July 2003 posts
Buffy
calling Spike William in AYW not as nice as it seemed on the surface?
-- ECH, 06:29:11 07/09/03 Wed
Many people have talked about it in a positive way by saying that
it shows she was beginning to see him as a person instead of a
monster. Sadly, I have to totally disagree with that assertion.
I rewatched the episode and it is clear at least to me that Buffy
did not want consider Spike to be a person, just a soulless thing
that wasn't worth apologising to. It wasn't long dead William
that Buffy was using and abusing it was Spike. She never once
called Spike William in season 6 other then in that instance and
if she really considered Spike's humanity to be William why didn't
she start calling him William in season 7 when she learned he
got his soul back? IMHO, it was pretty clear that Buffy never
knew William she knew Spike and by apologising to William in AYW
she was ducking responsablity for her actions to Spike. Because
a soulless demon doesn't deserve an apology for being used abused,
but the long dead human does in her view. Buffy had a relationship
with Spike and she should have acknowledged that she used Spike
not the person he once had been.
I know many people think it was supposed to be her giving him
some respect by calling him by his human name (meaning she sees
him as a man), but to me it seemed much more like she was abstracting
out the man from the demon even though she had been involved with
"Spike", not "William". I mean could you imagine
Buffy apologising to Laim instead of Angel?
[> No offense, but this
sounds like another "Choose Your Own Adventure"-type
interpretation. -- Rob, 07:17:58 07/09/03 Wed
[> [> Re: Offense Taken
-- sdev, 09:44:48 07/09/03 Wed
Well yes it is offensive. Saying this is "choose your own
adventure" is basically saying "you are inventing this."
And with no explanation to follow, it is not legitimate criticism,
just snide. You are not alone. Recently archived was another thread
in which Random, Little Bit, Lady Starlight, and you made the
same "choose your own adventure" remarks on Miss Edith's
posts without any attempt at analysis.
My "choose your own adventure" script runs like this--
Pro Spike vs. Pro Angel. These remarks usually fall along those
lines of feelings. Simple yet true. No need for metaphor, myths,
shadow selves, archetypes, etc. No sub-text, just support your
man. And that is kind of silly with a group of posters as talented
and insightful as this.
Your own remarks about why you love this Board follow:
"No one, absolutely no one, ever starts a new thread with
"I like Spike best. Who's your favorite?"
"I get to talk to grownups! (and there's more to the threads
than "Spike's hot" "Angel's hotter")"
"I was tired of going to the multitudes of "Buffy"
sites with no more content than "Buffy rules!"
"Brilliant thinkers, bizarre thinkers"
We should all try to live up to those comments.
KDS recently posted about some posters feeling "censored"
for being anti-Spike; the reverse trend seems to be coming to
the fore now. And I see no objections from the same group that
complained about their feeling censored previously. "Can't
we all just try and get along?"
[> [> [> Actually...
-- Rob, 09:59:32 07/09/03 Wed
...in that past thread, I just said "heh heh." And yes,
I thought it was funny. "No offense" was because so
far, what I've read of ECH's posts, I've enjoyed. This wasn't
meant as an attack. Yes, it may have been a bit snarky, but I
was feeling punchy this morning. In that one sentence, I meant
to encapsulate my frustration at the constant need to defend Buffy's
every action for the past two seasons. And different interpretations
are possible, but I find it almost maddening that even this moment,
where Buffy is shown giving Spike respect (she left him, because
she realized she was hurting him, as she herself
said), Buffy's intentions are doubted. If she were merely using
him and thought of him as nothing but an animal, she would not
feel the need to apologize or formally break up. I also don't
think the logic employed as to how calling him by his real name
rather than his nickname is a put-down holds up. Perhaps I should
have elaborated more at the time, but I was running out the door.
The fact is though there is a difference between intepretation
based on the text, and interpretation based on added biases not
present in the text. And there is nothing in the text of that
scene to imply that Buffy was disrespecting Spike.
And I am not a Spike-hater. I have found myself defending each
of them at different times, only to realize that yeah, I love
both of them, they're both flawed, they've both done horrible
things to each other, but they've also done wonderful things,
too. This is not a case like you describe where a Buffy proponent
is bashing a Spike proponent. I have no such agenda. I love everyone
on the show except for Kennedy.
Rob
[> [> [> [> I kindly
defer to HonorH & MsGiles's posts, which have the same intent
as mine... -- Rob, 10:01:59 07/09/03 Wed
...but were argued and phrased much better.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [>
Oh, one more thing... -- Rob, 10:07:29 07/09/03 Wed
Haven't been able to locate earlier posts by ECH. Maybe I haven't
read previous posts of his/hers(?) and confused ECH with another
recent new poster. Either way, I stand by what I said. My words
were not meant as a personal attack on the poster himself or herself,
but as the clearest, most concise way I could at the time describe
my extreme displeasure with the main argument in that particular
post.
Rob
[> [> [> Offense Taken,
also -- LittleBit, 10:05:16 07/09/03 Wed
One: I responded to Random's post, not to the original post.
Two: My facetiousness was directed at the alternate script idea,
not to the original post.
Three: I did not post as "LittleBit" but as "LittleBite"
as an extra attempt to indicate that it was not meant as a serious
response.
Four: Had I been making a serious response I would have made it
to the original post.
My apologies to any- and everyone who took offense.
[> [> [> [> Re:
Offense Taken, also -- O'Cailleagh, 20:40:43 07/09/03 Wed
It did seem to me that Bit et al were playing...I thought that
was quite clear.
O'Cailleagh
[> [> [> Teeny bit
of offense here -- LadyStarlight, 10:56:48 07/09/03 Wed
Hmmm. Interesting.
As LittleBit said, I was responding to Random's post, not MsGiles.
And since you've quoted why I love this board ("I get
to talk to grownups! (and there's more to the threads than "Spike's
hot" "Angel's hotter")"), let's just analyze
that, shall we? (I won't presume to do the same
for LittleBit, Random and Rob.)
No. 1: I get to talk to grownups. -- (my definition of grownups
being
anyone who can talk about things other than: knock-knock jokes,
potty uses and misuses and Pokemon). Well, we're talking and I'll
give you the benefit of the doubt.
No. 2: (and there's more to the threads than "Spike's hot"
"Angel's hotter") -- pretty much proved that, haven't
we?
Okay, by all available evidence, I've lived up to my comment --
not one 'Spike's hot' as far as the eye can see.
And there is a perceptible difference between 'snide' and 'humorous'.
My response to Random's post, was, I devoutly hope, humorous.
Just to clarify things, I have never, ever complained about being
censored. Where did you come up with this interpretation?
[> [> [> [> Re:
Teeny bit of offense here -- Rob, 15:53:41 07/09/03 Wed
As for my quote, "I was tired of going to the multitudes
of "Buffy" sites with no more content than 'Buffy rules!'"
I still believe that wholeheartedly and don't see how anything
in the post I made detracts from that in the slightest. I didn't
say, "I don't agree with this post because SMG and JM are
hot!", now did I? ;o)
Rob
[> [> [> [> [>
But you all do agree that SPIKE IS HOT!!!?? -- Wanton Kitten,
21:18:16 07/10/03 Thu
[> [> [> [> [>
[> LMAO! Uhm are any of the characters not hot?? --
sk, 21:53:36 07/10/03 Thu
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: But you all do agree that SPIKE IS HOT!!!?? --
sdev, 21:59:40 07/10/03 Thu
This kitten isn't biting
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> But................................you just did.
-- Wanton Kitten, 09:01:26 07/11/03 Fri
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> ROFLMAO! -- lovin' the snark, 11:54:17
07/11/03 Fri
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: I am deeply shamed -- sdev, 12:35:45
07/11/03 Fri
This IS the crack team that foils my every move.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> We watch your every move, sdev. And
sell some of the videos for quite a profit! -- Wanton Kitten,
13:32:10 07/12/03 Sat
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> "quite a profit!"-I
Demand my royalties-Does this site need an FBI warning? --
sdev, 15:43:59 07/12/03 Sat
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> "How to Read the FBI
Warning on this Site" -- sorry - no royalties for you,
18:13:13 07/12/03 Sat
1. Bring up the Home page of this site. Make sure it covers your
whole screen.
2. Light a candle. (Small candle if you use a laptop, larger candle
if you use a desktop machine.)
3. Hold your monitor, screen facing down, over the candle. You
must maintain a perfectly horizontal position. You may need assistance,
depending on your computer.
4. Slowly, but steadily, move the screen back and forth over the
candle flame. Continue doing so until previously invisible words
and images begin appearing at the top of the webpage.
5. A detailed FBI Warning, which covers the issue of videotaping
readers of the page, plus several pictures of scantily clad Posters
will now be visible to the naked eye.
It's that simple.
If you'd like to create invisible messages on your webpages, do
it!
It's as simple as squeezing lemon juice into your hard drive and
then manipulating the onscreen liquid to create your own hidden
text.
(note: You must use HelveticaNarrow for this to work legibly.)
Have fun! The Secret CyberText Trick is just a small token of
thanks for the many hours of entertainment and copious amounts
of money your videos have brought in!
[> While that's a *possible*
interpretation-- -- HonorH, 08:16:20 07/09/03 Wed
I don't think it's particularly just. Buffy's conscious intent
in that scene was to be kind. Well, some would argue that, but
after reading those arguments, I still see no support for the
idea that she *wasn't* trying to be kind. "I know I'm a monster,"
he once told her, "but you treat me like a man." That
obviously meant a lot to him, more than he was even willing to
say at the time. So her calling him William, addressing the man
instead of the monster, was most likely her best idea as to how
to be kind. To bring things back to the way they were when she
*did* treat him like a man instead of a monster.
[> William -- MsGiles,
09:27:53 07/09/03 Wed
I suppose in a sense, by calling him William, she *wasn't* truly
apologising to Spike, and certainly she seemed back to treating
him like an outsider shortly afterward. But I personally don't
think it was meant to be implied that she was being tricksy here.
For a start, Buffy never felt she had to hold back with Spike,
when it came to telling him she didn't think much of him. Both
before and after this sequence she seems quite happy with telling
him off.
Here, she seems to be giving him the impression that she's trying
to be nice. She speaks softly, looks him in the eyes, wears a
cute girly top rather than a buttoned-up leather jacket. She doesn't
say, 'You're not good enough for me', and she does admit, here
and in Hell's Bells, that she has some feelings for him, albeit
not the ones he wants. That's a big step forward for Buffy.
It is strange that she uses 'William', but we (and maybe, it's
implied, Buffy) have been reminded of William by Hallie, in the
previous ep. Perhaps it makes it easier for her to admit her interaction
with Spike, by thinking of him as William, but I don't get the
feeling that she's using the name to further diss Spike. he certainly
doesn't seem to feel that. His expression as she leaves is full
of conflict, but not the humiliation and anger he's so often left
with by Buffy's parting shots.
It would be a very cynical view of Buffy, that implied she's being
deliberately misleading here, insulting him under cover of being
open with him. Buffy goes way down in S6, but it seems only fair
to allow her some credit for trying to move in the right direction
here.
[> [> My turn --
lunasea, 10:01:32 07/09/03 Wed
The name didn't seem to flow naturally and she seemed to say it
for a reason. I think she wanted HIM to see himself as William,
to remember what he once was. They both saw him as soulless vampire
that season. He was trying so hard to be Spike. By "Seeing
Red" he realizes he isn't any more.
I don't think it is so much that Buffy, the human, needs to see
Spike, the soulless vampire, as a man. She just needs to help
him be the best that he can be. People are harsh on the Scoobies
because they didn't help Spike this way. I think here Buffy is.
She's not saying "I see you as a man, so I have to leave
you. She is saying simply "You are a man."
With her speech in "As You Were," she leaves him for
reasons that are purely about her. At the end, when she calls
him William, she gives him back something. Contrast that with
the AR and it shows the differences between the two characters.
[> [> [> Re: My turn
-- ECH, 11:26:55 07/09/03 Wed
Quote
---------------------------------------------------------
Contrast that with the AR and it shows the differences between
the two characters.
---------------------------------------------------------
What are you talking about? What the heck does Spike's actions
good or bad have to do with this topic. This is about why Buffy
called Spike by his long dead human name in AYW.
I am not bashing Buffy or saying Spike is a great guy. In fact
I think that Petrie just had Buffy say William in the scene to
connect his previous ep Fool for Love with this ep. But, I saw
no reason for her to call him William. She wasn't giving anything
back to him or showing him that she sees him as more of a man,
she had not called him William any other time in season 6 and
she did not call him William in season 7. Has Buffy ever apologised
to Spike himself for anything in seasons 5 and 6? I know she apologised
to soulled Spike for leaving him at the house after Touched. But,
in AYW apologising to William felt very wrong because she IMHO
has never thought of him as William or used that as a nick name
for him in seasons 6 or 7.
I am a B/S shipper and I would love to feel Buffy had a good intent
in calling him William in AYW, but I really can't feel that way
IMHO personally judging from the evidence. If Buffy called Spike
William a couple times in season 6 and 7 I would completely believe
that she was apologising to him, not the long dead shell of the
human he once was. This is about Buffy's feelings about demons
and souls not who was better in the B/S relationship. If Buffy
didn't feel that soulless Spike the demon was worth an apology
perhaps she thought long dead human he once was "William"
deserved to be apologised to.
[> [> [> [> Re:
My turn-Please clarify -- sdev, 12:12:41 07/09/03 Wed
"In fact I think that Petrie just had Buffy say William in
the scene to connect his previous ep Fool for Love with this ep."
I don't understand what you mean here. Are you saying it had no
meaning within the scene? Or are you saying it was a put down
a la FFL -- "you are beneath me." In which case what
do you mean by your next sentence " But I saw no reason for
her to call him William." Do you mean you saw no reason for
the put down?
Please clarify.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: My turn-Please clarify -- ECH, 14:39:52 07/09/03
Wed
I meant that the reason a scene was added and what it means for
the characters and why and how they say what they say are two
different things. IMHO Petire wanted to mirror FFL by having Buffy
say the same thing as Cessaly (sp), but there is a problem with
that in that Buffy in season 6 and even after the soul in season
7 never other then in that instance seem to see or call Spike
William. Thus, even though Petrie added the scene in not to say
something about Buffy's stance on Spike/William/the demon, it
very easily and at least to me came off as something deeper then
just calling Spike by his old name. Just because the writers didn't
mean for the scene to bring up such a debate/question doesn't
mean that it didn't do so.
[> [> [> [> Re:
My turn -- lunasea, 12:38:03 07/09/03 Wed
Maybe if you would look at the flow of the conversations in the
two scenes rather than jump to the conclusion that this is about
Spike bashing, you might see what this has to do with what I posted.
Both scenes start out about the speaker, In AYW Buffy uses a whole
lot of I statements. She has learned her Communication lessons
rather well. This isn't about what is best for Spike. It is about
what is best for Buffy. Buffy keeps the focus on her, UNTIL the
end, with a simple word, William. At that point, she gives something
back to Spike.
Now go back and compare that to the flow of Seeing Red, when he
is talking before he lays a finger on her. Buffy ends with a simple
word to give Spike back his dignity. What does Spike do?
It isn't about who is better. The souled human is always going
to beat the unsouled vamp, in regards to human morality. It is
apples and decayed apples. I was saying that the two conversations
parallel each other. The show does do that, parallel one conversation
with another from another episode.
The show is about empowerment. William was Buffy's first attempt
to really empower Spike. That is what makes it so beautiful and
why it really shocks Spike. Title "As You Were." Buffy
uses William in order to make him what he once was.
[> [> [> [> [>
Beautiful, lunasea. I love this post! -- Rob, 12:48:00
07/09/03 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
I would have to disagree -- Miss Edith, 13:03:46 07/09/03
Wed
The break-up basically consisted of Buffy saying, "I can't
carry on beating and abusing you, it's making me miserable".
It was all about Buffy, because Spike as a vmapire, didn't count
to Buffy, he cannot count because as the slayer she must see all
soulles vampires as bad and beneath notice, hence the dilema when
she was sexually attracted to Spike. That was always the case
in their affair. Buffy ends things because she believes she is
lowering herself by sleeping with a being that lacks a soul. If
she was calling Spike "William" to empower him, then
why did she just tell him that she wouldn't scold him about the
demon egg scheme because as a soulless vampire that's just who
he is, and all she should have expectred from him?
Personally I have no idea why Buffy called Spike "William".
