had him try to bite her - that would have played and it
would have worked perfectly with both the character and what
was established in Smashed. They had so many options
in which to show Spike needed a soul in order to be
redeemed
and he was the bad boyfriend without going down this well-
trode and difficult path.
I've forgiven them for it....mainly because I liked the
Clem/Spike scene that followed. Just as I have sort of
forgiven them for not doing a better job with the
trials.
But, now that all is said and done? I really wish they
hadn't done it and I really hope they don't rehash it too
much next season. I'd like to forget it.
Oh final note - they did it far better in the Pack with
Xander...why they felt the need to go there again, I don't
know. I even liked the subtle references in Initiative,
Harsh Light of Day and Go Fish. This was too painful and
IMHO not necessary. I still think there was a better way and
regret that they didn't find it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [>
Is Marti a man-hater? -- Spike Lover, 12:09:57
07/17/02 Wed
I totally agree with your comments.
Talk about confused feelings of Buffy!! How irresponsible
was it to allow Dawn to go to Spike's place after SR? I am
so relieved he was gone, because poor Spike would have
thought- 'Well, she does love me because even though I
tried/did a bad thing yesterday, she forgives me and
continues to trust her family with me.'
In a word, no NEVER means no with Buffy. The End is NEVER
the end.
But, anyway, I fear this rape scene is going to be a big
issue next season. After all, Xander knows about it and he
has conveniently forgotten about 'The Pack' when he wanted
to rape Buffy. And DAWN knows!! She will do something
stupid I am certain.
So why does Marti hate Spike? Is she??? I think James M
said in an interview that most of Season 6 was showing
things that Marti had lived through herself. Did she once
spurn and sexually use a man who tried to rape her in the
end? Does she believe all men are soulless evil creatures
with no chance of being redeemed due to their basic nature?
I have seen writers (of books) whose own experiences with
men were so bad that they never allowed the hero/heroine of
the book win at love. They were that bitter.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [>
No, she isn't ... -- Earl Allison,
12:27:52 07/17/02 Wed
I hope the above was in jest.
Hard for Marti to abhor the male gender since she's pregnant
:) And, IIRC, she did it the old-fashioned way.
Yes, the darkness of this season did have a lot to do with
Marti's personal experiences, and maybe it was a bit
voyueristic and creepy that it was THAT influenced by her
past -- but I think calling Marti a man-hater is unfair.
Remember, SHE thought she was showing us (the viewers) that
Spike was still a Bad Thing (TM) for relationships.
I didn't have a problem with that, since Spike as anything
other than a villain or reluctant anti-hero didn't work for
me. But, that being said, I CAN see why a lot of fans liked
him -- of course, I'm also a tad bitter given the canon line
we were handed in Angel's "Disharmony" about vampires and
their chances for rehabilitation -- "Disharmony" seemed to
tout the canon party line (which I felt was more
consistent), if you will, while late season 5 Spike was
flirting, IMHO, with making Angel pointless.
Anyway, getting back on track, Marti isn't a man-hater. If
she's guilty of anything, it's of letting her life and
experiences color the season with too much text and not
nearly enough subtext.
Take it and run.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: No, she isn't ... -- Spike Lover, 12:38:23
07/17/02 Wed
I did not 'call' her a man-hater. I asked if she was.
I will comment again, but not argue, that Buffy ain't real
good in relationships either. -Enough said.
There was another ep, in season 3, where ANgel comes back
mysteriously from Hell. W/o revealing his presence, Buffy
asks Giles if any creature that had been in hell (I think-
not remembering perfectly) could be redeemed? Giles does
not give the once an evil vamp- always an evil vamp line.
He says something like 'in his experience there are two
kinds of demons, the ones that are soulless and try to kill
everyone and the world, and the kind that try to be
redeemed.' I apologize for the bad paraphrase. Maybe you
can look it up somewhere.
(It is the ep where there has been animal attacks and
everyone fears that Oz got out when the moon was full.)
Also in that ep, the attacks have been actually perpetrated
by a high school student who took a Jeckyl/Hide solution and
is beating up his girlfriend. All of this is probably
relevant to season 6.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: No, she isn't ... -- Miss Edith, 13:15:40
07/17/02 Wed
Marti is not my favourite writer on Bts because some of her
messages seem simplistic at best. She wrote Beauty and the
Beasts in which there were puzzling messages particularly
with Faith saying "all men are beasts". The Ats episode She
in which men in another dimension were cutting off the part
of the women that makes them have free will was also written
by Marti. I got the impression she was simplifying the issue
to penis envy and it was hardly a good exploration. And in
IOHEFO we were encouraged to sympathise with the school boy
who "accidently" killed his lover whilst shouting and
intimating her by waving a gun at her when she ended the
relationship. The episode ended with the two of them sharing
a romantic kiss and her telling him she was sorry for
breaking things off and she had loved him "with my last
breath".
I don't however think Marti is a man hater, rather I think
she has an attraction to bad boys which frightens her. She
has said in interviews that Riley is based on her husband
and she adores the character. But in college she had a
relationship with a "bad boy" who she perceived as bad for
her. She has been almost rewriting that experience with B/S.
Again in interviews she has said that she sees herself as
the Buffy character and Buffy is her role model whilst she
has specifically given Spike characteristics of her ex since
being in charge of the show. I think she is fine with most
of the individual episodes she produced. But she has not
done such a good job at overseeing the show as the B/S
relationship has just been a mess. Laying all the problems
at Spike's feet is not fair but in interviews Buffy's
behavious has been brushed off. E.g the beating in DT whilst
not acceptable was understandable apparently because Buffy
had issues. Everyone has an excuse when abusing someone they
love but I still hope Spike and Buffy both address their
behaviour and show remorse. The writers saying Buffy's
treatment off Spike is in the past does not fill me with
confidence.
Sorry if this aproaches bashing as I do have respect for a
great deal of Marti's work. I just haven't appreciated her
tendency to portray her own life on screan with Joss's
characters. James Marsters has said in a convention that
season 6 was basically the Year of Marti and had a heavily
autobiagraphical slant to it and Marti has comfirmed this in
many interviews. I just feel it would be wise for her to
rethink doing that as Bts is not a soap or a drama series.
It has elements from nearly all genres and making season 6
so heavy on relationship dramas just hasen't worked.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: No, she isn't ... -- Miss Edith, 13:48:43
07/17/02 Wed
Marti's views on what constitudes a bad relationship are
just different from mine. I can't agree with her decision to
portray the couple in IOHEFY as a tragicly romantic love
affair. I can't agree with Marti writing Buffy's run of self-
degregation in ITW when she discovers Riley has been
cheating on her, he gives her an ultimation and she goes
running. And when he returned Marti as the person in charge
that season clearly wanted it to be shown that things worked
out prefectly for Riley and Buffy has her self-esteem
improved when Riley the ex who cheated on her and abandoned
her when her mother was seriously ill tells her she is
worthwhile, yet offers no apology for his behaviour unlike
Buffy.
I find it odd that in a feminist show Buffy needs the middle-
class, white male to validate her feelings about herself.
Maybe it's just me.
But just because I don't always agree with Marti's views
doesn't mean I don't have respect for her as a writer so I
hope it didn't come across like that. I personally loved The
Wish and The Prom so I can forgive her disasters like Bad
Eggs and Wrecked.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Let's not forget BBB either! -- Rahael, 13:51:02
07/17/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I agree with you Miss Edith. -- shadowkat,
06:32:40 07/18/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Thank You, Miss Edith -- Spike Lover, 10:00:10
07/18/02 Thu
I have not kept up with what eps Marti has done or anyone
else. But I wish Marti would realize that Spike was not her
character in the beginning, and whereas he may resemble the
guy she saw in college, they are not the same. She, also,
is clearly not Buffy.
I recommend that Marti go get a good therapist and leave
Spike and Buffy alone. The characters in themselves are
rich enough to have a story line (Spike has 100 plus years
to draw on, after all) and Buffy has been through a lot.
I have to wonder again what Marti's point is. Is she saying
that all men are soulless, unredeemable creatures of the
night? The guy she dated in college certainly had a soul.
What does he have to do with Spike? I am glad she likes her
husband, but I personally hated Riley and he was a complete
mis-match for Buffy.
The truth is that the Spike/Buffy relationship was working
(to some degree) and she felt (I suspect) that her point
that Spike was an evil, soulless creature, unworthy of love
and unworthy to have the great hero Buffy was not coming
across. The fans (rightly so) believed they were perfect
for each other- (remember yin and yang)- so she continually
inserted scenes to "make the point that Spike was
untrustworthy and eeeevvviiilllll" (would-be rapist)until
they could arrange for his re-souling. (As if that was
going to fix the problem w/ her college boyfriend.)
I don't know what to expect next season, but I am dreading
it. I fear that they are going to bring back innocent
William or 'Angelus/Spike' who feels all guilty and broody.
The problem is that Buffy will never fall for the first, and
the second has been done already.
Of course, they could have Buffy in a bad accident where
part of her brain is squashed and so she has a complete
personality change and then she might love anyone that came
her way.
I think if you look at the development of the characters
over the entire 2 last seasons, you will see that Buffy did
'care' about Spike in some sort of degree- just as he was
(soulless and sweet) (whether the writers intended it or
not) and all last season they had the Buffy character deny
it.
I know I am opening a giant can of worms here, but I
continually come back to the fact that Buffy is a terribly
flawed character in her own right.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [>
Oh I soooo agree with your rant!! You said it well.
-- shygirl, 14:35:54 07/17/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
A legal question for Sophist -- redcat, 11:26:44
07/17/02 Wed
Sophist,
I’m not challenging your interpretation of the scene here
(although I do disagree with you about it, but that’s not
my
main point here). I actually have a legal question for you,
a matter of a point of law.
Does the legal concept of “intent,” as you are using it and
as it operates in the RL legal system, include only prec-
conceived, conscious intent, or does it also include intent
that arises during the encounter itself? For example, in
the
fictional case under discussion, intent in the first case
would be proved only if Spike had entered the bathroom with
the
previously-conceived intention of raping or attempting to
rape Buffy. I think we all agree, however, that Spike’s
*initial* intent was only to talk with Buffy, to explain his
behavior to her and perhaps to encourage her to continue
their
relationship. If, however, the legal definition of intent
also includes scenarios during which the initial or
originating
intention of the aggressor shifts from something that is not-
rape (conversation) to something that includes both an
intention to rape and actions that are the same as pre-
planned attempted rape, then I think we might have to accept
that
it is at least reasonable to reconsider that what Spike did
was, in fact, attempted rape.
I reproduce here (thanks!! Psyche) Spike’s side of the
dialog from the bathroom scene. Following his
sentences,
beginning during the segment before the commercial break all
the way to the point where Buffy kicks him across the
room, I see the development of an intention to force
unwanted sex on Buffy
“I know you feel like I do. You don't have to hide it
anymore.”
“Let yourself feel it.”
“You love me.”
“Let it go, let yourself love me.”
[BREAK]
“I know you felt it when I was inside you.”
“You’re going to let me inside you.”
You’ll feel it again, Buffy.”
“I’ll make you feel it.”
It seems to me that at some point (which I see in the visual
text as occurring just before the
break as the camera closes in on his face and which is
confirmed by his last sentence), that
Spike’s intention does become that of using physical force
to disrobe Buffy and thrust his penis
inside her vagina against her will. This, to me,
constitutes intentional attempted rape. But
given your and ‘kat’s lawyerly responses above, I’m now
unclear as to whether my
interpretation is supported by general or specific case-law.
I’ve seen it work both ways in
actual court cases, but as you know they are always
susceptible to variant interpretations and
forceful moral (rather than strictly legal) arguments about
the meaning of law.
I ask this question about the legal definition of intent
because, unlike Rahael and shadowkat, I
HAVE watched the scene over and over, trying to decide if it
would make a valuable resource
for encouraging college classroom discussions about the
complicated, inter-woven and often
quite confusing issues surrounding date rape and sexual
violence between men and women
who are friends. What I see when I watch the scene is a
specific moment when Spike’s
intention shifts, which for me does make it a scene in which
a violent attempted rape grows out
of an encounter not originally intended to be either violent
or sexual.
I’d like to note that what makes the scene potentially
useful for me is the ambiguity of
culpability, the very realistic sense that date rape is so
often linked to mis-communication and
bad behaviors on both sides. IMHO, both Buffy and Spike are
responsible for what happened
between them *throughout* their violent and tender
relationship. Both their previous actions
and the conflicted responses they apparently both had to
what happened in that bathroom
seem very much like real life to me, especially given the
parallels to the lives of many of the
college-age (SG-age) people I know. My concern here is not
whether an attempted rape
happened in socio-cultural terms, but whether an attempted
rape LEGALLY would have
happened if this had been a real-life scenario. Just don’t
want to steer anyone wrong on the
legal issues if I do ever get to use the scene in a
class.
Any info you can offer would be much appreciated.
rc
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
The problem of intent -- Sophist, 12:58:17
07/17/02 Wed
Intent is, as you can imagine, a significant and continuing
issue in the legal system. Many crimes depend on intent,
whether we are determining the very commission of the crime
or the magnitude of it (e.g., homicide -- is it murder 1 or
manslaughter). Rape is particularly confusing because,
unlike homicide, there are no degrees. It is or it
isn't.
