June 2002 posts
Warren wasn't a Misogynist. -- Finn Mac Cool, 22:24:04 06/13/02 Thu
Why do people assume that Warren hated women?
First off, the April bot cannot be viewed as misogynistic. Neither can mind controlling Katrina. These sprang more out of a)his desire for control, and b)the fact that he was extremely horny.
As for hating Buffy, what villain HASN'T hated Buffy? Plus, she's a superhero, so hating her fits into the whole Lex Luthor persona he's developing. Plus, after she took away his powers, he did have a reason to hate her.
There is the fact that the two people he killed were women, but he killed Katrina out of neccessity and Tara by accident.
Frankly, I think the only reason Warren is called a misogynist is because he called women "bitch".
[> Misogyny: Warren and Weakness -- Exegy, 00:13:21 06/14/02 Fri
Warren sees powerful women as a threat to his own masculinity. He fears them more than anything else. Since this fear is an unacceptable emotion, indicative of his weakness, he translates it into something more acceptable: hate. His hatred of women gives him that feeling of power he's lacked as an ostracized geek. He's hardened, invulnerable (as he literally becomes invulnerable with his bolstered magick ... orbs). But then the strongest woman (the Super-bitch extraordinaire) comes to take away that feeling from him, leaving him emasculated once again. She must pay for what she's done!
These women deserve what they get. Katrina, that bitch, she deserves what she got ... because to admit otherwise would be to admit his own weakness, his wrongness. Warren suppresses any feelings of guilt he might have concerning his former girlfriend's death ... until we see this guilt manifested in Katrina's shade. Warren, trying to be the villain to the end, denies her presence, but we see that she haunts him still. She's most likely haunted the deep recesses of his mind ever since her demise, lingering until some future event should "unearth" her. What she says to Warren ... reflects what he's been thinking of himself all along (kudos to Mal, who's said this all before far more eloquently).
Warren's misogyny is an overblown reaction to his perceived weakness. As you say, it's part of his efforts to control the world. He wants to be dominant over others (he's the one who first mentions taking over Sunnydale, he's the one who builds a robot who will be subject to his every command, he's the one who makes Katrina into a "robot" slave). But the world cannot be controlled. For all Warren's efforts, he's still the little geek who cried in response to bullying; he's not a super-villain. The villainous posturing is just that ... posturing. A costume to hide the geek, like Willow's. Which is why when Willow stares at Warren in Villains, there is such a strong parallel. Willow is like Warren. And she proves it, by stripping him of his costume and his skin, choosing the path of hatred, trying to control her world out of weakness.
Misogyny is all about weakness, a hatred of that which is feared to some degree. So I don't get how Warren is not misogynistic ... unless one defines misogynists as being fully in control of their hatred ... but who is?
[> [> Exactly... -- Rob, 08:36:04 06/14/02 Fri
Warren's misogynistic feelings sprung from the fact that women were something he could not control--
Couldn't control Katrina, so he made an April-bot of her, which he couldn't control either...Later, tried to control her with the spell, and still couldn't.
Out of that lack of control comes the hatred.
And it wasn't just the fact that he called Buffy and Katrina "bitches"...it was the way he said it. He tells the image of Katrina, "You deserved it"...and that's worse than the "bitch" part.
Rob
[> [> [> Agrees agrees agrees. And thanks. -- Tillow, 09:54:43 06/14/02 Fri
[> [> [> You're missing the point. -- Finn Mac Cool, 10:51:59 06/14/02 Fri
I think Warren said "You deserved it, bitch!" because he isn't a demon. As was hinted by Giles in the Season 2 episode, "Surprise", no human is completely evil. When confronted with the image of someone he killed, it started to evoke the last shreds of conscience he had. So Warren then tries his very best to bury these feelings of guilt: first by ignoring them, and then by trying to justify them by making Katrina seem like the villain.
While Warren sought to control women, he sought to control everybody. He showed dominance over a guy who bullied him in high school. He used peer pressure and promises of greatness to control Jonathan and Andrew. Plus, taking over Sunnydale would mean ruling over both men and women.
The reason Warren's control issues and violent acts were more focused on women was because of two things:
1st, one of these women is Buffy. Any Big Bad (or wanna be Big Bad) has a reason to want Buffy gone since she'll eventually try to stop them. Also, if a guy had smashed Warren's orbs, he would have been just as gun-ho to kill him.
2nd, Warren tried to control women more because it had a benefit controlling men wouldn't: female slaves could provide him with sex.
Spike is more of a misogynist than Warren ever was, often making broad generalizations about "bloody women!" However, Warren is always the one that gets the misogynist label.
[> [> [> [> Re: You're missing the point. -- Rob, 11:24:27 06/14/02 Fri
What Spike has isn't misogyny. He loves women. He can at times be frustrated with them, but his "bloody women" statements are more comical. He didn't hate Buffy because she's a woman, but because she's the Slayer.
On the other hand, Warren, on numerous occasions made it clear that it was not the fact that Buffy was a Slayer that angered him so much, but because she is a strong woman.
And about the "smashing his orbs" thing...I think that speaks for itself. He doesn't want to allow a woman to bust his...orbs. Buffy literally grabbed his...um...power center and smashed it to bits.
Yeah, Warren wants to dominate everybody, but women in particular. To put it crassly, he wants to make everybody his "bitches." Katrina, Buffy...and Andrew.
I don't exactly get how you can classify somebody trying to turn a woman into a sex slave, and then killing her when she rebels not misogynistic. Or the fact that when he is confronted by her "ghost," he does not become sad or apologize, but lashes out at her! From the first time we met Warren, he was into making mindless robotic women who would serve him, without question.