It always seemed jarring to me. If you're breaking up with someone
because you see them as beneath you why would you suddenly acknowledge
their similarity to you? Buffy did seem to be recognising Spike's
humanity in that scene, to this day I have no idea why.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: I would have to disagree -- Miss Edith, 13:08:11
07/09/03 Wed
That should be Buffy recognises Spike's humanity for a BRIEF moment
in that scene. It didn't gell with why buffy was choosing to break-up
with him in the first place, I always saw that scene as one of
the most self-involved break-ups on Bts. Therefore it stood out
to me when Buffy called Spike William. And wow there's a lot of
typos going on in my above post! Oh for the power to edit posts
after I've already hit send.
[> [> [> [> [>
Morals -- Rina, 14:07:51 07/09/03 Wed
"The souled human is always going to beat the unsouled vamp,
in regards to human morality."
Are you sure about this? I could not help but think of Warren
and Willow during Season 6, in compare to Spike. In regard to
morality, I think it depends upon the individual - whether he/she
is a souled human or an unsouled vampire.
[> I sing of arms and the
Man...and fanwanks whenever I can -- Random, 10:05:05 07/09/03
Wed
As Rob said, a Choose Your Own Adventure concept, I think. The
basic assumption you make -- she was ducking some supposed responsibility
-- seems highly unlikely except in the context of dogmatic preconceptions
about Buffy's nature and the assignation of responsibility in
the relationship. In other words, I'd posit that this interpretation
has less to do with what we saw on the screen than with interpreting
Buffy's action in light of how you perceive her character. Argue
that she was engaged in a deliberate act of alienation requires
attributing motives to her that are not supported anywhere else
in the show. She has just been confronted with the fact that Spike
is indeed an evil and conniving creature (and will be faced with
it again very soon) and that their relationship has been highly
unhealthy. She acknowledges her own role quite plainly (and, tellingly,
we will never hear Spike acknowledge his culpability which,
certain ideologies notwithstanding, is considerable.) As viewers,
we are free to interpret what we see on-screen as we please. This
does not imply that all interpretations are equally valid and
supported by the weight of evidence. Or that some aren't just
fanwanks. What purpose does abstracting the man serve? Why apologize
at all? I fail to understand what reasoning she would have used
to arrive at the conclusion that she should apologize to the man
as distinct from the vampire she has been in a relationship with.
If subsequent episodes are examined, Buffy -- at least until the
extremely-understandable duress of AR -- treats Spike not only
civilly, but kindly...as kindly as possible, anyway, given that
Spike has a history of jumping on any tiny shred of hope with
regards to Buffy and latching onto for dear unlife. (And one could
argue, in light of AR, that even then, she failed to distance
him sufficiently...she failed to understand that she wasn't dealing
with a normal suitor, she was dealing with a fairly amoral superstrengthed
career stalker (how else would you define a vampire?) who
has a history of "want, take, have" mentality.)
As for Angel...he was introduced as Angel, he maintained a souled
aspect as Angel. Why on earth would that be relevant to Spike,
except to note that there is a trend of calling souled-vamps by
their vamp name? And why would she apologize to Angel about such
a thing in the first place?
Addendum: I have close relationships with several posters on the
board. As a general rule, I communicate with them using their
posting names because that's how I first knew them. But on certain
occasions, I have used their real-life names to emphasize a connection,
whether expressing my sympathy for their RL problems or making
a point of acknowledging their friendship or similar circumstances.
Buffy's choice is not only understandable, but actually an entirely
consistent act of simple humanity. And in that act, she gives
Spike a measure of it. Just as she told him he was beneath her
in FFL -- conflating the human with the vampire with three words
-- she once again brings them together, this time with a single
word.
[> [> Re: I sing of arms
and the Man...and fanwanks whenever I can -- ECH, 11:39:01
07/09/03 Wed
The purpose of my post wasn't to debate who was good or bad in
B/S the purpose was to explain why she called him William in AYW.
And, I didn't think she was just being nice to him and using the
name like Spike will call her Buffy and Slayer and tends to use
them interchangably. I really should give up posting topics that
deal with B/S because they always seem to gravatate to questioning
who was the good one and who was the bad one and the debates always
come back to the AR. I wanted the decussion to be more about what
Buffy thought of Spike, long dead William, and souled and soulless
demons then a bad boyfriend/bad girlfriend debate. The main reason
I posted was to question if see the Spike in different parts,
one part Spike the demonic monster and the other William the man?
Did she think she cared about the part of him that was William,
but not the demon Spike? Or, was she attracted to the monster
and desire demon Spike?
[> [> [> Re: to the
purpose -- sdev, 12:46:25 07/09/03 Wed
I think her use of the name William is a progression culminating
in Buffy's use of the name William.
She feels horrible about herself for sleeping with Spike. First
she questions whether there is some external cause for her behavior-
the "I came back wrong" reason. She goes to Tara with
this question. Tara removes this excuse by telling her she came
back normal. Tara tries to lighten her guilt by reminding her
of the ordeal she has just been through- getting yanked out of
heaven back to a world that is violent and bright, hell on earth.
But she doesn't want to be excused. She is ready to examine her
actions.
When she says that sleeping with Spike goes against all she is
fighting against Tara comforts her, "But he's done a lot
of good."
That then leads to her admission that in that case she is using
a "person" not a mere evil being (or for those that
cannot go that far- more than just an evil soulless being). She
says "What's okay with that?" This "using"
is also not living up to her standards for herself and causing
her despise herself for sinking to Spike's level.
The fact that Spike had just committed an evil, vampiric act (the
demon egg scheme) is not the focus of her break up. She may have
forgotten that about him but that was always the 'given' in Spike.
The realization not so easily come by, or a natural assumption
of the situation, was Spike's being more than just an evil vampire,
his having done a lot of good, despite his most recent actions
with the eggs. At the point when she calls him William she is
reminding herself and acknowledging to him this fact- her realization
that she is using a person not just a vampire who warrants no
better treatment. She is returning to her standards for herself-
to act humanely to a being who at this point deserves such consideration.
[> [> [> That raises
an interesting point -- RJA, 18:12:16 07/09/03 Wed
Has any one here examined how Spike uses the words Slayer and
Buffy? Are they interchangeable, or does Spike only use them in
certain situations. It would be interesting to find out.
I like shadowkat's explanation below, but when I first viewed
it I thought it was to signify that the fact she thought using
him was so terrible because she realised he had some humanity
within him. Before that it was about how bad she was for sleeping
with him; here, it was about how bad she was for using him. It
seems once she saw him as having some humanity, she couldnt carry
it on. And using the name William indicated that.
[> [> [> [> Re:
100% agree on humanity and using -- sdev, 18:20:40 07/09/03
Wed
[> [> Re: I sing of arms
and the Man...and fanwanks whenever I can -- Miss Edith, 13:19:11
07/09/03 Wed
Buffy does not treat Spike kindly in subsequent episodes. In HB
she is nice to him, admits to feeling hurt that he has someone
else. In NA she has a civil chat with him, when her friends arrive
she treats him as a low class embarrassment, talking of searching
Spike for illicit contraband and placing herself above him so
that her friends would not think she was associating with Spike.
(And all they were doing was talking, Spike had ben patrolling
with the scoobies, and babysitting Dawn don't forget!)
In Entropy Buffy accuses Spike of spying on her. Then she says
she thinks it is real (his eyes light up with hope) then she adds
"For you", and she is firm with Spike, telling him he
needs to move on. Then after he sleeps with Anya she tells him
off for moving on too quickly. In SR Spike came to the bathroom
because he wanted to talk, Buffy wouldn't hear him out, accusing
him of trying spells on her.
And this isn't that relevent to the original topic, it just leapt
out at me when you suggested Buffy was always cival to Spike,
I personally saw nothing but mixed messages.
[> After ìChosenî
new interpretations worth consideringÖ -- K-Dizzy, 11:39:10
07/09/03 Wed
Re: Buffyís use of ìWilliamî in AYW, cynical-
or realistic? Actually, I do think that Buffy is being deliberately
misleading- to herself. And with the best of excuses: sheís
trying to be kind. Once upon a time, it would have been easy to
say: Buffyís not like that! But recall that officially,
by canon and her recent own admission, Buffy is half-baked. She
doesnít really know who she is or what she wants. Thus,
the stated conclusions of ìChosenî would seem to
open up a lot of Buffyís past actions to renewed scrutiny
and re-interpretation.
As a result, ECH- I agree with your conclusion. In fact, I just
saw a recent article (USA Today 6/23/03, p6D) that made me appreciate
how, in S6, JW and ME somehow (accidentally but rather accurately)
managed to craft a story that resonates with the growing awareness
of a little-reported but noteworthy societal trend: female-generated
domestic abuse.
The article was entitled: ìStudies shatter myth about abuse.î
And while the author is very clear to observe that women are more
likely to be hurt by domestic violence overall, the main subject
is that ìignoring the role that women play in domestic
violence does both women and men a disservice.î Some direct
quotes: ìThe newest findings challenge the feminist belief
that ìit is only men who cause violenceî; ìthe
little-talked-about involvement of women in mutual aggression
with men is ëthe third rail of the domestic violence fieldÖ
Touch it and you get electrocutedíî; ìthe
young are particularly prone to aggression,î and some studies
in family conflict show ìabout the same rates of aggression
by men and women.î Further, an Oregon Youth Study showed
that ìyoung women were more likely to initiate physical
aggression than young menÖ young men were injured as well
as young women and were sometimes afraid of their partners.î
In S6, Buffy is practically the poster child for this phenomenon.
She is physically and emotionally, very young and arguably, immature.
She has one year of junior college and is working in a fast-food
restaurant. She has serious, crippling abandonment issues that
may compel her (unconsciously) to ìtestî the love
of those who profess to care for her. She has looming bills and
stressful responsibilities. And now, due to the actions of her
friends, she has been unwillingly dragged back into a ìhardî
and ugly lifestyle of slaying- the ultimate ìdead endî
job. But instead of expressing her anger and extreme frustration
to the friends who helped to create this situation, she represses
her rage into depression. But even occasionally before her resurrection,
she is quick to lash out with her fists....
Several episodes before AYW, she beat her lover senseless in an
alleyway. Iím sure that any psychologist (or police officer,
for that matter) would not accept ìthey deserved what they
got,î as justification or excuse, but would insist upon
immediate counseling for any such individual. Yet, due to the
fact that JW thinks ìBuffy in pain- Good,î this did
not occur. But it doesnít negate the fact, with regard
to his title character? The unexamined life is most certainly
worth living on-screen.
[> [> Defending the honor
of the University of California -- Anneth, just the eensiest
bit OT, 13:28:05 07/09/03 Wed
Buffy didn't attend a junior college. She went to the University
of California Sunnydale, and for at least a year and a half. Junior,
aka Community colleges, are characterized by a two-year curriculum
that leads to either the associate degree or transfer to a four-year
college. The transfer program parallels the first two years of
a four-year college. The degree program generally prepares students
for direct entrance into an occupation. The vast majority of students
attend community colleges in programs that are shorter than two
years and have occupational goals. There are no entrance requirements
other than the student be 18 or have a high school diploma or
its equivalent. A university, on the other hand, is an institution
with teaching and research facilities constituting a graduate
school and professional schools. Universities award bachelor's
degrees, master's degrees, and doctorates (M.D., J.D., Ph.D, and
the theology doctorate - Th.D.? - being the four traditonal doctorates.)
There are colleges that aren't universities; true universities
are defined by schools of medicine and law. A college within a
university (Buffy was a student of the College of the University
of California at Sunnydale) is the undergraduate-degree granting
facility within a university.
A little info about the University of California. There are 10
campuses and one 'satellite' law school, unaffiliated with any
campus. Eight of the ten award undergrad as well as grad and professional
degrees; one is under construction; and one is devoted to biomedical
research and health science at the graduate level. The University
of CA as a system is considered one of the best public university
systems in the country (along with the universities of Michigan,
Texas, and Virgina) and three of its campuses are considered among
the very best public schools in the country (Berkeley, Los Angeles,
and San Francisco.) A student can only apply to the UC system
if he or she has placed in the top four percent of his or her
graduating class; even then, admission is fiercly competitive.
UC Berkeley, for instance, denies 50% of those applicants
with 4.0 GPAs.
So, it's no small thing that ME chose to have Buffy attend UC
Sunnydale, especially considering that they easily could have
sent her to Cal State Sunnydale, or Sunnydale Community College.
(The Cal State system takes the top 25% of high school graduates,
and community colleges take everyone.) Remember, Buffy did really
well on her SATs.
[> [> [> You should
include UC San Diego as comparable to UCLA and Berkeley, at least
for undergrads -- Sophist, 13:48:28 07/09/03 Wed
[> [> [> [> You're
very right, Soph - Sorry! -- Anneth, 14:00:21 07/09/03
Wed
Just yesterday, I learned that when UCSD opened, in the 60s(?),
mandatory retirement and nepotism laws were still in place at
Harvard and the University of Chicago. Not so at UCSD - so they
picked up a large number of older Harvard and Chicago profs -
and their significant others - to come to SD as the inagural faculty.
The physicist wife of a former Chicago chemist was able to become
a prof at UCSD, (they hadn't been able to work together at Chicago
because of the nepotism rule) and three years later won the second
Nobel prize ever to be awarded to a woman. The headline in the
local SD paper? "Local Housewife Wins Nobel Prize."
Anyway, there were so many Chicago profs at UCSD during the early
years that they used to have "Chicago parties" together
every New Year's Eve!
[> [> [> Well, there's
also... -- fresne, 14:06:04 07/09/03 Wed
Marti and Steve DeKnight went to UC Santa Cruz. Thus Kresge, Stevenson
and Porter colleges. And yes, Porter does party at the drop of
the hat and they drop the hat.
I often thought it would make a good location as a horror movie.
Wait, Lost Boys and the lesser known Killer Klowns from Outerspace,
it did.
[> [> Re: After ìChosenî
new interpretations worth consideringÖ -- RJA, 17:40:21
07/09/03 Wed
Achh, I'm not so sure this was ever intended, or a good example
of the social trend. Certainly, after Dead Things I was sure there
would be an exploration of what a violent career or lifestyle
could do to you as a person, but it was clear by the next episode
that this wasnt to be the case.
I do think they got confused about how they wanted to portray
the relationship of Buffy and Spike, because while I have seen
it written that their relationship is an example of domestic abuse,
its not one I subscribe to because of Spike's very active role
in Buffy's descent. He is as complicit as she is in their twisted
time of life, which is why I dont like the domestic violence parallels.
But something you quote does interest me - the little-talked-about
involvement of women in mutual aggression with men is ëthe
third rail of the domestic violence field. Mutual agression
being the key word.
As someone with very real experiences or knowledge of female domestic
abuse, I'm a little wary of the idea that Buffy defines the role
of abuser, without acknowledgment of the complexity of her relationship
with Spike. I've always felt it was a mutually abusive relationship,
and from the sounds of it, this study will be fascinating reading.
[> Re: Buffy calling Spike
William in AYW not as nice as it seemed on the surface? --
Someone, 13:36:00 07/09/03 Wed
I don't really agree with you,but I don't think it was meant as
a kindness either...to me,it was more about Buffy herself than
Spike at all.She was in my opinion trying to deny to herself everything
she did to/with Spike,the dark,animalistic side of herself wich
as some have noted Spike represented in some ways during alot
of season six.By calling him william(the man before he became
a vampire)rather than Spike(the vampire)she was denying the animalistic
and "vampire-like"aspects of Herself...hope that made
sense to somebody other than me.
[> [> I'm someone, who
are you? Are you someone too? ;) -- Rob, 15:54:44 07/09/03
Wed
[> [> [> Then there's
a pair of us -- don't tell! They'd banish us, you know --
Random, 16:34:25 07/09/03 Wed
[> Why Buffy said William
( a different take on the above) -- shadowkat, 16:52:08
07/09/03 Wed
I wasn't going to post on this, but after reading most of the
posts above, I'd like to give you my take. I think for what it's
worth that Buffy called Spike: William, for a very simple reason
- she wanted him to really listen to her this time. I think we're
making it wayyy too complicated, not surprising considering we
complicate just about everything else. Why stop here? ;-)
Think about the context of her speech for a minute.
Buffy goes down to Spike's burnt out crypt. She tells him
that it is over. Not such an easy thing to convey. Why?
Well from Wrecked and Dead Things and Gone - it's a pretty safe
assumption that this is not the first time, she's broken things
off with him.
