July 2003 Archives

July 2003 posts

previous July 2003
More July 2003

Never Kill a Boy on the First Date-- some basic surface thoughts. -- Q, 15:47:30 07/08/03 Tue

Never Kill A Boy on the First Date
My Grade: A-

In a season about the horrors of high school, it's about time we get a show about the first date, isn't it? The show is also a microcosm of the entirety of season 1, all wrapped up in this quote: "Clark Kent had a job, I just want to go on a date." Season 1 was about finding the time to have a normal teenage life while still honoring commitments that are larger than life.

When I look back on season 1 in general, it feels light, and not too consequential. Now that I am again watching these eps, I realize that many of them were very serious, scary, and rather dark. This episode played out a lot better than I had remembered.

The Masters arc is taken very slowly, but by throwing his presence in where they have, they keep the menace alive, and it is very effective. The Master is a great, very creepy, villain, and episodes like this show why he was so effective. The surprise ending still sends shivers up my spine! What a great scene! Even though the annoying one didn't end up being nearly as important as they all made him out to be here!

One of my favorite aspects of the entire show is the Buffy/ Giles relationship, and this may be the first ep that shows that relationship in light of what it would become, what I would love. The scene after the Owen break up was very moving and touching, and I love Giles!-Speaking of Giles, his running knockout total is now 2.

My very favorite aspect of the entire show is the Buffy/ Angel relationship, and whoa are the seeds being planted here-very intriguing!

Xanders jealousy, and his Krameresque paranoia of Owen, as well as his Tweety Bird watch are hilarious! And speaking of hilarious, Cordelia strikes again! Her "salty goodness" line, and negativity about Buffy's PDA with Owen and Angel are beautiful, especially knowing as we do the future for Cordy and Angel (not the last 2 seasons of Angel, I'm pretending that never happened, and Thank God it sounds like the writers are too! I just mean their "familial" relationship on Angel)

The Order of Aurelius intrigues me, because I am sure the Order was separate from the master. Giles says he read "Aurelius himselve"s writings and the order was to bring the Anointed to the master. They really seemed like separate entity's, yet later flashbacks on Angel present The Master as the leader of the order of Aurelius. I don't think that was the intention here, and frankly, I think the original intention was a much better idea. The Master as head of this order just does not work for me!

One of the strongest aspects of the first few seasons was the music. I'm not talking about the score as much (It improved much with C. Beck), but the rock/pop song back grounds. Kim Richey's "Let the Sun Fall Down" was beatifully melancholy, and set a perfect mood for the Owen/ Buffy "break up" scene, as well as the Giles consolation speach right after that.

[> Preserving -- Anneth, 20:01:50 07/08/03 Tue

[> [> Re: Preserving Two -- Lilly of the Valley, 05:43:17 07/09/03 Wed

[> [> [> Re NKABOTFD -- Liam, 07:48:17 07/09/03 Wed

That was a nice look at 'NKABOTFD', Q, and I agree with your conclusions. My favourite part of the episode has to be Cordelia's 'salty goodness' line, her reaction to when she first saw Angel. :) If only she knew what was going to follow! She ends up working for him and has sex with his son by Darla, the vampire who tried to bite her in 'The Harvest'. :)

[> [> [> [> Re: NKABOTFD -- AngelVSAngelus, 10:15:05 07/09/03 Wed

I also appreciate the seeds of Buffy's dualistic questioning of "what's more her, the girl or the Slayer?" The fact that Owen is actually attracted to her excitingly violent lifestyle rather than just her was the beginning of a long string of moments where Buffy struggles with that question.
"You're not the source of me," she says three years later to the essence of the First Slayer.

OT: News on "Chance" - movie starring AB, JM, AH -- s'kat, 22:31:34 07/08/03 Tue

This was just posted on B C & S spoiler board. Apparently they are now selling Chance. So we can buy it.

For those who don't know what Chance is - it's the movie Amber Benson (who played Tara) directed, wrote and starred in. It co-stars James Marsters, Andy Hallette, and has cameos by Nicholas Brendan's wife as a lesbian girlfriend, and by David Fury as a pizza delivery guy. The movie is about a young girl in her 20s figuring out relationships.
It's gotten very good reviews at the conventions where it's played. Also provides everyone a chance to see Amber, James
and Andy in roles NOTHING like their roles on Btvs and Ats.

Date Posted: 01:04:08 07/09/03 Wed
Author: enims'ekips
Author Host/IP: 12.222.166.79
Subject: You can now buy CHANCE!

Go to the official site:

http://www.efanguide.com/~amber//chance/

I think they are still working out the kinks for their order form, so you may want to wait to order it, but bookmark it now!

BTW, to get around the whole having to pay SAG actors scale for a movie if it makes any money, you actually buy a poster and then get the movie "free".

They are not sending any out until there is enough to fill an order, so it may be a while. (Unless all of you go order it. Which you should. It's a great movie.)

[> According to the site... -- s'kat, 22:40:59 07/08/03 Tue

It costs $45 to buy it - you buy a signed photo or signed poster and get the movie free. Comes in DVD or VHS.

Too rich for my blood right now. Also only by money order or paypal (whatever that is).

[> [> Somebody correct me if I'm wrong... -- Darby, 08:12:31 07/09/03 Wed

I thought that PayPal was an internet-link payment method, which would require, you know, a link of some kind, which doesn't seem to exist there right now. If that's right and someone will confirm it, I'll e-mail them to suggest it...

[> [> [> Re: Somebody correct me if I'm wrong... -- LittleBit, 08:50:12 07/09/03 Wed

It looks like you fill out the form on the page and select "PayPal" as your payment choice. My guess is that it then gives you a direct link to their account for payment.

[> [> [> [> Oops, glad I asked. -- Darby, 10:40:33 07/09/03 Wed

I didn't even realize that I was in a subwindow. Didn't even notice the scroll bar. Thanks.

I'll be glad when all of the panelling disappears from sites - it's happening fairly quickly, I've noticed.

[> Related topic - Interview with Amber Benson -- Sophist, 08:47:48 07/09/03 Wed

It can be found at the Kitten Board

[> [> Unrelated topic - BtVS mention in Salon.com -- ponygirl, 13:46:06 07/09/03 Wed

Towards the end of Charles Taylor's appreciation of Barry White there was this paragrpah:

On "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" a few seasons back, a pre-Sapphic Willow decided it was time to lose her virginity to her boyfriend Oz. There was no question about what she would choose as mood music. "Ya got Barry working for ya," Oz noted while, with the steadfastness of a true lover and in a fashion that White would have applauded, he held back because the time wasn't right for him. If a suburban California Jewish teenage witch setting out to seduce her indie-rocker werewolf boyfriend decided Barry was the man for her, then he was truly universal.

[> [> [> Re: Unrelated topic - BtVS mention in Salon.com -- leslie, 21:34:09 07/09/03 Wed

About a month and a half ago, in an appreciation of the woman who wrote Forever Amber (and I've already forgotten her name), Taylor ended with a paraphrase of Spike: "I may be narrative's bitch, but at least I'm man enough to admit it." (Which I think actually could well be said of Spike, too.) Let's face it--the man is as obsessed as we are--everything is related to Buffy.

[> [> [> [> You have to respect that! -- ponygirl, wondering if Taylor is lurking about, 06:45:04 07/10/03 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> oh, I do, I do! -- leslie, 11:28:40 07/10/03 Thu

[> [> [> [> make it a hat trick... -- xanthe, 14:36:31 07/10/03 Thu

There's a third Buffy mention in one of this author's recent articles. Charles Taylor writes in his rebuttal to A.S. Byatt's commentary on the Harry Potter book "Young readers who were the same age as Harry when the series began may be growing with him. But a younger group of readers who are just now beginning the series may find that the later books are too upsetting for them (in the same way that some teenage viewers of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" abandoned the show when it began dealing with the complications of young adulthood). "

This writer is passionate about many things - and Buffy is at the top of his list!

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2003/07/08/byatt_rowling/index.html

I have news - we're pregnant! -- Marie, 08:30:45 07/09/03 Wed

That was a little weird, announcing it baldly like that, but anything else looked kind of twee...

Anyway, Liam and I are very happy, though it means postponing the wedding (we'd planned for January, but I'm due in December), and I thought those who may remember the start of my little romance may like to know what's become of it!

Marie

[> Congratulations -- Tchaikovsky, 08:44:51 07/09/03 Wed

[> great news (NT) -- Deacon, 08:52:33 07/09/03 Wed

.

[> Awesome! -- Masq, 09:13:02 07/09/03 Wed

[> Congratulations!!!!! -- LadyStarlight, 09:13:26 07/09/03 Wed

I admit, I was wondering what was going on with you two! That's so wonderful!

[> Good luck -- lunasea, 09:26:12 07/09/03 Wed

You may think it is too early to even think about labor and delivery now, but if you want a truly memorable experience, I suggest looking into Bradley (aka Husband Coached Childbirth). Don't let Lamaze or Prepared Childbirth masquerade as "natural" and don't let anyone take your power away. Pregnancy and childbirth is one of the most empowering experiences a woman can have. Have fun with it.

[> [> Re: Good luck -- Rendyl, 10:48:10 07/09/03 Wed

Not to dive back into the -power- thread or to scare Marie but it is not always sunshine and roses. I -Hated- being pregnant. With the all day morning sickness (that lasted for 10 weeks) to the lapses in memory to my baby kicking the same (sore) spot for hours at a time I felt like my body was at war with me. The end result was worth it, but unlike the books and magazines I was not transported to some mystical 'life-mother' place. I didn't feel powerful, I just felt extremely relieved and lucky we (baby and I) made it out of the war zone alive.

For Marie - I do know women who have easy pregnancies and sane deliveries. So don't spook on reading my descent into hell. (grin) I worked with a woman who had an easy preg, started contractions at work and delivered the baby before we got off work. So sometimes it is good. Other times it takes a while and is painful but it is still cool.

My advice (such as it is) would be to find the best Dr/midwife/ect you can. Ask tons of questions, don't let them rush you around, and get someone who pays attention to how your body works.

Good luck.

[> [> [> And drugs. Lots of drugs. -- Arethusa, 10:55:32 07/09/03 Wed

You already have kids and know what it's like, Marie, so I'll just say don't hesitate to take drugs to ease delivery if you want to. I've done it both ways and the pain-free way was much more pleasant.

[> [> [> [> Or essential oils and crystals! -- O'Cailleagh, 11:04:20 07/09/03 Wed

Now, if only you knew of a local(ish) and professional aromatherapist....
(I do, of course, mean me!)