Sure, he likes women, as long as they worship him as The Man. If they get out of line, he wants to train them. And that is misogynistic. And that's it.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> Agree... -- LittleBit, 11:46:33 06/14/02 Fri
Being a misogynist doesn't preclude having other issues: all the control, insecurity, self esteem issues are certainly there. But the only time in the series when we saw him have a decent conversation with a female was during his first meeting with Buffy when he was explaining April. And even though she was being understanding and sympathetic, his ultimate action was to focus April's attack onto Buffy; an action not connected to his big bad wannabe status. No other interaction with females in the series has had Warren in any mode other than controlling and/or predatory. That is mysogynism. It just doesn't exist in a vacuum with Warren.
[> [> [> [> [> Thank you -- verdantheart, 11:51:22 06/14/02 Fri
Thanks! No offense to those who think otherwise, but the idea that Spike is a misogynist because he occasionally says "bloody women!" is laughable IMHO.
This is a guy who often stands back and lets Buffy do her fighting without interference, simply watching her back. He doesn't feel that it's necessary for him to protect her the way that Angel did. He's expressed understanding of and support for Willow. He expresses an appreciation of women who are forthright. He's related to Dawn as an equal when everyone else was treating her like a child. He's behaved as the "perfect boyfriend" toward Drusilla and would have behaved similarly toward Buffy had she allowed him to.
It's interesting that anyone would read his character as misogynistic.
[> [> [> [> [> [> "It's interesting that anyone would read his character as misogynistic." -- Q, 20:14:01 06/14/02 Fri
Although some EXCELLENT statements have been made by Rob, Ex, and verdanheart concerning Warrens misogeny, I feel that the statements lose at least a little punch with their defending of the OBVIOUSLY misogynistic Spike.
Sure Spike has shown some noble action and behavior towards women, as verdantheart points out in this post. Spike is a complex character--not a cardboard cut out, across the board misogynist. But he does exhibit some SERIOUS misogynistic tendancies, very similar to Warrens. It has been argued in this thread that Warren's misogeny stems from his inability to "control" women. It seems to me that when Spike loses control over his women, he dips into misogeny as well. I can not see any other rationale for the attempted rape scene. Rape is probably the pinnacle of misogynist action. It is NOT about being horny, or wanting sex, or "hormones"-- it is about control. When Spike felt he no longer had the sexual control over Buffy he once had had this season, he tried to reclaim that control by FORCE. A VERY misogynist action. You can also see the violence he exhibited to Harmony as blatently misogynistic, and the "torture Dru till she has me back" quip as blatently misogynistic. Sure Spike shows respect to women in general-- but women he is in a relationship with seem to get less respect-- and treated worse because of his fear of losing control. He may not be a blanket misogynist, but you can not discount the misogeny he HAS displayed!
I also think that ME has a pattern of developing themes across the season, and NOT just in certain characters. I think Warren's OBVIOUS misogeny NEEDS to be compared to Spikes, because misogeny became a MAJOR theme of season 6, and it is bound to pop up in more than one character. I honestly believe that the pounding Spike took at the hands of Buffy in the alley-way was a comment on misogeny. Though Buffy was a female, she was the "dominant partner" physically in the relationship, and in the symbolism represented the male-- who is MUCH more likely to be the abuser in a relationship. Since domestic abuse is a major form of misogeny-- I think this was yet another nugget for us to chew on on this years obvious misogeny theme.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hello! Vampire! I'm supposed to be treading on the dark side. -- SPIKE, 18:08:07 06/15/02 Sat
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> LMAO! My thoughts exactly...And in words of buffy and xander -- shadowkat, 19:58:48 06/15/02 Sat
"evil soulless thing" ;-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well, I agree with Q -- Malandanza, 11:49:33 06/16/02 Sun
"It has been argued in this thread that Warren's misogyny stems from his inability to "control" women. It seems to me that when Spike loses control over his women, he dips into misogyny as well. I cannot see any other rationale for the attempted rape scene. Rape is probably the pinnacle of misogynist action. It is NOT about being horny, or wanting sex, or "hormones"-- it is about control. When Spike felt he no longer had the sexual control over Buffy he once had had this season, he tried to reclaim that control by FORCE. A VERY misogynist action."
The Spike/Dru relationship went along perfectly while Dru was helpless and Spike was dominant, but it started to collapse even before Angelus returned. With Dru dominant and Spike in a wheelchair, the magic was gone. Of course when Angelus did return and Dru gravitated towards the new Alpha Male, Spike was livid with impotent rage. Dru belongs to him, right? She has no choice in the matter. Thus the alliance with Buffy to recover his girlfriend.
Warren has taken a lot of heat for creating a sexbot (remember Spike had one, too) but what was Harmony? Spike treated her like Warren treated April -- except that Harmony had actual feelings, not subroutines emulating emotions.
The smashing of the orbs. How much castration/impotence imagery have we seen with Spike? Violence and sex are inextricably linked for Spike -- he "got his stones back" after the beating/rough sex with Buffy.
The Bronze scene was all about control. Throughout the season he has manipulated Buffy, cajoling and threatening her to get what he wants, which culminated in the attempted rape scene.
As for Rob's comment (re: Warren's use of the word "bitch"):
"And it wasn't just the fact that he called Buffy and Katrina "bitches"...it was the way he said it."
I'm not sure there is a nice way to call the woman you "love" a "bitch," but I've found each use of that word by Spike to be indicative of his junior-high school style of misogyny.
So I think that Q makes a valid point -- defending Spike as some sort of Romantic figure aspiring to and ideal love while condemning Warren for what are essentially the same actions weakens the argument. Either they are both misogynists who need their orbs smashed on a regular basis or they are both devoted but misunderstood young lovers with insensitive and uncaring objects of devotion. But you can't have it both ways.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The other side of the coin -- Sophist, 13:38:10 06/16/02 Sun
I think the difference between Warren and Spike comes down to this: with Warren, pretty much the only actions we saw him have with women were misogynistic. With Spike, in contrast, there may be scenes which could be characterized that way (the ones with Harmony, for example), but there are also many others (Entropy, all scenes with Dawn, Afterlife, etc.) which suggest a more complex view of Spike is required. Even the scenes with Harmony might be seen not as misogynist so much as treating Harm as the twit she is (not very nice, but not misogynist either; compare the way Xander and Buffy treat her). Warren's behavior with women was one-sided, Spike's is not.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Harmony -- Earl Allison, 18:04:46 06/16/02 Sun
"Even the scenes with Harmony might be seen not as misogynist so much as treating Harm as the twit she is (not very nice, but not misogynist either; compare the way Xander and Buffy treat her)."