Let me start by answering the easy part. No, it was not
necessary for Spike to enter the room intending to rape
Buffy. That intent could be formulated at any time during
the attempt. If you (the juror) believe he had that intent
at any time before Buffy kicked him off, he is guilty. Now,
however, we need to make clear just what that intent is.
Understand that I'm going to simplify a fairly complex
issue.
The criminal law has 2 basic types of crimes. Some are
called "general intent" crimes. Others are "specific intent"
crimes. General intent means only that the perpetrator must
"generally" intend some sort of harm to the victim. Specific
intent means that the perpetrator must intend a specific
type of harm. Clear enough in theory, maybe, but not
necessarily in practice, as we will see with rape.
Rape is a general intent crime. The rapist need not be
thinking "Hah, I'm going to rape you". He need not have any
particular intent. The only requirement is that he achieve
penetration against the will of the victim. In rape
cases, defendants argue about the "will of the victim" point
because it's a way of sneaking in a more specific intent
that's harder for a jury to find: sure, I intended to have
sex, but I didn't realize she didn't want it. Adding in that
mental state makes it harder to convict.
Attempted rape, in contrast, is a specific intent crime.
This means that the perpetrator must specifically intend
to rape the victim. He must, in this case, be thinking
"Hah, I'm going to rape you". Not "Hah, I'm going to have
sex with you", but "Hah, I'm going to have sex with you
knowing that you don't consent".
It's this latter point which makes the SR scene so difficult
to interpret. In my view (and others can differ on this),
Spike first realized that Buffy was not "consenting"
after she kicked him off. To me, that's what the
expression on his face meant at that moment. I interpret it
this way largely because the previous encounters between the
two (Smashed, Wrecked, Gone, DT), combined with his rather
desperate emotional state, make it likely that he was
thinking "Please, Buffy, this is just like those other
times. You loved me then, I know you can regain that." I
find it hard to see Spike in the bathroom thinking "Hah, I
know you aren't consenting here, but I'm going to screw you
anyway." This seems implausible to me on any number of
levels, including:
1. It doesn't make much sense to try this with the
Slayer.
2. It doesn't fit Spike's emotional needs as developed in
this and the immediately preceding episodes.
3. It doesn't fit his pattern of behavior over the previous
5 seasons.
4. It isn't consistent with his relationship with Buffy.
Feel free to differ. In any case, as I said, rape and
attempted rape are serious issues. If they are going to be
shown, the writers need to be crystal clear about what they
are doing. If it's attempted rape, set it up so there's no
doubt. If it's not, and you want to show the complexities of
bad relationships, don't come out afterwards and say it was
attempted rape. The lack of clarity (or consistency) here
seems inexcusable to me, whichever way you interpret the
scene.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [>
Clarification -- Sophist, 13:14:35 07/17/02
Wed
I should have made this clear originally. Sorry.
In cases of rape, the consent of the victim is something
that the defendant must prove. He must show that she
consented. The prosecution need not prove anything about the
defendant's mindset, except a general intent to achieve
penetration (which is obvious). The defendant brings in
consent in order to muddy the waters about his mindset.
In attempted rape, the prosecution must prove the
defendant's mindset, i.e., the specific intent to rape. In
this case, the defendant need not prove anything. That
difference in burden of proof is very important in dealing
with something as intangible as "intent".
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [>
Re: Clarification -- shygirl, 14:54:13 07/17/02
Wed
Good explanatin... and as S'kat indicates in the next post,
it really points out why rape cases are so hard to prove. I
really appreciate your explanation and clarification and
S'Kat's counterpoint...
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [>
Thank you very much. -- redcat, 13:25:56
07/17/02 Wed
Your careful explanation makes the controversy over the
"intent" issue much clearer to me now. As a legal issue,
then, it becomes a question of "when did Spike realize that
what he was doing was attempting to force penetrative sex on
Buffy against her will?" I agree with you that his full
realization of that fact came in the moment AFTER she kicked
him off. I disagree with you in what I think is your
contention (don't want to mis-interpret here, so please
correct me if I'm wrong) that at no time previous to that
moment (during this brief encounter) did Spike know that
having sex with her was against her will. I simply read the
scene and the actors' facial expressions and voices as they
say the lines differently than you do. This is clearly a
matter of interpretation, however, so I once again (lol!)
agree to disgree with you, while continuing to sincerely
respect your interpretation and opinions.
And thanks again for the legal clarification. No wonder the
several court cases I've been (tangentially) involved with
have been so difficult to resolve!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [>
Spike's Perception -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:31:37
07/17/02 Wed
Spike has always been the perceptive one. He's offered deep
insight into what people are really feeling when the people
closer to them aren't able to see it (the speech in "Lover's
Walk", knows Willo's still suffering in "Something Blue",
knows the issues troubling each Scooby the most in "Yoko
Factor", his Slayer's death wish analysis in "Fool For
Love", etc.) I have a hard time believing he couldn't pick
up on the fact that Buffy was unwilling. I think he did
know she didn't want to have sex with him, but he pushed
that information back and went into severe denial about
it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [>
Re: Spike's Perception -- leslie,
13:48:02 07/17/02 Wed
Actually, I think we are supposed to see Spike's atypical
lack of perception here as an indication of just how far off
the deep end he has gone. He is increasingly *un*perceptive
about what's going on with Buffy and him, and in a way, I
think that is meant to be an indication of his increasing
human-ness. Perception of other people's motives and
feelings is often gained only at the cost of being removed
from them yourself--objectivity requires distance. As Spike
becomes more and more involved with Buffy--and as her
actions toward him become more and more wildly ambivalent--
he becomes less and less able to read her. This is what is
driving him nuts. But I think we see the beginnings of this
lack of perception in Spike as soon as he fall in love with
Buffy--he can't quite figure out what he has to do to win
her, so he keeps trying different tactics (Hang around
outside her door and insult her hair? Nope. Show her that
her lover is cheating on her? Nope. Point out how he isn't
drinking the blood of accident victims? Nope. Laugh at her
mom's jokes? Nope. Dress nicely and take her on stake-outs?
Nope. Tie her up and make her watch you kill your ex? Nope.
Protect her family? Hmmm, maybe. Undergo torture and refuse
to reveal who is the Key? Yeah! Stand by her and fight
Glory? Okay, we're on to something here!). But this is a
trial-and-error process, not the immediate "[oh, I get it,
they're lesbians] You know they were talking about you two"
perception of The Yoko Factor.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [>
Well said -- Spike Lover, 10:25:45 07/18/02
Thu
I have to admit, I don't understand how Buffy feels, and I
am not certain that either Buffy or even the writers do.
After everything they had been through in Season 5 and the
first part of Season 6, I would have sworn that she had
warm, fuzzy feelings for Spike. (I did.)
I mean, all the time when she is back from the dead, and
they are hanging out, drinking, talking, etc., am I to
believe that she would have hung out at Willey's bar with
the demon trash and so confided with them if Spike had not
been around?
Am I to believe that when Giles left, she would have mugged
w/ anyone and she just picked Spike out of cruelty. (I
really don't like her.)(If that is where the writers wanted
to go, they should have had her being indesceet with other
men/demons as well. Then we the audience would have said:
oh, she is just escaping her pain through sex.-- It all
comes down to POOR writing.
Truthfully, where I thought they were going with all this
was this: Buffy does love Spike, flawed as he is, but is so
shocked that she could love a soulless and previous killer
of slayers and people, that she denies it.
Instead, the WRITERS have us believe, no Buffy just has
'problems' and she is using someone she cares nothing about
for sex. (Let me add here that since this is their thesis,
Hell's Bells is very badly written. What would Buffy care
who Spike brings to a wedding or if he bangs her afterward?
Also, what would she care if Spike bangs Anya either? They
have written her as such a primadonna **@#!!.)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Well said -- Arethusa, 11:08:54 07/18/02
Thu
Contradictory emotions in an affair are not unusual. Just
because Buffy didn't want Spike anymore doesn't mean she
won't feel jealous when she sees him with anyone else. I
don't believe the writers showed us that Buffy used Spike
just for sex-instead, she used him to feel better about
herself, a small but crucial difference. But she did use
him. People do that. Sometimes they don't even realize
what they've done until their own hearts are later broken.
(Not Buffy-just people in general.) Spike gave her
unconditional acceptance and love, but when he started
demanding more from her she broke up with him, because she
had nothing else to give him. Buffy grew to like him
("Sometimes.") and she liked the sex, which obviously scared
her quite a bit. As a snarkist, I'm glad for both their
sakes they broke up, but neither was evil*-just very
confused, and callous in their self-absorption.
*Evil towards each other. We know Spike is evil, because ME
kept telling us he was.;0)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [>
Buffy is Spike's blind spot... we all have them don't
we? -- shygirl, 14:55:31 07/17/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Buffy is Spike's blind spot... we all have them
don't we? -- Malandanza, 21:41:42 07/17/02 Wed
Actually, I'd say Spike's blind spot is Spike. He didn't
seem to have much difficulty with Buffy in Seasons 2-4, he
always knew exactly what to say to hurt her most or rattle
her. But Spike has a problem with himself -- at some point
in time he began to believe his own press releases. So as
he began to wrap Buffy up in his own fantasies, he lost his
objectivity. She became part of the Myth of Spike, the
irresistibly cool bad boy vamp with heart of gold, that
Spike carries around in his head. Thus, Spike is genuinely
surprised in Season Five when Buffy rejects him in Fool
for Love and Crush -- he cannot conceive of how
she could pass up a treasure like himself. It's not that
Buffy had been sending mixed messages and Spike was just too
dense to figure out that she really didn't want him, it was
that in reconciling his fantasy image of himself with
reality, he always erred on the side of fantasy. (The Buffy
Bot showed how Spike really viewed himself -- all those
programmed lines about how great he is) Like this scene
from Season Six:
Spike: But I'm in your system now. You're going to
crave me like I crave blood. And the next time you come
calling, if you don't stop being such a bitch, maybe I will
bite you.
There were several comments like this one scattered through
the season, so the AR is SR really shouldn't have seemed out
of character to anyone -- Spike simply couldn't understand
that Buffy didn't crave sex with him every waking moment of
her life. He didn't see how Buffy really views him because
he was too busy gazing at his own reflection.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [>
I'm not at all sure I disagree with you. --
Sophist, 08:53:39 07/18/02 Thu
My posts in this thread have probably left everyone
believing I feel more strongly about the intent issue than I
actually do. I go back and forth on it.
When the episode first aired, I started a thread arguing
that Spike's behavior, as shown, was out of character, and I
criticized the scene on that basis. Valhalla responded with
an excellent post outlining an interpretation of Spike's
mindset that made it consistent with the character I had
been watching. The intent argument I've presented here is a
short form of Valhalla's much better post, supplemented with
the legal stuff (that's my own).
My dilemma is this: if I see the scene as AR, then I get
angry because I see it as out of character for Spike (and
Buffy, to a lesser extent). If I try to solve that problem,
and absolve poor SDeK of bad writing, then I get into the
intent issue. I think it's a very plausible interpretation,
but you can (and you do) reasonably disagree. This makes me
angry again, because, as I've said before in this thread,
this subject is much too important to be presented in a way
that leaves viewers uncertain unless that uncertainty is
made explicit and dealt with.
Here's my take in summary form:
1. I don't like the way the scene was added. It was a heavy-
handed attempt to make people hate Spike, instead of having
that occur naturally through the writing in previous
episodes.
2. The scene appears (to me) out of character for Spike and
contrived insofar as Buffy's physical weakness is
concerned.
These combine to deprive the scene of plausibility, which
should not happen with such an important social issue.
3. The previous episodes inevitably raise the issue of
intent and consent. If ME's intent was to show an attempted
rape, no ifs ands or buts about it, that is inexcusable. If
ME intended to show a more complex, nuanced scene, then it
was inexcusable (a) for the writers to say it was a rape
scene, and (b) not to make it clear on the show that
they were going for nuance.
Shadowkat has expressed unhappiness with the scene along
similar lines. I agree with her.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [>
Agree again. Entirely on all pts. -- shadowkat,
09:19:07 07/18/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [>
Re: I'm not at all sure I disagree with you. --
Malandanza, 09:42:05 07/18/02 Thu
I have different issues with the AR scene than you have, but
I also found reason to be displeased with it. First, on the
intent issue, I have come to agree with you that it was not
Spike's intent to rape Buffy at any point -- I don't think
the attacker's presence of mind should be the determining
factor of guilt, but that's a problem I have with our legal
system rather than Spike. I was also surprised when you
said Jonathan and Andrew would be more likely to face stiff
sentences as accessories (where intent doesn't matter) to an
attempted rape than would Spike as an attempted rapist.
"1. I don't like the way the scene was added. It was a
heavy-handed attempt to make people hate Spike, instead of
having that occur naturally through the writing in previous
episodes."
I think that there were a sufficient number of scenes where
Spike ruthlessly manipulates Buffy that it was unnecessary
to have a special scene to make people hate Spike. I don't
know that anyone's opinion of Spike was changed by the AR.
I certainly don't recall any posts by former redemptionistas
saying "I get it now! Spike is evil!"