She breaks up with him at least once each episode. He's gotten
used to it - sees it as part of the dance or courtship ritual
or possibly just foreplay. In Smashed - she tells him they can
never be together - then whammo they are. All he had to do was
pursue her until she changed her mind. In Wrecked she tells him
never again - then seeks him out to help with Dawn. In Gone she
tells him to go away, then while invisible hunts him down and
has her sexual way with him. In DMP she tells him to go, then
sees him out the window and goes after him. In Dead Things he
states: "Isn't this the point where you kick me in the head
and run off virtue fluttering?" Apparently the routine is
- wild five hour sex-escapades, then oh my god, I slept with evil
fiend, this is over, never again, bye Spike!. In OAFA - they are
fighting about who should leave the house first. So by the time
AYW comes around it's not surprising that Spike's first response
to Buffy's "It's over" speech is :
"I've heard this all before...in fact I have the sheet music."
He does. And she has.
So Buffy is in a really tough position. How does she convince
Spike that she means it this time? Really means it?
Sort of like the little boy who cried wolf trying to convince
the townfolk he really saw a wolf this round.
So Buffy tries for honesty and not denial. Tells him that yes
she wants him, but it's not love. She's using him and it's selfish
. (He states - "really not complaining here." From Spike's
perspective...he does not care. HE's amoral, being used? No problem.
Not something that matters. Actually I know of very few 16-25
year old boys/men who would care if an attractive girl was using
them for sex. But that's another debate ;-)) So she adds something
that she knows he does care about: "It's killing me"
- that makes his ears perk up. Spike cares about losing or hurting
her - she gets that. HE made that clear before she died and very
clear after. HE actually stops protesting at that point.
To drill her point home - to make him listen and realize this
is "really" it - she uses William. Just as most of us
would use someone's full name as opposed to a nickname when we
want to drive home the final point of a well-laid out argument.
"I'm sorry, William." = translation - it's really over
this time. I'm not playing games anymore. I'm telling you the
truth.
Remember his main complaint in AYW is that she's the "one
who has been playing mind games."
She says no more mind games Spike.
And Spike retorts: "You're one to talk about playing games.
All you've been doing is playing me. Making up and changing the
rules as you go along..." Which is true and the main reason
she realizes it has to stop.
So her statement to him at the end of AYW has to be persuasive.
She has to show him that she means it this time,
that she isn't playing him anymore, this isn't another game.
And the best way of doing that is to end her statement with "I'm
sorry, William."
It's not an apology per se, and I honestly don't think it occurred
to Buffy or the writer to appeal to Spike's humanity. I think
the statement is the classic tag to the break-up speech. Every
break-up speech I've heard in my life ends with "I'm sorry....(insert
name of party)".
Buffy/the writer picked the name William b/c s/he wanted to drive
it home. To make Spike see it as real.
And to Buffy's credit? IT worked. She drove it home this round.
Spike did see it as real. And was devastated.
PS: Painful being a B/S shipper isn't it? Between some fans and
ME - you feel a bit battered and bruised and wonder why bother?
Don't worry, ME is cruel to every shipper. So are fan groups.
They all get kicked sooner or later. Hence the reason I've given
up ships. At any rate my heartfelf sympathies. (I'm an ex-B/S
shipper, ex B/A shipper, ex W/X, ex X/A, ex....well you get the
idea. )
[> [> Very good points
-- RJA, 17:30:32 07/09/03 Wed
Now this is why I dont post here, since someone always seems to
say pretty much what I feel about the situation.
And AYW did make the definitive moment in which Buffy finally
and undoubtedly said no. For her, it was ending this chapter of
her, and Spike's, life.
[> [> Re: Why Buffy said
William ( a different take on the above) -- ECH, 17:52:35
07/09/03 Wed
So, she stops using him for sex, that didn't mean that she stops
using him for muscle, emotional comfort, and anything else she
might need. I personally didn't see or mind her using him for
sex any more then her using him for emotional comfort a la Touched
or sleeping with him in Chosen. But, I think it turned viewers
off to her much more for using him for sex then for using him
for emotional comfort and to make herself feel better.
And, according to Joss Spike didn't really understand that she
really didn't want to have sex anymore because of his lack of
soul and that he couldn't differenciate sex games with rape with
out a soul. Also, Spike said in Never Leave Me that he didn't
understand that Buffy really didn't love him until after he got
the soul. He said that she told him that of course, but he never
understood it until then. That very much tells me that Spike really
didn't get that Buffy was just using him and it was over and she
really meant it this time in AYW.
[> [> [> But there
is a separation -- RJA, 18:02:33 07/09/03 Wed
She stops *using* him in As You Were. The emotional support and
connection doesnt start to happen until around mid season 7. Its
not at all related to what she felt in season six, but rather
the place they both found themselves in season 7, i.e. changed
people. There was a gap, and while she started to rely on him
again at a later date, that doesnt mean it wasnt reciprocated.
The fundamental nature had changed.
And I may be reading shadowkat's post in the wrong way, but it
seems to me that the emphasis isnt so much on what Spike realised,
but what Buffy intended. It wasnt that Spike realised in As You
Were that this was it as far as she was concerned, it was the
point that this is how Buffy felt. And that is an important distinction.
[> [> [> [> You
read me right. Agreed. Remember the pov. -- s'kat, 21:28:53
07/09/03 Wed
And I may be reading shadowkat's post in the wrong way, but
it seems to me that the emphasis isnt so much on what Spike realised,
but what Buffy intended. It wasnt that Spike realised in As You
Were that this was it as far as she was concerned, it was the
point that this is how Buffy felt. And that is an important distinction.
You read it the right way.
We have to remember in AYW - all the way through we are in two
pov's Buffy's and Xander's. The only time we leave Buffy's pov
is to flip to Xander's. That's why they made the last scene Buffy
leaving the crypt and did a close-up on Buffy's face instead of
what the shooting script said - which was Spike's. We were never
really in Spike's pov.
So from Buffy's pov - she got her point across finally.
She broke up with him. This is it.
If you've ever broken up with someone - in your pov, you've been
nice about it, you've done it. Now in their's? Different story.
They may be in denial. But Buffy had no way of knowing that. She
believed she fired the point home.
[> [> [> Re: Why Buffy
said William ( a different take on the above) -- sdev, 18:17:21
07/09/03 Wed
"And, according to Joss Spike didn't really understand that
she really didn't want to have sex anymore because of his lack
of soul and that he couldn't differenciate sex games with rape
with out a soul."
I think JW is retconning here, covering for the fans that were
so angry with the AR that they wanted to see Spike staked not
brought back for Season 7.
I find that interpretation unbelievable. Lack of a soul does not
mean you don't understand what no means. Did Spike thing his bitees
wanted to be bitten? Of course not. Maybe putting on the brakes
is a soul thing; maybe not understanding she really did not love
him was a soul thing. But Buffy not wanting to sleep with him
he clearly understood. In the beginning of Entropy he asks "why
won't you sleep with me? So he knew.
[> [> [> [> Re:
Why Buffy said William ( a different take on the above) --
ECH, 20:43:26 07/09/03 Wed
Well what Joss said is a bit different then what Jane E. said
at the past convention in the UK. Jane E. talked about Dawn not
knowing about the real nature of the B/S relationship which was
why she couldn't forgive him (for the AR) and Jane E. then said
something to the effect that Buffy knew why it happened from the
nature of their relationship (ie the violent sex and the no means
yes), which was why she was able to forgive him, but Dawn couldn't
because she didn't know. Or at least that is what she got out
of what Jane E. said.
IMHO, I agree with the writers when they say that Spike really
did not understand that Buffy really didn't want sex from him
until she kicked him off her and then he realized it. The only
place where the writers seem to differ is that Joss said it was
the lack of soul that lead to hid confusion about her consent
and JE thinks it was their relationship that caused the confusion.
I have actually been in a similar type of situation in a very
violent relationship, but it was the girl that was trying to force
sex on me because she thought I really wanted it and I had to
yell at her and physically beat her off me, so I can very much
see how and why such an event could occur. I don't hold her responsable
because I understand that she didn't really want to hurt me or
think I wasn't consenting even when I was yelling at her to get
the hell off me and was beating her off me, I never made a big
deal of it with her after that day and don't hold it against her,
but I was pretty damn mad at her at that time. One thing I do
know is that such an event would be very hard to relate to if
you don't understand or haven't been into this kind of relationship.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Why Buffy said William ( a different take on the above)
-- sdev, 21:37:23 07/09/03 Wed
Sorry. Still don't buy it. I never thought Gone and Buffy's treatment
of Spike sexually in that episode was even remotely equivalent
either even though I have heard that posed many times as some
sort of comparable AR on Buffy's part.
I know there was violence between Spike and Buffy but the viewer
was never shown that violence in the consent department. Spike
asks to handcuff her. When he asks her to leave in Gone she leaves
without a struggle. My impression was that no always meant no.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Why Buffy said William ( a different take on the
above) -- Miss Edith, 11:56:41 07/10/03 Thu
Buffy does not leave without a struggle in Gone. Spike tells Buffy
he will no longer be used as her sexual plaything, "Just
go". We then see her sexually molest him as it is implied
she gives him a blowjob, and Spike says, "Hey that's cheating".
Played for laughs yes, but still Buffy wasn't showing all theat
much respect for Spike at that time. And earlier in the episode
an invisable Buffy had thrown a stuggling Spike up against the
wall and ripped his shirt off. He was not aware of how was manhandling
him, at first, and Buffy didn't wait for consent there. It could
be a sign that perhaps giving consent wasn't always a factor in
their games?
Buffy does on two seperate episodes talk of "letting"
Spike do things to her. In DT she is coerced by Spike because
she finds his idea of public sex dirty, but secretly desires it.
She wanted Spike to take over the sex so that she wouldn't feel
responsible for it. COuld have happened at other times perhaps,
with Spike taking control of the sex so that Buffy would sitll
feel like a "good girl"?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Delayed response -- sdev, 21:49:38 07/10/03
Thu
This is how I see it:
"We then see her sexually molest him as it is implied she
gives him a blowjob, and Spike says, "Hey that's cheating".
He is not screaming and trying to push her off. "That's cheating"
is not the protest of a person being physically assaulted or even
much of a protest at all.
"Buffy wasn't showing all theat much respect for Spike"
Lack of respect does not equal rape or attempted rape.
"And earlier in the episode an invisable Buffy had thrown
a stuggling Spike up against the wall and ripped his shirt off."
He never protested or struggled. Within seconds he asked docilely,
"Buffy?" and readily accepts her sexual overtures when
he realizes it's her.
To me the entire scene is one of two willing participants. Spike,
after already having engaged in mutually agreeable sex with Buffy,
is interrupted by Xander. He then decides to call it quits, and
tells Buffy to leave. A puzzled Buffy makes one last pass at him
which he jokingly shuns. So she leaves. End of scene.
"In DT she is coerced by Spike because she finds his idea
of public sex dirty, but secretly desires it."
This interpretation always bothers me a lot. I never saw this
scene as a big deal. Two willing participants. No physical violence.
I guess I draw a big line between physical coercion and mental.
I am not nearly as disturbed by manipulative behavior as physical
force. I guess I believe that women have the strength to resist
the one but often not the other. Mostly women are not equal in
physical strength to men. But mental is a draw. and therefore
I don't see them as needing protection. I wonder whether the viewers
who are so disturbed at this scene are really disturbed by Buffy's
willing participation, and are scapegoating Spike for it. (I hear
yelling in the distance). OTOH Willow would call it the "Ick
Factor."
Bottom line for me- physical force equals rape. Anything less
demeans the real thing.
[> [> [> [> [>
Agreed. I think your analysis here is correct. -- s'kat,
21:46:11 07/09/03 Wed
IMHO, I agree with the writers when they say that Spike really
did not understand that Buffy really didn't want sex from him
until she kicked him off her and then he realized it. The only
place where the writers seem to differ is that Joss said it was
the lack of soul that lead to hid confusion about her consent
and JE thinks it was their relationship that caused the confusion.
I agree. People forget that B/S was rough sex. Rough sex
means that what happened in SR isn't really that different than
what happened in Smashed or Gone, except for one very important
distinction both parties were willing. Remember in Smashed - Buffy
throws Spike against a wall and attacks his mouth with her own
then unzips him and thrusts down on him - forcefully cracking
the wall behind them in the process. Then in Gone, she throws
him up against the wall, before he even knows who she is, rips
open his shirt then throws him across the room wrecking it in
the process. When Xander arrives - the furniture is broken. Spike's
throwing Buffy against the floor and the tub - is very similar
to these scenes - the difference is she is saying no and *meaning*
it. Spike doesn't get the *meaning* part. Makes sense. Since she's
said no before and let him - Bronze Beta, or Wrecked. Or he's
said no and let her - Gone.
So if you think this is confusing for people with souls and some
maturity - imagine what it is like for a demon without a soul.
I honestly think we do have to make a distinction between Spike
attacking and siring a girl or what he did with Willow in The
Intiative and the AR scene. Actually Spike's behavior in the AR
scene ironically enough is less horrible than Hyena Xander in
The Pack. But the filming of it jarred people. To the extent that
a lot of fans seem to repeatedly (and somewhat annoyingly I might
add) forget that Spike NEVER actually violated or raped Buffy
- the most he did was slamn her against the floor and bruise her
thigh. HE didn't even get her robe off or kiss her or touch a
private part that I saw. He tried to, but didn't. HE didn't get
any further than Hyena Xander did. She stopped him and threw him
across the room and into a wall. And to his credit? He did not
attempt to attack her again, he left - so quickly he forgot the
jacket.
Which is surprising really, considering Buffy had no weapons and
was pretty vulnerable in nothing but a bathrobe.
Spike could still have easily raped and killed her - if that had
really been his intent. I think even Spike was somewhat shocked
and confused that he hadn't.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Agreed. I think your analysis here is correct.
-- sdev, 22:10:53 07/09/03 Wed
I posted before I saw your current post.
Obviously I see the ambiguity of consent, or lack of ambiguity
of consent, in their relationship differently.
"To the extent that a lot of fans seem to repeatedly (and
somewhat annoyingly I might add) forget that Spike NEVER actually
violated or raped Buffy - the most he did was slamn her against
the floor and bruise her
thigh. HE didn't even get her robe off or kiss her or touch a
private part that I saw. He tried to, but didn't. HE didn't get
any further than Hyena Xander did. She stopped him and threw him
across the room and into a wall. And to his credit? He did not
attempt to attack her again, he left - so quickly he forgot the
jacket.
Which is surprising really, considering Buffy had no weapons and
was pretty vulnerable in nothing but a bathrobe.
Spike could still have easily raped and killed her - if that had
really been his intent."
Agree with this all the way. I would conjecture that his backing
off so easily after Buffy threw him off is unusual in the rapist
MO. No proof, just a guess. Also, I suppose his quick back off
supports your theory that he just did not get the "no means
no" initially. But I still don't think that is true.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Agreed. I think your analysis here is correct.
-- s'kat, 22:39:22 07/09/03 Wed
Agree with this all the way. I would conjecture that his backing
off so easily after Buffy threw him off is unusual in the rapist
MO. No proof, just a guess. Also, I suppose his quick back off
supports your theory that he just did not get the "no means
no" initially. But I still don't think that is true.
I may never convince you, because I think the whole yes means
no scenario is a very difficult thing to understand and very controversial.
First off - yes Spike's behavior is VERY off for the rapist MO.
Most rapist's would have reacted more violently after being pushed
off. Hyena Xander certainly did. Buffy had to knock him out with
a desk. And she broke Fishboy's nose in Go Fish. If Spike had
intended to rape or hurt Buffy - she would be dead, raped or he
would. I know more about this topic than I want to. And I really
hate the way tv dramatizes it. For what it's worth Btvs did a
better job than most. Some day I may write an essay on Television
and The Rape Cliche. (ugh).
Regarding the consent issue. You have to first understand the
meaning of amorality. An amoral person really doesn't care. They
don't really see consent as an issue. It's take want have. Spike
does not really see no or yes meaning much to him. An immoral
person does care - they see consent as being an issue and will
often use consent against the person, see Warren's actions with
Katrina - it's important to Warren to make it seem as if Katrina
is saying yes. He removes her ability to consent. Spike doesn't
really care - except to the extent that it *hurts* the object
of his affection. Remember *hurting* the object of his affection
*hurts* him. So Spike sees Buffy as saying no while her body is
saying yes, and since he's ammoral, he really doesn't understand
why she'd say no when she wants it. He doesn't understand why
she denies herself. In his view, she's hurting by denying she
wants it. What's wrong with it after all? And if she says no,
because she intellectually doesn't want it and has convinced herself
she doesn't love him, yet says she has feelings for him - he thinks
if I have sex with you and I'm in you - you'll change you're mind,
you did before. HE really has 0 understanding of what she means
when she says she can't love him because she can't trust him.