Firstly, no offense intended towards anyone, just the argument, which I strenuously disagree with.
Twit or not, and regardless of what Xander and Buffy might have done, Spike slept with Harmony, manipulated her to take care of him when he was chipped, and had her go along with him when he attempted to have said chip removed.
Xander and Buffy might have treated Harmony as something less than a serious foe, but they didn't even work under the pretense of being friends or allies -- Spike was allegedly her lover. Big difference, IMHO.
Spike had a RELATIONSHIP with Harmony -- maybe not a good one, but a relationship nonetheless.
He tried to stake her, he threatened her with violence MORE than once, and treated her rather poorly when it was clear that she loved him. Sure, she came back, but did that make his treatment of her acceptable? Sure, it was played for laughs -- funny how it wasn't so funny with Spike on the receiving end from Buffy, when it WASN'T played for laughs ...
I've said it before, I'll say it again -- maybe Buffy's treatment of Spike in S6 was some kind of karmic revenge for his treatment of Harmony in S4 and S5.
I just don't think it can be glossed over or chalked up to "Harmony's a twit." Because even if she is, Spike supposedly cared about her; Xander and Buffy didn't.
Take it and run.
Take it and run.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> By no means was I defending Spike's treatment of Harmony. -- Sophist, 19:57:57 06/16/02 Sun
I was merely saying that his treatment of her couldn't be considered in isolation as evidence of misogyny. This means that we have to consider both his treatment of other women, and the treatment others gave Harmony. Sorry for not making that clear.
Just as an aside, I found many of the S/H scenes hilarious. The point of them -- that Spike was a jerk -- was not lost among the laughs.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> *snatching and running* -- Off-kilter, 01:56:13 06/17/02 Mon
Harmony and Spike. Relationship yes, but so what? I have a "relationship" with everyone that I come into contact with every day. Spike did NOT care about Harmony. He clearly defines what he wants from her when she first comes to his crypt. He tells her "I love syphilis more than you."
She didn't care about him as a person either. He was a protector, then a posession "my blondie-bear". It wasn't a declaration of true love, but like Willow states, "she always lied about stuff like that.'Oh, he goes to another school, you wouldn't know him.'"
I won't chalk it up to her being a twit. She is, but that has nothing to do with it. Buffy and Xander didn't care about her, that is true. But shouldn't they have? After all, she died during their graduation day along with many of their classmates. They knew her as a human. They have a guiding star towards good. To Spike, she's just some vampire that has some good points, but is generally annoying. He offered to kill his bookworm guy too, and they had a "relationship" of a sort. To the SG, she was a person who died and they make fun of her.
OZ: Devon dated her for a while, but she was too flaky for him. Which, stop and marvel at the concept.
BUFFY: Guy dating Harmony -- dead? Must be like the most tolerant guy in the world.
Which is sadder?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: *snatching and running* -- Arethusa, 07:34:06 06/17/02 Mon
Harmony was a "vapid whore" (Willow) who seldom missed a chance to torment anyone weaker than she. She and her like undoubtedly made a lot of poorer, less attractive kids miserable for years. As a vampire she tried to kill Buffy, and she got Anya hurt. Her ineptitude made her ridiculous, but her spite made her dangerous. Since the Scoobies have staked others that they knew (the banker Joyce recognized, the gymnastics team member Xander recognized, etc.), Harmony was very lucky that they, and later AI, didn't stake her on sight. A weak, stupid mean person became a weak, stupid evil vampire. She was lucky eveyone was too busy laughing at her to kill her.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yes, Harm is a twit. Not my point. -- Off-kilter, 02:58:43 06/19/02 Wed
In most spiritual belief systems, no matter how shallow, stupid or weak, a person has instrinsic value because of their soul. I'm not saying that the SG didn't have motivation to dislike or laugh at Harm when she was human; nor did they have a good reason not to stake her once she was a vampire. My problem is that that they didn't pause to mourn the one aspect of Harmony that was supposed to be pure and good. The passing of her soul. Instead, they mock her from the grave. Theoretically, if being a vampire is the same as damnation, she wasn't lucky to avoid being dusted.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Nor is it mine. -- Arethusa, 07:14:13 06/19/02 Wed
To be melodramatic about it, Harmony had already "stained" her soul by not living up to it. She, like everyone else, had free will to choose to do good or evil. She choose to be cruel and petty, even to one of her best friends (Cordelia) when Cordy overstepped the bounds of what their clique considered acceptable behavior.
From "Graduation Part 1":
>> Harmony leaves as Buffy walks down the stairs.
Willow: Oh, I'm gonna miss her.
Buffy: Don't you hate her?
Willow: (still smiling) Yes, with a fiery vengeance. She picked on me for ten years, the vacuous tramp.
It doesn't bother me at all that there was no moment of acknowledgement for the passing of Harmony's soul, but I still remember very clearly what it was like to be thirteen, 5'9", and dressed by my mother, who evidently had me confused with Mary Tyler Moore.
quote by psyche
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> So all school bullies deserve to die for their sins ? -- Ete, 07:44:35 06/19/02 Wed
God, and I though I was traumatized by my school years !
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: So all school bullies deserve to die for their sins ? -- Arethusa, 08:24:58 06/19/02 Wed
Not what I said. I just said I don't have any sympathy for Harmony-not that she, or anyone else, including any school bullies,'deserves to die, for any reason, under any circumstances.