"2. The scene appears (to me) out of character for Spike
and contrived insofar as Buffy's physical weakness is
concerned.
These combine to deprive the scene of plausibility, which
should not happen with such an important social
issue."
Did you find the scene in The Body to be implausible
and contrived? Buffy hadn't been wounded, yet had
difficulty in fighting off a newly risen vampire. Buffy's
strength varies with her emotional state -- during moments
of weakness, she is weakened. When she is filled with anger
and hatred, she is destruction incarnate.
"3. The previous episodes inevitably raise the issue of
intent and consent. If ME's intent was to show an attempted
rape, no ifs ands or buts about it, that is inexcusable. If
ME intended to show a more complex, nuanced scene, then it
was inexcusable (a) for the writers to say it was a rape
scene, and (b) not to make it clear on the show that they
were going for nuance."
For me, what was inexcusable was not when they call an
attempted rape, attempted rape, but:
1) when they retroactively tried to make the previous
encounters into rape ("BUFFY: Because I stopped you.
Something I should have done a long time ago.") These
encounters were manipulative, but they weren't rape any more
than was Parker's seduction.
2) when they had Buffy forget all about the AR by the next
episode -- to the point that she was willing to have her
little sister stay with a would-be rapist. So in SR they
tell us that Spike has done some terribly wicked, for which
he can never be forgiven, then in Villains, Buffy is
hanging out at his crypt. The writers probably should have
taken a rape scene more seriously.
So, overall, I think the AR scene was gratuitous -- Spike
having sex with Anya and using his relationship with Buffy
to hurt Xander should have been enough to get Spike out of
her life forever. Whatever purpose ME had for including it
was lost in mixed messages. On the other hand, BtVS isn't a
morality play -- ME has no obligation to make every episode
into an after school special. The purpose of SR may not
have been to tell us that rape is wrong, it may have been
meant to show us how lost Buffy still was when she allowed
an attack of that nature to be forgiven so easily. It is a
reminder of how badly she permits herself to be treated --
part of her Martyr's complex and self-esteem issues.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: I'm not at all sure I disagree with you. --
Sophist, 10:54:55 07/18/02 Thu
Good points. I agree completely with your assessment under
no. 3. A few notes about 1 and 2:
I think that there were a sufficient number of scenes
where Spike ruthlessly manipulates Buffy that it was
unnecessary to have a special scene to make people hate
Spike.
You have always felt this way. However, Spike's character
and behavior in S6 were, to understate it radically, highly
controversial. ME clearly had the impression that many
viewers -- certainly a substantial minority -- were actually
more critical of Buffy in the relationship than they were of
Spike. As I understand the writers' comments, MN felt that
this might be true and added the scene with the express
purpose of countering this view of Spike. I agree with you
that it probably had no such impact. Re-souling him 3
episodes later further lessened the impact.
Buffy's strength varies with her emotional state --
during moments of weakness, she is weakened.
I couldn't agree more. If they had preceeded the bathroom
scene with something to show her emotionally drained, I'd
have had no problem at all. It was the physical
weakness, which was deliberately constructed, that I find
implausible. For comparison, re-watch Doomed -- there is an
identical graveyard fight in which she is thrown on to a
tombstone, under much worse circumstances, and not injured
nearly to the extent shown in SR (if at all). The physical
injury was gratuitous and detracted from the scene;
emotionally drained would have been sufficient and more
plausible.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: I'm not at all sure I disagree with you. --
Malandanza, 20:59:01 07/18/02 Thu
"ME clearly had the impression that many viewers --
certainly a substantial minority -- were actually more
critical of Buffy in the relationship than they were of
Spike. As I understand the writers' comments, MN felt that
this might be true and added the scene with the express
purpose of countering this view of Spike. I agree with you
that it probably had no such impact. Re-souling him 3
episodes later further lessened the impact."
Upon reflection, I think the AR scene was meant to sway anti-
Redemptionistas to the Redemptionista side, not the other
way around. You mention the re-souling, just three episodes
later -- the AR scene is crucial to believing that Spike
might want a soul (for me, at least -- I know there are some
people who think his attack on the woman in the alley shows
how good and noble he is). Spike's reaction undermined the
AR scene so thoroughly I can't believe it was just JM
slipping a tacit rewrite past the director and editors --
and the following scene in the crypt with Clem reinforces
his confusion about being a monster or a man. If the
intention was to make viewers sympathize with Buffy, they
failed. If their intention was to portray Spike as confused
and contrite, I think they succeeded, primarily due to JM's
acting at the end of that scene -- although the bungled
final episodes showing Spike unrepentant and angry when they
meant him to be seeking a soul undermined this
interpretation.
"If they had preceeded the bathroom scene with something
to show her emotionally drained, I'd have had no problem at
all. It was the physical weakness, which was deliberately
constructed, that I find implausible. For comparison, re-
watch Doomed -- there is an identical graveyard fight in
which she is thrown on to a tombstone, under much worse
circumstances, and not injured nearly to the extent shown in
SR (if at all). The physical injury was gratuitous and
detracted from the scene; emotionally drained would have
been sufficient and more plausible."
I agree with you that the injury seemed contrived. But I do
think that Buffy was at a pretty low point emotionally --
her darkest secret had been revealed in such a way that it
had created a rift between her and her best friend that had
not yet begun to heal. Spike then forced her into a
conversation that she had tried very hard to avoid -- and
Buffy agrees with all the Redemptionistas, that she is vile
and cruel to poor Spike who loves her so dearly. She blames
herself and feels remorse for the pain she causes him,
further weakening her emotional state.
I liken the physical injury to Buffy's hurt arm in Season
Four's opener, when Sunday single-handedly defeats Buffy,
yet at the end of the episode, with her confidence back,
Buffy wipes out Sunday and her whole gang in spite of the
injury. The arm was only a liability while Buffy was
weakened emotionally. Buffy's injury in SR certainly didn't
seem to bother her when she kicked Spike into the wall. I
think it was an attempt to silence critics before the fact
who would claim that Buffy should have been able to beat
Spike senseless the moment he laid his hands on her.
But I do agree that it would have been better to omit the
scene with the vampire and concentrate on the emotional
weakness.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Good points. Thanks. -- Sophist, 09:17:06
07/19/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Whattya you know Mal - I agree...good pts! --
shadowkat, 12:48:10 07/19/02 Fri
You found a way for me to sort of accept her injury in that
scene. And I also agree with this statement, which in some
respects echoes Leslie's:
"Upon reflection, I think the AR scene was meant to sway
anti-Redemptionistas to the Redemptionista side, not the
other way around. You mention the re-souling, just three
episodes later -- the AR scene is crucial to believing that
Spike might want a soul (for me, at least -- I know there
are some people who think his attack on the woman in the
alley shows how good and noble he is). Spike's reaction
undermined the AR scene so thoroughly I can't believe it was
just JM slipping a tacit rewrite past the director and
editors -- and the following scene in the crypt with Clem
reinforces his confusion about being a monster or a man. If
the intention was to make viewers sympathize with Buffy,
they failed. If their intention was to portray Spike as
confused and contrite, I think they succeeded, primarily due
to JM's acting at the end of that scene -- although the
bungled final episodes showing Spike unrepentant and angry
when they meant him to be seeking a soul undermined this
interpretation."
Yes, I think you're right here on both their intent and how
it was portrayed. Good insightful post.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Whattya you know Mal - I agree...good pts! --
Finn Mac Cool, 16:08:27 07/19/02 Fri
Why would the alley scene make someone think Spike was good?
I mean, he tried to kill someone!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
The alley attack -- Malandanza, 17:36:24
07/19/02 Fri
"Why would the alley scene make someone think Spike was
good? I mean, he tried to kill someone!"
I believe the reasoning goes something like "He hesitated
and had to talk himself into attacking her -- the old Spike
would have just ripped out her throat. That shows how much
he's changed."
I mentioned it not because I agree, but as an example of
extreme Spike apologia. Had the chip truly been
malfunctioning, I doubt the victim would have cared that
Spike had some reservations about killing her -- kind of a
Walrus and Carpenter thing.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Regarding that Smashed Scene -- shadowkat,
17:41:32 07/19/02 Fri
"Why would the alley scene make someone think Spike was
good? I mean, he tried to kill someone!"
It was how it was done. The fact he had to talk himself into
it instead of just lunging confused many fans, myself
included, on where they were heading.
But upon re-watching the scene along with the rest of the
season? It makes sense. And reminds me of A ClockWork Orange
so much it's scary. Also reminds me of Angel
in the episode where his son smells like food and
Harmony
discussing the desire for blood in Disharmony. The writers
are reasserting their thesis, without a soul he'll want that
blood. He craves it. The chip has modified his behavior to
an extent, made him realize it's wrong. But remember he's
only willing to change to be with Buffy, she just told him
he never could - it's very similar to Willow and Tara.
Willow is only willing to give up magic to be with Tara.
With Tara gone what's the point? Spike - same thing.
Difference? Willow has a soul and knows deep down
magic is wrong. And i think cares whether she hurts
people.
Spike deep down...is in conflict over this...he goes evil
first, but wants Buffy and wants her to be happy and she'd
be upset but she didn't know than what's stopping him.
So no he's not good. But boy is the scene ambiguous on a
certain level and no matter what they say in interviews - I
think that was intended. Still a villain in that episode.
Just a reluctant one.
not sure if that made sense. Spike as a character continues
to bewitch, amuse, transfix and confuse me.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [>
Are we watching the same show?? Sex w/ Buffy was his
attack on Xander? Try Self-Defense -- Spike Lover,
11:16:07 07/18/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Are we watching the same show?? Sex w/ Buffy was
his attack on Xander? Try Self-Defense -- Miss Edith,
11:55:37 07/18/02 Thu
I was surprised at that statement to. Anya and Spike were
having comfort sex and in their parting it was implied that
it was a mistake they wished to put behind them and forget
about. Spike had lost all hope at that point and when Xander
attacked him he hardly defended himself and seemed suicidal
(later confirmed in a comment to Buffy). We have no evidence
that he intended to use the sex with Anya to hurt Buffy or
Xander. He spoke up when Xander began attacking Anya for
lowering herself into sleeping with "that" and how it made
him sick. Spike had put up with Buffy condesendingly calling
him a monster for long enough. I find it offensive that the
scoobies fought alongside him and used him to protect Dawn,
yet still felt they had the right to emotionally abuse him
because he doesn't have a soul and they see themselves as
better tham him, the worthless thing only there to be used
and tossed aside when it suits. E.g Buffy telling Spike she
wants to move on in life and he should do the same but when
he tries to do so with Anya she condemns him "didn't take
you long".
I have encountered such self-absorbed people in my own life
and personally I am glad Spike found the self-esteem to
speak up for himself and defend Anya's honour (which Buffy
should certainly have done). It was hardly said sneeringly
or in a gloating manner. Spike was utterly beaten and I for
one was fully supportive of his decision to "attack Xander"
who had just told Anya it made him sick to look at her.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: I'm not at all sure I disagree with you. --
Miss Edith, 11:27:46 07/18/02 Thu
My thoughts on the AR in SR are also not high. In Smashed
Buffy throws Spike across the room with one hand. In Doomed
she slamed her back against a gravestone but does a little
flip and is fine. In TNPLH in her first encounter with Glory
(a God) she is thrown againt a concrete wall hard enough to
leave a dent in the wall yet her face is unmarked.
I know the AR was written as it hit close to home to one of
the writing team (comfirmed in interviews) but Bts is a
fantasy show and Buffy is a fantasy character, it is not a
soap and Buffy's fight instinct should have kicked in.
Saying we are women first and ruled by emotion is just
pandering to the idea that for instance women shouldn't join
the armed forces as they are unable to get the job done
without breaking down in a crisis.
Even if I can buy that Buffy is a women first and can forget
how to fight there is still no excuse for her pathetic,
completely false punches and kicks. She is super strong and
can crush ribs whilst hugging people, swing a troll hammer
as if it's nothing. Her badly targetted and executed moves
were direct evidence that the writers were writing her
reactions based on how she is obliged to respond through
"women-ness". The character Buffy could have pushed him away
panicking as a "womenly" response and he would still have
ended up on the other side of the room because she is the
slayer.
Every single action in that scene was artificially weakened.
She has fended off a pack of vampires with a sprained arm
yet with an injured back she becomes a frail female who fits
the domineering man-women scenerio. Isn't the series about
challenging that cliche?
And why was Buffy bruised on her leg after Spike was on her
for maybe 20 seconds but she can tumble through a building
whilst making love and emerge unscathed?
Making Buffy a victim in order to induce sympathy for her
was belated and false. It did not do justice to the
character Buffy, real victims of assaults or women in
general. I cannot stress how much that scene deeply offended
me. Portraying Buffy as the victim at the drop of a hat has
some very disturbing implications in my mind that do not
belong on a show that is supposed to promote female
empowerment. Fair enough if the writers wanted to seriously
explore the issue and will continue to address it in a
thoughtful manner next season. But if the scene was purely a
plot device to end a relationship I think the writers should
be ashamed of themselves for the implied messages in that
scene.
On another board I was reading a discussion over the AR and
it was suggested that Marti coming from writing soap operas
influenced the scene as using contrived situations to move
characters along briefly is used all the time in the medium.