O'Cailleagh

[> [> [> [> [> Whatever works! -- Arethusa, 11:10:39 07/09/03 Wed

I just found that nothing worked better for me than an epidural! ;)

[> [> [> [> One word - epidural! -- Kitt, 11:35:46 07/09/03 Wed

I delivered my 10 lbs, 10 oz son with one, and it was an easier delivery than my 7lbs, 12 oz daughter without one!

[> [> [> [> [> Re: One word - epidural! -- Rendyl, 13:21:12 07/09/03 Wed

Whoa...I am in awe Kitt...almost 11 lbs. Man...Wow

Ren

[> [> [> [> [> [> oh, the story gets better... e-mail if you want details... -- Kitt, 06:17:29 07/10/03 Thu

[> [> [> [> Mmmmm drugs...sounds like a plan...I mean for Marie of course.....;) -- Rufus, 12:51:35 07/09/03 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> Rufus! -- Masq, 14:53:28 07/10/03 Thu

I just read Mr. Rufus' profile in "Meet the Posters". Hah!

What to say to suck up to Masquerade: "What is Spike good for?... bring back Connor!"

*snerk!* Diet Coke hits the computer screen....

[> [> [> Um, I think Marie knows this... -- dub ;o), 14:23:35 07/09/03 Wed

If I'm not mistaken, she already has at least one child...

;o)

[> [> Re: Good luck -- lunasea, 12:54:16 07/09/03 Wed

I'm not going to get into Natural vs Medical Delivery debate. It is about as productive as the Mommy Wars (often a battle drawn along the same lines with the same participants). If you want to know more, email me. I would be happy to share my experiences with you and point to further reference material. Whatever method you choose to bring this child into the world, the most important thing, next to the health of the baby and mother, is how comfortable you are. Don't make this decision based on the desires of the hospital, the doctor/midwife, your mother, best friend, fiance or anyone on the board. It should be an informed decision that YOU make for what is best for you and your new child. It is one of the first important decisions you will make as a mother. That is what makes it so empowering.

[> Congratulations! -- CW, 09:34:04 07/09/03 Wed

[> Wow, congrats!! -- Rob, 09:41:36 07/09/03 Wed

[> Yay! Conratulations! -- deeva, 10:04:36 07/09/03 Wed

[> Awww... Congratulations! -- Anneth, 10:18:50 07/09/03 Wed

[> At least you get to be big and miserable in the cool months. :) -- Rendyl, 10:24:07 07/09/03 Wed

Evil smile...

My daughter was due the end of Jan but due to complications from an auto accident she was born a few days after Christmas. I spent the holidays feeling like I had a bowling ball between my legs. (cough) Pregnancy is a many-splendored thing. (insert yet another evil smile)

Ren - Congrats to you guys -

[> That's wonderful! Congratulations! -- Arethusa, 10:35:31 07/09/03 Wed

[> Congrats, Marie! Best wishes to you and the father. And, of course, the bundle of joy. -- Random, 10:37:34 07/09/03 Wed

[> Congrats!! -- O'Cailleagh (feeling all broody now), 10:59:41 07/09/03 Wed

Aww, how lovely it'll be to have a little baby around the board! I almost feel like an uncle, not that we've ever met..or even spoken to eachother!
Hmmm...just no sacrificing to Voynak ok? ;-)

O'Cailleagh

[> Brightest Blessings, Marie! -- dub ;o), 11:04:56 07/09/03 Wed

I remember well how terrified you were of that first date, LOL!

What a joy a Yuletide baby will be. You are like a shining beacon of life and love that I perceive to be vaguely to the East...well, heck, Mecca's to the East, too!

All my best wishes,

Love, dub xoxoxox

[> May your spawn be wise and all-powerful! -- ponygoyle, 11:39:01 07/09/03 Wed

[> Big Congrats!! -- JCC, 15:39:22 07/09/03 Wed

Just don't watch any Buffy/Angel DVDs between now and December. You don't want to end up with a child called Acathla or Anyanka! ;o)

[> Congrats! Marie!! -- s'kat, 16:06:24 07/09/03 Wed

[> Congratulations, I've settled on the Lucretius quotage again -- Celebaelin, 17:22:47 07/09/03 Wed

Inque brevi spatio mutantur saecla animantum Et quasi cursores vitai lampada tradunt

The generations of living things pass in a short time and, like runners, hand on the torch of life.
On the Nature of the Universe II
Titus Lucretius Carus c. 99-55 BC

Which pretty much sums up the essential facts of life, and therefore life sciences, to me.

Not sure that that shouldn't be vitae rather than vitai but maybe I should trust my source.

C

[> mazel tov, marie & liam!!! -- anom, 18:44:02 07/09/03 Wed

I hope it's an easy pregnancy & as easy as birth ever gets, whatever approach you choose to take, ending with a healthy child! May you find a practitioner who listens to you. All the best--let us know how it goes!

Gee...remember when getting pregnant meant having the wedding sooner? @>)

[> Re: I have news - we're pregnant! -- Eric, 18:57:11 07/09/03 Wed

Congratulations! My best wishes to you.

[> Congratulations and Very Best Wishes , Marie. :-) -- OnM, 19:54:05 07/09/03 Wed

[> [> Re: Very spiffy -- Brian, 20:22:26 07/09/03 Wed

[> [> [> Congratulations! -- Eryn, 22:13:52 07/09/03 Wed

[> Wow! Thanks everyone, and yes... -- Marie, 01:34:57 07/10/03 Thu

My first little demon was born on the 1st December, and will be 7 this year (going to be an expensive month, *sigh*). And he was born at home after a three-hour labour (I live in hope that this one will be similar, but everyone is telling me that "the second one is always different"!).

I do have a question, though, for you parents out there - were you (if you're male) or your partners (for the women) present at the birth? Because I'm not sure if I want Liam there (although we haven't got as far as discussing it yet), and to be honest I'm not really sure why I'm thinking I'm not sure.... hell, I know you can figure out that sentence!

I just have a sort of hmmm, not comfortable with the idea, sort of feeling. I was alone when I had Davie and I still remember how lovely it was when everyone left us alone together. And yet I know I don't want Liam left out of that, just the icky parts!

Marie

[> [> Both times... -- Kitt, 06:31:24 07/10/03 Thu

my hubby was there - for most of the labor as well with the first (8 out of about 10 hours), and there for the delivery of #2 (but sent to a meeting in the morning before the induction, so only there for about 2 out of 8 hours for that one). We (ok, my Dr. and me decided without bothering to consult with him) had agreed before hand that although he could be there for a normal delivery, he wasn't going in the OR if I had to have a C-section. Both were "very intense" to him, but he held up very well. YMMV ...

[> Fantastic! -- KdS, 02:46:54 07/10/03 Thu

we'd planned for January, but I'm due in December

Hehe, it still isn't that long ago that such a situation would be a reason to bring it forward instead of postponing ;-)

[> [> We did think about it... -- Marie, 02:57:16 07/10/03 Thu

...but it would be too awkward for most of Liam's relatives, who are from all over the place (mostly Ireland). Although we're not planning anything fancy, I know he wants his family there, as it's definitely going to be a one-time only thing!

M

Responses to responses to my W&H2 post -- lunasea, 08:52:06 07/09/03 Wed

First KdS:

I don't think the hand was a test. I don't think Wolfram and Hart realized that the transplants still had a link to the people the organs were harvested from. If that was the case, there probably wouldn't have been so many durings. They would take the organ and then just kill the donor. Link is then severed. People pay a lot of money for that operation. It would be bad business to screw with that.

Instead I think it was an attachment that Wolfram and Hart gave to Lindsey. If you stay with us, here is the sort of thing we can do for you. It was also a statement about power. Angel thinks he has power? He thinks he can hurt you by taking your hand and smash your artificial one? We'll show him. We'll give you a brand new hand that is just as good as your old one. Don't worry. We take care of our own.

To Ran:

The true complexity of W & H in season 2 hinges upon the fact that we are dealing with the ultimate unreliable narrator. Do we trust that W & H are telling the truth about their motives, or even their basic philosophy? In the short term, accepting that they are the manipulators, not warriors, seems a safe strategy. In the long term...well, as the saying goes, you don't drown by falling in the water -- you drown by staying there.

Which would serve the story better? I really, really hope they never pull a Jasmine again. Pulling Connor out of thin air from a one night stand because they wanted to give Angel a kid is one thing. Jasmine went a bit far. It was interesting and fun, but like I said, when I interpreted Season 2, I completely ignored that Jasmine happened. It is almost like there are two stories. There is the Buffyverse without Jasmine, where the themes of the episodes aren't screwed with and there is how those episodes would have to be reinterpreted in light of Jasmine.

As I get into S3, I will go into why Wolfram and Hart lose their effectiveness in regards to Angel. A lot of it has to do with Holland and Lindsey v Linwood and Lilah.

Since the narrative is set up to contrast Angel and Wolfram and Hart, I will go with saying that what they say is what they believe. Otherwise, where is the contrast? There are various levels, and I try to make the distinction between the Senior Partners, someone like Holland/Lindsey and Lilah very clear. There are various levels of understanding and this is represented by the levels at Wolfram and Hart.

When I get into Season 5, I will expand on this.

Believe it or not, what I have written is just the background for what should be the interesting part and I hope others will join in then. I might even give a bit of fic to illustrate something.

Were it secure, it wouldn't bother with the grandiose plans of world-domination and the occasion apocalypes (apocali).

Maybe because it is fun? What is the big picture that evil is looking at?

The focus on evil as the corruptor is, perhaps, exactly what W & H wishes. Think of them as a mislead, an optical illusion. Why pick a law firm as your manifestation? Perhaps because it most closely mirrors your basic strategy...but perhaps because they merely represent an aspect of that strategy that dictates that the true motives and methodologies of the forces behind W & H must not be laid bare. The law firm as the ultimate PR agent, so to speak.

Not corruptor. They are the avoidance of judgement/responsibility. Wolfram and Hart's function is to get their clients off. Back in season 1, Angel talks about how clear everything is when you don't have that sort of accountability. He tries to lose his soul season 2 to go back to that sort of feeling. It ties to his soul. The police try to hold people accountable for things when the soul doesn't keep them from doing things and Wolfram and Hart get them off.

Religion often functions in the same way. "Forgive my Father for I have sinned. It is so powerful that it can make things that are wrong and we feel are wrong on some level feel right. That is what happens on Pylea. I was hoping someone else would elaborate on this. Lorne is what happens when a Pylean gets away from the priets influence. What about what happens with Groo?

Buffy's denial/Spike - In reply to s'kats quickly archived post grrr -- WickedBuffy, 10:45:47 07/09/03 Wed

"Again evil soulless vampire without conscience vs. good souled slayer who should know better, but is depressed." s'kat

I love how you put that and whole-heartedly agree. I'm not a Buffy-hater or a Spike-obsessed, but this is one of the examples of when their goodgirl/badboy roles seemed reversed.