Did you read about the school shootings in the USA during the 90s? Some very messed up kids shot their teachers and classmates, killing quite a few, and school bullying was a major contributing factor. I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE KIDS AND TEACHERS DESERVED TO DIE.
THE FOLLOWING DOES NOT REFER TO KIDS WHO KILL. When a kid is unhappy at home at gets even more abuse at school, the kid can actually lose his sense of humor at the teasing and get upset-maybe even feel little regret when that bully is dead, or vamped (in the Buffyverse). NOT THAT THE BULLY DESERVED TO BE DEAD, OR VAMPED.
I do not now, and have never in the past, felt that school bullies deserved to die, for any reason. I didn't even think so when they were cutting off my hair in choir, shoving me into muddy ditches, calling me bitch on a daily basis, tripping me, hitting me, or making a hellish life even worse. When some of the bullies were killed in a car crash while they were joyriding and speeding I was very upset-I had a great deal of sympathy for them all.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: So all school bullies deserve to die for their sins ? -- Ete, 08:41:52 06/19/02 Wed
I know how terrible those kind of children / teenage bully can be, believe me, been there too. And ofcourse, it's something that just scarr you, and hurts your self-estime in a deep way that is very hard to over come.
I never meant to imply that you though they deserved to die, sorry, I wanted to say that the scoobies not regretting than Harmony died, and never got the chance to become more than the mean and shallow pretentious high-school girl she was, was like saying she deserved to die.
I'm glad you were able to feel sympathy for those who hurted you when they die.
I've always though that hating those kind of kids was more than they were worth, and less than I owed to myself. I don't want to be as contemptuous of them as they were of me, not to them not to anyone. No one deserves it, to be treated like they're not a human being, like they are not worth anything.
So you know, even if i could never really overcome this hurt, at least I can learn a valuable lesson from it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: So all school bullies deserve to die for their sins ? -- Arethusa, 08:58:30 06/19/02 Wed
>> I wanted to say that the scoobies not regretting than Harmony died, and never got the chance to become more than the mean and shallow pretentious high-school girl she was, was like saying she deserved to die.
Maybe it's just a case of ME using Harmony for comic effect. The audience is less likely to laugh at poor shallow undead Harmony if the Scooby gang treats her death like an unfortunate occurance.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: So all school bullies deserve to die for their sins ? -- Finn Mac Cool, 12:39:47 06/19/02 Wed
Well, it's not like they were close to Harmony. Do you get upset everytime there is a car crash or accidental death in the news? Fact is: people die, and if you weep for everyone of them, you won't do anything but weep.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Out of Mind Out of Sight - regarding bullies -- shadowkat, 18:08:51 06/19/02 Wed
I actually identify with you on this one Aeruthsa. I too
experienced countless pains and torments at the hands of Harmony and Cordy clones - hence my inability to care what ME or anyone else does to these two characters and my dislike of the Cordy character arc.
Then I rewatched Out of Mind Out of Sight - you remember the old Marcy Ross episode, later referenced in Gone? Marcy is ignored, ridiculed and treated as a nonentity by Cordy and everyone else to the extent that she disappears. No one remembers her. This causes her to become enraged and the pain builds until MArcy goes insane, becoming the worst bully imaginable. Marcy becomes worse than her tormentors.
In the episode Cordy tells Buffy that she feels alone, that most of the time when she's talking everyone agreeing with her doesn't hear a word she says. They aren't really her friends. So why do you try so hard to be popular, Buffy asks. Because, Cordy answers, it's better than being alone all alone.
The truth is the bullies don't remember us. We don't exist.
Why? Because as they are being bullied too. By parents.
By friends. I remember one of my best friends treating me like crap in front of the popular kids then being friends with me in private because of her fear of being bullied. The friendship did not last long. It helps to understand this.
Harmony/Spike is a great example. Buffy hits Spike. Spike hits Harmony. HArmony hits her minions. Vicious cycle.
Angelus kills Dru, Dru kills william...violence breeds violence, hate breeds hate....we create our own monsters and our own destruction unless we can stop the cycle.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Drusilla's choice -- auroramama, 22:07:38 06/17/02 Mon
I think Drusilla "gravitated" to the fun of having both her men paying court to her, with no Darla around to distract her Daddy. She enjoys watching Angelus make Spike jealous (we saw this back in What's My Line with Angel, too.) She likes having Angelus exert himself to outdo Spike. Barring pangs of conscience, what's not to like?
I don't think she had any intention of dismissing Spike in favor of Angelus when she could have both. (And she was certainly still having Spike, even if Angelus called it "pity access".) Spike isn't her Daddy, and Angelus couldn't give her love. Angelus couldn't *handle* love. Remember her "poor Angel" when Angelus is feeling all violated at the end of IOHEFY? Her expression is almost pitying.
From what we're told later, Drusilla doesn't object to Spike's strong-arm tactics against herself at the end of Becoming, though she sprang to Angelus' defense with great indignation. She objects to his making a truce with the Slayer, his ruining her end-of-the-world dreams, and (in retcon) his obsession with the Slayer. And she leaves him. His plan to torture her until she loves him again isn't an expression of misogyny; Drusilla's happy dreams of branding irons show that he knows what she likes. In fact, he's no longer vicious enough to suit her.
Drusilla is not a victim -- not in her current incarnation as a powerful, gifted, insane vampire. Nobody messes with her except in direst emergency. Not Spike, not Angelus. In BBB, when she pulls him off Xander, Angelus retreats, muttering in disgust, until the house shuts Drusilla out and he can lead her away. Mr. Alpha Male, who is also her sire, doesn't even try to tell her what to do, much less use force on her.