The AR needed a lot more thought and care dedicated to it
and I sincerely hope it will be sufficiently addressed next
season.
It isn't just the writers feeling rape is a great way to
move a story along that offends me. The way women have been
treated all season is questionable. Buffy was presented as
unable to cope with being the slayer. Willow was empowered
by witchcraft but had to give it up as she couldn't control
it. Following Tara's death Willow became overwhelmed with
power which corrupted her. Anya has also been misusing her
power and has become a vengeance demon. Amy was written as
an evil addict with no backstory to support it. The writers
had a vision of a long story but not enough time to tell it
but that does not excuse the severe punishments for female
characters who became empowered. I really do feel there have
been some very questionable messages this year and I hope it
does not continue. Joss saying they will return to the theme
of female empowerment in season 7 does give me hope that he
realises this seasons messages need readdressing.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: I'm not at all sure I disagree with you. --
Finn Mac Cool, 14:24:23 07/18/02 Thu
Actually, if Buffy just sent Spike flying off of her and
into the wall, I would have been dissapointed. Yes, Buffy's
the Slayer. But Spike is one of the strongest vampires on
BtVS, and at that moment his adrenaline was running high.
Those two factors, combined with the fact that Buffy was not
expecting an attack, do give him an edge over her.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
He had the edge..... -- Rufus, 20:29:58 07/19/02
Fri
There was the element of surprise goine on. First off Buffy
didn't expect Spikes visit to her bathroom, she didn't
expect him to try to have sex with her after she said no.
She didn't just attack him because she had been sleeping
with him, had trusted him not to hurt her. She was injured
before she got home than again when she hit the tub. If
Buffy were just an unfeeling monster she would have staked
Spike in AYW when she had the chance but her relationship
with Spike is waaaaaaaaaaay more complicated than that. His
behavior post chip has left not only Buffy conflicted but
even Spike, who finally discovered that maybe he needed a
little more man in the monster, not the other way around. I
didn't see Buffy as a classic "victim" but as someone in a
situation that is confusing for everyone involved. Buffy
cares for Spike but the chip is the thing that is keeping
him on the straight and narrow (must add in his love for
Buffy here), and in Smashed we saw what could happen if that
chip came out and he wanted to get even with Buffy for
hurting his feelings. Buffy cares for Spike, but because he
has no soul (til now) she can't trust him enough to love him
and that was killing her because she was reduced to using
him. I have sympathy for both characters who are kept apart
"by their very natures". The assault in Seeing Red brought
home to Spike why he needed a soul, it was his
epiphany....and it sent him to Africa and settled the soul
issue as an objection to Spike being beneath Buffy or anyone
else....now he has some choices to make about what kind of
vampire with a soul he will be.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [>
Agree with everything Sopist said. -- shadowkat,
06:10:32 07/18/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Agree -- meritaten, 10:14:47 07/17/02
Wed
"Do I think Spike wanted a soul afterwards? Difficult to
say.
When I watched it, without knowing the writer's comments? I
think he unconsciously did. I think Spike is a character in
constant conflict with himself. PArt of him wants to be a
good person for Buffy, part wants to stay evil and doesn't
understand why he has to change. "
Now that I do agree with. I never heard the writers
comments. However, I still saw Spike as going there with
the purpose of getting the chip out. What he
subconcsciously wanted is another story. THroughout the
season he was in constant conflict between love and hate for
the Slayer. He was very confused and, IMHO, sought
resolution to this confusion above all. However, as I saw
the show, he had chosen to have the chip removed, thinking
it would free him from his love of Buffy. Whether it could
be argued that his phrasing was intentionally
vague.......
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Agree -- Miss Edith, 13:31:12 07/17/02
Wed
James Marsters was told to play it as if Spike wanted the
chip out. He only found out afterwards at a convention that
Spike was supposed to be seeking a soul. He was visibly
surprised when Joss answered a question from the audience
saying Spike had meant to get a soul. Joss didn't want James
to undercut his performance with his human side as he had
previously done (e.g in Crush a lot of people sympathised
with Spike although the writing pointed to him being
completely in the wrong). Therefore to all intents and
purposes Spike was in my view seeking to get the chip out. I
suppose it depends whose contribution you consider more
relevent:the writers or acters. Spike was played as having
violent intentions and wanting revenge. He was played at
being surprised at being granted a soul. But the writers
have suddenly said he was seeking a soul all along. Just not
plausible to me. In the actors mind Spike was desiring to
hurt Buffy so every expression on James face tells me he did
not want a soul. JMHO.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
Re: Agree -- meritaten, 15:01:17 07/17/02
Wed
Thanks for the explanation.
Next question, am I naive to think that I should be able to
understand the show WITHOUT the writers telling me that I've
been tricked? I'm not opposed to plot twists, but .... when
the climax of the plot is reached, I'd like to say "Ooooh!",
not "Oops!"
Ok, that was just me complaining.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [>
Re: Agree -- shadowkat, 12:24:08 07/18/02
Thu
Personally I agree with everyone who has said that the
writers need to stop justifying their stories in interviews!
Shut up writers! Let your story speak for itself. Show! Not
Tell! ugh.
That said. Maybe we should stop reading said interviews and
encouraging this interaction.
Hmmm...wondering if this is a co-dependent relationship?
Audience asks writers for info and explanation, writers give
it, audience gets pissed at writers...LOL! Poor Marti.
She would have been better off if she hadn't given sooo many
interviews. JMHO
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I am one of THOSE posters -- Spike Lover,
08:33:02 07/17/02 Wed
Yes, I will not hear arguements. I WILL make excuses. I
account it to inferior writing. (I won't rehash here.) At
best, I will ONLY concede that at the worst it might have
been a split second of ATTEMPTED RAPE (which is not the same
as Rape.) But even then, I won't concede even that. It
simply looks at the worst like -attempted Date Rape to me,
which is pretty common to women (unfortunately).
Even then, I have to shake my head and say I CAN'T see it
happening. (see post below from Hell Hath No Fury)
I also am among those that think Spike WANTED HIS CHIP OUT
so he could KILL Buffy. NOT A SOUL SO THAT HE COULD REKNEW
HIS ATTENTIONS TO HER AND SHE COULD DROP KICK HIM ACROSS THE
UNIVERSE AGAIN!!!!!
-Don't get me started there...
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Look below! I agreed with you! -- Rahael,
08:37:07 07/17/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Thanks, I needed that. :) -- Spike Lover,
08:54:32 07/17/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Different interpretations -- Sophist, 08:57:21
07/17/02 Wed
I'm one of those who can't decide how to interpret the
bathroom scene in SR.
On the one hand, the scene clearly appears to be an
attempted rape and the writers have expressly said it was
attempted rape (and I'm assuming that they mean in the legal
sense, not just colloquially).
OTOH, that interpretation would require me to conclude that
(a) the scene itself was contrived (I'm referring to Buffy's
unlikely and artificially created "weakness"), and (b) Spike
acted out of character in a very significant way. That is, I
can only adopt this interpretation if I believe the scene
was badly written. I guess that supports EA from the
opposite perspective.
To tell the truth, I've kind of stopped thinking about SR.
My personal view is that Spike's re-souling makes the scene
irrelevant to judging Spike as a character (I know lots of
people don't agree with me). Even under my view, of course,
the consequences may play out over next season, as they did
with Jenny Calendar's murder, without regard to that.
This is a long way of saying that I thought EA's original
post was very well-taken. I agree entirely.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I agree with both point a) and point b) -- shygirl,
09:18:03 07/17/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Ok, I'm confused -- meritaten, 10:06:03 07/17/02
Wed
I'll have to watch the episode again, but I would have sworn
that Spike went to get the chip out. He kept talking about
getting the chip out, and being like he was before. What
*I* saw happen was the the big mo-jo took the wrong point in
time, and made him like he was before he was vamped.
What did I miss???????
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
You missed June's and Joss' claim that it was always a
soul Spike wanted ... -- Earl Allison,
10:25:51 07/17/02 Wed
Yes, as writers, they have the final say -- but I still
argue for poorly written, poorly acted, and poorly executed
overall.
Case in point, James was told to act as though Spike wanted
the chip out -- which leads to certain inflections in voice,
body mannerisms, and behaviors. Sure, on the one hand, this
keeps the story from leaking, but on the other hand (IMHO),
it cripples the writing claims -- since you really WEREN'T
showing us that Spike wanted a soul.
Yes, some got the subtext, some didn't. But again, as I
mentioned, had it been done well, most of us would be saying
"NOW I get it! How clever!" Instead, a great many feel
cheated, lied to, and generally let down by the substandard
writing and onscreen execution involved.
Does that help, or is it clear as mud?
Take it and run.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: You missed June's and Joss' claim that it was
always a soul Spike wanted ... -- meritaten, 10:42:02
07/17/02 Wed
Thanks.
Really, if you have the scene acted one way, and then say
that it was really something else ..........
WHY?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Spike wanted the chip out. Joss wanted Spike re-
souled -- Spike Lover, 11:03:50 07/17/02 Wed
I really have no idea where this is heading next season, but
it must be very important for season next.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Umm, Spike wanted whatever Joss *says* he wanted...
-- Wisewoman, 11:34:32 07/18/02 Thu
...seeing as how he actually only exists in Joss's mind, and
all.
;o)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
But if JM doesn't know, Spike doesn't want it! --
Darby, 13:51:28 07/18/02 Thu
That's the collaborative part of the medium, and the
motivation ultimately comes down to whoever is handling it
last, the actors or us.
And how professional is it to keep such an important point
from the actor? I got the impression that JM felt hurt,
like he couldn't be trusted with the truth, but he was less
likely to mess it up than the writers!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [>
Re: But if JM doesn't know, Spike doesn't want it!
-- Wisewoman, 10:55:42 07/19/02 Fri
James Marsters deals with playing the character as best he
can, given the information he has.
If the previous post had said, "James Marsters wanted the
chip out, Joss Whedon wanted the soul returned," I would
have no argument with it. A human actor is entitled to apply
whatever motivation he feels is appropriate to the portrayal
of his character.
I just can't see attributing such motivation to a fictional
character independent of the creator (and writers) of that
character.
;o)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [>
Well, that was pretty much it... -- Darby,
12:21:38 07/19/02 Fri
Since the PTB weren't very forthcoming, JM did assume
from the script (quite rightly, as the pronouncements
weren't just misleading, they were contradictory) that Spike
was going to have his chip out, he has stated as much. At
that point, it ceases to be important that Joss says, "But
that's not really what Spike wanted!" The character's
motivation is what the actor is playing, as different from
writer's intent as the Buffy movie was different from Joss'
original intent.
We wind up with a behind-the-scenes explanation of what
should have been, to compare with what was actually
executed.
The problem here is that BtVS runs differently from many
other shows, with the writers upstairs from the sound
stages. If JM gets the motivation wrong, he knows it will
look like his fault, but the history of the show is that
Joss (less this season, though) and the writers are always
hangin' about during shooting to clarify issues, and they
should have set him straight. Yet another bit of evidence
that the BtVS set is not the happy place of years
before.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
Must disagree, dubdub -- d'Herblay, 20:50:09
07/18/02 Thu
I think that the case can be made that Spike "actually
exists" (though one or both of these words must be fuzzy no
matter wherein they apply) within, as Darby points out, the
performance of James Marsters, which does as much to
"realize" Spike for us as Joss's writing, as well as within
the imaginations and hearts of his loyal fans and their
loyal opposition. Joss's mind may be the only arena in which
control is exerted over Spike, yes, but a successful writer
will endeavor to make his characters real for his audience,
and thereby confirm those characters as "real" to the
viewers. This is a willful cession of reality; in fact, the
writer hopes to really "sell" his characters, to "get them
across." There's a definite real estate metaphor in here
somewhere, but I shall forbear. Simply said, if the
characters are not real to me, they are not real.
And, yes, once having ceded the reality of the characters to
others, the creator must justify the actions of the
characters or risk having their "reality" doubted in the
only minds that matter. I think it is fair to say that with
all the doubt on the board about Spike's intentions, Joss's
insistence that he had sought a soul from the crypt scene on
is a minority, and perhaps a misguided, view. Actually,
considering that writers lie, and Joss most of all, and
remembering that it would be a strange Buffy finale
that ended with a character receiving exactly what he
or she most desired (sui generis, in fact), I suspect
that the loud caterwauling that Spike wanted a soul all the
time is a smokescreen inelegantly covering the Season 7
appearance of a vampire seriously brassed off about his new
moral parasite. But that may just be the wishful thinking of
a card-carrying -- what am I?, "snarkist"?
(Now I must run off and hide before Rahael realizes that
I've invoked reader response theory over her strong and oft-
stated objections. That the one aspect of postmodernist
thought I adhere to is the one aspect she hates is a motif
in our sonata.)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [>
Unfortunately, in the minds of SOME viewers, the
characters become a little TOO real -- d'Herblay,
21:01:20 07/18/02 Thu
Suddenly speechless.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [>
Re: Well, that was my point! ;o) -- dubdub,
10:46:39 07/19/02 Fri
But I must have missed something...what made you suddenly
speechless? Hmmmm?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [>
Well I agree with you on this one!! -- Rahael,
05:50:48 07/19/02 Fri
I don't think authors are above criticism. They should
definitely be questioned, and held to account for their
vision. Their work, if not up to standard or poorly done
should be vulnerable.