HE doesn't understand why thrusting her against the bathroom floor
is any different than the scene in the abandoned building or the
Bronze or his crypt in Gone until she kicks him across the room.
He doesn't hear her "no". And it's the same reason he
didn't hear her break up with him until maybe AYW, but again not
really. She's sent him mixed messages and again, he's amoral.
He only cares about what he feels or senses - he doesn't care
what she says. HEr actions speak more powerfully to him than her
words. They have all along. And it's her actions in SR that finally
get the point home to him. HE finally gets it.
Also if you remember Spike's state of mind during all this, he's
not exactly in any condition to hear what Buffy's saying to him.
He's on the verge of emotional collaspe, has been drinking way
too much, and is desperate. He's actually a bit like Xander was
when possessed by the hyena or OZ when possessed by the wolf.
Not in control. HE comes to apologize...but he's really just clinging
to a last strand of hope. And he reacts in SR pretty much the
same way he reacted in Crush...the way an amoral individual would.
He doesn't want to hurt her - he just wants to love her. Unfortunately
without a soul - it's impossible for him to do one without the
other. HE finally gets that.
Hope that helped. If not? MAybe we should just agree to disagree
on this one?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Agreed. I think your analysis here is
correct. -- sdev, 23:28:21 07/09/03 Wed
I don't mind agreeing to disagree, and I must say I haven't really
gotten my head around some of this. But what really troubles me
in what you just wrote is this concept:
"You have to first understand the meaning of amorality. An
amoral person really doesn't care. They don't really see consent
as an issue. It's take want have. Spike does not really see no
or yes meaning much to him."
"he's amoral. He only cares about what he feels or senses
- he doesn't care what she says."
This does not mesh at all with the Spike that is clearly looking
for more than just sex with Buffy. He wants a relationship, conversation,
her love. Yes, he settles for the sex because that is all she
is giving. He is willing to be used, "not complaining."
But time and again he tries for more. He asks "what is this
to you what we have?" "Are we having a conversation,"
he asks? He goes to her birthday party. Even in the AR he keeps
talking about getting her to feel love for him. He is desperate
for her to care for him not just the sex. He keeps trying to talk
to her but she won't allow it. She keeps it in the sex only arena.
That is her only interest in him. For her own reasons she could
not allow more.
I do agree on the emotional collapse part and his incredible desperation
as he saw his only hope with her slipping away. I guess I think
the lack of soul did not stop him from reverting to violence in
the face of his frustration and desperation. After all this was
what he was familiar with. He reverted to violence briefly. Her
resistance caused him to quickly realize what he was doing and
pull away from the violence. He did actually believe, briefly,
that she would change her mind if he forced her. That is not the
same as saying he thought she was consenting.
The interesting part to me is that I think there is no way he
wanted to have sex with her against her will. That would go totally
against what he really wanted from her, not sex but a loving,
consensual partner. The AR in some weirdo way was his attempt
to try to gain her consent and her love.
Also lack of soul meant he lacked the understanding of how he
might behave differently to regain her affection and maybe trust.
He did not have a clue how to have a relationship with her. The
scene in Crush shows his total immaturity in this department.
And you are absolutely correct he had no idea what she was in
this for.
I hope I was not totally incoherent.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: Agreed. I think your analysis here
is correct. -- s'kat, 23:51:26 07/09/03 Wed
I think you may have answered your own question far better than
I did.
I guess I think the lack of soul did not stop him from reverting
to violence in the face of his frustration and desperation. After
all this was what he was familiar with. He reverted to violence
briefly. Her resistance caused him to quickly realize what he
was doing and pull away from the violence. He did actually believe,
briefly, that she would change her mind if he forced her. That
is not the same as saying he thought she was consenting.
The interesting part to me is that I think there is no way he
wanted to have sex with her against her will. That would go totally
against what he really wanted from her, not sex but a loving,
consensual partner. The AR in some weirdo way was his attempt
to try to gain her consent and her love.
Also lack of soul meant he lacked the understanding of how he
might behave differently to regain her affection and maybe trust.
He did not have a clue how to have a relationship with her. The
scene in Crush shows his total immaturity in this department.
And you are absolutely correct he had no idea what she was in
this for.
This analysis actually makes more sense and I think it may be
closer to what Whedon was attempting to convey.
The truth is I think we're or possibly I'm overanalyzing it. I
think it may be far simpler than we realize which is he thought
he could force her to love him. Without the soul he believed that.
The soulless state possibly being a metaphor for adolescence or
better yet immaturity.
I think consent was important to him. But without a soul, I'm
not sure he understood that she wasn't consenting in the bathroom
until she threw him off her. That is a far simpler explanation
than the whole amorality crap which admitedly is close to impossible
to wrap one's brain around.
In retrospect, I never really saw the AR sequence as a true attempted
rape sequence - I saw it more as ECH did in which is a misunderstanding
that arose somewhat inevitably out of an violent sexual relationship.
That does not make what Spike tried to do any less wrong, nor
does it in any way justify it. But the lack of *true* intent or
the *misunderstanding* element does distinquish it from rape in
the classic sense or what Hyena Xander tried to do. Unfortunately
the way they filmed the scene makes it difficult for a good portion
of the viewers as well as the actors to sense that. The filming
throws us off and manipulates how we feel if we let it. (I think
that was the biggest mistake on ME's part, the filming/editing
of that sequence jarred with the rest of the episode and the series
as a whole...and it did not really fit with how the scene was
built up or the intent behind it. To the extent that some viewers
still feel it was *out of character* completely. They are right
about the filming - the filming was as if we were watching two
characters on Law and Order. They are wrong about the characters
going there - that's in character, how it was written/filmed was
not. ME would have been much better off filming the sequence as
they had filmed previous sequences like this : examples are Faith
in Consequences or Hyena Xander in the Pack or even Spike in The
Intiative - which ironically, all had been actual rape attempts,
complete with the requisite intent and 0 misunderstanding, far
more so than SR. It's ironic that SR was more painful and jarring
to watch than those attempts were and yet if you read the scripts
and the story - those attempts were far worse. Show's how much
visual lighting, direction, editing can manipulate how we view
something emotionally, doesn't it? ;-))
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Demon Rape -- Valheru, 01:32:30
07/10/03 Thu
Firstly, what a wonderful thread you guys have going here. While
I'm not in agreement with everything, just the sheer quality of
analysis is hitting all the happy places in my brain.
I'm of a slightly different opinion about what was going on with
Spike in S6. To me, it's not just the amorality of his actions--a
broad idea that encompasses many possible theories--but the immaturity
of his thoughts.
"Spike" is a persona crafted around the symbiosis of
two distinct personalities: William and the demon. He isn't like
Liam, who became the Jeckyll/Hyde split of Angel/Angelus. With
Spike, his humanity and demonity coexist together at once, allowing
both to maximize their desires--William gets to have everything
he wants (dominance, women, self-assuredness) because of the power
and amorality of the demon, while the demon get to have everything
it wants (causing evil) because it gels with William's desires.
It's an "I scratch your back, you scratch mine" relationship.
In S4, the chip more-or-less tipped the back-scratching in William's
favor. The demon couldn't get it's ya-yas. However, many of William's
desires were still attainable. In S5, we see this with his want
of Buffy. William wants her love, and because the demon can't
fully actualize the evil side of the obsession, it appears very
human.
What Spike ran into in S6 was a conflict of his dual desires,
a conflict that he couldn't understand/address because of his
amorality. Once Spuffy begins in "Smashed", the demon
arises. Why? Because Buffy is the one good thing it can be completely
evil with. But after months of knowing the fulfillment (such as
it was for a soulless being) of having a not-evil relationship
with Buffy, William doesn't want to comply with the demon.
I'm not an expert by any means, but I really don't think people
with anger problems know why they hurt their loved ones. You see
it all the time. Guy beats up his girlfriend, but he really does
love her. So why does he beat her up? In many cases, I think it
has to do with ideals--he rages at anything that disrupts his
perfect idea of his girlfriend. The abuser is trying to become
dominant over anything he doesn't like in the abused. All an abuser
wants is the desirable stuff, the "yes," and he wants
to destroy anything undesirable, the "no."
To Spike's demon side, Buffy's whole being is one big "no."
But to William, Buffy is a "yes." So we see him doing
a lot of "Buffy, I love you, I want you, you need me, let's
make like bunnies," which is William, his desire. But once
William pulls her in for himself...BAM! The demon sneaks in and
takes Buffy for itself, to have its desire to attack anything
good. There's a constant battle going on in Spike between what
William wants and what the demon wants. Whenever Buffy says "yes,"
she is satisfying William and hurting the demon; whenever Buffy
says "no," she is satisfying the demon and hurting William.
But Spike gets it wrong. See, William wants Buffy and the demon
doesn't. Well, in S6, Buffy wants them both. In effect, they're
having a three-way (hide your eyes, kiddies!): William is satisfied
because he gets Buffy; the demon is satisfied because it gets
to hurt Buffy; and Buffy is satisfied because she gets both the
love and the pain. She wants the "yes" and the "no."
As You Were is where Buffy stops wanting the "no"
forever. But she realizes, this time, that she can't have the
good without the bad--she can't have William without the demon
(roughly where she was with Angel). So when she breaks up with
him, she is very clear to break up with William, the part
of Spike that desires her. She is, in effect, saying no to the
"yes" part of him and saying yes (affirming) the "no"
part. Cancelling their relationship out, as it were.
Spike really doesn't act any differently in the AR than he had
before. The problem Spike ran into was thinking that all he had
to do was be William and he'd get her back, not understanding
that it wasn't just his William side that she had been
attracted to. When she again rejected his good side, he flipped.
"How dare you not like the nice William!" He, like a
wife-beater, thought that he could just beat down her undesirable
aspect and get back in touch with the side that liked him. Well,
the side of Buffy that liked him liked the wrong side of
him. The relationship had switched back to something akin to S2,
but Spike didn't know it.
People really get upset by the AR, but I don't think of it as
a bad thing at all (in the context). Spike wasn't any different
to her then than he was before; Buffy was the one who had changed.
The AR was a sort of twisted triumph, where Buffy is once again
the person who finds Spike's demon undesirable. But the AR also
changes Spike by practically reversing the polarities of his personality.
He short-circuits enough to deny the demon and go after his soul.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Now that's an interesting analysis.
I agree. -- s'kat, 09:51:19 07/10/03 Thu
[> [> [> No. No, no,
no. No. No. And otherwise, uh-uh. -- HonorH, 20:54:41 07/09/03
Wed
Trying not to be upset by your equivalency of Buffy's S6 use of
Spike and her S7 relationship with him.
There is no comparison whatsoever to Buffy using Spike for sex
in order to feel something, and her S7 behavior. In S6, she took
from him. He got some pleasure in return, yes, but that was not
her focus. She needed to *feel*, as she sings in OMWF, and that's
why she had sex with him--to get something from him. In S7, Buffy
*gives* to Spike. She gives him dignity. She gives him support.
She gives him her belief in him. She even gives him the words
he's longed to hear from her--"I love you." And he gives
in return. He gives her his strength. He gives her support. He
gives her comfort when she needs it. And finally, he gives her
freedom.
Buffy's medium is actions. While she uses words a couple of times
in S7, it's her behavior toward Spike that speaks the loudest
about what he is to her, and what she wants to be to him. Don't
think about her never offering him an outright apology, or never
calling him William. Watch her. She's calling him William in every
shot for the final three episodes.
[> [> [> [> Agreed.
I think it's important to distinquish btw S6/S7 -- s'kat,
21:58:34 07/09/03 Wed
There is no comparison whatsoever to Buffy using Spike for
sex in order to feel something, and her S7 behavior. In S6, she
took from him. He got some pleasure in return, yes, but that was
not her focus. She needed to *feel*, as she sings in OMWF, and
that's why she had sex with him--to get something from him. In
S7, Buffy *gives* to Spike. She gives him dignity. She gives him
support. She gives him her belief in him. She even gives him the
words he's longed to hear from her--"I love you." And
he gives in return. He gives her his strength. He gives her support.
He gives her comfort when she needs it. And finally, he gives
her freedom.
Buffy's medium is actions. While she uses words a couple of times
in S7, it's her behavior toward Spike that speaks the loudest
about what he is to her, and what she wants to be to him. Don't
think about her never offering him an outright apology, or never
calling him William. Watch her. She's calling him William in every
shot for the final three episodes.
Agree. I think people are placing way too much importance on the
name calling bit. I honestly don't think calling spike, William
matters.
I also think that ME tried to make it clear in S7 that none of
the characters were using one another - they were giving
to each other freely. Buffy doesn't use Spike in S7, he gives
her his support and she thankfully accepts it and he in turn does
not ask for more than she can give nor does he attempt to manipulate
her with it. Big difference from s6
where Buffy grudgingly accepts Spike's help, uses him like a sex
toy and Spike for his part attempts to manipulate her with her
need of him. When she comes to him for help - he manipulates it
and sees what he can get out of it - their conversation in Wrecked.
The using was, I think, supposed to be mutual in S6. But since
we were in Buffy's pov most of the time - we tended to get a warped
view. At any rate:
Spike used sex to get closer to Buffy, he used her lust to get
her to be with him, to love her, while Buffy used Spike's love
of her to punish herself. This is very very different from what
they do in S7 where Spike goes to her and tells her she's okay
and provides strength and she accepts it and in return opens up
and gives him her trust.
The main difference between S6 and S7 is one of respect and trust.
They didn't trust or respect one another in S6, Spike couldn't
really without a soul and Buffy couldn't trust or respect him
without him having one. In S7 they grow to respect and trust one
another and to depend on each other.
Hope that adds to what HH said.
sk
[> [> [> [> [>
Amen, s'kat! Exactly what I was going for. -- HonorH, 22:17:30
07/09/03 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Oh, and speaking of names-- -- HonorH, 22:19:07
07/09/03 Wed
Did anyone notice that Spike rarely called Buffy by her first
name until S7? Until then, it was "Slayer," "Summers,"
and all manner of nicknames and endearments, but in S7 he finally
got in the habit of calling her "Buffy."
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Lots of fanfic writers have..;-) -- s'kat,
22:49:30 07/09/03 Wed
Just read one where they make a point of how he never thought
he deserved to call her Buffy before and does it sparingly because
he wants to hold onto the gift of being able to be intimate enough
to call her by her name.
Personally, I take the far less romantic view and think the writers
were just going for making him seem more adult.
Note - in S2 with Angelus, Angelus calls Buffy - Buff,
Slayer, or some other name. NEVER Buffy. Same with Spike - he
goes for Buff, Slayer, pet, luv, etc...until pretty much S6 and
S7.
So I think it's a writing short cut to show the difference between
more human/souled/adult and soulless or juvenile.
They also have Spike less snarky in S7, he doesn't reply to Xander's
comments as much. To the extent that Xander stops making the remarks
finally. He also tends to be less snarky to Giles or the others.
Quieter. Same with Angel. As Angelus he's far snarkier, Angel
more contained. LEading me to believe ME is really going for the
juvenile delinquent/frat boy vs. mature adult metaphor regarding
vampires.
[> [> [> [> [>
Why does what Spike was using Buffy for get left out --
lunasea, 08:12:29 07/10/03 Thu
Spike used sex to get closer to Buffy, he used her lust to
get her to be with him, to love her
I am really curious when Spuffy is discussed, why the dream from
OOMM is NEVER brought up. THAT is Spike's motivation. Why did
Spike have that dream? That is the cause of his whole obession.
The theme and events of that episode is crucial to understanding
Spike.
I would love to see the speech of "Touched" rewritten
as if unsouled Spike had said it.
[> [> That was my reading
on the scene too, 'kat. Agree completely. -- OnM, 20:12:06
07/09/03 Wed
We do tend to over-analyze, don't we? I've been thinking that
after two years of writing ridiculously lengthy riffs on the show,
I might do a brand new series of reviews as single sets of haikus.
You know, just for a change.
;-)
F'rinstance: Lessons
Who has the power?
There's always a talisman!
Yah, who's yer E-ville?
(BTW, feel free to steal this idea. For all I know, I stole it
subconsiously from someone else.)
[> [> [> LOL! You're
certainly not alone... -- s'kat, 23:29:33 07/09/03 Wed
We do tend to over-analyze, don't we? I've been thinking that
after two years of writing ridiculously lengthy riffs on the show,
I might do a brand new series of reviews as single sets of haikus.
You know, just for a change.
;-)
F'rinstance: Lessons
Who has the power?
There's always a talisman!
Yah, who's yer E-ville?
(BTW, feel free to steal this idea. For all I know, I stole it
subconsiously from someone else.)