I can be swayed either way on many aspects of Spike's behavior. But one of the things I love about BtVS is that it gave us Drusilla. The ultimate innocent victim, right? Only being victimized transformed her into a vampire so powerful, fierce, gifted, and unpredictable that even her sire treats her with respect and her lover worships her. Lover's quarrels notwithstanding.
auroramama
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Drusilla's choice -- Rob, 10:49:04 06/18/02 Tue
I never thought the "Spike-obsessed-with-the-Slayer" thing was a total case of retcon, since we were not privy to other post-"Becoming" Spike & Dru scenes. Remember, in "Becoming," Spike made a temporary alliance with Buffy, and betrayed Drusilla and Angelus...which later led her to think that he loved Buffy. And, also remember, that Dru had visions and could see things others couldn't. Perhaps she sensed Spike's obsession with Buffy either before it ever truly occurred, or before he was aware of it. This scene here was probably building up from months and months of tension between the two of them, after Spike's betrayal of her.
Here's the scene from "Fool for Love":
SPIKE
So, Sunnyhell was not our finest
hour. And yes, I made a deal with
the Slayer. But you were shagging
Angel and bringing about an Apocalypse
to end all life as we know it. So?
Every couple's got their ups and
downs, Love. Point being, we got
through all that, it's behind us now.
Isn't it?
SUBTITLE: SOUTH AMERICA, 1998
DRUSILLA
I hate it here. Furry little
animals peering at us from
out of the trees, and the
people all taste funny.
SPIKE
Right. We'll pick up and move
again, and we'll keep moving
'til we've found the perfect spot,
and there I'll make you my queen.
He holds her hand and looks in her eyes, sincerely. She pulls away.
SPIKE
Just tell me what you want.
DRUSILLA
I want the Slayer dead, Spike.
He loses it.
SPIKE
You're the one who keeps bringing
her up! I haven't said a word about
the bloody Slayer since we left
California! She's on the other side
of the planet, Dru! Gone from our
lives forever!
DRUSILLA
But you're lying, I can still see
her. Floating all around you.
Laughing. Why don't you push
her away?
SPIKE
But I did, Pet. I did if for you!
And you're still punishing me,
you think I don't know what's
going on with you?
Nothing in that scene confirms that Spike truly was obsessed with Buffy then. Only that Dru suspects it, and he denies it.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> When was Dru seeing? -- auroramama, 15:56:14 06/18/02 Tue
I've never been sure -- and Dru's comment in Crush is ambiguous too; she doesn't say, "See? You *have been* in love with her for years", only that she foresaw the feelings he has currently -- whether Dru in South America was seeing Spike's present state of mind or the future. Certainly we're led to believe that Spike was ("sincerely") unaware of any such obsession at the time. And since the evitability of prophesied futures varies widely in the Buffyverse, this one may have been self-fulfilling.
I used to be annoyed at Drusilla about that, but it occurs to me that if I could see visions of my partner's future obsession with someone else, it wouldn't be so easy to ignore in the present. Really, as vampire behavior goes, she's practically Tara-like in these scenes, not angry but saddened.
auroramama
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I always liked Dru for that reason, actually... -- Rob, 21:35:36 06/18/02 Tue
...she had a mixture of sadness, sweetness...and then of course ferocity. She seems to be the most harmless, sweet person...but at the same time, is one of the scariest looking vamps when in vamp-face.
I agree. There was a real sadness in her voice. Not vampiric anger. But genuine, almost-human sadness.
re: when Dru's referring to...I always figured, as I said, that it was her seeing the future, but that's just what I gathered from it...As you said, Spike was almost definitely not aware (at least consciously) of it at the time.
Maybe Dru was just very perceptive and could sense when her boyfriend had a crush on another girl, even when he couldn't...
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> Thank you Rob ! Agree! -- shadowkat, 20:42:57 06/14/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> You're welcome! ;o) -- Rob, 13:23:06 06/16/02 Sun
[> [> [> [> So ... misogynists aren't humans who have other control problems? -- Exegy, 11:49:09 06/14/02 Fri
I'm not saying that Warren's totally evil. If he were totally evil, then he'd be a flat character who could hold no interest for me. Instead I see a layered character who reacts out of his very human weakness (as Spike reacts out of the remnants of his human weakness). Warren's misogyny is just one symptom stemming from a denial of his weakness. He needs to act like the "big bad" villain, but we see that he's no Big Bad. He's a pathetic boy who seeks comfort in gadgetry, the only field he's ever felt secure in. He's easily stripped of his villainous costume by Willow, who's dealing with the same sort of issues (hiding the geek within).
I agree that Warren's not this uber-villain. No one is saying that he ever was. And no one's saying that misogynists are these uber-villains, either. A misogynist is someone who hates the things that he (or she!) fears, those objects that are deemed threatening to the self's constructed image (in Warren's case, the hypermasculine Big Bad ideal). Those objects need not be limited to women. Misogyny can be one negative symptom among many arising out of one's perceived weakness. So we have the fear (read as hatred) of women, the need to control others, and the dominance issues, all reactions to weakness. I think I already touched upon all these in my original reply.
Warren hates Buffy because she is that which he fears--a woman who can emasculate him (smashing his orbs). His attack of her involves more than just an attack of the Slayer--he's asserting his masculinity against the most powerful woman in the world, proving to her what a "real man" is. One can't just ignore all the phallic imagery here. The stake-mobiles (chasing after the vampires). The magick "orbs." And the gun when everything else has failed. This is definitely a "man versus woman" issue; Warren's made it out as such. He's the one who goes after the Slayer at her personal residence, seeking the destruction of more than a Slayer ... rather the powerful woman who has taken away his manhood. The embodiment of that which most threatens him.
If Warren directed his hatred against only Buffy, then I might qualify the situation as you have. But he doesn't end with her. I see his misogyny leaking out in all other areas of his life (along with his other issues). Look at his treatment of women. If handling them as objects intended for his sexual use were not enough, then we have the way he refers to himself around them. "Daddy." A "real man." Then trying to buy them with money. Removing their independence, raping them. Uh huh. Not misogynistic at all.