"Maybe, but he wasn't in denial, he honestly believed all this. Can hardly blame Spike for all of it or for taking advantage of what he believed."

I wouldn't blame any BtVS regular 100% for anything in this show. Which is what makes it so intriguing to talk about - every side has some kind of support.

I think Spike saw the chance to have Buffy to identify with - put them in the same boat. He didn't preplan it or gloat over it - he noticed it and commented on it. Maybe it was because he felt so alone and different from the Scoobies, that he was able to pick up on what was going on with Buffy.

damndamndamn!! Voy just ate half this post and archived the one I was replying to!

well, the second part was an awe-inspiring incredibly brilliant annotated and concisely written ::koff:: essay of seven-syllable words about Spike having to relive the same social outcast role he did as when he was William. Scorned and mocked and generally disliked by his social peers and the woman he loved. Then reliving it all over again with the Scoobies this time. Eerily familiar.

The big difference, though, is that the first time through he finds triumph and completeness through Evil, vamping and destroying the world. The second chance/lifetime he goes through the alienation and pain, he finds triumph and completeness through Good, saving the entire world from destruction.

Spike really went through two lifetimes and was able to turn the final moments into very different outcomes.

[> A quickly-archived s'kat post? Wow! Voy must have gone mad! ;-) -- Random, 10:51:00 07/09/03 Wed

[> [> Shocking isn't it? Guess voy finds me just as tasty as the rest of you minions. -- sk, 14:59:33 07/09/03 Wed

[> [> [> That was supposed to be followed by ;-) (a smile) -- sk (hoping it didn't come across as snarky), 15:11:05 07/09/03 Wed

[> [> [> [> I thought it was funny.... -- O'Cailleagh, 15:12:04 07/09/03 Wed

[> post? what post? -- Alison (who has searched archive one in vain), 13:11:37 07/09/03 Wed

[> The posts WickedBuffy was responding to... -- s'kat, 14:58:02 07/09/03 Wed

First my post was in response to this post:

Date Posted: 19:17:05 07/08/03 Tue
Author: Just George
Subject: Re: Buffy hiding out in denial.
In reply to: WickedBuffy 's message, "Buffy hiding out in denial." on 11:01:41 07/08/03 Tue

Of course the first one to decide that Buffy "came back wrong" and the one who reinforces the mantra is...

Spike.

Because if Buffy came back "wrong" she is closer to his level. She is finally approachable.

Buffy was sailing that river in Egypt, but she had plenty of help and support getting there.

-JG

Here's mine:

Date Posted: 20:02:32 07/08/03 Tue
Author: s'kat
Subject: Actually Spike had reason to think that...
In reply to: Just George 's message, "Re: Buffy hiding out in denial." on 19:17:05 07/08/03 Tue

Spike didn't immediately jump to this conclusion - he first assumed something was wrong with him.

Think of it from Spike's pov. You have a chip that prevents you from harming humans or living things. The Slayer has been soundly beating you up for a year or two now and if you try to hit her, whammo, massive head ache, probably something akin to a migraine times five. Then one day, when you're completely fed up - you decide to hit back, thinking brain spasm is worth it. And nope, no pain. Odd. Why no pain? You think for a minute...no you've been avoiding hitting humans for quite some time and last time you hit Xander - quite a bit of pain but that was well over six months ago and so not worth it. So guess the chip ain't working and you go out to be evil thing. But the first girl you try to bite? Massive pain. Pain times 3. Weird.

So it has to be one of two things: 1) Something is wrong with the chip or 2) Something is wrong with how the slayer
came back.

To give Spike credit he jumped to option 1 and asked amateur scientist and brain Warren, he couldn't ask Buffy off the bat - she'd stake him
or the SG for that matter. He's not stupid. (Although I'm beginning to wonder about Buffy). Warren however has the ability to construct an incredibly life-like robot and has the added bonus of not knowing what the chip does.
So, Spike wisely goes to him to figure it out. Warren performs a serious of tests, and yep, the chip is working fine. No problems.

So Spike, a pragmaticist, who tends to think about these things more concretely than abstractly - goes logically to option 2 - there must be something up with Buffy. And he's right there is - Buffy did come back different or different enough for the chip to be confused.

Spike is not a witch like Tara and was not in on the spell, remember. The SG refused to tell him much about it and from what Buffy's told him and his own knowledge of magic not to mention his experience raising people from the dead - it's not so far-fetched for him to logically come to the conclusion that Buffy came back wrong or like his mother did in LMPTM. Subconsciously makes sense. HE doesn't lie to her about it. He honestly believed it. Why would he think otherwise? It's pretty logical he would come up with that.
And instead of lying to Buffy about it - he comes out and tells her, again straight-forward (far more straight forward, I'd add than Buffy is with him, herself or anyone else in S6) - guess what I can hurt you now, but no one else. Wonder why that is? Must be something wrong with you.
Buffy, being the bright little girl she is - goes to ask Tara to research it,(but not immediately...she waits until she hits rock bottom first) and finds out sure enough she did come back a "little" different, ie with a celluar tan which makes Spike's chip not operate against her. Personally? If Spike was such an evil fiend...he'd have kept it from her and used the first opportunity to drain her blood and sire her. That's what I'd do if I was a soulless evil vampire. Took a great risk telling her - I mean, she could have just staked him. He can kill her now, after all. No longer harmless. And how's she know he's telling the truth??

Did it play out to his advantage? Well yes and no. Did he use her reaction to it? Probably, he was an opportunistic evil vampire after all. And yep, he probably thought - the evidence of the chip, her sudden sexual attraction to him and willingness to kiss him, weird behavior all added up to the fact she came back wrong. Buffy confused the heck out of Spike in S6, heck she confused me. Can't blame her for thinking she came back wrong - I was wondering if she came back wrong. (Big mislead in keeping with Giles as FE in s7, is it just me or is Whedon and Co. getting a little too dependent on misleads as a writing technique?) Does that excuse any of Buffy actions? Nope.
Buffy was still the person operating with the most information and the full stack in the relationship. Spike was having a nervous breakdown/identity crisis and from the demon perspective completely nuts. She used Spike's info to explore the dark edge of herself. Instead of seeking Tara's or Willow's help immediately, she engaged in an abusive affair with Spike. So, yep, big time hiding in denial - she used Spike to do so. Did he help? Maybe, but he wasn't in denial, he honestly believed all this. Can hardly blame Spike for all of it or for taking advantage of what he believed. Again evil soulless vampire without conscience vs. good souled slayer who should know better, but is depressed.

So I was basically responding to what I though or interpreted in Just George's post as stating that Spike is responsible for Buffy's trip down the river of denial, which I find sort of off, considering that Spike is an evil soulless consciencless vampire on the brink of a nervous breakdown. I think Buffy should be responsible for Buffy's actions. Not Spike. Particularly considering Buffy was the
party operating with a full stack at the time.

I'm not a Buffyhater nor am I a Spikeapologist, I see Spike as "evil" without the soul and I see Buffy as the hero who has faults and who was depressed at the time. I fully agree with her "own" assessment of her actions to Holden Webster in CwDP - where she blames herself for what happened last year, yet by the same token she is wise enough not to blame the assault on herself but on how things got out of hand.

I think Buffy realized in S7 what she did in S6 and worked to make reparations for it. Just as all the characters did, from Willow, Xander, Dawn and Andrew - Spike. They forgave each other in Chosen. Some of the fans seem to only forgive the characters they liked and use certain crimes to continuously bash the characters they don't. In that way, perhaps the characters are a tad more mature than certain fans?;-) (Not poking at anyone in particular - just stating generally.)

Agree with your post above WickedBuffy. Just don't agree that Buffy was pushed by Spike into denial. I think she went there on her own and would have gone there whether Spike was there or not, he, in Buffy's words, just happened to be conviently present at the time. Just as Xander and Willow went into denial all on their own - Anya and Tara just happened to be present.

[> [> Thanks for re-posting s'kat -- Alison, 15:02:10 07/09/03 Wed

[> [> Re: The posts WickedBuffy was responding to... -- Just George, 15:10:45 07/09/03 Wed

WickedBuffy: "I think Spike saw the chance to have Buffy to identify with - put them in the same boat. He didn't preplan it or gloat over it - he noticed it and commented on it. Maybe it was because he felt so alone and different from the Scoobies, that he was able to pick up on what was going on with Buffy."

s'kat: "So I was basically responding to what I though or interpreted in Just George's post as stating that Spike is responsible for Buffy's trip down the river of denial, which I find sort of off, considering that Spike is an evil soulless consciencless vampire on the brink of a nervous breakdown. I think Buffy should be responsible for Buffy's actions. Not Spike. Particularly considering Buffy was the
party operating with a full stack at the time."

Between Wrecked and SR Spike is just running with the information he had. Spike's conclusion, that Buffy "came back wrong" was reasonable.

I never thought that Spike was in denial. Nor was he responsible for Buffy's depression or denial. But I think he facilitated it. Spike wanted much more than to just "identify" with Buffy, he wanted to possess her. Spike was an obsessed emotional adolescent who used his knowledge to try and get what he wanted, cost be dammed.

Spike's presentation of this conclusion was calibrated to hurt Buffy. Initially it was calibrated to play upon her depression. He wanted to get some payback for all the times (S4-S6) that Buffy had belted him and he couldn't fight back.

Once their sexual relationship started, Spike used his conclusion to try and keep Buffy to himself and in denial about how she could recover. He acted to isolate her from outside influences that might have helped Buffy recover from her depression. Spike knew that the key to Buffy getting better was her friends. That was why he played upon her shame in the infamous balcony scene. To me, actively driving a wedge between Buffy and the people that could make her well and happy was the most evil thing Spike did in S6.

It is only after hitting rock bottom (in SR) that Spike gets on his motorcycle and decides to do something for Buffy, instead of just for himself. To me, driving away on the motorcycle is Spike's most heroic moment.

Buffy is responsible for her actions. However, Spike did everything he could to keep Buffy depressed and isolated. She was in depression and in denial. For half a season, Spike did everything he could to keep her there. In the end, he saw the cost (to himself and to her) of what he had been doing and went to Afirca to make amends.

-JG

[> [> [> Re: The posts WickedBuffy was responding to... -- s'kat, 15:53:53 07/09/03 Wed

Buffy is responsible for her actions. However, Spike did everything he could to keep Buffy depressed and isolated. She was in depression and in denial. For half a season, Spike did everything he could to keep her there. In the end, he saw the cost (to himself and to her) of what he had been doing and went to Afirca to make amends.

Would agree with that. I still find the fact that an "evil soulless vampire" had the wherewithall to go to Africa and get a soul and do something for her - remarkable.