Awww...but we like your long riffs. I actually have your entire
Chosen review to date saved on my hard drive. ;-)
So I *really* like your riffs.
Although you're quite good at the haikus - I like the one for
LEssons. I'm horrid at haikus. If I attempted it - I'd probably
come up with something similar to Doug Petrie's effort in Fool
for Love.
Also I'm hardly one to talk - I can't even provide a simple explaination
in less than five paragraphs. Brevity? Not my strength. I think
my last major post was 16 pages.
But that said? I am beginning to think we've been over-thinking
the show a bit and in the process may be in danger of sucking
it dry of it's entertainment value. I'm not sure anything can
stand up to the microscopic scrutiny and critique some of us feel
obliged to apply on a daily basis.
Particularly a 43 minute tv show put together in the space of
a week. (Seriously it takes some us longer to write critical posts
than it takes to write a Buffy script...;-) ). And believe me
- I'm criticizing myself for doing this more than anyone else.
Methinks I've analyzed the poor show to death.
[> [> A note about ships
-- lunasea, 07:16:47 07/10/03 Thu
We are supposed to like/love Buffy/Angel, Buffy/Riley, Willow/Xander,
Willow/Oz, Willow/Tara, Xander/Cordy and Xander/Anya. If we didn't,
what followed wouldn't be any big deal. Those ships are what the
writers want, what is needed for the story to work on a viseral
level. Those who didn't like them might have understood on an
academic level the pain of the characters, but they didn't become
the characters.
That said, the viseral reaction they are trying to generate season
5 and 6 requires Buffy/Spike NOT to be a ship. If anything, it
is supposed to be the opposite. When she goes to his crypt, we
are supposed to scream "Don't go in there Buffy!!!"
"Stake him!!" is another thing that can commonly be
uttered at the TV.
I am tired of seeing Spuffy lumped in with other ships. It isn't
the same thing. It isn't even Lilah/Wes. It is more Cordy/Connor,
VampDarla/Lindsey or VampDarla/Angel (actually it is EXACTLY VampDarla/Angel.
Lucky for us, neither lost their souls).
Want to stay safe and not have your heart broken, then stay away
from ships. Want to be taken on an emotional rollar coaster designed
by Masters, then give your heart away gladly, freely and totally.
I recommend keeping your freezer well stocked with Ben and Jerry's
and having at least one box of tissue by your TV (two is better,
in case the first runs low and you haven't noticed). A good friend
you can telephone during commericials or immediately afterwards
is another plus.
ME is most kind to shippers, because they give us the most wonderful
present, characters that we feel that strongly about. It may not
be what we want, but boy do we sure need it. I love that feeling.
[> [> [> disagree.
merely your opinion. -- curious, 16:16:15 07/10/03 Thu
would write more but my computer/keyboard is giving me not working
well this week.
[> [> [> How can you
say this? -- goose, 19:13:44 07/10/03 Thu
How can you discount Spike and Buffy as a ship? They may not have
had the healthiest relationship at times, but neither did Buffy
and Angel. If Buffy and Angel can be seen as a ship so can Buffy
and Spike. Both had emotional impact on the storyline and the
audience in different ways but just cause you didn't like it doesn't
mean the ship didn't exist, or isn't on the same level as say,
Buffy/Angel or Xander/Anya. Especially considering the amount
of Spuffy shippers out there that is a massive insult. I mean,
I'm an ex-Spuffy and I still take that as an insult. Different
people are going to have different views of the show, and I'm
tired of people always closing their minds to other ideas.
[> [> [> [> From
the Bronze Archives - sorry just couldn't resist anymore --
lunasea, 08:34:23 07/11/03 Fri
Not just my opinion.
To those who feel my conviction that Spike can never be redeemed
and cannot someday end up with our heroine, shows a lack of imagination
of my part, I say you're right. It is beyond my limited imagination
to see a strong, independent, female character end up falling
for a murderer who would be killling innocent people were he not
suffering from chip affliction.
I regret I don't have the creative mind that, say, Thomas Harris
has when he saw fit to sell out the character of Clarice Starling
by having her become lovers with a cannibalistic psychopath, charming
and brilliant as he may be.
That's just one of my many weaknesses as a writer.
For those of you who fault my thinking, I can only say I'll try
to be more openminded in the future. In the meanwhile, S/B shippers,
you can go back to writing your penpals, Richard Ramirez and the
Hillside Strangler, and I hope they finally accept your marriage
proposals
Name that writer [BEG]
[> [> [> [> [>
That makes two opinions up against hundreds more. -- boatdock
17B, 09:27:05 07/11/03 Fri
[> [> [> [> [>
I *should* just ignore this but... -- Alison, 09:46:47
07/11/03 Fri
1) the quote refers to pre-soul Spike
2) I'm guessing this is Fury..and while he can be an excellent
writer, I cannot take him as an authority on either show
3) Much as I love Angel, he fits the Hannibal role far better
than Spike
....so I'm petty...what can I say...my buttons have been pushed
once too often.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Response -- lunasea, 09:56:49 07/11/03 Fri
1) and Spuffy shippers tend to be pre-soul Spike. I make no comments
about souled Spike since we really haven't seen much of anything
other than insanity. Until he feels his soul, he isn't a suitable
match for Buffy and as most figured would happen, when that happened
he quickly fit into an ash tray.
2) correct, but as a co-executive producer, he is a bit more than
just a writer. He has the same job over on AtS now.
3) But as Buffy says, he has a sooooul now. :-)
Of course Angelus fits Hannibal better. He tends to do more than
just follow his blood.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Response -- Alison, 10:08:06 07/11/03
Fri
Honestly, I was hoping you would respond rudely, so I would have
some sort of excuse to get this off my chest. As it is, I'm just
going to say it. You have a right to believe whatever you want
about the show...you can dispise Spike, and want Buffy and Angel
to have snuggles and babies....and that's your right. But you
seem to imply that someone who holds a different veiw from you
is not only wrong, but stupid and mentally disturbed. I happen
to be both a B/A and a Spuffy shipper (yeah, it happens. I'm a
little conflicted, but it's certainly possible)...but your posts
are down right agressive. Your pro-B/A- Spuffy shippers-are-lunatics
stance certainly does not make me want to see your point...it
makes more inclined to see B/A in a negative light.Everyone on
this board deserves respect, no matter how they veiw the show.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> There was nothing rude in that response
-- lunasea, 10:37:07 07/11/03 Fri
You dimissed one of the co-executive producers of the show as
not an authoritative source. Somehow if he wasn't one, I don't
think he would be co-exec and he wouldn't have gotten the same
job over on AtS. There is nothing rude about stating that he is
a reliable source.
My original post was about writers/show's intent. I supported
this by a quote from, you guessed it, a writer/producer. Want
to go on the rollar coaster ride they designed, Spuffy isn't an
option.
Just a tired as you are, I am tired with seeing the producers/writers
just ignored or outright dismissed when they conflict with what
someone wants to see. People for the Preservation of Canon. Who
do you think writes and determines what that Canon is? In order
for season 7 it goes: Joss, Marti, DAVID FURY, Jane Espenson,
David Solomon and Doug Petrie. Those are those names that appear
at the beginning and end of each episode. If everyone deserves
respect, I would say that the names on that list should be included.
I do not say that people who hold an opposite view are stupid
or disturbed. Fury did :-) What I said in my original post is
that this was not how the writers intended for us to view the
couple. Please show me evidence that contradicts this.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Evidence -- goose, 13:06:14
07/11/03 Fri
You say that the writers are intent on showing Spuffy as not an
option, but any arguement you can make about that for Spuffy you
can make the same for Buffy and Angel. Cause you can't for one
second tell me that the coupling of Buffy and Angel was healthy,
and if you wat to go talking about writers opinions on it, didn't
Tim Minear say in an interview how the relationship was extremely
unhealthy.
Also on your list there has Jane Espenson named right after David
Fury who has said her favourite storyline was the Buffy/Spike
love story. So, to me, that sounds like she considers it a ship.
So while David Fury may have his views, other writers may have
their own views and each should be worth the same amount. Here
are some quotes on Spuffy Jane Espenson gave in an interview:
Do you have a favorite season or story arc in particular?
I really loved Faith and the Mayor even though I never wrote for
Faith. I thought that was great fun. I enjoyed the Nerds - always!
They were always so funny. I've been interested in Principal Wood
this year. But my number one has got to be the Buffy and Spike
love story. I think that is just a gorgeous story. How do you
follow-up her romance with Angel? I like the romance with Spike
better. I'm more interested in the heat between those two characters
because I felt Buffy and Angel had romantic love. Spike and Buffy
have something so much more complicated that it's got that romance
and all this other stuff on top of it which makes it so interesting
for me.
Some would say Angel and Buffy really had more of an idealized
first love while Spike and Buffy have the more adult, messy, kind
of love which is more realistic.
That's right. It's not idealized and it's just so often ugly and
yet when James Marsters does stuff where you look in his face
and you go 'Oh, my God, he loves her so much!' Ahh! It's just
so wonderful.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Puzzled -- Miss Edith, 16:27:45
07/11/03 Fri
Sure sounds to me like some of the writers did want the audience
to see Spuffy as a romantic ship!
And Fury quotes mean very little to me lunasea, I stopped respecting
his views after he accused me of being sick for my enjoyment of
a television couple. Accusing me of being unable to seperate fiction
from reality deeply offended me at the time, it still does. I'm
sure you just loved pulling out his most obnoxious post though.
[> Then what would it have
meant if Buffy started calling him "Bill"? -- WickedBuffy,
09:43:45 07/10/03 Thu
Really.
That she saw him as a peer, like a current highschool chum and
not a very old vampire? A normal, everyday kind of guy?
Or totally satirical? Her mocking him.
[> [> I think that would
be mocking him, since it's a name he'd never used. -- Rob,
11:30:19 07/10/03 Thu
Also the name makes me wince (no offense to any Bills here, just
my own personal experience) since, in 2nd grade, the kids realized
that my first name being Robert, my middle being William, that
they could shorten it to Bobby Bill. Which is also why I don't
use or associate myself with the name "Bob" either.
Bad memories of recess! Kids can be awful, awful creatures.
Rob (who will answer to "Robert" or "Rob"
in RL, but never, ever to Bob)
[> [> [> ::jotjot::
taking detailed notes of Rob's peeves for my Mistress -- Wanton
Coiton, 16:16:07 07/10/03 Thu
[> [> Billy Bob Bloody,
Spike's redneck cousin! -- HonorH, who needs her meds, 14:17:44
07/10/03 Thu
[> Re: Buffy calling Spike
William in AYW not as nice as it seemed on the surface? --
V.L.S., 22:40:04 07/10/03 Thu
Buffy called Spike,William in season five,can't remember the name
of the episode,but it is the one were she finds out Dawn is the
Key. Buffy called him William as an insult.
[> William got hurt (and
that's about all he got), but Spike was hurt too - by both Dru
and Buffy -- Celebaelin, 07:37:52 07/12/03 Sat
I'd always assumed that because the demon has the memories of
the human if not necessarily the emotions it is some quality
of persistance of the human mind that might allow a vampire to
feel in spite of its' demonic nature.
Whether Buffy is pointing out that Spike's demonic nature has
been a boon in the hedonistic sense, or whether she is playing
with the vampire-human duality that Spike manifests trying to
'draw out' more of his human qualities is another question. If
it is the latter it very nearly backfires dramatically in Seeing
Red of course. She may even be saying that she was trying to compensate
for William's rejection whilst alive during the course of their
relationship, acknowledging that William is not totally gone but
making it clear that the physicallity is over.
Whilst love may well be for poets (it gives them something to
think about anyway) sex, it seems, is for a darker sort of person
altogether - rock musicians maybe!
C
The duster
-- just a coat, or something better/worse? -- Earl
Allison, 09:48:39 07/09/03 Wed
Specifically, Spike's duster, taken from Nikki Wood's body in
a flashback from S5. What does its continued existence in S7,
particularly after "Lies My Parents Told Me" mean to
you?
What are people's thoughts on it? Is it merely a coat? A trophy
of a kill? The metaphorical flayed skin of a victim? An article
worn to carry on the honor of the fallen? Does it need justifying
at all?
I'm going to try my best not to potentially poison the thread
by not saying anything. People who know me or remember my posts
after LMPTM know what I would say anyway :)
Take it and run.
[> Re: The duster -- just
a coat, or something better/worse? -- Miss Edith, 10:13:54
07/09/03 Wed
It started off as a trophy of a kill. Then once Spike got the
soul he no longer wanted to be reminded that he was an evil bad-ass
as he did previousy. I see the coat as a sign of status for unsouled
Spike. In regaining the coat I wouldn't say he is still seeing
it as a trophy of a kill, in GID I believe it was suggested he
needed the coat to feel more like the old confident him. He felt
naked without it.
He shouldn't be wearing it IMO, I believe even the actor was questioning
the choice. Spike explicitly left the coat in SR when he left
for Africa, and a fresh start. I always wondered if it had something
to do with Fox wanting to see Spike with his old trademarks. Spike
is a real earner for them after all.
[> [> Re: The duster
-- just a coat, or something better/worse? -- Retread, 12:32:49
07/09/03 Wed
"...in GID I believe it was suggested he needed the coat
to feel more like the old confident him. He felt naked without
it."
This was my first impression as well. After a repeat viewing I
thought there might be a deeper, additional meaning: by retrieving
the duster Spike is reconciling both his halves, evil-souless-thing
and soul-having-do-the-right-thing-for-its-own-sake-vampire. He's
resolving his good and evil sides, rather than the good side attempting
to deny the existence of the evil side. In Spike we see the emergence
one being rather than the Angel/Angelus split or the incapacitating
fear of magic use that Willow experiences through most of S7.
Plus there is the shallow interpretation: Spike in the duster
is sexy, and Fox/ME know it. Duster!Spike is almost as good as
Naked!Spike, and they'd run out of excuses for Naked!Spike...
[> I often muse on how events
would've gone if Nikki had worn a fuzzy pink cardigan sweater
that night. -- WickedBuffy, 10:49:29 07/09/03 Wed
[> [> Hmmmm... --
LittleBit, 11:23:55 07/09/03 Wed
As I recall he rather liked Willow's fuzzy pink number with the
lilac underneath. ;)
[> [> Bad WickedBuffy!
-- O'Cailleagh, 11:37:29 07/09/03 Wed
I was pondering what may have happened if Nikki was indeed wearing
a fuzzy pink cardigan (slow day!) and now all I can picture is
Diana Ross in 'The Wiz'. Look what you've done to my favourite
ex-Slayer!
Damn you and your WickedCraziness! :-p
O'Cailleagh
[> [> [> muahahaahaha!
my work on this thread is a success, then! -- WickedMindbender,
09:53:19 07/10/03 Thu
[> [> LOL!! Spike: "Look.
I'm all fluffy..." or rather "Hi Dru. I'm all fluffy."
-- s'kat, 15:57:05 07/09/03 Wed
[> [> Or perhaps a Sundress.
-- Doug, 20:52:01 07/09/03 Wed
[> Dire duster of doomful
reflection. Black vortex of leather or just really in need of
dry clean? -- fresne, 10:57:58 07/09/03 Wed
Is it merely a coat?
There are no mere coats. Well, except for my windbreaker, which
I cannot wear again until I clean it. I mean come on, I have coats
that go with costumes for events that I take the coat off the
moment I get there. Iím a sad, sad human being. But I have
three capes and none of them warm. Must make something in wool.
A trophy of a kill?
Yes.
The metaphorical flayed skin of a victim?
Yes.
An article worn to carry on the honor of the fallen?
Yes.
Well, Iíd qualify the last one. An article to assume the
honor of the fallen. You could I suppose display the body of the
glamorous muskrat that you killed in a fierce battle for your
life. Or you could just stick with lions. When the selkie throws
off his/her skin, s/he is trapped in human form. When the gamekeeper
painted his face with sacred marks, he attempted to assume the
power of the hyena. Wear the skin of the victim, the honorable
fallen, the kill. Become more than William. Be Spike.
Eyeliner. Leather pants of evil. Harlot lipstick. Cigarettes.
Paint it black nails. Tatoos. All affectations throughout the
series. Accessories that proclaim: Iím big. Iím
bad. Look at me.
Does it need justifying at all?
All clothes require justification. Especially spandex, which is
a privilege, not a right.
[> [> A Trip to the Holodeck
-- Malandanza, 19:27:03 07/09/03 Wed
While I agree with most of what you've written, Spike and honor
just don't seem to mesh for me. In a previous post you said:
"Now, excuse me as I assume my Klingon identity. GrrÖarghÖmeatÖred
meatÖRagnorakÖgood funÖtoday is a good day to dieÖgrr.