What I do believe is that not everyone's response to a work
is valid. If an author's vision can be criticised and held
up to certain standards, why not the critics? For example a
accusation that BtVS is directed toward the glorification of
all things traditional and masculine is not a very credible
argument, and could be easily undercut.
If someone says that it endorses fascistic values (kill
everyone who doesn't look 'human', strong is good, the weak
must perish) that response must be contested, and most
successfully contested by other viewers and the authors
intentions. (Of course if the author unconciously let
disturbing ideas seep into his work, he must be held to
account.) That view is not as credible, as one which uses
the very strong evidence to point out how BtVS is
fundamentally opposed to such values.
I'm sorry but I don't think a view that looked at the
attempted rape scene and say "that's an acceptable way to
treat Buffy" (I'm NOT saying anyone has said that), is one
which holds much water for me. I'll go so far as to say that
some responses are just plain wrong. Is that response as
equally credible as one which says, "Spike was right to be
disturbed at what he could do"?
You say that the writer must be asked to justify things - I
agree. I think the writer's opinion is valuable, his/her
intentions, their lives and views, all of those are
relevant, and of interest. You either think the text is
completely free standing, having no need of reference to the
writer, or you think the writer, and authorial intent is a
significant part of the picture.
If the text has a free standing life away from the
intentions of the writer, whose opinion is no more valuable
than mine, why bother to ask him to justify? I think what
you are arguing is different from the claim that any meaning
I derive from the text, without reference to context has an
equally credible claim as one which is more informed,
thoughtful and credible. Because that leads us into
dangerous places, especially if you consider, as I do, that
'events' are 'texts'. Are all interpretations valid? no.
Some interpretations are wrong, wrong wrong, and can be and
must be contested. Context, and intention are an important
part of the equation (note that I don't say that they are
the be all and end all!).
"(Now I must run off and hide before Rahael realizes that
I've invoked reader response theory over her strong and oft-
stated objections. That the one aspect of postmodernist
thought I adhere to is the one aspect she hates is a motif
in our sonata.)"
Do I dare offer you another poem about friendship, my
dearest friend?
"I fear it's very wrong of me
And yet I must admit,
When someone offers friendship
I want the whole of it.
I don't want everybody else
To share my friends with me.
At least, I want one special one,
Who, indisputably,
Likes me much more than all the rest,
Who's always on my side,
Who never cares what others say,
Who lets me come and hide
Within his shadow, in his house -
It doesn't matter where -
Who lets me simply be myself,
Who's always, always there.
Elizabeth Jennings "
What a precious thing it is when we can take completely
opposing views, and argue it all the way (the highest
respect we pay to each other's intellect) and yet know that
we are 'always, always there' for each other. If you run off
and hide, I know you'll always come to me....
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
The final say... -- auroramama, 15:29:35
07/17/02 Wed
...with respect to their own intentions, yes, the writers
definitely have that. But with respect to what I believe
about the characters and the story, I'm not sure they have
the final say. Maybe the writers have the final show, but
not the final tell.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
What Jane Espenson said after the finale -- Rufus,
01:48:44 07/20/02 Sat
From the Succubus Club transcript (I also listened to it
many times)
J: Yes, in my mind, that's ... we did a big ole'
mislead on you all where we wanted you to think he was gonna
go get dechipped. We knew, the whole time, from the very
beginning, that he was going to go get a soul.
Q: Oh!
J: And when he says "I want Buffy to have what she deserves
-- give the Slayer what she deserves -- he means a lover
with a soul."
Q: No way! Okay, Kitty and I had this conversation in the
hallway and I'm going -- I was duped; all right, I was
duped.
K: I knew that it could go any way, because I know you guys
- you are mischievous.
C: And you guys did it that way, because he goes like, "I
want to be like I was before," and you know, he didn't use
his ??? the exact words, because what does that mean?
K: Vague.
J: It was very vague, and if we're vague, we're vague
for a reason.
K: I knew that, see! I knew that!
J: And a lot of the people on the Internet guessed
it; a lot of the people guessed either that he wanted a
soul or that he wanted to be human again.
I knew that he was going for a soul or to be human and made
a post saying that based upon what I had seen that season
and how I saw in the characters patterns of behavior.
The Demon Made
me Do It
I think that the writers were clear where the story was
going though I didn't like some of the fine details of the
story (Willow as a junkie then possessed), I could see that
it was either becoming human or a soul restoration that
Spike was going for even though he grumbled his way across
two continents. OMWF made me think "human" the vampire with
a soul lame comment from "Joan" made me think they were
going to go the "soul" route...I just wasn't sure which.
What we tend to debate here are assorted plot holes and
personal preferences regarding character behavior, but I
felt that the writers were going a specific way with both
Willow and Spike, agree or not in the exection, they still
got the end result in spite of the mis-leads.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
Yep. Agree. -- shadowkat, 08:03:24 07/20/02
Sat
"J: And a lot of the people on the Internet guessed it; a
lot of the people guessed either that he wanted a soul or
that he wanted to be human again.
I knew that he was going for a soul or to be human and made
a post saying that based upon what I had seen that season
and how I saw in the characters patterns of behavior. "
Yep - I postulated the same thing way before that
episode
and I was unspoiled for Two-to-Go and Grave. I think it's
still available on www.bigbadboard.com under essay section -
someone put it up over there. And it should also be in our
archives somewhere. Except I pushed for human, b/c most of
the references made me think that. Personally I think the
soul works better - gives them a chance to explore the
limitations and advantages of being a vampire more throughly
and we all know how Joss loves vamps. And like Rufus - they
had written themselves into a corner with the character -
couldn't redeem without the soul - that would mess up Angel
and soul canon, couldn't keep him as a villain much longer -
they'd run out of ideas (explored every possible angel
character could go as a villain). But i knew they were
planning to go one way or the other. They kept telling us
this was their plan more or less all season. The debate is
really over whether
Spike himself wanted it and well I agree with you and leslie
on this one, I think he did but was at war with himself on
it. He more or less says that's what he wants
in at least two episodes. Tabula Rasa and to some extent
OMWF.
Also agree with:
"I think that the writers were clear where the story was
going though I didn't like some of the fine details of the
story (Willow as a junkie then possessed), I could see that
it was either becoming human or a soul restoration that
Spike was going for even though he grumbled his way across
two continents. OMWF made me think "human" the vampire with
a soul lame comment from "Joan" made me think they were
going to go the "soul" route...I just wasn't sure which.
"
Yeah I didn't like some of the details. (AR scene, some
episodes were off editing wise,the magic addiction - would
have preferred the power metaphor) but outside of that?
Season 6 more or less worked for me and I loved it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
Re: What Jane Espenson said after the finale --
aliera, 17:43:50 07/20/02 Sat
Great interview and very funny:
"We knew..."
"He said....but, he meant..."
And maybe what I saw was a paraphrase but, I thought she
actually said at one point, "he look deep into his...soul
and knew he wanted a soul." Even if not, still
amusing.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Ok, I'm confused -- leslie,
11:50:16 07/17/02 Wed
"He kept talking about getting the chip out, and being like
he was before."
I have to say I cannot see this scene as badly written
simply because it is completely consistent with everything
we have ever seen in BtVS about wishes and prophecies:
wording is everything, and whenever you wish for something,
you get something that technically fulfills your words but
is completely the opposite of your intent. The instant I
heard those words coming out of Spike's mouth, with all
their ambiguity, I knew what was coming. It was like there
were big neon pointy-fingers flashing around his head,
saying "HEY GUYS, IS THIS A FREUDIAN SLIP OR WHAT?!"
Furthermore, the fact that Spike was going through all these
trial to get a *wish* fulfilled should have tipped us off as
soon as the whole Lurker scenario started playing out that
the ambiguity of wishes was going to be the operative theme
of this subplot.
I agree that Spike was extremely ambivalent about what he
wanted--but the fact of the matter is, he *didn't* need the
chip removed in order to hurt Buffy, he has known that he is
completely capable of that ever since Smashed, and the fact
that he nearly raped her should have, if nothing else,
reminded him of that fact! Yet, he doesn't go into the cave
asking to have his chip out so that he can wreak havoc on
the rest of the world (which he still can't hurt), his
intentions are completely focused on Buffy. Therefore, his
desires are ambiguous from the beginning. He wants several
different things, and he doesn't quite know what needs to be
done in order to achieve any of them, and has simultaneously
incompatible ideas about what his options may be. The Lurker
makes his decision for him, and what the results of that
will be are anyone's guess at this point. However, I still
see this whole subplot as completely consistent with the
themes and characters of the series, and not poorly written
at all. If anything, I think it's the writers who are not
explaining themselves clearly in retrospect.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Completely agree -- Caroline, 12:53:59 07/17/02
Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I agree with you Leslie on writers and the chip --
shadowkat, 16:34:40 07/17/02 Wed
Actually that's how I more or less read the chip and
what
I think was intended. I just wish the silly writers would
shut up about it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: I agree with you Leslie on writers and the chip
-- Miss Edith, 16:59:32 07/18/02 Thu
Trust the story, not the storyteller we are constantly being
told by ME. I think there was a reason for the writers
emphasising that. The Spike I saw on-screen wanted his chip
out but was tricked by the demon who saw what Spike really
wanted in his heart. I think the writers are trying to
mislead us now.
The majority of casual fans who don't read writers
interviews are under the impression that Spike was tricked
into having a soul, hell even the actor believed that was
the case!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
Re: I agree with you Leslie on writers and the chip
-- Finn Mac Cool, 21:10:19 07/18/02 Thu
Am I the only one who, when he first saw the scene, thought
that a soul was what he was really after all along? It was
only when I got on the Internet and heard what others had to
say that the possibility of it being a trick occurred to
me.
[> [> [> [> [>
Agreeing with your poor writing assessment, Earl --
Spike Lover, 08:22:40 07/17/02 Wed
[> [>
Re: Both Buffy and Xander managed to bring out the
worst in their partners. -- Caesar
Augustus, 00:55:50 07/17/02 Wed
Having watched SR again, Spike's dialog really does imply
he's getting a chip. I realise that the writers have said
that he wanted a soul all along. The problem is that it
wasn't a "clever" twist, him getting a soul. Well, let me
phrase this carefully. It is potentially a clever twist, but
it wasn't executed cleverly. The twist wasn't because we
simply assumed he wanted the chip out. The twist is because
their writing really did only make sense if he wanted his
chip out. "Get nice and comfy Slayer, coz when I return,
things are gonna change!" (paraphrase, not exact quote) They
might have made it just ambiguous enough so there's no
direct evidence he wanted the chip, but there mentality is
pretty much "ha, made you look".
And in my own personal opinion, I think even the word "rape"
(or "attempted rape") is an exaggeration of what Spike
actually did.
[> [> [>
I must have missed some kind of memo. -- Rahael,
04:17:03 07/17/02 Wed
[> [>
I COMPLETELY agree with you! -See my Hell hath no fury
post -- Spike Lover, 08:19:39 07/17/02 Wed
[> [> [>
Just to be clear -- meritaten, 10:31:28 07/17/02
Wed
I think what was shown WAS attempted rape. However, I can't
see it fitting in with the developement of Spike's
character.
Basically, I think the writers messed up. It has left me
very confused about what to think about Spike's character.
I tend to blame the writers for the scene. Maybe I'm
supposed to be confused so that next season will be more
interesting. ...but I still don't see the Spike of the last
two seasons raping Buffy.
[> [> [> [>
my rationnalisation -- Ete, 10:50:24 07/17/02
Wed
I dunno if that's of any interest for you but just in case,
this is my rationnalisation to fit the events of SR in
Spike's character. As Earl would say, take it and run :)
:
[> My conclusions after that discusion with Sophist : a
theory about Spike's unconcious motivations -- Etrangere,
08:01:29 05/12/02 Sun
Ok. This is in no way a post trying to condone or apologise
for what Spike did to Buffy in SR, just an attempt to
understand what looks for Sophist like an Out Of Character
move (thanks to him for helping me going through the idea).
Character analysis, here, no question of responsability.
Others have said it, rape is about control. Rape is about
power. Rape is done by people angry at women trying to
assert their power on her.
For those reasons, it looks like Spike makes for a very
unlikely attempting rapist.
On contrary, Spike's relation ship with women is more about
being submissive to them. He, like Buffy accused him, is in
love with pain. In the same way he seeks the challenge in
his fights, he will always look for the "upper" woman to be
in love with. If anything, he puts her on a piedestral, he
doesn't try to drag her down, contrary to Warren who wanted
to assert his control on the girl who rejected him in Dead
Things, Spike begs Buffy to give him a crumb in Crush. The
fact that she was chained only served to underline how she
was still in power over him.
And that's the way Spike wants it. That's how he understands
love. He never knew anything else. His love for Cecily never
got beside the worshipping point, his love for Drusilla was
all about serving all her wishes, and when he fell in love
with Buffy, that was because he admired her for he could not
kill her. She was stronger than him, above him.
Spike never felt he was worthy of Buffy or of her love.