Spike's actions make logical sense. Buffy, hell could have predicted them. He is a vampire. He is soulless. And yes he did every thing possible to possess her, would be a bit bizarre if he didn't, don't you think? And as Buffy states to Holden? She let him. She in a sense - enabled his actions. Made them possible, but not completely - she did hold back a good portion of herself. She only gave Spike the sex in S6 nothing else. So I see Buffy as more of the enabler here. The enabler is the one who has clarity, I'd think. Tara enabled Willow. Buffy enables Spike. Spike could only manipulate Buffy to the extent that she let him. Spike could only have Buffy to the extent she let him. The AR scene if nothing else makes it pretty clear who has the power, just as Dead Things did.
Spike NEVER had the power in that relationship. HE could only hurt her to the extent that she lets him. She is more powerful than he is. (Heck she threw him across the room.)

So did he try to possess her? yes. Was it evil? yes. But
I still feel Buffy's actions, with a soul, were in some ways worse. Why? Because she knew better. She knew what she was doing and cared. She knew to care. Spike? HE didn't care. He had no soul. He didn't understand why she was doing it, he thought he was helping her in his evil way. He actually believed she'd be happier with him. How else to understand her actions? As he states in NLM, he really didn't understand what she was doing with him. Her desire to punish herself by using him or her desire to throw her hatred of herself onto him - made 0 sense to him, it was beyond his capacity to understand prior to the soul. All he understood was she wanted him and was enjoying herself and he wanted her and was enjoying himself. He equated her groans of pleasure with enjoyment.

It's her responsibility for those actions she struggels with in CwDP and finally is able to forgive herself for by Chosen.

I think what we're struggling with here is the state of amorality. Spike in his amoral state is a bit like Darkwillow in Two to Go. He cares and loves Buffy, but he can't love alturistically - he can't see or understand the concept of self-loathing. He doesn't care. HE just does what he does because it's fun. It's fun to smash and bash and hurt things. Unless the thing he hurts causes him pain - then not so much fun. Hence his confusion after the AR scene - he should have killed her, he should have enjoyed it, yet it obviously is paining and tormenting him to the extent that he can barely stand himself. Hurting her in any way - causes him unbearable pain. Just as punching a living human gives him a migraine. It's why he says to Clem - this feeling must be the chip.

Another way of looking at this is in some ways the
idea of a 25 year old having an affair with a 16 year old street punk. While the 16 year old street punk may be high on heroine, abusive, etc...the 25 year old should know better. We would hold the 25 year old responsible, since the 25 year old is the mature adult. And knows what they are doing. The 16 year old? Probably not. (Although there are some extreemly mature 16 year olds out there...) Was Spike responsible? yes. Were his actions, evil?
yes. But so were Buffy's. Buffy's actions were equally evil, destructive, and responsible. Nothing Buffy did was in any way "excusable". Understandable? yes. Forgiveable? Definitely. But not justified and not exscusable by who or what Spike did. If anything they are less excusable - b/c if she'd been doing it with Xander or Riley - they would be equal to her, both have consciences, both are alive, both have souls. Just as you could say if Tara had continued enabling Willow's magic addiction - she'd be responsible, tara and Willow are on equal ground. What's so fascinating about Season 6 and so tough to wrap the brain around is the writers actually made the heroine as nasty at times as the villain. HE was still more evil than she could ever be, that goes without saying, but there were moments...in Normal Again, Dead Things, Wrecked, Gone, that some of us wondered where they were going with her. A couple of fans even theorized that Buffy would become the BB. I honestly don't think either character came out well there. What's interesting is what happened in S6 may have motivated them both to change in Grave. Spike won a soul and Buffy chose to stop being the "one person in all the world". They came out of S6/S7 far better people then they were entering it.

I just would be careful stating Spike was the evil boyfriend manipulating Buffy to the dark side and her voyage there was his fault. Buffy didn't seem all that manipulable to me. And she seemed pretty darn capable of pulling back from it when Riley pointed it out to her.
I think it was far more complicated than that.

So Spike may have attempted to do what he could to keep her with him, but I don't see him attempting to keep her depressed exactly. Or the scene in Hell's Bells really makes 0 sense. OR for that matter the ultimatium in Normal Again where he tells her to basically snap out of it.
HE wanted her happy and with him. Not depressed and with him. Although as long as she was with him and having sex with him, he probably didn't care.

Lord this is probably making no sense. I think we actually agree on everything. The only disagreement may be to the extent that we believe Buffy was responsible and Spike was to blame. I guess I'm swinging more in the direction of the
Buffy = 60% and Spike =40% on the basis that Buffy had a soul and the power in the relationship. While you appear
to be swinging to Spike =60% and Buffy = 40% because Spike was evil. Perhaps we should split the difference and agree it was 50/50, ;-) sk

[> [> [> [> Re: The posts WickedBuffy was responding to... -- Just George, 16:51:19 07/09/03 Wed

s'kat: "Lord this is probably making no sense. I think we actually agree on everything. The only disagreement may be to the extent that we believe Buffy was responsible and Spike was to blame. I guess I'm swinging more in the direction of the Buffy = 60% and Spike =40% on the basis that Buffy had a soul and the power in the relationship. While you appear to be swinging to Spike =60% and Buffy = 40% because Spike was evil. Perhaps we should split the difference and agree it was 50/50, ;-) sk"

I'm fine with 50/50. :-)

I think Buffy often doesn't get enough of a pass for her depression. None of us (that I know of, shouldn't generalize here) have ever come back from Heaven, so we can't actually relate.

s'kat: "So did he try to possess her? yes. Was it evil? yes. But I still feel Buffy's actions, with a soul, were in some ways worse. Why? Because she knew better. She knew what she was doing and cared. She knew to care."

Buffy S1-5 & S7? Yup. Buffy through mid S6? Not sure she had capacity to care for another person. Actually, seeing what she did, I know she didn't have the capacity. Buffy became the bully. And stopping the bully (on the schoolyard or in the graveyard) was what Buffy had been all about.

From Dead Things:

Buffy: "He's everything I hate. He's everything that... I'm supposed to be against. But the only time that I ever feel anything is when.. . Don't tell anyone, please."

Reverse the lines to see what Buffy may actually be saying: "I'm everything I hate. I'm everything that... I'm supposed to be against."

Buffy states it clearly a few moments later:

Tara: "I-It's okay if you do. He's done a lot of good, and, and he does love you. A-and Buffy, it's okay if you don't. You're going through a really hard time, and you're..."

Buffy (still tearful): "What? Using him? What's okay about that?"

So I blame Buffy. But I also give her a partial pass because I can't imagine the magnitude of her loss.

And Spike?

s'kat: "Spike? HE didn't care. He had no soul. He didn't understand why she was doing it, he thought he was helping her in his evil way. He actually believed she'd be happier with him. How else to understand her actions? As he states in NLM, he really didn't understand what she was doing with him. Her desire to punish herself by using him or her desire to throw her hatred of herself onto him - made 0 sense to him, it was beyond his capacity to understand prior to the soul. All he understood was she wanted him and was enjoying herself and he wanted her and was enjoying himself. He equated her groans of pleasure with enjoyment."

This might be where we disagree: "He didn't understand why she was doing it, he thought he was helping her in his evil way. He actually believed she'd be happier with him."

I don't think so. I think Spike was more selfish than that. He can't have believed that Buffy would have been happier getting beaten up (Wrecked). He can't have believed that she would be happier without her friends (Dead Things). Spike was happier, not Buffy.

But by Normal Again, Spike saw that Buffy wasn't going to be happy with him. And her continuing depression was starting to make him angry and unhappy. His shock treatment might have been the right thing to say or it could be a way for Spike to get Buffy to stop annoying him with her whining. If it was the later, it was also coming from a selfish place.

So I blame Spike for being selfish. But I give him a partial pass because he was an "evil soulless thing" at the time.

In the end, I wasn't disappointed in Spike because I never expected him to be anything but selfish. I was happily surprised when he did the heroic thing and went to Africa. I was disappointed in Buffy because I expected her to avoid begin a bully. I was saddened that it took her so long to come around.

I may be closer to your 60/40 split than you think.

BTW, I started my comments about Spike because the thread was tightly focused on Buffy's denial; the way she was hiding behind the phrase "coming back wrong". I wanted to make sure that Spike's part, including his coining of the phrase, wasn't overlooked.

This has been fun. Thanks!

-JG

[> [> [> [> [> Re: The posts WickedBuffy was responding to... -- sdev, 17:48:21 07/09/03 Wed

"I wanted to make sure that Spike's part, including his coining of the phrase, wasn't overlooked".

Actually Spike neither coined the phrase nor was the first to use it. In After Life the SG all use it and worry about it.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The posts WickedBuffy was responding to... -- Just George, 19:32:21 07/09/03 Wed

JG: "I wanted to make sure that Spike's part, including his coining of the phrase, wasn't overlooked".

sdev: "Actually Spike neither coined the phrase nor was the first to use it. In After Life the SG all use it and worry about it."

The SG were worried about Buffy in After Life:

Anya: "I think Willow's wrong. I don't think she's particularly normal at all."

But moments later, Spike gets the award for saying the phrase first in After Life:

Spike: "Willow knew there was a chance that she'd come back wrong. So wrong that you'd have . . . that she would have to get rid of what came back. And I wouldn't let her. If any part of that was Buffy, I wouldn't let her. And that's why she shut me out."

Of course Spike later threw the phrase in Buffy's face in Wrecked.

-JG

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The posts WickedBuffy was responding to... -- sdev, 21:19:50 07/09/03 Wed

After Life selected dialogue:

Early in the episode before Spike knows she is back-
Anya "I think we screwed it up, she's broken"
Willow "What if she never gets over it"
Tara "What are you thinking Willow, that she's not right, or maybe like dangerous?"

Later-
Anya "You're not a zombie are you?"

Later still-
Dawn " Are you okay?"
Buffy "Going to start charging money for every person who asks me that"
Dawn "Everyone's been doing that, huh?

This last bit of dialogue shows that Buffy also may have gotten her "came back wrong" syndrome from the SG as well. Also I remember her complaining to Spike that everyone kept asking her if she was okay and how badly it made her feel.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> To be honest? I think everyone but Dawn said it. -- s'kat, 22:15:21 07/09/03 Wed

I agree with sdeve on this one, Just George.

Buffy's push didn't really come from Spike so much as from Xander, Willow, Tara, Giles, and Anya...who indicate pretty much from the moment she first sees them in Bargaining all the way up to and including Smashed...that there's a question mark.

How?

1. Giles conversation with Willow in Flooded about where Buffy has been and how she came back which Buffy is shown to have overheard and confides to Spike about.