"The jacket is an item of coup. But more than that, it is
the symbol of an honorable and worthy opponent. A Slayer. She
who demons fear. Who fought with style and grace and verve. Spike
could have danced with her all night."
Let's look at Spike from the Klingon perspective. How many times
has he betrayed his benefactors (Buffy and the Scoobies)? Not
just in The Yoko Factor, where he actively took a part
in helping Adam -- other times, like kidnapping the doctor fully
conscious that it could cost Riley's life. He offered up Dru as
a sacrifice to his potential girlfriend -- but only if he has
some assurances ahead of time that she'll like him -- otherwise,
she's the one that dies. He harbors demon eggs in season six.
He manipulates Buffy in both seasons five (to break up the B/R
relationship) and season six (to keep her in her depression).
He is more a Romulan than a Klingon as far as loyalty goes. Yet
the Romulans would be disturbed by his lack of foresight. Spike
works for short term gain and ignores long term consequences.
What did he think Buffy would do had Riley died? The furthest
reaches of the world would not have been far enough to escape
her vengeance.
But he is a true warrior, you might say, battling the Slayer,
in fair and equal combat. We've seen the tail-end of Spike's battles
with the two slayers, and we've seen it from Spike's point of
view. It is difficult to draw firm conclusions based on his bias.
We have, however, seen his interaction with two warriors how are
his equal -- Buffy and Angel/Angelus. Spike's cowering before
Angelus reveals his real personality. He does not want a fight
he might lose; he wants a fight that appears to be one that he
might lose. Spike has struck Angel before -- but from behind (and
I can hear your Klingon spirit roaring in outrage at his cowardice)
and has run off before finishing the job. In the early days, Spike
didn't even try to fight back -- he just let Angelus manhandle
him. Well, the Romulans might say, he is smart. Striking directly
at the more experienced vampire would have been a mistake -- Spike
would have been killed. True, but it would have been even smarter
not to annoy Angelus in the first place. In fact, one of the few
times we've seen Spike able to face Angel/Angelus was after Angel
was chained up by the hireling vampire torturer. Then Spike bravely
struck his grandsire. With Buffy, Spike revealed himself with
the Gem of Amara. He sneaks back into Sunnydale to find a magic
ring that makes him invulnerable -- then fights the slayer. Fair
fight? Spike likes those, right? Then why the ring? And the sulking
and whining afterwards, when the ring is gone would have any true
Klingnon agog with disgust.
Spike is no heroic warrior. He is the schoolyard bully, sycophantically
deferential to those able to beat him down (like the troll in
Triangle) and pitiless to those he is able to beat (like
the demons he killed for fun while chipped). He is Warren walking
into the Bronze with two dead slayers tucked away like Warren's
orbs. Just recalling the deaths of the slayers gets him sexually
excited.
"An article worn to carry on the honor of the fallen?
"Yes.
"Well, Iíd qualify the last one. An article to assume
the honor of the fallen. You could I suppose display the body
of the glamorous muskrat that you killed in a fierce battle for
your life. Or you could just stick with lions. When the selkie
throws off his/her skin, s/he is trapped in human form. When the
gamekeeper painted his face with sacred marks, he attempted to
assume the power of the hyena. Wear the skin of the victim, the
honorable fallen, the kill. Become more than William. Be Spike."
When people talk of trophy animals, I think of Hemmingway and
his wife on an African safari -- his wife brought home a trophy
and he did not. He felt it was an affront to his manhood and would
not speak to her again -- she had castrated him by proving herself
a more competent hunter than himself. It is much the same with
Spike. He created a fantasy persona out the fragments of William
the Bloody Awful Poet -- the Big Bad. The coat came to symbolize
that new creature -- respected by the forces of darkness for his
ability to kill slayers. The coat wrapped around him more tightly
than one of Andrew's fantasies. When he loses the ability to kill,
he feels castrated. After Spike is rejected by Buffy, the full
extent his fantasies are revealed when Warren makes him a sexbot
in the likeness of the slayer with special programs -- "Angel
is bloody stupid", "darn your sinister attraction"
(or "chicks, chicks, chicks" as the Trio put it*), and
"oh Spike! you're the Big bad!" This attempt
to recover his manhood ultimately fails and it is not until he
bags his third slayer in Season Six that he gets his "stones
back".
I guess what I'm trying to say is this: Spike is no Klingon Warrior.
He's a Ferenghi who likes to dress up as a Klingon in the
Holodeck. And the coat? part of the costume.
*In fact, the great tragedy of Season Six was that this vampire
who always yearned to belong somewhere would have been welcomed
by the Trio with open arms. They would have made him their mentor,
hanging on his every word, listening to his stories about Angelus'
exploits (with himself substituted as the hero) with awe and wonder,
and modeling themselves after him in every respect. Sadly, Spike
had grown so used to rejection that he was unwilling to ask for
entry into their club, certain that, as always, he would have
been rejected as beneath them. Instead, he affected a condescending
attitude (while proving his qualifications to join -- "Help
me out here, Spock") to hide his insecurities.
[> [> [> So, in this
scenario Angel/Angelus is Hemmingway and Spike is his wife?
-- Doug, 20:50:16 07/09/03 Wed
[> [> [> Argh, avast
ye mateys. -- fresne the pirate queen, 09:56:24 07/10/03
Thu
Okay, first of all, I just want to say, Sqeeeeeee! I just got
a rebuttal post. I practically never get these. I too can get
into a long wrangly discussion that can never ever be resolved
due to completely different world perspectives. Iím just
so happy.
Also, I dressed up like a Pirate last night, Argh.
Give me an A ñ Argh.
Give me an R ñ Argh.
Give me a G ñ Argh.
Give me an H ñ Argh.
What does it spell. Argh.
And went to see Pirates of the Caribbean. Oh, my God, we had a
blast. Great movie. Really funny. Incredible special effects.
BtW: Thereís a little something extra at the end of the
credits. Best bit was when the heroine says the line, ìYou
like pain so much, try wearing a corset.î And our entire
group cheered (four women ñ all wearing corsets). Okay,
I thought it was cool.
Wait, I was excited about something. Oh, yeah.
Squeee! AhemÖIím glad to see you didnít argue
with my spandex comment, because some things are like laws of
nature. Nor with my world view that all clothing is a costume.
You werenít disagreeing with that right? Anyway, the clothes
that Iím wearing right now. Costume. The costume of a woman
who really needs to do laundry, but ran around like a flibbertygibbet
last night instead, however still a costume.
Also, Iíd like to compliment you on the structure of your
argument. Starting with a discussion of the Klingons. Building
to the Romulans. And then finishing it off with the Ferrengi.
Snaps to Malandanza. Snap. Snap. (I went to see Red, White and
Blond on the 4th after the fireworks. While wearing my handmade
skirt of patriotism.) I totally donít agree, but thatís
not the point is it. Itís all about expressing ourselves
and interacting and getting drunk and getting into fist fights
while we hang out in Spain.
And before I go any further, Iíve got to say, I want you
to imagine how you feel about Spike and vomit that on Hemmingway.
Well, his writing at least. Here Iím going to take an absolute
and controversial stand. I hate Hemmingway. Argh. No, wait, I
just canít do it. Itís so absolute and stuff, apologies
to those who like Hemmingway.
Itís just I sit there and read and think, I need lyricism,
STAT. Ah, Steinbeckís Chrysanthemums. MmmmmÖah, back
to who ever the holy heck the freaking bell is tolling for. It
is tolling for me. Ah, the memories. Sorry, Iíve had a
tragic literature past, which though often reaching the heights,
had its sad and painful valley of the shadow of essay moments.
Sob.
That was a tangent wasnít it. I apologize. And after you
responded to an archived post, which also never happens to me.
Never. Thank you. This is just so cool.
I could at this point go into a big long discussion of the Duras
sister or the original Trek series Klingons. The evolution of
Kang in the Savage Curtain to his portrayal in ST:NG. The dialog
in the mine scene in FfL. The honor of youth, the seductiveness
of death before dishonor. The Leader of the Pack. Romeo+Juliet.
Lucretia of the house of Brutus. The quality of honor. The quality
of mercy. The stupidity of not posting Spartan sentries at all
the passes at Thermopolis. Wait, that was completely un-germane,
strike the last one. Switch it for a rant about Romulan planning.
I quite enjoyed the latest ST:NG movie, but seriously, pick a
plan and stick with it. Internecine politics only serve your enemies.
HmmmÖI suppose I should get back to BtVS.
The scene in the proto-magic shop in LW. The way Spikey-poo was
in a wheel chair when Angelus-poo came back from the souled. Waited.
Waited. Then it was like kapow, ST:6 and all you havenít
read Hamlet until youíve read it in the original Klingon.
I am such a geek. And yet, I scored low on that geek test. Go
figure.
Damn Iím in a good mood. No wait, Iím in a confrontational
and defensive mood. Argh. Mainly because Iím rambling and
Voynak will eat this thread before I get around to really saying
anything.
Spike is no heroic warrior. He is the schoolyard bully, sycophantically
deferential to those able to beat him down (like the troll in
Triangle) and pitiless to those he is able to beat (like the demons
he killed for fun while chipped). He is Warren walking into the
Bronze with two dead slayers tucked away like Warren's orbs. Just
recalling the deaths of the slayers gets him sexually excited.
I totally disagree. Well, actually, I donít disagree about
the heroic hero spread legs, put hands on hips, preen bit. If
he was, I wouldnít like him. Heís Odysseus encased
in a tongue of flame. Raven. Loki. Spider. Q. The ST:NG one, not
the British military Quartermaster. I just happen to think that
he has his own code of honor. And sometimes itís more like
guidelines. And sometimes, heís horrified that heís
horrified at his own behavior, because he shouldnít be.
Anyway, I love the final metaphor youíve got going here.
Rocks. Orbs. Sexuality. Death. Buffy always going to the fridge
after patrol. Buffyís midnight runs in BvD. Faithís
whole slaying makes you hungry or horny speech. Ah, horror stories.
Theyíre so kinky.
I suppose I should like defend my position or something. UmmmÖheís
a vampire, heís supposed to be all messed up. ErrrÖI
donít think all the demons that he killed for fun were
always easy to kill. See three headed demon in Forever, repeat,
rinse. I try to imagine Spike as a sycophant, like say, Gloryís
minions and I just canít do it. Itíd be funny to
watch. But mostly, itíd come out as, ìSomeoneís
na-aaht worrrrth-y.î The troll thing seemed more like an
example of Spike doesnít have soul, so he had a whole lot
of not caring.
See, in a way I think youíre right. Itís just what
you read as bully, I read as bravado. Similar, but not the same.
And, I have no problem with bravado. I use it all the time.
Yeah, I guess he could have joined up with the trio, except he
pretty clearly would have been major with the boredom. Heck, if
there hadnít been a no gurls sign, I could have joined
the trio. Come to think of it, Iím in a trio. Not sure
that Iíd regard that as the tragedy of S6. Cause, well,
Spike was on a totally different trajectory.
But, hey. If you think Spike is Ferengi. Cool. Personally, the
image give me a big ole laugh, cause you know, Snyder, Ferengi,
heh, heh, heh.
You know if I let myself, this will go on forever and Voynak really
will eat the thread. So, thanks. Have a great day.
[> [> [> [> ROFL
-- Sophist, eagerly anticipating Mal's response, 10:24:56 07/10/03
Thu
[> [> [> [> Re:
the bell tolls for Donne -- sdev, 11:20:18 07/10/03 Thu
Hate Hemmingway too. Loved your post. Especially your take on
bravado.
[> [> [> [> ROFL
is right!! I love you dearly fresne. -- s'kat, 12:30:54
07/10/03 Thu
[> [> [> [> OT:
Pirates! Arrr! -- ponygirl, 12:44:34 07/10/03 Thu
That was so fabulous! I had so many doubts going in: Disney, Jerry
Bruckheimer - but it was a hoot. And Johnny Depp should rule us
all with a stern but fair hand. What a perfect way to play a pirate
- as a '70's British glam rock star. Plus the kid who played Iceman
in the X-Men was at the theatre and his eyes really are That Blue.
Poor Hemingway, all puked on. Not a huge fan but In Our Time had
some great moments. Just the sense of someone young and messed
up and trying to put it all out there. He just took the wrong
fork on that Big Two-Hearted River afterwards.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: OT: Pirates! Arrr! -- aliera, 14:15:13 07/10/03
Thu
You are sooo lucky. That blue, huh?
Ben loved it. I was bored some of the time but never w/ Johnny....
I heard that he told them that he was going to play that way or
not play it, and that he still has some of the gold (teeth.)
I took the afternoon off yesterday so we could catch it when it
opened (I almost never do this but it was such a crappy day at
work yesterday I said what the hey and left after lunch) so we
saw it with a theater full of other kids (age is relative right?)
and the sighs for Orly... kinda like a mini wind storm. Sorry,
I'm rambling... stopping now.
[> [> [> [> [>
Dead men tell no tales - except, like, when they do --
fresne - yo, ho, something, something, rum, 19:54:30 07/10/03
Thu
Well, aren't you with the blue eyed luckyness. Cool.
Yeah, in between the non-stop Arghs, and that one bit where we
did Pirate + t.v. show impressions (Shatner, Iron Chef, Swedish
Chef, you know, the basics), we did keep raving on about the Depp.
Yeah, 70s British rocker. I like that. A friend of mine suggested
he was doing O?Toole. Perhaps, O?Toole as a 70s rocker pirate.
I really wasn?t expected it to be as funny as it was. And damn
with the special effects. And the ride cameos. And the reference
to Greek Mythology, cause hey, that?s always cool. And, and, .
Hmmm?In Our Time huh. I?ll probably never get over my four Hemmingway
in a row trauma, but good to know. I?d feel bad about the vomit
and stuff, but I?m evil and unrepentant that way.
[> [> [> [> You
are a treasure. Pirate treasure, of course. -- LadyStarlight,
12:52:39 07/10/03 Thu
[> [> [> [> Are
you trying to start an agreement? -- Malandanza, 22:26:33
07/10/03 Thu
"And before I go any further, Iíve got to say,
I want you to imagine how you feel about Spike and vomit that
on Hemmingway. Well, his writing at least. Here Iím going
to take an absolute and controversial stand. I hate Hemmingway.
Argh. No, wait, I just canít do it. Itís so absolute
and stuff, apologies to those who like Hemmingway."
Well, if you're looking for an argument, bashing Hemmingway isn't
the way to go. I like absolutes and have no problem saying I absolutely
hate Hemmingway's writing. After I read The Sun Also Rises,
I came away with the impression that it was one of the worst books
I had ever read (I heard he wrote it after his African safari)
but after browsing through the literary criticism on the book,
I realized it was much, much worse. I'd rather read Spuffy fanfic
where Spike is a hero, becomes a human, marries Buffy, has children
with her, all while being a perfect surrogate father to Dawn and
Endicott style of husband to Buffy written by a semiliterate,
prepubescent Spikephile than read a Hemmingway book. So if you
want to vomit on Hemmingway (or his books) I'm more than willing
to provide the emetic.
I agree with what you've said about Spike and bravado
up to a point. He is a bully as we have seen in his interactions
with Warren (who was bullied into building the Buffybot) and the
Troika (barging in and bullying them into helping him). I'd also
say that calling his behavior towards Harmony, Xander, or Season
Six Buffy bullying is actually a bit of an understatement.
Look at his interaction with the troll again -- Spike is jostled
accidentally and jumps up ready for a scuffle (okay, probably
not a scuffle, since the chip hurts him -- but ready for some
intimidation and bullying), sees the size and complexion of Olaf,
then is suddenly consumed with not caring. He becomes helpful
-- babies? Hospital, right? And the walk-behind-me-to-death conversations
he's had with Buffy over the years, trailing behind her begging
for attention like -- "a small dog begging for snausages."
Which brings me back to Spike and Andrew. The Fool For Love
and the Storyteller. Each living in the Holodeck.
"I just happen to think that he has his own code of honor.
And sometimes itís more like guidelines."
I'm not exactly sure what Spike's code of honor is -- I hear about
him being an honorable vampire from time to time, so I assume
it exists. Or guidelines, as you say. It seems to evolve over
time, however -- in Season Two he's the iconoclast who want less
ritual, but in All the Way he the traditionalist who is
disgusted with the vampires out on Halloween. The young generation
just has no respect for tradition...