The fact that Warren extends his hatred to some men doesn't negate the fact that he views women as a misogynist. If this is the crux of your argument, that Warren displays so many other negative symptoms that one cannot stand out above the rest ... then I cannot agree with you. Warren's a human. He acts out of his weakness. He has control issues. He needs to be dominant over others (taking over Sunnydale). And he's a misogynist. Period.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: So ... misogynists aren't humans who have other control problems? -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:19:21 06/14/02 Fri
Let me try to get my point across more clearly:
With the smashing his orbs thing, what makes you think Warren feared SPECIFICALLY a woman castrating him? Really it seems to be a fear of anybody doing that.
While Warren does have control issues, he also has lust issues. People keep seeing his desire to make women into sex slaves as misogynistic, when really it's because Warren wouldn't want a MALE sex slave. A lot of his actions stem out of hormones.
Calling himself "Daddy" and "a real man" was actually a way of boosting his self esteem after all those years of being a nothing.
Warren can only be a called a misogynist if hating everyone, including women, makes you a misogynist.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Specifically misogynous or generally misanthropic? -- Exegy, 15:27:55 06/14/02 Fri
This seems to be the question you have posed me. And I say that Warren is more of a misogynist than a misanthrope (although the two terms need not be incompatible). The writers have clearly stressed his misogyny; they've repeatedly emphasized his specific mistreatment of women. Not men, but women and the effeminate. Those things which most threaten his own hypermasculine ideal.
Warren targets Buffy not as a Slayer, but as a powerful woman. The most powerful woman ... the woman he must defeat in order to prove his supreme manhood. The goal of defeating the Slayer ... may quite possibly be his unconscious motivation in taking over Sunnydale. We see that Warren isn't content to just thwart the law and prove himself a criminal mastermind. He's out to destroy Buffy, not as a respected adversary but as a woman. To degrade her and cut her down so that he stands high in comparison. To specifically degrade her as a woman. Buffy even calls him on this complex. It's so obvious. Not a general attack on mankind, but a specific assault on the feared female.
The writers would not emphasize this point if they did not want the viewer to recognize Warren's misogyny ... and the weakness that drives such fear and hatred. Warren can't stand to be seen as less than a man, and strong women threaten him the most. He can't be a man if there is a woman stronger than him. Contrast this attitude to Spike's; the vampire is perfectly content to have a woman who is far stronger than him. Indeed, he likes dominant women. Warren doesn't--he wants to destroy the stronger female (perfectly represented by Buffy). This is his goal, the end he clings to after everything else has fallen away.
It's a pathetic desire, driven by human weakness. The vampires in the bar laugh at Warren when he brags about killing Buffy. The approach has been inverted by the vamps; Warren went out to kill the woman, when he should have been worried about the Slayer. He used a gun, a weapon for mortal combat (as opposed to supernatural conquest). His dreams of being the macho villain are falling away, stripped as his magick orbs were stripped.
Stripped by a woman. Warren's greatest fear, the one he specifically reacts against with his misogyny. What poetic justice. Don't you see ... it's so appropriate that this should happen. It's specifically a woman (not the "warrior of the people") that Warren reacts against ... and it's specifically a woman who tears him down. If the writers had wanted to illustrate anything else, then they would not have devoted all the pointed (pun intended) symbolism to convey this great fear made hatred.
And, interestingly enough, it's yet another woman (this one charting a parallel course) who exposes the root cause of Warren's misogyny. It's his human weakness (stripping his villainous costume and showing him for the helpless human he is, laid bare and vulnerable). The same weakness Willow struggles against. With Willow you get the self-hatred and the control issues; with Warren you get the misogyny and the control issues. Different reactions come to the fore with different characters.
The writers stress misogyny with Warren's character. If they wanted to stress a general hatred of mankind, then they would not have focused on the specific targeting of women. There would not have been all the obvious associated symbolism. How can I explain any better?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Wow, Ex, great post! (very nicely worded!) -- Rob, 16:05:27 06/14/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks, Rob. I try! -- Exegy, 19:19:32 06/14/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well you seem to do it with such ease! Bravo, both Exegy and Rob for persisting so deftly. -- yuri, 17:04:30 06/15/02 Sat
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agree...Bravo!! Was going to reply but you do it better. -- shadowkat, 20:02:58 06/15/02 Sat
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Aww, thanks. *blushes* -- Rob, 07:55:08 06/17/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Specifically misogynous or generally misanthropic? -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:22:54 06/14/02 Fri
What do you mean by going after Buffy "as a woman"? I'm just not seeing the sense in that comment. Sure he doesn't seem to respect Buffy much, but take a look at some of the previous Big Bads:
Angelus, in Becoming II, says that without her friends and family Buffy is nothing.
The Mayor says he intends to kill Buffy like a dog.
Glory calls Buffy a bug.
It's in the nature of many villains to disrespect the hero. Sure Warren doesn't treat Buffy as the "warrior of the people" that he must thwart. But many other villains who haven't been called misogynists have done the same.
Plus, about the orb thing, Warren was in revenge mode right then. It didn't matter that Buffy was a woman. It mattered about what she did to him. A man could have done the same thing, and Warren would have tried to kill him too.
Also, using a gun isn't misogynistic, it's SMART. After all, Buffy came the closest to death she's gotten since "The Gift" because of his initiative to use a gun on the Slayer. While it wasn't the weapon of the supernatural world, Warren isn't a supernatural guy. He's got no powers, and his super science have been of no use against Buffy. A gun was his best shot at killing Buffy.
I just find it hard to call it misogyny when Warren was motivated by revenge, or, in the case of Katrina, lust and fear.
P.S. Spike does have a misogynist streak, stemming from his horrible relationship problems ever since Drusilla left him.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Specifically misogynous or generally misanthropic? -- Rob, 21:59:43 06/14/02 Fri
Guns are a classical phallic symbol...thus the misogyny inherent in whipping that out to off the Slayer.