2. Anya's comments in Bargaining. And their concern in the house in Afterlife. Also the way they treat her with kid gloves in Afterlife.

(Spike's comments are to Xander and to be fair...partly due to how the SG treated him regarding the resurrection and prior to the resurrection. The SG's behavior towards Spike is incredibly inconsistent and probably somewhat confusing.
They let someone they don't trust or respect babysit and take care of a 14 year old in a house all alone? They let this person cover their backs in a fight? Hmmm. Yet, they don't tell him about plans to bring Buffy back? Of course they didn't tell Dawn or Giles either - possibly for the same reason. Actually I tend to think Spike's accusation was on target. Willow didn't tell Dawn/Giles/ or Spike for exactly the reasons Spike came up with. See Forever, for additional support.)

3. Willow's attempt to erase everyone's memory.

4. The assumption by everyone that Buffy was in hell.

IF it was just Spike, somehow I doubt Buffy would have bought it, particularly based on past experience and the fact that she doesn't respect or trust him. He nails her reasons for coming to him very well in OMWF. I honestly don't think it was anything more than that. Also she would hardly see Spike as an expert. I'm willing to see Spike as manipulating the situation and using her lust for him to his own advantage, but blaming him for making her think she came back wrong? I think that's stretching it a bit. I blame Willow, Xander, Anya, Giles, Tara and Buffy for that one. ;-)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: To be honest? I think everyone but Dawn said it. -- sdev, 22:42:21 07/09/03 Wed

Good points especially the "IF it was just Spike, somehow I doubt Buffy would have bought it, particularly based on past experience if it was just Spike."

How many times has Buffy and the SG derided him with just that phrase-- "it's just Spike."

Also, Buffy was pretty strong minded and had gut-level confidence in herself. She was never ready to adopt other peoples' views of her or a situation. The way she took on the Watcher's Council in Season 5 over Glory comes to mind. Believing she came back wrong was her depression, which made her vulnerable to self-doubt, and her need for an external excuse for her behavior which was unacceptable to herself.

The 'coming back wrong' excuse is like the explanation for multiple personalities. They can't live with pieces of themselves and their experiences so they invent another persona who is different. They compartmentalize themselves rather than face who they are and what was done to them. Buffy created this alternate Buffy who had come back wrong.

Look how loathe she is to abandon that explanation. She tells Tara- you must have made a mistake; check again. If she hadn't needed that excuse she would have, by all rights should have, been relieved to hear that she was just fine.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: To be honest? I think everyone but Dawn said it. -- Just George, 00:01:31 07/10/03 Thu

I suppose I am being a bit literal. The SG were not the first to use the phrase "come back wrong".

Also, the SG used their words for different effect. They were questioning if Buffy were OK. They raised the idea that she might have a problem. But they were doing it to help her. Not to hurt and isolate her. Spike used the accusation as a weapon and as a tool.

And Spike was the first to say the words "come back wrong". :-)

I suspect the reason that Buffy believed Spike when he said she "came back wrong" wasn't because of the source (which Buffy could discount) but because she suspected that it was true. Ultimately it turned out to be an excuse. But, I suspect that from an internal POV, it seemed like as reasonable an explanation as any.

I remember a poll in TV Guide in S6. What was Buffy after she came back? A Demon? An Angel? Or just the same? Fan votes were divided. If many in the audience were fooled, why couldn't Buffy be?

Buffy knew she was feeling and acting differently than she had before being brought back. In a sense she did "come back wrong". But it was in a psychological, not a physical or magical sense. It took her a long time to heal. It may be that she never fully did.

-JG

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> ... and this all supports Buffy was eyebrow deep in denial. -- WickedBuffy, 10:24:26 07/10/03 Thu

Not only did Spike comment on it, but the Scoobies had been bringing it up in different ways - as noted in all the previous posts here.

To me, Buffy's biggest problem has always been in lack of self-reflection. Genuine, honest, and deep self-reflection. Without that, a person very easily uses denial as a way to skate through most any situation. Self-reflection is something that comes with maturity and courage and awareness. This wasn't the first or last time she chose denial over reality. Her Slayer gifts pointedly left that out - she got enhanced mental and physical powers. No mention of emotional. Maybe the incredibly lopsidedness of the inheiritance stunted her emotional growth. If she hadn't recieved the powers, perhaps she would have been able to more healthily look at herself. umm, ok, that's a different post.

The Scoobies were concerned about her not being normal and kept asking if she was ok. Sure, part of that was genuine compassion, but it also felt there was some fear and guilt involved. They were the ones who brought her back, after all. They might feel they were ultimately responsible for the state Buffy was in.

Spike, on the other hand, was NOT part of the ritual. He didn't even know about her resurrection until much later. He could more easily be blunt about it, in his usual Spike way, and say "you came back wrong". Guilt was not a factor in his comments.

So, there aren't just two percentages involved, but three. So it can't be 50/50. }:> My vote is:

Buffy-40%
Spike-20%
Scoobies-40%

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Completely agree. Good post WB. -- s'kat, 12:11:43 07/10/03 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Why, thank you s'kat! :> -- WickedNeverSeenMyNameSoManyTimesInOneThreadBuffy, 14:37:20 07/10/03 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> Taking the lead to a dark place -- s'kat, 21:15:13 07/09/03 Wed

In the end, I wasn't disappointed in Spike because I never expected him to be anything but selfish. I was happily surprised when he did the heroic thing and went to Africa. I was disappointed in Buffy because I expected her to avoid begin a bully. I was saddened that it took her so long to come around.

I may be closer to your 60/40 split than you think.

Hmmm. I agree. I'm wondering after seeing S6 and S7 if ME may have gone a bit too far with their heroine - took her into too dark a place, perhaps? Now don't get me wrong, I liked the depression bit -- had no trouble with it. But since when does being depressed necessarily make someone abusive and a bully? I'm wondering if making Buffy less and less likable over a series (a long series of episodes) and then continuing that trend in S7 was such a hot idea?
Risky? yes. Ambitious? very. Intriquing? certainly. Admirable? yep. But...this is network television not HBO, and the goal of network televison (according to The Business of Television - a book I'm reading at the moment
and the basic bible for the TV industry) is to bring as many viewers to advertisers as possible. Buffy costs approx 2.3 million per episode. (YEs, I thought it was yearly too, it's not apparently - ER costs 13 million per episode, the Cosby show started things off at 1 million per episode). At any rate the job of series is to entice viewers, entertain them. Which means what Whedon and Co did, and what Fox and UPN let them do is amazing for network tv. But is it good storytelling? Was it really entertaining as opposed to merely though provoking and gutwrenching? Could they have achieved it better?

According to his recent interview with ICNFilm, Whedon stated that SMG had discussed with Marti Noxon and Noxon had in turn come to Whedon to request an end to the Buffy depression storyline - SMG and others felt they'd lost Buffy somewhere along the way. They had. She had somehow changed from hero to anti-hero in the middle of S6. We understood, even expected Spike's selfish behavior but Buffy the bully and self-righteous bitch? nope. And they didn't stop it with S6, they continued it in S7...making it very difficult for at least 40% of the fan base to care if Buffy lived or died. We began to miss the girl we knew from S1-S5.

Now this would have been easier to clear up if they'd maybe taken Spike a notch darker. Maybe shown us all his wheeling and dealing with the demon eggs like they showed us Riley and the vamp trulls in S5, so that our sympathy was more with Buffy than Spike in S6. (They did it right in S5, our sympathy was really more with Buffy than Riley back then. But in S6, a good portion of the viewers (and no not just the Spike shippers) were identifying with and feeling sympathy for the wrong character.)Spike - to the writers credit - really wasn't any different than he'd been in S3-S5, he was still amoral, still love's bitch, still possessive, still selfish and still the trickster. The problem was the writing of Buffy. They almost took her beneath Spike in S6. Actually they took several souled humans beneath Spike in S6 - which confused the bejesus out of a good portion of the audience. Also made the viewing of S6 really painful in places. Doing this, makes you begin to second guess all of Buffy's confrontations with Spike in S4/s5. Why is she constantly punching someone who can't fight back in the nose?? Or beating him up? She does it to him all the time. This is a dangerous tract for a tv show to take. It's a bit reminiscent of MASH who did the same thing with Frank Burns and Major Houlihan - changing them from cartoon villains to full-fleshed out human beings - which casts not such a great light on Hawkeye and Trapper who tormented them. The writers had to tread very very carefully here - and to pull it off, they had to have HAwkeye make reparations to both Burns and Houlihan in later seasons. The same with Btvs, to pull it off Buffy, Willow, Spike, Anya and Xander had to make some reparations in S7 Btvs. I think MASH might have done a better job. Btvs got awfully murky about it. Course throwing all your regular characters off the proverbial cliff is always a bit tricky to pull off. In S6 I had no problems really with Buffy - b/c I knew I was getting S7, but after S7...I'm on the fence as to whether or not the writers really pulled it off. Did they truly manage to take Buffy into a dark place and make her a hero in the end? Or did they just barely get her out? IF you read enough fan boards? It's a 50/50 proposition. Some fans believe they succeeded, but the (1)majority of these fans never saw Buffy as a bully to begin with and thought Spike was the deserving fiend all the way through, (2)some of those fans did see Spike as a bit more grey than that and are really neutral on the topic - so there is a believable argument to be made in support of the Buffy re-emerges likable and heroic faction, (3)the other faction of fans take the opposite view and think Buffy sort of came out okay, but they still have serious reservations about Ms. Unbaked Cookie Dough and (4)there's the group that well...suffice it to say, just lost her completely and hate her.

PErsonally? I fall somewhere between the neutral group and the unbaked cookie dough group, groups 2-3. I think what ME tried to do was extreemly ambitious and very ambiguous and realistic. I have mixed feelings on whether they made it work.

I find myself more forgiving of Spike - because I expected the evil of him, actually I expected much much worse than I got. It's his good deeds that shocked and fascinated me. I was also shocked he didn't do anything worse than he did. I expected him to bite her once he discovered he could, he never did. I expected him to use her more than he did - to get what he wanted, but he didn't really. I expected him to team up with the Trio in some way. I expected him to leave town after she died. HE takes care of Dawn??? What did he get out that??? HE helps the SG all summer??? I expected him to use the Buffbot to kill Buffy, never did. The character was constantly surprising me. I expected him to manipulate Dawn and the others - he stayed away from them. If Spike's ME's concept of a bad-boyfriend, they've never had a bad boyfriend. Now Buffy? That's an abusive boyfriend - hits you, tells you you're no good, can never be good, that she hates you, never love you, is using you....ugh. Stay away. OR Xander - who not only leaves you at the alter, but leaves you to deal with all the guests, the clean-up, everything. Then has the gall to come back and expect you to want to still be his girlfriend - just never have a commitment. (ie. he wants sex but no commitment). Stay away! Or Willow - who wipes your memory whenever you argue with her? See the difficulty I had, was the bad boyfriends were Xander/Buffy and Willow. So while I found that flip interesting and fascinating and ambitious - it was hard for me to understand ME's apparent view that Anya and Spike were the evil parties. I knew that was their take and I've written plenty of my own justifications and fanwanks of the X/B/W behavior. But...perhaps ME took X/B/W a tad too dark for their own good?