After his panicked attempt in Crush he accepted very easily
to be loving her from afar. "I know that you will never love
me. I know that I'm a monster, but you treat me like a man,
and that's..."
A death and a resurection later, Spike comes to realise that
Buffy treats him too well. Like he isn't worthy of. She
makes him feel like he was still alive.
This...
You know
You've got a willing slave
And you just love to play the thought
That you might misbehave.
But till you do I'm telling you,
Stop visiting my grave
And let me rest in peace.
could be read as a plea to be treated like a "willing
slave". Not like a man. Not like a friend. Which is what
Buffy was doing prior to OMWF.
And that's actually what Buffy starts doing, in reason of
her own inner turmoil. She starts using Spike, nearly
abusing him.
Spike wants to be treated well, of course, but being treated
as a man confuses him too much, so he must remind Buffy how
evil he is. How he is not worthy of her. "Hello, vampire
here ! I'm supposed to be treading on the dark side ! What's
your excuse ?" So he can't keep his mouth shut and makes
that "the only thing better than killing a slayer would be
to f-" comment.
The only way he could understand that Buffy would starts
being attracted to her was saying she came back wrong,
remember ? Because she could never lower herself that
far.
Dead Things makes certainly sense then. The more she trusts
him (accepting being handcuffed), the more he tries to make
her see him as evil, unworthy of it (Bronze scene) But when
she hits him, he invite it gladly, it recomforts him, it's
going in a form of relationship he can understand : "you
always hurt the one you love". In other words, as long as
you hurt me it means that you love me. The reasonment of
someone who's been abused. (I think it makes sense that he
would have been in the past by Angelus)
Comes As You Were. Buffy breaks up with him because he
finaly managed to get his point across : he is evil. But she
tries to respect him anew. "I'm sorry, William". He can't
stand that. He can't stand her niceness in Hell's Bells and
he runs away.
Many were struck in the Bathroom scene how it started very
well. Too well. Buffy actually admitted to have feelings for
him. That she couldn't let Xander kill him. You remember his
reaction after Drusilla left him ? "She just left. She
didn't even care enough to cut off my head or set me on
fire. I mean, is that too much to ask? You know? Some little
sign that she cared?"
Spike isn't able to, deep-down, understand how Buffy can
care for him and treat him with respect in the same time. So
he has to screw things again. Like in Smashed, like in Dead
Things, like in As You Were with the eggs right in the place
where Buffy and him spend most of their time. He thinks he
has to provoke Buffy's anger so as to be able to connect
through the violence directed at her. Like saying to her,
I'm bad, I'm evil, hit me. (Any similarity with an AtS
episode is not coincidental :)
Except Buffy doesn't. Even in that situation, she's
expecting him to stop when she asks him, and when she uses
violence to stop him, it's only that. And then she refuses
to send Xander after him.
So Spike is let to deal with his reaction of disgust about
what he did alone. (well, Clem's with him) He has to deal
with the idea that he might not be as bad, evil or unworthy
that he though, since even the worse act he could think of
was unable to convince Buffy of the same.
Since the beginning, I believe that at least part of the
reason that he loved Bufffy was to give him a good excuse to
fight for the good. Remember his spontaneous reaction in
Where the Wild Things Are ? He thinks to help them, then
convince himself not to. Because it makes no sense for him,
a vampire helping the white hat. But a vampire who, for
love, does anything to please his love, it makes sense for
Spike.
For the first time Spike question this.
"SPIKE: Why do I feel this way?
CLEM: Love's a funny thing.
SPIKE: Is that what this is?"
We see Seeing Red ending with Spike choosing to blame his
all new feelings of guilt on his chip before leaving
Sunnydale. Will that idea last long ? What will he do if
once the chip removed he realised that those feelings have
not changed ?
------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
[> [> [> [>
Re: Just to be clear -- Arya_Stark, 00:50:20
07/20/02 Sat
"but I still don't see the Spike of the last two seasons
raping Buffy."
But Spike isn't just the Spike of the last two seasons.
Spike is the sum total of the past 130-ish years of his
existance. Spike is a small part William, the demon he's
been for most of his existance, AND the Spike of the past
two seasons all wrapped up into one amazingly complex and
confused character.
If we have a hard time reconciling all the aspects of Spike,
how hard do you think it is for him?
Yes, the Spike of the last two seasons wouldn't have done
that. But there is more to Spike than that. I think that
Spike very much wants to be the Spike of the past two
seasons, but there is more in there. And in Buffy's
bathroom, all of the aspects of Spike came into play. He
realized that he is not the man that he has been trying to
be for the past two seasons (that man would never hurt
Buffy). Nor is he the monster of the first 126+ years of
his vampire exsistance (that monster wouldn't have stopped
and been horrified at what he'd done). He is neither and he
is both. Hence his commment to Clem that he isn't a man and
he can't be a monster.
Note that it seems like he's talking about the chip
restraining him when he says that he can't be a monster, but
I think it's much deeper than that.
Therefore the bathroom scene is only out of character for
Spike if you ONLY consider the Spike of the past two
seasons, which I believe is the wrong thing to do.
[> [> [> [> [>
See, that's my problem -- Sophist, 13:28:56
07/20/02 Sat
Even if I look at the Spike of the first 130 years, and
ignore the last 2 years entirely, I can't see the rape scene
as plausible.
There are some good arguments here for the dramatic
necessity of the scene, but ME needed to set it up much
longer in advance in order to make that necessity plausible.
Adding it at the last minute left too big a hole in the
characterization.
But I've said enough about this. Stopping now.
[> [>
Re: Both Buffy and Xander managed to bring out the
worst in their partners. -- Miss Edith, 11:19:42
07/17/02 Wed
Isn't the point that Buffy did bring out the best in Spike
but only in season 5? I got the impression that he was
unwillingly attracted to the goodness in her which sparked
off a potentially redeming conflict in him and Buffy's
goodness became something for him to aspire to. Hence him
seeing himself as a monster but complimenting Buffy for
treating him respectfully. In Intervention she rewerded him
with a gentle kiss when he saved Dawn. He went on to babysit
Dawn in Tough Love telling her "I'm not good and I'm okay".
Not to mention him fighting alongside the good guys against
Glory. In Buffy's memery he continued fighting the good
fight throughout the summer.
In season 6 Buffy was alomst an anti-hero. She was screwed
up and lost, her sleeping with Spike represents her disgust
with herself. Her self-loathing in Dead Things was
illustrated when she battered Spike. She is attracred to
what his evil in him because of her own self-hatred. Buffy
the hero could have saved Spike but in a way Buffy the anti-
hero has damned him into remaining a demon. He was trying to
be good for her in the beginning but she constantly rejected
his patience with her calling him an evil souless thing.
When she slept with him in Smashed Spike believed that Buffy
was only attracted to the darkness within him and tried to
force her to embrace being in the darkness with him
desperate to have any small part of her.
I understand Spike did not know what he was doing in Seeing
Red as he seemed suicidal and on the verge of a nervous
breakdown. He was alone and unloved, Buffy was all he had.
Of course he was totally out of order and I am not making
excuses for Spike, he is certainly responsible for his
actions. But I can see how Buffy's emotional confusion this
season could have contributed to Spike losing his way.
[>
Re: Both Buffy and Xander managed to bring out the
worst in their partners. -- Caesar
Augustus, 00:59:52 07/17/02 Wed
It's an important point, one that was at the forefront of
Spike's character to begin with. Love for Drusilla merely
brought out the evil in him. I think it's a general
assumption (not so much on this board, but in the general
public) that love is inherently good. Love has as much
potential for evil as good, but it is looked on favourably
because it is something that is at the core of our
humanity.
[> [>
Have to disagree with your Dru/Spike opinion --
Spike Lover, 08:49:30 07/17/02 Wed
Vampires (I think) are supposed to be evil. They do evil
things. Torture, cause chaos, etc. They drink human blood
which makes them unpopular with humans. etc.
But if you look at the Spike/Dru relationship and look at
the Love part, you see something different. Not evil.
In Season 2, Spike gives up killing the slayer to save Dru
(whom he loves.) He makes a pact with his enemy to save Dru
from her crazy plan to suck the world into a hell dimension.
When she is sick and weak, he brings her food (rats or
people). He does not abandon her. He does not cheat on her
(as Dru was tempted to do w/ Angel when Spike was in the
wheelchair.)
He goes out of the way to get her special birthday presents,
and the reason why they come to S'dale in the first place is
so that they can get Angel's blood so that she will get
well. None of this is evil.
Now, compare, if you like, Darla & Angel's relationship,
which was never based on love. When they are surrounded by
vampire hunters in a barn, she grabs the horse and abandons
him there. It is a relationship of convenience only.
Just because vampires are evil, does not make the love they
feel or display evil as well.
[> [> [>
Agree -- meritaten, 10:35:23 07/17/02 Wed
Spike and Dru might have had a twisted relationship, but he
cared for her.
I always enjoyed the contrast between the evilness of Spike
and his ability to love.
[> [> [> [>
The Judge -- Finn Mac Cool, 11:59:59 07/17/02
Wed
However, when Spike brought together the Judge, I got the
feeling that he was only trying to end the world to please
Dru. Hence, love motivating evil.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: The Judge -- Spike Lover, 12:15:53 07/17/02
Wed
It wasn't evil aimed at her. He did not bring the Judge
together to kill her. He got it for her birthday. It was
her new toy. Again, vampires are agents of chaos and
destruction. His love did not bring about evil. Evil would
have happened anyway.
That's my story and I am sticking to it.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: The Judge -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:42:53
07/17/02 Wed
Spike really didn't seem to have much enthusuiasm for
destroying the world; Armageddon's never really been
something he's too interested in. He was enthusiastic about
that excited look on Drusilla's face when she got her
birthday present. Assembling the Judge was an act of
Spike's love for Drusilla; he did it all for her. So, you
see, loving Drusilla led Spike to do something even more
evil than his own nature (as Buffy said, there are different
degrees of evil; Spike is kill for fun and massacre the
innocent evil; Drusilla is devotedly destroy the world evil;
Spike's love for Drusilla pulled him further into the evil
side of the spectrum; his love of Buffy pulled him a little
closer to the good side).
[>
Hell hath no fury like Love scorned/ Seeing Red
Spoilers -- Spike Lover, 07:54:17 07/17/02 Wed
It is X's & B's very flawed humanity that damages A's & S's
love.
I was talking to one of my friends that watches Buffy. We
were talking about 'Seeing Red' and that when I first saw
it, I found it completely unbelievable. Spike would never
do that- not to someone he loved. (He would never have done
it to Dru.)
She disagreed. It was not his lack of soul, or his vampire
nature, or the mixed signals that Buffy had been giving him
all season. It was the LOUSY way she had treated him.
Specifically, you play with someone's feelings that much,
they are going to eventually come unglued and strike
out.
-Whereas I see my friend's point of view, I still shake my
head. I don't think rape was the logical choice for Spike's
character. I think it would have been much more in
character to pull an Othello and try to kill her. As Spike
sings in 'omwf' "first I'll save her, then I'LL kill her.
First I'LL kill her, then I'LL SAVE HER." He did not sing
"First I will argue, and beg, and apologize and crawl, and
then I will subjugate her with sex."
I really don't know why the writers chose rape (if they
intended it this way) as Spike's weapon of choice. I
thinking attempted murder would have been much more
believable. If you take that dialogue in the bathroom, and
rather than sex, Buffy is clutching her bleeding neck,
saying, "Now can't you see why I can never trust you!" That
I would have believed- Actually it would have been much
better, considering that she has let both Dracula and Angel
bite and drink her blood. (And Angel had a fear that after
sex with Buffy he would forget himself and bite her.) The
effect would have been the same (perhaps) of what they were
looking for, without hitting on a whole lot of nerves.
[> [>
I agree -- Rahael, 08:10:59 07/17/02 Wed
That a forcible attempted feeding might have had both the
subtlety, and the resonance required.
[> [> [>
Re: I agree -- DEN, 09:12:21 07/17/02 Wed
And because of that, it was certain that Anvil Queen Mighty
Noxious would miss the point entirely.
[> [> [>
Re: I agree -- Nic, 09:48:46 07/17/02 Wed
I understand the appeal of your idea: that an attempted
feeding would have been more in character because Spike is a
demon. It also has a greater internal logic in view of
"Grave": that he would need a soul because while he loved
Buffy, that love was not enough to keep his demonic impulses
under control.
However, I think there are two points that make the AR just
as plausible and far more powerful. First, the message of SR
and of S6 in general was that of the "human monster"- that
people and not just demons were capable of being deeply
morally flawed (in the case of the Scoobies) or downright
evil (Warren) even with their souls. The brilliance of SR
lies in the shocking acts of violence perpetrated against
characters we care deeply about (the AR and Tara's murder).
SR was the scariest ep of the series precisely because the
violence perpetrated was real-world violence. As much as I
love the dark fantasy/horror genres, I have never been truly
frightened by a horror movie or TV show because I know I
have nothing to fear from blood-sucking vampires or ax-
wielding murderers that you can shoot 20 times but don't
die. OTOH, I squirm at movies that are far more realistic in
their portrayal of violence (e.g. Swordfish, where John
Travolta first strangles Halle Berry then shoots her point
blank after finding out she is an undercover DEA agent).