Buffy took away his manhood. Called him a "little boy"...and that is what had him reaching for the gun.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Difference: Warren is defined by his misogyny... -- Exegy, 14:33:13 06/15/02 Sat
Misogyny is Warren's foremost defining trait. It's the primary reaction to his human weakness. It marks the first introduction of the character and then it follows him to his very end. It's his staple.
Spike exhibits some misogynous tendencies (I never said that he didn't), but he's not defined by them to the extent Warren is. Contrast Spike's respectful treatment of Drusilla and Buffy (as his dark and light ideals) to the disrespect Warren shows to all women. And I know your obvious rebuttal: what respect has Spike shown Buffy this season (after she fell off her pedestal)? Well, I think Spike's problems have more to do with his "love's bitch" syndrome (following the ideal of all-consuming passion) than misogyny. Spike doesn't try to destroy the powerful woman; he likes his position as a "sub." This lowered stature fits his romantic ideal perfectly (the lady elevated and dominant, the "knight" her dedicated servant). He seeks his end in physical union with the lady; this is his highest goal. When she freely bestows this gift to him ... then he becomes possessive. Once the end has been achieved, it must be kept. Here enters in the emotional manipulation--Spike needs to keep his lover in the shadows with him, because that's the only way she will have him. Note, Spike's problems arise along with Buffy's, so it's hard to judge his attitude apart from hers, and the mutually abusive relationship that develops between them does not define Spike's attitude to women in general. The vampire remains respectful of other females, giving them far more credit than men. He gets along well with all the lady Scoobs: he likes Dawn, stands up for Willow (OAFA), banters with Tara (playing cards with her), and commiserates with Anya (showing great sympathy for her, respectfully nodding to her at the end of their tryst). No, I don't think Spike has a problem with women; I think his problems (and any misogynist comments he might make) are a direct result of his limited notions of love (his arrested development as a vampire). Spike's driven by passion, and when he's frustrated in his love ... then the difficulties arise.
Warren's also frustrated, but misogyny plays a much greater role with him. He views women as the enemy; Buffy, the paragon of female power, must be defeated. Because otherwise he cannot prove his manhood (Spike proves his "manhood" by serving his exalted love, not trying to demolish her). It's very important that Warren focuses so intently on Buffy--she's the source of all his fears (not his desires). He doesn't really care about taking over Sunnydale so much as getting rid of Buffy, destroying the powerful woman. This is his driving motivation--to become a man by killing the woman (what he's tried to do in all his interactions, limiting the female to an object and not a person). This is his end, not libido but destrudo.
As for the other major villains, they all have different motivations for tackling Buffy. The only other "Big Bad" who focuses on her womanhood is Angelus (denying his love for her by destroying her, becoming the pure monster). Glory? She views Buffy as an annoying mortal, an obstacle in her path to true godhood. The Mayor? He actually tries to get Buffy on his side, but then he latches onto Faith as his surrogate daughter, and Buffy is Faith's rival (as well as an obstacle to demonhood). Uh ... not a misogynist ... more like Glory, a being who desires to cast off mortality (the Mayor remembering his wife's death with sadness). Adam? He's a hybrid who wants to create through destruction ... he definitely doesn't target women alone. He actually wants to use Buffy in his master plan. He obviously underestimates her.
Warren's motivations? He wants to take over Sunnydale so that he can prove himself dominant to Buffy. He's so clearly defined by his misogyny. All the symbolism supports this reading.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Difference: Warren is defined by his misogyny... -- Rahael, 15:10:40 06/15/02 Sat
Couldn't agree more with Exegy, Rob and Littlebit's posts on this.
I also don't understand why 'sex' is separate from the charge of misogyny? surely the fact that Warren can only view women as providers of one thing - his sexual pleasure - actually adds to the evidence against him?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks for thinking my thoughts and saying it better -- Off-kilter, 02:47:32 06/17/02 Mon
Was going to point out Spike's respectful interactions with women further up in the thread, but decided to make sure someone else didn't beat me to the punch. Glad I did.
*honoring your point like a good bird dog*
Don't forget about his talks with Joyce and bringing flowers to honor her. He was mean to Harmony, but so was everyone else. If making fun of her and physically harming her are bad things for Spike to do, it is twice as bad that the SG does the same to Harmony and Spike.
Also, could someone explain to me what the general popular definition of misogyny is?
Off of dictionary.com I got "a hatred of women". Why does an exclamation of "Women!" and "bitch" mean Spike hates women? Does that mean that Faith has the opposite of misogyny (could not for the life of me find the male-hating word)? She seems to hold men in contempt with her "all men are beasts" comment. She seems to think men are to be used and discarded too, e.i. Xander's seduction, dumping, attempted murder.
Spike might be trying to control Buffy's behavior by persuading her that she is dark, but control does not equal hate. Not healthy, but misogynistic? Don't know about that.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks!! Appreciative of the support! -- Exegy, 06:33:32 06/17/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Misogyny defined -- shadowkat, 06:51:44 06/17/02 Mon
"Also, could someone explain to me what the general popular definition of misogyny is?"
"Off of dictionary.com I got "a hatred of women". Why does an exclamation of "Women!" and "bitch" mean Spike hates women? Does that mean that Faith has the opposite of misogyny (could not for the life of me find the male-hating word)? She seems to hold men in contempt with her "all men are beasts" comment. She seems to think men are to be used and discarded too, e.i. Xander's seduction, dumping, attempted murder."
You hit exactly what has been bugging me about these discussions. How narrowly or broadly have we decided to define this term? Do we know what it really means?
Under any definition - Spike is not misogynist. He doesn't hate women. Obsesses about them, loves them, adores them, is frustrated with them, can't stop thinking about them, they make him nuts - but most definitely does not in any way shape or form hate them. He may be a jerk and unrepentent killer, but this does not make him a misogynist. A Misogynist would not have been able to tolerate or love Drusilla for 100 years, without leaving or killing her. Not sure you can put Spike under this category in any way...he's manipulative, yes - but that's not misogyny. He curses the women he's with - not misogyny. If I curse men - does that make me a misanthrope?