Don't know. I've seen at least three well-defended views on this. So obviously it can be seen in more than one way.
Perhaps how one views it is more or less based on one's own background and experience. Or perhaps how we view the charaters is in fact based on our expectations. Not unlike viewing a movie or tv show. IF you go in with high expectations - it's sure to disappoint. If you go in with low expectations? You'll probably be pleasantly surprised. I had low expectations of Spike but high ones of Buffy. I've noticed people who had high expectations of Spike with soul - tended to judge him far harsher than I did. So perhaps it may just come down to that?? That said? I'm still not sure ME pulled it off quite the way they intended to. Only time and distance will tell.

[> [> [> [> [> [> ugh. typos galore. -- sk, 21:16:48 07/09/03 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Taking the lead to a dark place -- Just George, 00:51:16 07/10/03 Thu

S'kat: "Hmmm. I agree. I'm wondering after seeing S6 and S7 if ME may have gone a bit too far with their heroine - took her into too dark a place, perhaps? Now don't get me wrong, I liked the depression bit -- had no trouble with it. But since when does being depressed necessarily make someone abusive and a bully? I'm wondering if making Buffy less and less likable over a series (a long series of episodes) and then continuing that trend in S7 was such a hot idea?"

In retrospect I think it was a problem. For example, S4 was about the SG growing apart. S5 was about them growing back together (Note the opening on the beach in BvD, and episodes like Family and Checkpoint which celebrate the whole gang). ME went out of their way to eliminate one discordant element from the group (Riley) and integrate the other (Spike) (See Intervention and "I know I'm a monster but you make me feel like a man" from The Gift).

In S6, Buffy, Willow, and Xander were effectively the bad guys in their relationships. But then ME slipped and didn't make them the good guys in S7. In some eyes Willow "dishonors" Tara's memory with insufficient mourning and by taking another lover. Xander pretty much drops out of the story all together so he never gets a chance to make amends.

Buffy is actually pretty good to Spike in S7. Not so much early in the season, but later on she will back him to the hilt, almost beyond reason (partially out of guilt I suspect). However, Buffy has poor relations with everyone else with her speechifying and general leadership style. After the internal conflicts of S6, I suspect that the audience would have been more comfortable with a more external threat in S7.

I suspect that this a part of the cost of having Joss running multiple shows. His instinct about the rhythm and tone of the show were spot on in the first 5 seasons. The show stumbled in S6 & S7, not because it wasn't ambitious, but because the little inconsistencies and tonal shifts that disrupt a season long arc weren't caught and handled.

S'kat: "According to his recent interview with ICNFilm, Whedon stated that SMG had discussed with Marti Noxon and Noxon had in turn come to Whedon to request an end to the Buffy depression storyline - SMG and others felt they'd lost Buffy somewhere along the way. They had. "

From the interview:

Joss: "I also understand that it got too depressing for too long, but I don't think all of my instincts are perfect. In fact, the interesting thing was that Sarah took Marti Noxon aside and said, "You know what? I feel depressed. I feel like I want Buffy back. I feel like we've run on this path, and I feel like it's time to sort of reclaim her." I had the exact same conversation with Marti on the same day. So she had her conversation with Sarah and came back to me, "You're not going to believe this." That was always the way it was."

I find it interesting that Joss and SMG both came to the conclusion on the same day. I just wish Joss and the writers had reclaimed Buffy better in S7.

S'kat: "Now this would have been easier to clear up if they'd maybe taken Spike a notch darker."

JM makes this point in his convention Q&As: he talks about playing un-souled Spike a little too soulfully. I think it is 20/20 hindsight, but I also think it would have been better TV.

Or ME could have taken Buffy darker. I think the audience would have been more on Buffy's side if she started abusing her Slayer powers against the bad guys (like Angel did in ATS S2). It was abusing a series regular (and fan favorite) that caused a part of the problem.

S'kat: "Course throwing all your regular characters off the proverbial cliff is always a bit tricky to pull off. In S6 I had no problems really with Buffy - b/c I knew I was getting S7, but after S7...I'm on the fence as to whether or not the writers really pulled it off. Did they truly manage to take Buffy into a dark place and make her a hero in the end? Or did they just barely get her out?"

I felt they got Buffy out. I very much liked her in the episodes from Touched - Chosen. But I don't think they needed to take her so far down in S7.

In this case the incorporeal nature of the FE caused part of the problem. Because the FE couldn't generate external tension, ME had to generate tension via internal friction.

S'kat: "See the difficulty I had, was the bad boyfriends were Xander/Buffy and Willow. So while I found that flip interesting and fascinating and ambitious - it was hard for me to understand ME's apparent view that Anya and Spike were the evil parties. I knew that was their take and I've written plenty of my own justifications and fanwanks of the X/B/W behavior. But...perhaps ME took X/B/W a tad too dark for their own good?"

Or took them too dark and then didn't bring them back far enough into the light. I lean toward the later explanation.

-JG

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agree with this. -- s'kat, 09:33:17 07/10/03 Thu

JM makes this point in his convention Q&As: he talks about playing un-souled Spike a little too soulfully. I think it is 20/20 hindsight, but I also think it would have been better TV.

Or ME could have taken Buffy darker. I think the audience would have been more on Buffy's side if she started abusing her Slayer powers against the bad guys (like Angel did in ATS S2). It was abusing a series regular (and fan favorite) that caused a part of the problem.

Except for JM's constant whipping of himself for it. I honestly don't see it as the actors faults so much as the directors and writers - the shooting scripts read pretty much the same way as JM played it and I know for a fact that Whedon pulled people back to re-film scenes when he didn't like how they played out. But JM likes to beat himself up for everything - which I can sympathsize with, considering I tend to do the same thing. ;-)

Outside of that? I more or less Agree. I think it wasn't that they took them too dark, but that they didn't bring them far enough back into the light.

I honestly had no problems/quibbles with B/S in s7, actually liked how that played out. It was Buffy's relations with everyone else that bugged me. Relations we never saw resolved in a satisfying way. Contrast this with S5 - where Buffy pulls away from Riley and back to the SG or better yet, S3 where Buffy goes back to SG and Angel - S3 may actually be a better comparison, because that season had the most internal friction - yet the friction never made us dislike the central characters b/c it was well balanced with external friction.

In S7, I think you're right:

I felt they got Buffy out. I very much liked her in the episodes from Touched - Chosen. But I don't think they needed to take her so far down in S7.

In this case the incorporeal nature of the FE caused part of the problem. Because the FE couldn't generate external tension, ME had to generate tension via internal friction.

Yes, I think that was the problem. They went from internal friction in S6 to internal in S7. While in S4-S5, we had it broken up more. Not that there's anything wrong with internal friction - it can be interesting and ambitious to explore - but in a television serial you can run into the danger of making it a tad too soap operaish and the central characters - unlikable. Btvs works best I think when the friction is more externalized or at the very least a combo of the two.

And I do wonder if things would have been different if Whedon had been more involved and interested in Btvs in S6-7
than he was. From interviews - it's clear to me that his focus was more on Firefly and Angel. Not that I blame him,
heck he spent over ten years on Buffy the Vampire Slayer story - first the movie, then the pilot, then the series - anyone would get sick of something after ten years and want to move on to something else. And TV writing does have a high burn-out rate due to factors such as speed, cost,
and pressure.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Agree with this. -- Just George, 12:47:37 07/10/03 Thu

JG: "JM makes this point in his convention Q&As: he talks about playing un-souled Spike a little too soulfully. I think it is 20/20 hindsight, but I also think it would have been better TV."

...

s'kat: "Except for JM's constant whipping of himself for it. I honestly don't see it as the actors faults so much as the directors and writers - the shooting scripts read pretty much the same way as JM played it and I know for a fact that Whedon pulled people back to re-film scenes when he didn't like how they played out. But JM likes to beat himself up for everything - which I can sympathsize with, considering I tend to do the same thing. ;-)"

I didn't want to make it seem as though I thought it was JM's fault. He just did what the script and director told him to do. I just think JM has been among the most public in giving his 20/20 hindsight on the issue.

I also want to stand up for a moment for SMG's performances here. Some have criticized her for occasional "one note" performances, especially in S6. But that was the point of S6. The scripts portray Buffy as depressed, lacking spark, and unresponsive. SMG played Buffy that way. The few times she was supposed to play Buffy as more engaged (for example, the initially cute "under the rug" scene at the beginning of Dead Things.) SMG was animated, engaged, and endearing.

I think it is easier to engage the audience when you are playing a "needy" character like Spike was than, then when playing a "disinterested" character like Buffy was. I don't think it was that SMG could no longer play an engaging Buffy in S6 and S7. It's that SMG was being asked to play Buffy as disengaged.

BTW, I missed funny Buffy in S6 and S7. No one on BTVS does a 180 degree emotional turn like SMG does. My favorite is from Pangs:

Willow: "Buffy, this isn't a western. We're not at fort...Giles with the cavalry coming to save us. It's one lonely guy. Oppressed warrior guy who's just trying to..."

Buffy: "Kill a lot of people?"

Willow: "I didn't say he was right."

Buffy: "Will, you know how bad I feel about this. It's eating me up-"

To Anya: "1/4 Cup of brandy and let it simmer-"

To Willow: " But even though it's hard, we have to end this. Yes, he's been wronged, And I personally would be ready to apologize-"

Ahhh. Good times. :-)

-JG

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Agree with this. -- Yellow Bear, 16:39:46 07/10/03 Thu

I've read the above portion of this thread with great interest. However, I think the reason behind the audiences problems with S6/7 are a little easier to explain.

Like all popular fiction, BVTS engages it's audience through a core fantasy that they can take part in. The fantasy at the heart of BTVS is not only Buffy as female icon/hero but also the SG as a family of outcasts that are seen as losers & geeks but are really the bravest and the smartest, the only people who really know what is going on. The SG family is a very powerful fantasy for an audience to engage in, especailly when it is done with the skill Whedon & his staff displayed.

In fact, I would argue that the SG fantasy is a more powerful pull to the audience than even Buffy's fantasy appeal, at the very least it seems more powerful to the on-line fan base which sometimes seems to regard Buffy as not even the most important part of her own self-titled show.