Whatever this code entails, it's not part of Spike, it part of
Holodeck Spike, the Big Bad, rebel & reactionary, the ladies'
vamp and Love's Bitch, the punk, the dark warrior who slays the
slayers, the Man who would be Angelus, the Courtly Lover who abuses
his Ladylove, the Gomez Addams to Dru's Morticia, the handome
rogue with the twinkle in his eye from the soaps -- whatever he
is today. Just as Andrew's code of honor in the Troika was no
killing -- he's a crimelord. But not really a code. It's
Fantasy Andrew's code of conduct, not Real Andrew's -- Real Andrew
is more flexible. Andrew eventually stepped out of the Holodeck.
Spike had his chance when he visited Wood's House of Pain (okay
-- technically, Garage of Pain, but sometimes you have to sacrifice
technicalities for the sake of being literary) but he refused.
No introspection for Spike, he's not into "self-reflection."
He likes it in the Holodeck and has come to believe the Holodeck
is real.
[> [> [> [> [>
Heheh, Fresne and Mal - me too! re Hemingway -- Rahael,
02:20:02 07/11/03 Fri
But I quite liked the film with Bogart and Bacall ;)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Ah, excellent we have a quorum or something. -- fresne,
07:25:42 07/11/03 Fri
Yes, of course, anything with Bogart and Bacall is exempt.
I'd also have to nominate the film version of the Sun Also Rises
because it's got: Tyrone Power, Errol Flynn and Mel Ferrer as
those so drunken, so carousing, so rising. As also, joined by
Ava Gardner. Not so much for its goodness, but for its train wreck
like qualities and nearly pickled casting.
And Mal, I'm not shirking on my duties here. Hopefully, this thread
will last long enough for me to come up with a sufficiently loquacious
and erudite and some other cool adj response.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Count me in too. Soon we'll have a minyan.
-- Sophist, 08:26:16 07/11/03 Fri
I like to think that To Have and Have Not was a great film
despite Hemingway, rather than because of him. Will I be expelled
from the club if I say that I thought A Farewell to Arms was passable
(and add that I love Ingrid Bergman)?
[> [> [> [> [>
Oh, yes or no or maybe or all three. -- fresne-whose writing
style'd drive Hemy nuts & likewise same, 10:16:50 07/11/03
Fri
Ah, excellent to begin in such accord. However, please no emetics.
Iím all off effluvium, which clings, and desire instead
a voluptuary alluvial flow of mental perambulation through words
and ideas fantastic and strange. Five fathoms lie, until all is
new and strange. While, we poor sub-luminaries, but float faint
votives out on the dark stream in the hopes of reaching one another.
Softly. As, well as that wish to fire the mind, but not singe
anyoneís hair.
I like absolutes and have no problem saying I absolutely hate
Hemmingway's writing.
And that is it in a nutshell of the mind. Perspective. View. Even
in not liking and loathing and all round, fahing Hemmingway, I
am no thing but never absolute (If I had time for a quadruple
negative, trust me, Iíd have attempted the leap).
And since I am not absolute, wavering, flowing, changing, perceiving,
how can I perceive anyone or anything as this thing, this absolute?
Flesh melts and reality is simultaneously a stage, a tale told
by an idiot and a flickering candle. Votives in the dark.
Now, then Spike. The medium by which I articulate this angle of
view. The Fool. Loveís Bitch. Bully. Bravo. Seeking to
protect Dawn on a tower for a promise. Playing Yoko on cracking
lines. Choosing not to fight a Troll, because why. Or fear. Or
evilís siren call to shoals. Choosing to go back for another
crack of egg in Forever. Listening to Buffy, as she newly rises
from soft darkened realms, now all over living nerves. Coercing
Buffy into a darkness that gave him joy, once. Making the two
backed beast. And completely failing to connect with same. Iíd
list the AR, but that is not what I those events so call, but
in the semantics of view, a tragic fall of misperception, miscommunication,
and no trace of mis gyn.
And no fluttering falls of words or commas and periods flung like
stars can change that. As, too no tripping words or raining periods
or dashed slashes from myself can alter you. Your perception.
Your world.
Nor should they.
That would be a Foucault of it. A harsh Minting. A contusion on
the landscape of the mind. Bleeding salt that wounds the landscape
and prevents growth. Rather, I prefer an exchange of flow and
so too I hope, believe this being your desire for expression on
this so worn path.
You see, I simultaneously see most of the other characters the
as a mix of faces. Masks. The behaviors that you mention, Iíve
seen other characters do and be. Iím not going to elucidate,
because quite frankly it would come off as bashing. Or perhaps,
pushing others down, to lift Spike up. When in truth, I see them
all on the heights of momentary competence. All in the depths
of unforgivable behavior. To me. My nutshell.
The only characters that I donít connect with are those
the writers have kept from me, by which I mean the Potentials.
Of whom, more and more I think that I needed more episodes, not
less to get to know. One note does not a ripple make. It is the
scale playing Moonlightís sonata as we go to the sea.
You see, I am myself by turns kind and cruel. Merciful flow and
obdurate flint. No one thing but many. That is how I see the world.
Absolutes in a range, which isnít to say that I donít
have beliefs, which would be sad and rag tag of me. For example,
I put a lot of weight on personal choice. Personal responsibility.
Equally. Itís merely that as the child of two intelligent
and yet diametrically opposite choosing parents, I know, believe,
perceive that Sparta and Athens both had good and bad points.
I'd also say that calling his behavior towards Harmony, Xander,
or Season Six Buffy bullying is actually a bit of an understatement.
Look another quote. This is much with the exciting mix and flow
of idea, for all that after the initial accord; I think perhaps
more oil and water than more mixing things. Harmony, Iíll
certainly grant. Especially, since in the game of wits, she came
so wanting and therefore, merited slightly more care. Which come
to think of it, is wrong headed of me, but I never claimed to
logical. Consistent. Merely, thinking, perceiving, introspective,
and the fourth one that I can never remember, judging.
You see, to my view, my perspective, my flow, Spike was soulless.
Vampiric born not under a rhyming planet, but instead one of reddish
hue. When he behaves Evil with a capital E isnít so much
interesting as when he does not. Or rather. The Es with Gs. The
patterned texture of dark and light on a fluid surface.
Iím not sure what you mean by Xander in specific. As to
Buffy, Iím sorry, but here, disaccord. Those views which
you have so often and so eloquently espoused are not in my perceiving.
Alas, when we come to testify (not advocates, but here mere witnesses
in a sea of same) in this court of law on the S6 that we watched,
well fortunately it isnít a court of law. Since, I grant
equal responsibility for choice in the pop and crackle of spuff.
Equal bullying, I freely grant. But to one more than the other,
well it is easier to pluck out the offending gaze than to change
what it sees. And there we stand on opposite, but equally valid
shores. Lapped by the same sea.
So, too that moment in the Garage of Pain. The place of crosses
and motherís singing and epiphany. You see, where you perceive
holo, I see, realization. If Woodís mother had been anyone
other than the Slayer, the warrior of the people (humans and other
law abiding folk), then perhaps Iíd agree. But she wasnít.
Death was her art too. And her power and grace and purpose inform
my perspective of her. Well, the faint trace of her that we saw,
since, we only ever saw two of her masks, her faces. I donít
believe that she actually ever really appears in the text. A memory
from a son, an opponent, a First Evil wearing her perfume. Perfume.
A faint trace of the actual. The ìrealî Nikki, Iím
sure was just as complex as the ìrealî Buffy, or
Willow, or Xander, or Giles.
As sure absolute as I am anything.
Being as I am, not done. Still flowing towards the glittering
tidal. Sometimes rapid, white froth and others placid leaf flecked
contemplative mood. Again, in all honor, I thank you for your
time and churned energy in contribution to my ebb, for all that
I think that there is an inevitable and inexorable split reef.
But, I hope, no undertow.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Fresne... wow -- ponygirl, shaking my head, 11:15:26
07/11/03 Fri
Please write a book of poems, I'd buy. Camp out in front of Neil
Gaiman's house until he lets you write the true story of Delirium.
Force ME to do a Drusilla mini-series and write all the dialogue.
I'm so very impressed. And you kept the sea theme afloat throughout!
In the midst of all that I agree with what you're saying. Among
the many faces all the characters have worn there is good and
evil and a thousand things in between. And they always have their
reasons.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Drucilla, Delirium huh. It's the insanity thing
isn't it? :> -- fresne,
17:17:23 07/11/03 Fri
You know Iíd be blushing right now, if I were still capable.
However, going to the supermarket dressed as Alice in Wonderland,
complete with flamingo croquet mallet, does things to you. Or
at least thatís my story and Iím sticking to it.
Anyway, all praise that I receive, I must quite seriously reflect
back. The board has given me so many opportunities to sharpen
my skills. The opportunity to write essays with extended conceits.
Burble. Be random. Talk about Literature. Myth. Philosophy. Meaning
in the multiplicity of its faces. Gathering chimeric cipher rosebuds
while we may, because time is out of joint and flighty.
BtVS and AtS, these canvases for expressing something. Anything.
A wending that is much me as ME. You as much as I.
Mostly itís the philosophy orgy thing, itís really
addictive.
Although, the real question that you must ask yourselves, isnít
when will all roads stop leading to Blondy Bear, much as we love/hate
to masticate and ruminate on him. Rather, the question that must
and should be haunting you all is when will fresne finally, torturously
finish preparing and actually get started on this yearís
Good Literature Gone Bad, which is actually the reason Iím
writing like this. Dead White Dude wrote a lot of freaking plays
and it is seeping creeping ever so into my brain and crying havoc
with my humors.
Just something to think about.
Oh, and ponygirl, this isnít quite what you meant, but
I think germane.
Tihn
I wrote it, if not coded it, about ten years ago. Try Anticipation
or Waiting
for something a bit more modern. I am, in general, a very fitful
fiction writer.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Thanks! -- ponygirl, 07:44:32 07/12/03
Sat
I'm looking forward to more fresne reading! I was skimming quickly
through the pages and stopped up short when I saw you had a piece
called Green Is The Colour of Love. Ages ago I started writing
a long story called Green Is The Colour of Memory, but never finished
it.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> fresne, I heart you. -- Caroline, 15:18:10 07/11/03
Fri
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Wow...Complete agreement. My hero. ;-) -- s'kat,
15:20:01 07/11/03 Fri
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Epiphanies and Denial -- Malandanza, 18:38:25
07/11/03 Fri
So, too that moment in the Garage of Pain. The place of crosses
and motherís singing and epiphany. You see, where you perceive
holo, I see, realization.î
I, too, think Spike had an epiphany, but not in the garage. Back
in Season Six ñ the attempted rape. Up until that moment,
Spike had a holo image of himself ñ the sexy vampire with
that darn sinister attraction and washboard abs, the vampire Dracula
owes money, the guy whose look Billy Idol stole, the Vampire Slayer
Slayer who Buffy craves like he craves blood ñ and if she
canít see that heís all sheís got, that his
passion for her that consumes is so much better than those pedestrian
loves based on outmoded Iowan concepts like trust, well, then,
sheís a bitch. But sheíll come around; after all,
sheís never had it so good. And then for a moment he sees
himself not as the ideal but as the reality. The unwelcome intruder
kicked across the room, facing a battered, but angry slayer who
is filled with ìreclaimed powerî (shooting script)
righteously indignant and demanding ìask me again why I
could never love you?î The image he sees is an unexpected
shock and, like Lovecraftís Outsider, he flees. With an
ocean of denial between him and Sunnydale he seeks annihilation
of the self ñ through the soul. So much easier than self-realization.
And the soul makes everything better, right? Not quite ñ
Angel didnít tell him there was a downside. As with Andrew
at the end of Storyteller, there is no more hiding ñ
the soul reminds him of every crime. And so he ends up in the
SHS basement, gibbering and howling with only the First to keep
him company. But that was enough ñ the sanity returns miraculously.
Composed and lucid, he takes his place by Buffyís side
as if nothing had happened. Well, sheís a little skittish,
but that will pass. The First was a good therapist ñ no,
wait, make that an evil therapist. Repress, repress, repress.
And thereís just a hint in the Basement of the Dead Girls
that Spike made a choice ñ that he let the First into his
subconscious in exchange for oblivion. Exchanging his birthright
of free will for a draught of nepenthe. But the memories return.
No matter, Buffy believes in him. Repeat it like a mantra. And,
anyway he has a soul now, so itís okay. Heís not
really responsible for those deaths ñ some other being
is. And, yet, he puts the trophy coat back on, and wraps himself
back up in that other beingís fantasy.
ìIf Woodís mother had been anyone other than
the Slayer, the warrior of the people (humans and other law abiding
folk), then perhaps Iíd agree. But she wasnít. Death
was her art too. And her power and grace and purpose inform my
perspective of her.î
I remember Buffy in Prophecy Girl, hearing that she was
to die, it was written. Warrior of the people? Certainly. But
also a girl. And this informs my perspective of the dead slayers.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Almost totally agree -- KdS, 02:15:23 07/12/03
Sat
I think we agree very closely on Spike's psychological state during
S7, but I see the key turning point as Get it Done. I think
that Spike understood Buffy's demand to get the "dangerous"
Spike back as meaning that he was forgiven for everything he'd
done in the past, and that while he might still regret the things
he'd done he could now start again as if he was a moral blank
slate with no obligation to anyone.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Mal, that was great! -- ponygirl, 07:56:22
07/12/03 Sat
I completely agree with your interpretation - everything you describe
is exactly why I find Spike such and interesting and tragic character.
I'm not sure if that's true for you.
And then in the end Spike does reject the illusion that he has
won the prize - the Slayer's love - but still goes out with snarling
persona. Had he finally integrated the different aspects of his
self, or was it a last bit of bravado for an audience of none?
We shall have to see.
Off to save your and fresne's great discussion!
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> I almost went to Egypt, but I went on a 7000 mile
road trip instead -- fresne, 08:02:28 07/12/03 Sat
Oh, the pressure. The flex and play of it. Extended theme. PfffÖ
Well, I don't know about outmoded Iowan concepts like trust. That
seems to associate trust with only one of the states of these
Unites States, North America, Earth. And really, Iowa, Riley,
he's a married man. I take that sort of thing seriously. Let's
not go there.
And really, if I'm going to pick a state, well, naturally I can't
pick California, because you know, it's a whole city versus the
country thing, although technically we have lots of country. Anyway,
country is always good, city bad. Unless, you're Sherlock Holmes
and then you think the country is lonely and deserted and the
perfect place for crime. And come to think of it, quite possibly
Lovecraft. All those tunnel ridden hills, with their inbred dwellers
and/or small New England villages populated by scary old people.
Or scary fish people. Or scary inbred old fish people, who worship
the Nameless Unknowable Really Ancient Ones.
So, I'm going pick South Dakota, which is not only more rural
than rural, but is my mother's home state. I still remember going
to my Grandparent's 50th wedding anniversary. My Grandfather was
a state level politician; they had five kids, seven and eight
siblings on each side, so there were lots of people there. Keep
in mind the town has a population of like 100+. We always double
the town when there's a get together. So, my grandfather was standing
there with grandmother up at the podium talking about how they
met (he didn't like her and thought she was superficial) and got
married and had those five kids and fifty years of a life. And
after he gave this wonderful speech, he grinned down at my grandmother
(who was like a foot and half shorter than him) and said, "And
she's still good in bed too."
And my little grandmother, wapped him upside the head and said,
"Harold!" And he just grinned.
That's what you're talking about right old married trust. Well,
except, you know septuagenarians and trust and good sex and South
Dakota.
But Buffy. Spike. Epiphanies. I'm actually in favor of the multiple
epiphany. So, yeah, he had an epiphany there in the bathroom.
And I think later too in his crypt. That he shouldn't be upset
by what had happened, so big misdirect, must be this external
agency. The Chip. Yeah, whatever it takes dude. You've cast the
coat, so it was kinda going for the new me. Except, hey, it's
wherever you go, there you are.
Myself, I can't get into the Catwoman persona unless I'm wearing
both my leather waist cinch and my sunglasses and then all of
a sudden, part of my personality expands. It's a weird feeling.
It's the sunglasses really. Having that mask to the gaze. The
freedom to fall into character. Except it's not a character. Just
a part of myself that I never let out. Wearing masks and roles
and costume is like that. Spending a weekend in the Renaissance
and the switch and turn on the computer. Several kinds of mental
gymnastic.
AnywayÖ
With an ocean of denial between him and Sunnydale he seeks
annihilation of the self - through the soul. So much easier than
self-realization.
Yes, I like this. I believe it was something that was discussed
last summer. The essential suicide of the thing. Now, I'm inclined
to think that Spike's motives on his ocean of distance were Gordian
knot complex. Self annihilation. Not to be someone who could mis,
do, that. Or if guilt, guilt for a reason. Souled now. Be what
she deserves. I'll show her. You'll be sorry when I'm dead, all
this guilt will be on your head. Worked for Angel. Complex. Both
petty and grand.