Rape and gun violence are daily horrors we have to live
with, and it takes an unbelievable amount of nerve to write
a story that would touch on such raw nerve issues. The show
takes risks and should be admired for that.
Spike attempts to rape Buffy but never once vamps out. His
motivations for his sin is deeply human (rage for being
rejected, obsession, selfishness, desire to impose one's
will, terror at being abandoned)and not demonic.
Warren tries to kill Buffy, not with some grand supernatural
weapon, but with a gun, something he could have tried at the
beginning of the season rather than messing with hard-to-
control demon mercenaries or invisibility rayguns. In SR,
he's muttering about how dare Buffy as a woman (I think he
calls her a bitch or something like that) try to humiliate
him and did she really think she could get away with that.
His violence is born of rage and misogyny (thus his murder
of Katrina). SR is brilliant because the scariest things
that can happen to us and even to the characters in the
supernatural world of the Hellmouth are not supernatural at
all and can't be prevented even by a hero like Buffy. Buffy
doesn't kill humans, but humans are as dangerous as anything
else.
My second point (sorry for taking so long) was that in
Tabula Rasa Randy tells Joan that he knows he's a vampire
and that his kind is supposed to bite hers but he has no
desire to bite her in particular. It could be inferred from
this that despite his demonic nature, Spike doesn't want to
kill or destroy Buffy at any level. An attempted feeding
would be an attempted murder, whereas the AR was a pathetic
attempt to force an emotional connection.
As a sidenote, I'm troubled by the implication that murder
or its attempt is somehow less disturbing or harmful than
rape. I think it's really interesting how the AR is more
likely to damn Spike in the eye's of the other characters
(as well as many viewers) than the string of murders he
previously committed. In Crush he threatened to feed Buffy
to Drusilla but was convincingly redeemed of that act by the
Gift when Buffy invites him into her home(Xander didn't
forgive him but Dawn definitely did and so had Buffy, or at
the very least he had won a certain amount of trust and
respect). OTOH, alot of posters believe that he and Buffy
could never have a loving relationship after SR.
Thanks for the chance to rant.:)
[> [> [> [>
Great points! -- Rahael, 10:04:29 07/17/02
Wed
Can you see I veer from one to another on this issue?
lol
What I will say is this: If I were watching the show alone,
if I were not on the board, I would be very sure what
happened, and I would not be worried about this scene. I
would simply wait, for Season 7 to find out what was going
to happen next. Just as I had always done.
But seeing others' reactions to it....that makes me wonder.
I think you make some great points, points that Arethusa
also underlines below, that we have to look at the ugly
truth:
Human beings get raped. It's not an uncommon experience. If
it's such an evil act for Spike, so disturbing, how is it
possible for society to cope with men who do this? Surely we
need to cope?
And you are very right about murder being more terrible than
rape. Rufus also made this point before. People who murder
people are not filled with the milk of human kindness!
Finally those fans who believe it's out of character? I
understand where they are coming from. But then why the need
to argue away the actual event? Either the writers messed
up, or they didn't. You don't need to deny the actual event
on the screen to make a convincing argument for 'Spike
wouldn't do that'.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Great points! -- Sophist, 10:50:22 07/17/02
Wed
But then why the need to argue away the actual event?
Either the writers messed up, or they didn't. You don't need
to deny the actual event on the screen to make a convincing
argument for 'Spike wouldn't do that'.
Strictly speaking, this is true. But if you say "Spike
wouldn't do that", you naturally start wondering "what would
Spike do". That reasoning leads to the conclusion that he
lacked the intent necessary for attempted rape. One can then
support this conclusion with events prior to the scene
(e.g., the confusing nature of the relationship) and after
(e.g., the fact that Buffy unhesitatingly took Dawn to
Spike's crypt immediately after). And then, when you've made
some sense of it for yourself, the writers can assure you
that yes, it was attempted rape.
All of which leads to the conclusion that the scene was
badly written, one way or the other.
[> [> [> [>
But Rape? Spike? -- Spike Lover, 10:48:52
07/17/02 Wed
I am going back to my argument about poor writing and
forcing a character to do something that he would not
normally do.
Have we seen Spike actually rape anyone? Admittedly he had
some interest in raping Willow in 'Lover's Walk', but he
backed down really quick from that idea.
I agree that the writers were trying to show the deep human
flaws of all the characters. But choosing rape for Spike
was a bit off base. THey could have tried to have him
'force the emotional connection' and stay in character by
doing a force feeding. I truly think they were trying to
shift the balance - to get viewers to have definite
misgivings of Spike's character. They easily achieved this
by touching on such a hot topic as attempted rape. To be
realistic, he could have REALLY tried to rape her. Beaten
her to a pulp in the bathroom after she had kicked him
across the room. They could have literally torn the house
down, but he backed down pretty quick, which said to me that
he did not realize it was going that direction and he really
had no intention of it going that way. (I don't want to
argue about this now. I know viewers see it
differently.)
Also, the last 2 seasons they have dealt with 'scary real
life' that Buffy has no control over, including Joyce's
illness and later her death. The entire season 6 could be
called "Scary real life".
I guess my end point is that I don't believe the
premeditated rape scene. It does not work for me.
[> [> [> [> [>
ditto for me too... wasn't believable but Sophist
cleared it up for me! -- shygirl, 11:03:32 07/17/02
Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: But Rape? Spike? -- leslie,
12:41:53 07/17/02 Wed
Hmm, I think in some ways it *has* to be a rape. I wrote
last week about what I think Spike has to "offer" Buffy in a
relationship, namely, a way to confront her issues with
abandonment. Now, in order for that to work, he has to leave
Sunnydale *and then return.* If I were writing this story,
this is how my reasoning would go (and this is working
backwards, as it were, from the premise that what I want to
happen is for Spike to leave and then return in order to
address abandoment issues later on, say in S7): In order to
feel the need to leave Sunnydale, Spike has to do something
so awful that it finally penetrates his skull that *he* has
issues that need to be addressed, can't just be blamed on
the chip, and can only be addressed elsewhere. But what
could he do that is that awful? He's a vampire. He's already
killed thousands of people! He's even already killed women
and babies (according to JM)--there isn't really much he can
do in the killing department that would be worse than what
he's done already. He's already killed two Slayers--and fed
off one of them--so that would be nothing new. He can't
actually KILL Buffy because that, well, that would be kind
of counter-productive to the long-term goal of dealing with
those abandoment issues we want to address, wouldn't it.
Furthermore, and more importantly, even if one were to write
a scene in which Spike does kill someone and realizes that
it was wrong, that would not address the long-term goal
because *there would be no reason for him to leave.* The new
understanding would be of degree, not of kind. He would
achieve enlightenment on his home turf.
On the other hand, we've already established that Spike
enjoys rough sex and S&M, and does not really see any hard
and fast line between violence and sex. That is his Achilles
heel. Rape is not something that seems in character for him,
but that is why it is the only act strong enough to stop
him, make him look at himself, and realize that he has to
change. Granted, his initial ideas about what needs to
change are somewhat confused, but the point is that, not
only do we, as the audience, see rape as out of character
for Spike, but SPIKE sees rape as out of character for
Spike, and that is what causes him to question himself, and
(long-term goal approaching) to leave, *and then to come
back.*
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Completely agree again! I must be channeling you
today! -- Caroline, 13:04:18 07/17/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Okay, now you write something about Spike as Hades for
me to agree with -- leslie,
13:17:48 07/17/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [>
I've been SO avoiding this thread but that was
excellent -- ponygirl, 14:07:45 07/17/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [>
This was excellent leslie! Also Great pts. Nic --
shadowkat, 17:03:28 07/17/02 Wed
I actually agree with this...but am feeling distrustful of
ME right now. So will wait until Season 7 to see if they
follow through and do what you suggest and explore the
abandonment issue. I wrote my own essay on Buffy's fears of
abandonment some time ago. I really want them to adress this
before the series ends. And I think you are right,
the only way to do that was to send Spike away for awhile.
And then have him come back. Spike is the way to handle
it.
I also believe that Buffy was MORE upset about Spike leaving
town ie. abandoning her in her time of need than the
attempted rape. Her reaction in the crypt when Clem says he
left and her later reaction to Dawn's comment they go back
to the crypt seemed evidence of that. But it wasn't clearly
so, lots of people didn't get that.
I still don't like that rape scene. Not because it didn't
work storyline wise, it did. Not because it wasn't well
acted, it was, brillantly so. Not because it wasn't well
done. It was too well done. I don't like it because of the
feelings it conveyed about a topic that disturbs me on a
personal subjective level.
So I agree with everything you said objectively and
intellectually and it is why I think SR is amazing
episode.
It is also why I continue to write about it analytically in
essays. You're absolutely right about Spike.
I also agree with Nic.
But on a personal subjective level I HATE that scene. But
then so did the actors...So maybe I was supposed to? Maybe
that was the point? To reel back in horror and want to cover
our eyes in fright?
That is the purpose of horror after all - to scare us, to
show us something we hate, to deal with the darkness in
human nature and discuss it amongst ourselves. And as Nic
put it - the real stuff, rape, a gunshot is far more
frightening than a vampire swooping down to bite you. Why?
Because it's well and not hidden by metaphor. If that was
their intent? They succeeded. Again too well. We have been
discussing the attempted rape scene since before it aired.
Actually we've been discussing it for almost six months. Now
that is effective story telling. It doesn't matter to the
writers whether we liked it - they just want to get us to
think about it.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Sorry No -- Spike Lover, 11:07:08 07/18/02
Thu
If the entire scene was a vehicle to get him out of town, it
was poorly done. And rape was a very poor choice. Having a
force feeding could have gotten the same point across --he
does not normally want to snack on Buffy either. It would
certainly been a test of trust, which both would have
failed.
It could also have worked with the dire pain Spike was in.
(He was suicidal w/ Guilt over his tryst with Anya, and had
actually come to apologize to Buffy. Why apologize to her
at all? She told him to hit the road. -Because stupid Dawn
has told him that it hurt him --which must mean that she
feels something.) So he goes in there begging -once again
for a crumb. He knows that she has let Angel and Dracula
bite her. He could in his mind think that if she embraced
his vamp nature more, she would admit that she loved him.
If she gave herself to him as she had to Angel -WHEN ANGEL
REALLY NEEDED IT- it might make them closer. (After all,
that is how he and Dru initially got close.)
Afterward, he might wonder why he did not do it after all.
He is a vamp after all. He would be horrified, I think,
that he would make the woman that he loved so much cry (that
would be enough) and see that it is pointless to love her or
try to redeem himself. Let's get the chip out
and go back to the way things were.
The bathroom scene makes me mad. And next season, rather
than be sympathetic w/ Buffy, I want her to get her
comeuppence.
[> [> [> [> [>
Very nicely done all -- aliera, 09:37:15
07/18/02 Thu
Nic, thanks for your points and Leslie, I've read alot on
the scene and Spike's movitation; but that's the first time
I've seen it put that way. Especially like the tie in with
Buffy's abandonment issues. Interesting, just when you think
a subject has been done to death, you all find a way to look
at a little differently, and change the perspective.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: But Rape? Spike? -- Miss Edith, 13:24:50
07/18/02 Thu
Spike did not really express an interest in raping Willow in
Lover's Walk. It could easily be interpreted that way but
what he said was "I haven't had a women in weeks...unless
you count that shopgirl". Therefore although a panicking
Willow thought he meant rape and said "there will be no
having of any kind" he was specifically refering to feeding
as he had not raped the shop girl but killed her (shown on
screen). Spike's preference is fights between equal
opponents. He jeered at Angleous talking about the artistry
of torturing and called him a "poofter".
[> [> [>
Re: I agree -- Nic, 09:50:01 07/17/02 Wed
I understand the appeal of your idea: that an attempted
feeding would have been more in character because Spike is a
demon. It also has a greater internal logic in view of
"Grave": that he would need a soul because while he loved
Buffy, that love was not enough to keep his demonic impulses
under control.
However, I think there are two points that make the AR just
as plausible and far more powerful. First, the message of SR
and of S6 in general was that of the "human monster"- that
people and not just demons were capable of being deeply
morally flawed (in the case of the Scoobies) or downright
evil (Warren) even with their souls. The brilliance of SR
lies in the shocking acts of violence perpetrated against
characters we care deeply about (the AR and Tara's murder).
SR was the scariest ep of the series precisely because the
violence perpetrated was real-world violence. As much as I
love the dark fantasy/horror genres, I have never been truly
frightened by a horror movie or TV show because I know I
have nothing to fear from blood-sucking vampires or ax-
wielding murderers that you can shoot 20 times but don't
die. OTOH, I squirm at movies that are far more realistic in
their portrayal of violence (e.g. Swordfish, where John
Travolta first strangles Halle Berry then shoots her point
blank after finding out she is an undercover DEA agent).
Rape and gun violence are daily horrors we have to live
with, and it takes an unbelievable amount of nerve to write
a story that would touch on such raw nerve issues. The show
takes risks and should be admired for that.
Spike attempts to rape Buffy but never once vamps out. His
motivations for his sin is deeply human (rage for being
rejected, obsession, selfishness, desire to impose one's
will, terror at being abandoned)and not demonic.