When Whedon has played to the SG family aspect of the fantasy (S1,S2, S3, S5) with dilemas that are mostly external to the core, the audiences are at their most satisfied with the show. However, the seasons where Whedon denies the audience this fantasy (S4, S6, S7) via internal dilemas throughout the majority of the year, it tends to produce a lot of audience anxiety and displeasure. When Whedon has really messed with the audience fantasy of SG & Buffy such as in S6, we actually see the audience getting angry with the show.

In short, I think people's compliants with the above seasons has less to do with ME than with the audience itself. The core of the audeince has invested heavily into the fantasy of the Scoobies & Buffy and when that investment is trifled with in the narrative, there are going to parts of that audience that reject it out of hand with no real thought to the actual quality of the text but simply because the fantasy they have invested is no longer being re-enforced on a weekly basis.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Agree with this. -- Just George, 19:13:58 07/10/03 Thu

Yellow Bear: "When Whedon has played to the SG family aspect of the fantasy (S1,S2, S3, S5) with dilemas that are mostly external to the core, the audiences are at their most satisfied with the show. However, the seasons where Whedon denies the audience this fantasy (S4, S6, S7) via internal dilemas throughout the majority of the year, it tends to produce a lot of audience anxiety and displeasure. When Whedon has really messed with the audience fantasy of SG & Buffy such as in S6, we actually see the audience getting angry with the show."

I agree that the "artificial family" aspect of the SG resonates with a lot of the audiance (it resonates with me!). However, I think that ME could and did split the SG without loosing the audience, so long as the group back together in a satisfying way. There was a lot of SG internal tension in S3, but the tension was successfully resolved. ME was less successful in bringing the group together in S4, S6, and S7.

-JG

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Agree with this. -- Yellow Bear, 20:02:25 07/10/03 Thu

The internal tension in S3 is minor compared to the latter seasons. The majority of strife(caused by Angel's return & the Willow/Xander kissage) is resolved by 'Amends' with the Cordy/Xander situation being the only group tension left hanging, and this is a relatively unimportant relationship in the text.

Look at 'Helpless'. An emormous betrayal by Giles that is safely resolved by episode's end with no apparent side effects to the Buffy/Giles relationship. Compared to the episode-by-episode meltdowns in S4 &S6, the internal tension in S3 really doesn't compare.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Agree with this. -- Just George, 20:44:46 07/10/03 Thu

I was thinking of the tensions with:

Faith getting between Buffy/Willow.
Faith getting between Xander/Willow
Faith getting between Angel/Buffy
Willow getting between Xander/Cordy
Xander getting between Willow/Oz
Quentin getting between Giles/Buffy

Minor? Not really, just resolved to the satisfaction of the audience.

-JG

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Agree with this. -- Yellow Bear, 21:12:05 07/10/03 Thu

With the exception of the Faith situations, I addressed the majority of your tensions in my first post. The Giles/Buffy tension lasts a single episode and the major consquences of Wilow/Xander kissage is resolved by 'Amends'. The inner-Scooby tensions last throughout the majority of S4 &S6 and, more to the point, these tensions are among the core Scoobies.

Faith is interesting issue but the tensions involving Willow, Xander & Buffy over Faith are basically a three-episode arc from 'The Zeppo' to 'Consquences' at which point they are resolved by Faith moving to the bad guys team.

Yes, I would agree with the Angel/Buffy tension but Angel is not a core Scooby.

The emotional tensions in S3 may not be minor but they are quickly resolved, and what I was referring to in my orginal post is the (majority or partial) audience disatisfaction that would result from nearly any extended storyline of the Scobbies emotional splintering.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Agree with this. -- Yellow bear, 21:16:55 07/10/03 Thu

An additional point about the core Scoobies in S3 can be found in 'The Wish'. Despite the emotional turmoil caused by Spike's retun in 'Lover's Walk', Whedon & Co. go out of there way in the opening teaser to affirm the commitment of the core group (Willow, Xander & Buffy) to each other. By S4 & S6, Whedon has thrown this commitment (and the audience's underlining security in it) into grave doubt.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> out in left field on this one -- leslie, 12:50:45 07/10/03 Thu

Along with the fact that the writer doesn't always realize what he/she is writing and may have different conceptions of what is going on than the audience does is the fact that once the writer does realize what's in what's been written, he/she may want to deny what has been inadvertently revealed.

I think there are three times that we see Spike as truly scary: when he threatens Willow to make her do the love spell for him; when he tries to bite Willow and discovers what the chip does to him; and when he goes after Buffy with the shotgun after she rejects him. There are lots of other times that he is violent, but to me, those were the three times when I truly thought he was going to permanently damage one of the core characters. (Interesting that two out of the three are with Willow.) Actually, I think his "attempted rape" of Willow was the scariest of all, since he seemed more than half inclined to turn her into a vampire, and probably the closest we've seen of what he "used to do to girls like Dawn." Also, it's the only one where he was held back by an artificial device--the chip--rather than his own change of heart--sobering up and realizing that he didn't need the spell after all, and being touched by Buffy's grief when he actually faced her.

So, these are three important points, but they are only three in the five seasons in which Spike is an ongoing character. His other violent moments are violent, he does kill people (though far fewer humans than vampires and other demons), but these fall much more easily into the warrior ethos that he subscribes to. The fact that the writers and directors and actor could make him genuinely, frighteningly evil when they needed to raises the question: why didn't they? They may all insist that they really did mean to, it was all there in his background, he was a vampire for crying out loud--evil, remember? But that really was a case of far more telling than showing, and in a series that begins with the establishment of a sympathetic vampire, even though it's excused by his soul, you can't just rely on the "vampire=evil" equation and leave it at that. It also seems potentially significant that, while ME was perfectly willing to kill off "good" characters, the only evil, nonsympathetic vampires that we got to know as a character who were permanently dusted were the Master and the Annointed One, both in the earliest phases of the series; the longer Darla was around, in fact, the more sympathetic she became.

I think we can make a similar case for Anya, who was really quite unpleasant as a pure Vengence Demon, but as a Re-Vengeful Demon retained enough of her humanity to choose to turn her back on it.

So, forget about what everyone says they intended to do, forget about what we think they intended to do, stop second-guessing; what ended up on screen?

What ended up was a bunch of humans who began in a black-and-white world of good and evil and progressed into an understanding of greyness. Everyone seems pretty happy with that. But along the way, as the "evil" became greyed into "potentially redeemable"--Angel(us), Darla, Spike, Anya, even Faith--the "good" revealed some not particularly pleasant attitudes toward the Demons Previously Known As Evil. Forgetting about them as characters/individuals and looking at the idea of the demonic as a metaphor for the repressed unconscious, ultimately, the humans show themselves incapable of truly accepting the shadows in themselves. They may dally with the idea of "marrying" the unconscious, but in the pinch, they can't go through with it. Yes, Xander leaves Anya because he is afraid of the potential for evil inside of himself, but at the same time, Anya is the external representation of that potential; rejecting his potential for evil is a rejection of her, and Anya knows it, and Xander refuses for the rest of the series to acknowledge it. Buffy's physical abuse of Spike represents the same refusal to acknowledge any darkness in herself. Willow's potential for magic is portrayed as an addiction that must be overcome by absolute abstinence.

At the end of the series, there is a superficial reconciliation of the "dark" and "light" sides, but in two of the three cases, it really is superficial. Willow at least reconciles herself to her magic--performing a spell not only helps save the world but also leaves her in a state of ecstacy that seems to have reconciled her to her potential for darkness and also leaves her alive. Spike's and Anya's self-sacrifices go virtually unacknowledged and the two of them are destroyed, blown to bits and swallowed by the earth--returning to the "underneath" position to which the humans have consistently relegated them to. Spike and Anya end up literally and metaphorically "beneath" the Scoobies, buried, not incorporated. And isn't one of the ongoing messages of BtVS that "you can't just bury things; sooner or later they're going to come back and bite you"?

I think that despite what everyone involved wants to believe about intention and morality, BtVS ended up with a very ambivalent attitude toward what is necessary for psychological wholeness. (And here I am probably only going to be making sense to the Jungianesque and the mythologically inclined.) The way that S7 goes "back to the beginning" is by reestablishing the black and white dichotomy between the human and demonic--the conscious and unconscious--worlds, with the sympathetic demons dead and buried and the formerly evil humans--Faith and Willow--redeemed and "clean." But the fact that at least some "demons" can be seen as attractive, desirable, even lovable; valuable allies, trustworthy babysitters, reliable battle-comrades, business partners... was all this an illusion? Were they really, at the end, only demons who could only prove their worth by ceasing to exist? The unconscious is seductive, but is incorporating the unconscious only to be seen as succumbing to seduction--it wasn't my fault, it was all that wily, manipulative demon! You can tell they're demons because they aren't real blondes--they dye their hair, and underneath, they're really dark, and their "lightness" is fake.

I think the reason that Spike and other demons come across as "too soulful" and "too sympathetic" is because the writers, deep down, do find that darkness/unconscious attractive and recognize it as the source of their creativity, but we live in a society that insists on seeing things in black and white and wants the unconscious to remain unconscious, and so they don't want to admit that attractiveness. It has to be labelled the "bad boyfriend" and buried in a hole so deep it swallows a whole town.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: out in left field on this one -- Just George, 13:40:36 07/10/03 Thu

I think you are being a bit harsh here. In the end, I think the SG actually did pretty well with their "shadows".

Buffy accepted Spike, darkness and all, and honored the sacrifice he made in getting a soul. Her last word on the show was his name.

Willow didn't end up abstaining from magic or avid risking her inner darkness. She ended up taking a chance on "...a total loss of control, and not in a nice, wholesome, my-girl-friend-has-a-pierced-tongue way."

And Xander was engaged and endearing with Anya in the last few episodes. He held nothing against her. His last gesture to her as she lay sleeping was one of love and acceptance.

The SG even accepted Faith, Buffy's "shadow self". In the end, Buffy treated her as an equal.

The demons and ex-demons died and the humans, no matter how evil they had been, lived. Spike and Anya paid for centuries of kililng with their lives. But they both died in a state of redemption. I think it was more karma and dramatic necessity than it was a metaphor.

-JG

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: out in left field on this one -- leslie, 15:35:05 07/10/03 Thu

See, this is my point--there's what the writers say they did, and what the characters say they are doing, and what the words themselves say they are doing, but when you look at actions, at who actually died and how, there's a different (repressed) story altogether which is at odds with all the words. I'm not saying that a "perfect" work of art would automatically reconcile act and word--although I think that that kind of ending does make the audience happier, and this at-oddness is, as noted below, the source of much of the irking dissatisfaction with the end of the series. However, I think there is something there that is not just being ignored, but actively repressed and denied through the whole "bad boyfriend" trope. "Stop thinking that! He's bad! She's a Vengence Demon! Kids, Don't Try This At Home!!! (Christ, we've got to kill them or people will think we're actually saying darkness can be good.)"