I remember Buffy in Prophecy Girl, hearing that she was to
die, it was written. Warrior of the people? Certainly. But also
a girl. And this informs my perspective of the dead slayers.
Cool. I think of the Inca Mummy Girl. Just a girl. I think of
FfL. Buffy facing off against that random heavy metal vamp and
she'd have died if it hadn't been for Riley. I know he's not from
South Dakota, but I won't hold it against him. Or that sixteen
year old Buffy, afraid to die, brought back to life by Xander,
because that's what he does. Well, every episode really. The kicks
that landed. The punches that connected. The warrior. The girl,
no the woman. Buffy, who saved the world a lot.
If the Master had, like not died, but gotten a soul instead, should
he feel bad about killing Buffy? Should he apologize? Briefly
pictures the Master in Buffy's dress, really not flattering. Time
to skip tracks.
Okay, actually, I think of Sgt. Bothari in Barrayar by Lois McMaster
Bujold, who is described as someone with a very fractured sense
of self. The main character asks her husband why Bothari is so
fixated on her. And he tells her that Bothari tends to become
what you expect of him. Her husband expected a soldier, so he
got a soldier. Another character expected a monster, so he got
a monster. She expects a hero, so that's what she gets. He clings
to her because that's better than he ever expected to be. Like
a really ugly homicidal heroic gargoyle who wants to buried at
my ladies feet, because he is her dog. HmmmÖwonder why I
keep connecting these characters in my head. Wonder, wonder, whatever.
I think about what it means to be an Enabler, by your behavior
to help enable others to make the best choices. Buffy in Anne,
standing there defiant. Rousing others to defy. Choose and not
forget. Her coming to Sunnydale. Enabling the first trembling
steps to hero in Willow and Xander, Angel. Even in a way, Giles.
Justifying his faith in the world of the Wish that that other
world was a better place. Not knowing if he's cruising down de
Nile or venturing beyond this Brave New World.
You see, I don't have to not sympathize with Nikki or Wood (okay,
I'm still annoyed that he laughed at Buffy's job skills, but I
try not to hold grudges. It's all with the life is short and while
I'm not facing any 50ths, life am good, cause hey, new JLA) or
all those Slayers to simultaneously see coat as a really complex,
dirty, viscous, torn up symbol. A ragged costume. Frayed, except
leather doesn't really fray and I'm guessing by this point there's
a lot of duct tape on the inside. What can I say, I think Wood
was more angry with his mother than he was with Spike. Spike is
just the heavy metal rocker that landed a lucky blow. Took the
stake as a trophy. When Riley blew up that vamp, he didn't resolve
the central issues that were bothering him in that relationship.
Killing Spike wouldn't have resolved Wood's central issues. An
issue that like so many S7 issues just seemed to just be there
and oh, look Faith. Another opportunity.
Okay, time to wrap up. I have to go hiking and contribute to a
not Spike thread.
Because seriously, I'm enjoying myself, cause I'll argue over
some really strange things, but God, aren't you kinda bored. I
mean dude, I like Spike and I'm eyelids fluttering. You've got
way more staying power than I've got. I mean it helps that I ended
the series pretty much in sympathy to everyone (except Ronia,
she still annoys me. I am still waiting for my fanfic to fill
in that gap. Waiting. Waiting. Waiting room of the undead has
really boring music, but very inspiration posters.) But yeah,
leather boots and the accoutrements of hiking are waiting. I should
wear sunglasses. They're prescription.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Again wonderful post. Agree with every word.
And ENVY the hiking. -- s'kat, 08:58:52 07/12/03 Sat
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: I almost went to Egypt, but I went on
a 7000 mile road trip instead-the sunglasses -- sdev, 13:32:03
07/12/03 Sat
"It's a weird feeling. It's the sunglasses really. Having
that mask to the gaze. The freedom to fall into character. Except
it's not a character. Just a part of myself that I never let out.
Wearing masks and roles and costume is like that."
Agree. Even Arnie S.(can't spell it)agrees. And he's a machine.
[> [> Don the coat of
a Slayer, "become" a Slayer. -- WickedBuffy, 10:45:07
07/10/03 Thu
"Wear the skin of the victim, the honorable fallen, the
kill. Become more than William. Be Spike."
Throw on a lions pelt and dance around the campfire - not as a
hunter, but as the lion itself.
Kill the lion and eat it's heart to honor its strength and to
take that strength into yourself.
Spike wore that specific coat - a Slayers. To "become"
a Slayer. The ultimate. (Of course he couldn't actually be a Slayer
anymore than the dancing hunter could actually be a lion. It's
a mind-thang)
He didn't prance into Walmart and buy one in order to LOOK like
a Slayer.
Wearing the actual coat gave him the feeling of more power than
if he just wanted to look like one.
Putting on "Eyeliner. Leather pants of evil. Harlot lipstick.
Cigarettes. Paint it black nails. Tatoos. All affectations throughout
the series. Accessories that proclaim:"
Iím look big. Iím looking bad. Look
at me.
Punching out the person threatening you while in line for the
Dungeon Club Soiree, pantsing them and taking their makeup - well,
then you ARE bad.
It's a difference in looking and in being.
The difference between pleather and leather.
Buffybot and Buffy.
The Easter Bunny and The Velveteen Rabbit.
[> Re: The duster -- just
a coat, or something better/worse? -- Masq, 13:10:22 07/09/03
Wed
Of course, my feminist instincts are crying "Taking and wearing
this coat is a gesture of dishonoring the victim", a trophy
of the kill, a symbol of the disdain in which Spikes holds that
victim.
But even a Spike-neutralist like me (no I don't hate him, I don't
think about him much at all. I don't care much at all) knows Spike
isn't that simple. So I'm offering another alternative. Think
of the coat the way indigenous societies think of animal skins.
They wear the fur/feathers, and sometimes entire external body
of an animal (including the head, claws/talons, etc) to take on
the spirit of that animal, in the hope of taking on that animals
perceived "traits" for themselves.
Spike's obsession with Slayers seems to me not just an obsession
with their death, or an obsession with them sexually, but a desire
in part to take on the qualities of the Slayer--strong, fierce,
good fighters, fighters whose actions are morally justified by
the fact that they defend their species (and other human-friendly
creatures) from enemies.
Spike pretends not to care whether his actions are right or wrong,
but I think (and I'm talking unsouled Spike here) he wanted to
see his actions--his kills, his lust for the fight, etc, as justified.
He wanted approval. First from mother, then from other vampires,
and finally from Buffy.
[> [> Ooo, interesting
idea! -- Anneth, 13:43:26 07/09/03 Wed
By wearing Nikki's coat, he is attempting to take on slayer qualities
- sort of by osmosis! Brilliant, Masq! Your idea totally fits
the coat into his obsession with slayers; perhaps also gives us
a hint why he would retain it after GID. The current slayer, Buffy
(well, top-dog current slayer) had begun to exhibit First Slayer
qualities in spades by GID - isolation, emotional distance, law-laying-down,
etc - while the recently-souled Spike was arguably beginning to
connect with humanity in a way he'd never been able to while soulless.
Then Buffy demanded that he return to his former iteration, the
isolated soulless monster, as that Spike was more useful to her.
By reclaiming his coat, he could try to recapture the pre-Buffy
slayer qualities of isolation and emotional distance again, the
tendencies she herself was beginning to display.
Hm. I'm going to have to think this out more carefully - but your
idea is rife with interesting ramifications. Cool!
[> [> [> this isn't
*quite* the same... -- anom, 18:25:28 07/10/03 Thu
...but it's not honoring Nikki as "fallen," either--something
I have difficulty imagining Spike doing, esp. pre-soul. But his
wearing her coat could be seen as honoring her as a worthy foe.
He did seem to respect her as an opponent (telling Buffy she had
a similar style) & enjoy fighting her. Of course, this doesn't
exclude the idea of his wearing Nikki's coat to take on her characteristics
(& I like that idea, Masq!).
By the time he reclaims the coat in S7, it may be more as a symbol
of his identity as a "warrior" (to quote the cave demon),
this time on the other side. I don't think Buffy was asking him
to go back to being a "isolated soulless monster," or
that he did. But she did ask him to find a way to unleash his
vampiric savagery (not quite the word I want, but...), even w/the
soul, & the coat may have helped him get back in touch w/that.
Plus, we know from his comment to Nikki after their 1st fight
that he just liked the coat.
[> [> [> [> Good
points, anom... -- Anneth, 16:50:41 07/11/03 Fri
Clearly, I was thinking too hard about the issue. (Anyone ever
read Ogre, Ogre by Piers Anthony? Remember how when Smash
thinks hard, his skull overheats and the fleas have to jump ship?
Well, let's just say Smash and I share certain tendencies...)
;) Still, a stimulating idea.
[> [> Considering where
Petrie and company stole the idea from -- s'kat, 15:07:00
07/09/03 Wed
I'd say that's probably a pretty valid thesis.
They took the idea from Sin City. In it a hitman takes the coats
of each of his victims, climbing the way to the top in an organized
crime organization or mob. The victims are warriors like himself
or hitman. By taking their coats, he takes on metaphorically their
traits and justifies his act.
I've seen the idea borrowed by others in noir, particularly a
Japanese anime film I saw ages ago but can't remember the name
of.
So I think that's probably where ME was going with it.
Then again? We have Fury stating that we were supposed to question
it in his city of angel interview, but he contradicts himself
in his Succubus Club interview. So who knows what these writers
are thinking half the time.
I give up.
[> [> Then why didn't
Spike put Nikki's underwear on? -- B.S. Fabulist, 11:11:41
07/10/03 Thu
It follows to reason he would.
It would enable him to become even more intimate with Slayerness
than an outergarment.
They look about the same size.
Women's secret sexual powers. The place the stake should really
be going. Reversal of roles. Accessing Spikes feminine side.
[> [> [> How do we
know he didn't? We never saw Spike in his panties. -- WickedUnderoos
(though it would have been nice), 11:18:56 07/10/03 Thu
[> [> [> [> James
Marsters has said the Spike character doesn't wear underwear
-- Miss Edith, 11:31:59 07/10/03 Thu
I'm sure I can recall him saying at one point that the trousers
were so tight he has to go commando?
[> [> [> [> [>
I demand 4 or 5 photographs proving it! -- WickedBuffy,
15:54:54 07/10/03 Thu
[> [> [> [> [>
[> I'd be happy with just 1. -- sk ;-), 21:58:45
07/10/03 Thu
[> [> [> [> [>
No underwear? I distinctly remember underwear.... -- O'Cailleagh,
02:08:30 07/11/03 Fri
Yup. Me remembering something 'distinctly'!
So-called 'Nekkid!Spike' was never actually Nekkid cos of the
'lovely' flesh-coloured thong he wore.
So there. Spike with underwear. Hmmm...wonder where that sock
story came from though, since he wore a thong for those scenes....
O'Cailleagh
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Rob's sock? =====:O -- WickedLaundry, 09:00:01
07/11/03 Fri
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> LOL! -- Rob, 11:10:40 07/11/03 Fri
[> [> [> [> Well,
you'd think Buffy woulda said *something*... -- Caira, 19:27:44
07/10/03 Thu
[> [> Re: why Masq....
-- aliera, 18:19:34 07/10/03 Thu
...is that a Spike post?
And a rather good one too. ;-)
[> The importance of Spike's
duster -- LeeAnn, 16:54:34 07/09/03 Wed
The importance of Spike's duster
The most positive thing about Seeing Red is Spike leaving
his duster behind. I can't overestimate its significance.
The duster is Spike's trophy, a talisman of his triumph over the
New York Slayer and Slayers in general, including Buffy. Sex with
Buffy was Spike's conquest of another Slayer. Spike could no longer
kill Slayers but he could still prove himself by doing something
even more dangerous (" I knew. I knew the only thing better
than killing a Slayer would be f-"). The duster is a reminder
to us, and to him, that he was the Slayer of Slayers.
Spike keeping that duster is something between a hunter keeping
the pelt of the most dangerous animal he's killed, a warrior keeping
the scalp of his most deadly enemy, and a serial murderer keeping
a trophy of his victim. Spike kept a long time. We've seen him
escaping from enemies and still making sure he takes the duster
with him (in Something Blue and OOMM). When he forgets
his duster in Seeing Red I think it's a symbol that he
will soon forget how to be bad and a symbol that he will never
again have the triumph of a physical relationship with the Slayer
he loves.
I thought Spike could never be redeemed as long as he had that
coat, that skin of a dead Slayer. I though if he was permanently
separated from it, that was probably a good sign for his redemption.
The duster was gone for a while. Then Spike takes it back and
uses it to give himself strength to fight Buffy's enemies. He
doesn't yield it to Wood because it's his talisman, his power
object, while it would only be a sentimental momento for Nikki's
son. Spike uses the duster to give him power, the authority
to die to save the world. It's like Nikki is part of that sacrifice.
When Spike dies in the duster I think not only must Spike be completely
redeemed but the Duster must be too. Now the duster, the Slayer's
mantle, is passed on to Spike. Now the duster is a symbol of the
power of his sacrifice, of his soul, not of the vampire power
of his past.
[> [> Re: The importance
of Spike's duster -- Liam, 07:02:13 07/10/03 Thu
I had a problem with souled Spike in season 7 that was symbolised
by his wearing the duster: the lack of any appreciable difference
between unsouled Spike and the new souled Spike. While I wasn't
looking for something exactly like the Angel/Angelus division,
I was expecting the souled Spike to be a _little_ like the old
William, say writing a little bad poetry about things :)
This problem was exemplified by his continuing to wear the duster
after he knew it gave pain to Wood, the son of a victim of unsouled
Spike. This wearing makes any claim that he is a different person
due to having (as Buffy continually observed) 'a soul now' somewhat
unconvincing.
Suppose a brutal serial killer murdered a person's mother; and,
despite claims that he was a 'new man', continued to wear something
he took from that parent, the person would be entitled to believe
that this former killer was not serious about having repented
of his evil actions, and was even nostalgic about them.
I laughed at the thread wondering what would have happened if
Nikki had worn a pink cardigan the night she was murdered. When
I saw the scene in the movie 'Terminator', when the cyborg played
by Arnie demanded that one of a group of punks give his clothes
to him, I wondered how different things might have looked had
he bumped into a bunch of cross-dressers. A brutal killer in a
dress and high-heels wouldn't have had the same impact. Of course,
we saw Arnie in a dress in 'Junior'. :)
[> [> [> ::now musing
on Arnold Schwarzenegger wearing the pink cardigan sweater::
-- WickedBuffy, 16:02:45 07/10/03 Thu
[> another aspect --
MsGiles, 08:40:00 07/10/03 Thu
What else is the duster, than a variant on the familiar big black
cape of the vampire, popularised by Bela Lugosi and Christopher
Lee in various Dracula incarnations? The cape, suitably lined
in red, played the double purpose of giving the vampire a bat-like
aura, and allowing him to enfold his fainting female victims as
he bit, so that you couldn't *quite* see what was going on.
Spike, flapping around in a big black duster is (among all the
other things) paying tribute to that vamp heritage, but giving
it a cooler twist (well, he'd look pretty naff in a cape, even
Spike couldn't quite carry that off, I think). Blade plays much
the same game.
The all enveloping duster came into its own as practical vampwear
in S6, when it allowed Spike to enfold, and do all sorts of naughty
things, without the blushing viewer being able to catch so much
of a glimpse of pale flesh .. although he did spoil it all by
taking all his clothes off afterwards ;-0
[> [> Nice! What would
Angel giving his short coat to Buffy... -- WickedSeamstress,
16:11:38 07/10/03 Thu
and later prancing around in a long, dark coat mean, do you think?
I don't recall him ever going back to a short jacket after that.
::wondering if the length of a man's coat, like the size of
his feet, hold any special significance::
[> [> [> vampire chic
-- MsGiles, 02:26:29 07/11/03 Fri
must've felt he had something to hide..
[> [> [> [> maybe
it was a symbol of giving up his heart -- WickedBuffy, 09:07:44
07/11/03 Fri
to Buffy.
Or maturity - as in the olden days when boys went from short pants
to long pants as a sign of "growing up".
When did he start wearing the long coat? During the breakup or
before?
It seems they both switched coat sizes when something momentous
happened in their lives, having to do with a Slayer. Angels was
like a "going-steady" ring signifying love for Buffy,
and Spikes was like a trophy of killing a Slayer.
Next, we could delve into the symbolism of their shirts. T-Shirts
or Silk? };>
More July 2003 | Current
board