Warren tries to kill Buffy, not with some grand supernatural
weapon, but with a gun, something he could have tried at the
beginning of the season rather than messing with hard-to-
control demon mercenaries or invisibility rayguns. In SR,
he's muttering about how dare Buffy as a woman (I think he
calls her a bitch or something like that) try to humiliate
him and did she really think she could get away with that.
His violence is born of rage and misogyny (thus his murder
of Katrina). SR is brilliant because the scariest things
that can happen to us and even to the characters in the
supernatural world of the Hellmouth are not supernatural at
all and can't be prevented even by a hero like Buffy. Buffy
doesn't kill humans, but humans are as dangerous as anything
else.
My second point (sorry for taking so long) was that in
Tabula Rasa Randy tells Joan that he knows he's a vampire
and that his kind is supposed to bite hers but he has no
desire to bite her in particular. It could be inferred from
this that despite his demonic nature, Spike doesn't want to
kill or destroy Buffy at any level. An attempted feeding
would be an attempted murder, whereas the AR was a pathetic
attempt to force an emotional connection.
As a sidenote, I'm troubled by the implication that murder
or its attempt is somehow less disturbing or harmful than
rape. I think it's really interesting how the AR is more
likely to damn Spike in the eye's of the other characters
(as well as many viewers) than the string of murders he
previously committed. In Crush he threatened to feed Buffy
to Drusilla but was convincingly redeemed of that act by the
Gift when Buffy invites him into her home(Xander didn't
forgive him but Dawn definitely did and so had Buffy, or at
the very least he had won a certain amount of trust and
respect). OTOH, alot of posters believe that he and Buffy
could never have a loving relationship after SR.
Thanks for the chance to rant.:)
[> [> [>
Why it couldn't be a feeding -- Ete, 10:08:33
07/17/02 Wed
I think there's several reasons for that. One of which would
only be the cheer amount of fics using Spike's biting Buffy
as an erotic scene. Yes ofcourse, that's why such a scene
would be a metaphor for a rape, yet it would have too much
ressemblance with Graduation Day, where despite the
brutality of Angel's feeding on Buffy, she seemed to have an
orgasm.
Others have made the point that Spike in SR wasn't in game
face, that it was the crime of a man.
That's important because that's what S6 has been about all
the way : how what was good in you could lead you to do what
was wrong. Buffy hiding where she came from so as not to
make her friends, Buffy's self-disgust at her behaviour with
Spike leading her to abuse him, Willow's use of magic to
help people tranforming in use of magic to control people,
Giles wanting to help Buffy grow up and stand by herself
leading to abandon her in the worst moment, Xander's wanting
to protect Anya leading him to running away from the altar,
and so on.
For Spike it was the same, what was the best thing in him,
his love for Buffy, led him to do the worst thing (In his
opinion at least, 'cause rape ain't exaclty worst that
murder). But then what showed the final is that sometimes
what you did the worse could lead you to do the best. When
Xander's feeling of inutility could make him guess what
Willow was feeling and get her back, when Buffy's learnt
from her errors to know what she should teach Dawn etc. and
when Spike's terrible act shook him to get a soul and face
the guilt consequences of 120 years of evil.
[> [>
Re: I agree as well -- Brian, 09:29:55 07/17/02
Wed
Thanks for putting it in words I couldn't find.
[> [>
Know why they did it...but agree with you --
shadowkat, 09:52:56 07/17/02 Wed
"I really don't know why the writers chose rape (if they
intended it this way) as Spike's weapon of choice. I
thinking attempted murder would have been much more
believable. If you take that dialogue in the bathroom, and
rather than sex, Buffy is clutching her bleeding neck,
saying, "Now can't you see why I can never trust you!" That
I would have believed- Actually it would have been much
better, considering that she has let both Dracula and Angel
bite and drink her blood. (And Angel had a fear that after
sex with Buffy he would forget himself and bite her.) The
effect would have been the same (perhaps) of what they were
looking for, without hitting on a whole lot of nerves."
They chose the rape because like Joss said at ATAS Emmy
Interview - they wanted to drop the metaphorical and go for
the more shockingly real.
In real situations - the guy would do the "attempted rape"
scenerio. But there's one MAJOR problem with this - you have
a vampire and vampire slayer doing this, which yeah, made it
cool and ironic, but for most of us the attempted rape was
confusing, disappointing, annoying, aggravating,
and horrifying and we REALLY wish they'd done something
else. Like you and Sophist and Rah - I would have
preferred
he bite her. Also I had troubles with the whole Buffy is
weak because she fell on a tomb and bathtub scenerio. Seemed
contrived.
I have tried, which you guys know because you read my posts,
to justify what ME did, to spackle it, to make it work,
because I so desperately wanted it to...but
sorry... I still despised that scene. That scene, which they
felt the need to replay several times, made it difficult for
me to appreciate and rewatch the excellent Clem/Spike scene
that followed it. And I really hope we don't have to see
anyone visually flashback to it next year.
Please ME - have Spike flashback to some other horror. Or do
it quickly in one or two episodes and move on.
And yes - Spike trying to kill Buffy or vamp her like he
tried in the Initiative w/Willow would have worked much
better for me and tied much better with Smashed - when he
discovered he could bite her. I never completely understood
why he never did. He's a vampire, right?
Like Sophist, I am also trying to forget or not think too
much about the scene. Really didn't like it. HAve tried to
make it work for me. Have analyzed it too death. But I won't
be watching it again if I can avoid it.
[> [> [>
Hadn't thought of that, but you're right it would have
worked better! -- shygirl, 11:05:42 07/17/02 Wed
[> [> [>
I feel your pain -- Spike Lover, 11:56:51
07/17/02 Wed
I love Spike. I would not love him if he were actually
evil. (I pretty much despise Angel and Darla. Buffy is not
too high on my list either.)
The problem with the rape scenario for me is that it was out
of character. It is fine to have an NYPD moment of gritty
reality, but you have to remember what characters you are
dealing with.
(Also, attempted murder is also gritty reality. There are
plenty of people who kill their loved ones and then kill
themselves when they realize what they have done. Watch the
news sometime, Joss. -But maybe they did not want attempted
murder for Spike since Warren was running down that path
already. --The scene was also suppose to be a FOIL for the
Katrina/Warren attempted rape thing also.)
What can I say? It has been a complicated, warped, roller-
coaster season.
However, If Spike had tried to bite her, it would have been
better evidence for me of a 'backslide' on his part than
attempted rape.
I hated the scene.
[> [> [>
Re: Know why they did it...but agree with you --
Finn Mac Cool, 14:00:04 07/17/02 Wed
Who says Buffy was weakened? Spike is roughly as strong as
she is, so why do people think that Buffy was weak at that
point?
[> [> [> [>
Re: S'kat SR rant -- wina, 15:17:25 07/17/02
Wed
I agree with a lot of what you said. that scene disturbed me
for a number of reasons. but I never felt it was somehow
Buffy's fault. Had I felt manipulated into feeling that, I
would have stopped watching Btvs.
I deslike the association of sex and violence, it feels like
it's denying ones sexuality.S&M can be an expression of said
sexuality. however I think it can often be badly written/
handled.In some episodes there was a clear separation
between the sexual act and a kind of relationship, but I
always felt the writers turned away from the mere hint of a
possibility of a sort of a relationship that went beyhond
just 'using'each other.
still I really liked this series, can't wait for S7
(not sure I made myself very clear, english is not my first
language)
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: S'kat SR rant -- shadowkat, 16:43:26
07/17/02 Wed
"I agree with a lot of what you said. that scene disturbed
me for a number of reasons. but I never felt it was somehow
Buffy's fault. Had I felt manipulated into feeling that, I
would have stopped watching Btvs."
Actually my feelings are far more complex than that. I
expressed it wrong. You did a better job. I actually feel
more like you do and Nic and Leslie. That rape scene gives
me a headache b/c I really have no clear idea how I feel or
what I'm supposed to feel most of the time about it. I do
know that after it, I was angry at both characters, and felt
of the two, Buffy still didn't get it. She pushes that boy
around like a yo-yo. Go away! Then she goes to his crypt and
asks for help. I never want to see you! Then where does she
go? His crypt. Leslie said it very well in post a while back
- what was so annoying about the B/S relationship was
Buffy's modus operandi, go away, come here - which I also
agree with Leslie is an unconscious test of Spike on Buffy's
part. Unfortunately it confuses the audience and
Spike...very complex, very tricky, do admire them for it -
but I'm waiting until I see Season 7
and whether they deliver, before I give Seeing Red any more
undeserved accolades.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: S'kat SR rant -- Akita, 06:51:39 07/19/02
Fri
Shadowcat wrote: "Leslie said it very well in post a while
back - what was so annoying about the B/S relationship was
Buffy's modus operandi, go away, come here - which I also
agree with Leslie is an unconscious test of Spike on Buffy's
part."
This has been her standard MO in all her realized
relationships. Granted it's more extreme with Spike, but she
did much the same thing with both Angel and Riley. In the
former case there was a lot of "Go away, this is never
going to work; wait, why did you go, I needed you." (Angel
has a wonderfully fully human moment toward the end of B3
when, looking completely emotionally whiplashed, he tells
her she's acting like a "brat.") And, of course, Xander
absolutely nailed her conduct with Riley in his little
speech at the end of "Into the Woods." She wanted Riley
around when she wanted/needed him around, and not otherwise,
and poor Riley was left to suss out on his own just when
those times would be.
I'm not Buffy-bashing here. This is textbook conduct for a
young woman with abandonment issues. She tests constantly.
Combine that with Spike's highly volatile obsessiveness and,
well, it's "hello, nitroglycerin, meet naptha."
Akita
[> [> [> [> [> [>
He said/She said -- Rufus, 05:01:50 07/20/02
Sat
If you only think of the word "rape" the connotations can
only be bad, but if you consider the whole situation it does
make sense. Remember Spike has always said that Buffy needed
a some monster in her man, he saw the archetype of a monster
to be a posative thing, of course missing the point that
Buffy needed a man who would stay through the worst as well
as the best. Spike who was once a "bloody awful poet" and a
bit of a wimp as a man, sees the monster inside of him as
his salvation. He thinks it's the monster that helped him
get laid, get attention, made him feel alive. Then he got
that chip, the chip that left him conflicted....with no time
to spend killing because he lost interest when he decided to
go after Buffy (in a non killing way this time) he was
beginning to rediscover his humanity, apprecitate the small
things, care for people, people that were his prey, reminded
him of his failure as a man. He loves Buffy, and even though
she is attracted to the demon that is Spike, he is also what
Slayers were created to destroy, now talk about conflict.
There are no bad guys here, Spike never went to Buffys house
looking to take what he wanted, he wanted to apologise, but
there was a problem, he still has that monster inside the
human exterior...the man wants Buffy, she can't trust him
(and she hadn't seen the attack in Smashed)....Spike became
desperate, the monster crap he gave out as his reason for
being irresistable didn't work in the end. Remember the
vampire is a hybrid, and the monster part of that hybrid
wouldn't have been trying to figure out how to get the girl,
the man inside did that, the man inside has the emotions,
the man is the part of Spike, Buffy came to care about. The
monster was in that bathroom with the characters, the man
was desperate, the monster compelled him to use force on
Buffy, and she didn't fight back because she had come to
care for Spike, cared about William, didn't think that he
could hurt her....but without a soul, the monster inside
made it possible for the man to lose control and attempt to
rape, yes, rape the woman he loved. Buffy kicked him across
the room, and instead of continuing with the assault the
monster and the man that is Spike started their final
conflict. There is one thing seperating Spike from being
what Buffy deserves and that is a soul, and that is what
Spike decided he needed when he spoke with Clem in the
Crypt. That didn't mean that Spike wasn't going to complain
about having to become "good enough" for Buffy, but in the
end, after the trials in that quiet moment a resigned Spike
accepted what he came and fought for, a soul, a soul because
he loved Buffy and never wanted to hurt her again if he
could help it, and with a soul there is more of a chance the
monster that is Spike will not be able to hurt Buffy,
because he loves her, and most of all....IT WOULD BE
WRONG.
[> [>
Sticking my neck out -- Caesar
Augustus, 21:04:29 07/17/02 Wed
From my perspective, I have to say that what Spike did
seemed a very natural progression. Spike does have some
remnants of anger for what Buffy's done to him. But it is
not anger that drives the bathroom incident, it is
more pain. The dialog in the scene is what's crucial.
He is literally begging Buffy to love him. The idea
that he's trying to hurt her out of anger is one I can only
regard as absurd. His whole approach would have been
completely different then.
Buffy's mention of 'trust' is what sends him over the edge.
Spike considers trust about as relevant to love as butter is
to soccer. He decides to prove to Buffy what love is really
about ... In Spike's twisted mind, the line between sex and
love is not as clear as in Buffy's, but he has no
appreciation of that. He sees love through his own eyes, and
he thinks that he will get Buffy to give in to her sexual
attraction to him - in his mind that's tied up with giving
in to her love for him. Part of him's always believed that
Buffy does love him, but isn't prepared to let
herself love him. He's trying to overcome that barrier. But
for him to try kill Buffy out of the blue? That would be out
of character, I'm afraid.
Current
board
| More July 2002