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: out in left field on this one -- Just George, 20:29:44 07/10/03 Thu

I see where you are coming from. But, I assume that the same creative decisions could come from different motivations.

In my experience, a character's story starts with one or more problems, which are often symbolized by a character's needs. The story is over when the problems are resolved and the needs are fulfilled.

I think if I were writing the finale, I'd have killed Anya and Spike. Their stories were effectively over.

Anya became a demon to run away from her problems dealing with people. When she accepted being human and decided to stay and fight Anya had solved her problem. Story over.

Spike's problem was that he was an emotional adolescent and love's bitch. By the end Spike had made the journey from adolescence to maturity. And he was not longer loves bitch. Problem solved. Story over.

I hope that when Spike returns to ATS, that he gets a new set of problems and a new set of needs. Reopening his old problems or needs would be a regression.

-JG

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The incoherent text and other stories -- ponygirl, 08:26:49 07/11/03 Fri

Your post reminded me of some random Joss quotage (ah Google!):

Now there's also people preaching one thing while glorifying another, there's what Robin Wood calls the "Incoherent Text" of so many seventies movies, where peace and understanding may be the underlying desire, but horror and violence is the structure -- or the fun. My favorite example of the incoherent text is DIE HARD, where Buce Willis must learn to e more supportive of his wife -- while systematically stripping away everything (her boss, her workplace, her watch, her NAME) that she has. The decency running alongide the misogyny there is evident. I guess the point is, the best texts are incoherent. They EMBODY the struggle you describe. Horror is reactionary. I'm liberal. But we get along. And DIE HARD is a great damn flick.

So the question for me is, was there an awareness of the contradictions that ME was presenting? Did they want to tell a story about the integration of self, of understanding the darker parts of the mind, yet also bow down to the age old, and particularly horror genre-specific, story-telling conventions?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Very interesting, leslie -- ponygirl, 13:55:42 07/10/03 Thu

I'm not sure I totally agree about the re-establishing of the black and white dichotomy. But I do think that there was a failure to integrate the darkness/unconscious, something that seemed to have been promised on the show for a long time. Buffy goes from "I was a monster" in CwDP to an offhand "I was never evil" remark to Wood later in the season. Buffy may be comfortable sleeping in the basement in Chosen, but it is still the basement. I put a lot of this failure on the undefined nature of the First and its relationship to Buffy. Did she ever learn anything from this being that could take on her face and those of her dead? Buffy banished her demons but did she understand why they were hers? And why sometimes they were necessary?

You may have hit on one of the reasons why the last half of s7 has left me unsettled and grumpy. Thank you for that, it's easier to deal with these things when they're defined. Hmm, ponder ponder.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: out in left field on this one-love left field -- sdev, 13:59:37 07/10/03 Thu

"Along with the fact that the writer doesn't always realize what he/she is writing and may have different conceptions of what is going on than the audience does is the fact that once the writer does realize what's in what's been written, he/she may want to deny what has been inadvertently revealed."

Believe what you see not what I say you see- because of a variety of reasons including the psychological make-up/hang-up of the writer which gets inserted unbeknown to the writer or for less prosaic reasons like commercial pandering.

The fact that the only two deaths of main characters, characters we cared about, were demons is striking. Evil and ambivalence were put to rest, retribution was taken, and order was restored. Time for Starbucks (not scoffing here) and shoe shopping.

Sorry. I really have nothing to add. This spoke to me.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hmmm. I really like this and agree. -- s'kat, 14:16:37 07/10/03 Thu

I think that despite what everyone involved wants to believe about intention and morality, BtVS ended up with a very ambivalent attitude toward what is necessary for psychological wholeness. (And here I am probably only going to be making sense to the Jungianesque and the mythologically inclined.) The way that S7 goes "back to the beginning" is by reestablishing the black and white dichotomy between the human and demonic--the conscious and unconscious--worlds, with the sympathetic demons dead and buried and the formerly evil humans--Faith and Willow--redeemed and "clean." But the fact that at least some "demons" can be seen as attractive, desirable, even lovable; valuable allies, trustworthy babysitters, reliable battle-comrades, business partners... was all this an illusion? Were they really, at the end, only demons who could only prove their worth by ceasing to exist? The unconscious is seductive, but is incorporating the unconscious only to be seen as succumbing to seduction--it wasn't my fault, it was all that wily, manipulative demon! You can tell they're demons because they aren't real blondes--they dye their hair, and underneath, they're really dark, and their "lightness" is fake.

I think the reason that Spike and other demons come across as "too soulful" and "too sympathetic" is because the writers, deep down, do find that darkness/unconscious attractive and recognize it as the source of their creativity, but we live in a society that insists on seeing things in black and white and wants the unconscious to remain unconscious, and so they don't want to admit that attractiveness. It has to be labelled the "bad boyfriend" and buried in a hole so deep it swallows a whole town.

I really like this interpretation and don't see it as that far out of left field, particularly when I've seen evidence in interviews that Whedon has a psychology and myth background.

What you've stated above in a nutshell summarizes some of *my* ambivalent difficulty/disappointment with how Btvs ended and hopes for Spike reappearing on S5 Ats. I'm hoping
the writers redeem themselves with this view on Ats, which is far less black and white in nature and more grey.

I'm not sure if Whedon and Company were aware they were doing this on Btvs (overanalyzing again?) but it is one of the things that bugged me about the finale. And has bugged me about the characters Buffy and Xander for quite some time. I think if Andrew, Wood and possibly Faith or Dawn had died as well, this wouldn't have nagged me. But it does seem odd that the two major characters who die are Anya (former vengeance demon, fake blond, and ex-fiance of Xander) and Spike (vampire with soul, fake blond and ex-lover of Buffy.).

Oh, not really a Jungian but it made sense to me.
Good post leslie.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Brilliant -- Alison, 14:35:50 07/10/03 Thu

I may not agree entirely, but I think you hit on something big. The writers may say that redemption is both possible and nessesary, but underneath it all, they, like most of us, find forgiveness near impossible to give.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: that WKCS on AtS.... -- leslie, 15:25:54 07/10/03 Thu

... at least has the potential to be the Return of the Repressed with a vengence!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'm not 100% sure Anya is really dead. -- WickedBuffy; coming in as shortstop, 15:36:09 07/10/03 Thu

Mainly because I don't want her to be.

But also, because d'Hofguy wasn't done with her. He could have whisked in and grabbed her before the entire town crumbled, reviving her with magic since she wasn't killed in a natural way. A little demon superglue and PRESTO! Anyanka again reborn.

And Spike dead? We already have an idea where he ends up.

Nothing is ever black and white on BtVS. Shouldn't we have learned all that by now? The writers aren't podpeople with cookie-cutter ethics, morals, sense of justice and psyches. Idealism isn't an across-the board understanding of good and bad. Maybe a couple of them would subconsciously want to show evil ultimately paying its due by death - but not the whole group.

They didn't poke Xanders eye out because subconciously they thought he needed to be punished for something. They didn't kill Joyce as a judgement about her demonic qualities. Bad things happen to good people as well. Society knows this.

The actress who played Anya stated firmly she would not be back for anymore.

It appears everyone else, even SMG, have either tenatively or outright said they will be happy to do AtS appearances.

People had to die to make the ending dramatic and realistic - why not kill someone who wouldn't ever appear again on the other show? Various SITs died, including a frequent character, Amanda. (err, wait was that the real thin girls name?)

And the Buffy/Spike, Spike/Spike relationships needed to have a big finale. What's bigger than saving the world, total self-fulfillment and understanding, then going up like fireworks?

That the humans lived because society wants it that way and that demons die because society wants it that way feels too simplistic to me. The humans sometimes did very cruel things - the demons mentioned did some very good things. Someone just tuning in might even be confused as to which was which.

So, similar to the beginning of this thread talking about who should take the how much of the blame for Buffys denial. The judgements aren't so black and white or cut'n'dried. Many actions done by each character, demon and human, mixed in there "goodness" and "badness". Not as simple to unequivocally
label "good being" or "bad being".

I know there are people who do think in terms of black and white, good and bad. But I also believe that isn't the majority, nor is it the thinking mode of the writers for M.E.

as s'kat said: " Again evil soulless vampire without conscience vs. good souled slayer who should know better, but is depressed."

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I'm not 100% sure Anya is really dead. -- leslie, 16:41:07 07/10/03 Thu

"They didn't poke Xanders eye out because subconciously they thought he needed to be punished for something."

You sure of that? The one guy who has never had to pay the price of his judgmental attitudes? Justice is blind, after all--might want to remind him with a little poke in the eye.

I think you've missed the point of what I was saying--yes, nothing is ever (permanently) black and white in the Buffyverse, but somehow we ended up with the demons not just dead but seriously buried, and their "lovers" alive. The show is over. What follows on AtS belongs in the system of AtS, not BtVS. To say "you need a big finale, so why not kill off the one person who is definitely not coming back, and anyway I don't believe she's really dead because I don't want her to be" really is special pleading. There are zillions of ways they could have ended it without killing anyone that could have been just as dramatic, and also ways they could have killed people who weren't demons. At the time the episode was written and shot, they didn't know that JM was definitely going to jump to AtS and in fact, they didn't even know, and were somewhat dubious, that AtS would be renewed at all. Everyone seems doubtful that NB will show up on AtS--why not have Xander and Anya die together? What kind of an impact would that have--yes, even the people who are at the core of the group can die, not just beloved but ultimately peripheral--and, it now suddenly strikes me, female--characters like Jenny, Joyce, or Tara. Buffy's refrain from the first episode is that Xander shouldn't fight because he could get hurt or killed--what if it finally happened?

I'm not saying that this is my preferred ending, but since the series begins with the black-and-white view that gradually is modified, to a certain extent, fulfilling a "back to the beginning" theme almost requires a return to that worldview.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Is this the book you were talking about: -- Just George, 12:58:08 07/10/03 Thu

Is this the book you were talking about:

This Business of Television
by Howard J. Blumenthal, Oliver R. Goodenough
(Hardcover - August 1998)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0823077047/qid=1057866924/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-4945806-0432833?v=glance&s=books

-JG

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yes. That's the one. -- s'kat, 14:21:27 07/10/03 Thu

Very informative (if slightly out of date in a few places,
CBS is now part of Viacom, for instance and cable has taken off) - also has a nifty read to use disc with sample media
contracts attached.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yes. That's the one. -- Just George, 14:56:58 07/10/03 Thu

Cool. Thanks!

-JG

More July 2003 | Current board