No.
Now Warren - not sure he fits the true definition either.
He doesn't really hate women so much as see them as objects
for his entertainment. Under a broad definition of the term, yeah, he fits. He certainly fits it better than any of the other characters did this year. And he definitely fits it better than Spike.
The only character that I thought was consistently misogynist and fit it - was Forrest, Riley's friend in
The Initiative.
As for rape - while it can be considered a misogynistic act, it wasn't in the case of Buffy/Spike this year.
Spike wanted to make her love him and recreate the events in Smashed through Wrecked. HE didn't intend to hurt her. If he did, do you honestly think he would have left the bathroom in tears and not tried to finish the job or kill her? Warren wanted to turn Katrina into his love slave - he also didn't intend to hurt her - so sorry not misogyny.
Xander's attack on Buffy in the PAck was actually much closer - he did intend harm. But that was the hyena, so not misogyny. Or Faith's in Consequences who wanted to really hurt Xander - but that does not qualify as misanthropy or whatever man-hating is.
A misogynist rape is the demon group that wanted to rape the women in Bargaining PArt II - that's closer. Outside of that haven't seen one on BTVS. Angel or Ats - gave us a clear example of a misogynist in Billy. Billy is a misogynist.
The beatings and rapes that took place in that episode is what it is. Billy hated women and passed his hatred onto men, so that they beat women to a pulp. Wesely's attack on Fred was a perfect example of this. I haven't seen anything close to that on Btvs.
So while I despise Warren and see definite misogynistic tendencies, Finn may be correct, he is not a true misogynist. Spike - well stating he is one is just ludricrous. That's where you kill you're argument Finn, you should have left Spike out of it.
Angelus was more misogynistic than Spike. My favorite argument, not Finn's someone else's, which had me laughing, was that Spike was jealous of Dru and Angel, and this made him a misogynist. Please. How would you feel if someone was boinking your girlfriend while you were in wheelchair every night?
And if I remember correctly, Spike's deal with Buffy in Becoming, was that she NOT kill Dru. He was particularly definite on that score. He also complimented Dru on her ability to kill a slayer. A misogynist wouldn't have cared.
Spike may be a jerk at times, and he may be controlling but he is no more a misogynist than Xander, Riley, Giles, Angel, Gunn, Wesely, or Jonathan are. Ok feel better now...end of rant.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> the word for man-hating... -- anom, 12:09:38 06/17/02 Mon
...is "misandry." It comes from the Greek root andr-, meaning man, which is also seen in words like "androgen." Makes sense--it's the other half of "androgynous," which contains the roots of both "misandry" & "misogyny." And just to round out the picture, "misanthropy" comes from the Greek anthropos, meaning human being, as in "anthropology."
It looks to me like what we're trying to do w/all this defining is distinguish misogyny from sexism. Of course, people's personal definitions differ, & we won't all draw the line in the same place. Is it necessary to hate women to believe they're inferior, or should be subordinate to men? I suppose not, although one certainly doesn't rule out the other--I'd say there's some overlap. I can easily imagine a sexist man believing he loves women--ever read any Promise Keepers literature? One thing I wouldn't expect from a misogynist is patronizing behavior--sincerely patronizing, that is; he might well say something patronizing in a sarcastic way.
So where does Warren fall? I'm still not sure. He certainly believes women should keep their place (listen to the attitudes he programmed into April), but whether he actively hates them is another question, & I don't know the answer. However, I disagree w/shadowkat's statement, "Warren wanted to turn Katrina into his love slave - he also didn't intend to hurt her - so sorry not misogyny." Not so much the misogyny part--as said, I'm still not sure on that--but I don't see how turning her into his sex slave isn't hurting her. It may not be physical injury, but it's an injury to her all the same. He probably didn't think of it as hurting her, but that's because he doesn't consider her feelings, autonomy, & integrity as having any importance.
As for the demon gang's threatened rape of Buffy & the other women, I'm not sure that was misogyny either so much as it would have been a crime of opportunity. They'd come into a new town, they were raising hell (though not as literally as other villains on the show have), wreaking destruction, & here were these women right out in the open, don't even have to go find them, & trying to tell them what to do! This was more like humiliating an unworthy enemy, & a chance to get their rocks off at the same time. Did the gang hate women, or humans generally? Hard to tell w/demons. On the other hand, Billy--bingo. Perfect example.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks! Not knowing a word drives me nuts. -- Off-kilter, 20:10:07 06/17/02 Mon
And as you can tell by my name, I'm not all that stable to begin with. Promise Keepers are kind of scary in the whole "road to Hell . . . best intentions" kind of way. I have strong feelings -not all negative- about that group. I get nervous whenever someone comes up to me and says, "I know what the problem is, just let me take over everything."
Haven't watched AtS, so haven't seen Billy.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> glad to help...but i was hoping for more discussion of the misogyny/sexism distinction! -- anom, 09:33:55 06/18/02 Tue
Maybe I should've mentioned it in the subject line...OK, now I have!
"Promise Keepers are kind of scary in the whole 'road to Hell . . . best intentions' kind of way. I have strong feelings -not all negative- about that group."
Me too. For a while I worked w/a member of the Promise Keepers, & he didn't act according to stereotype. He never tried to tell the women on the job they shouldn't be working, & in fact he seemed to respect the women he worked with & the work they did, incl. the ones who outranked him. Maybe he just applied the PK stuff to his home life.
BTW, I like your name!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: glad to help...but i was hoping for more discussion of the misogyny/sexism distinction! -- leslie, 12:20:52 06/18/02 Tue
I find it extremely hard to follow any argument that Warren is not a misogynist. I also think that there is a very blurry line between "misogyny" and "sexism," and trying to make a distinction between them is doomed to fail. I suppose you could say that sexism (against women--because it's perfectly possible to be sexist against men, too!) is a simple belief that women are inferior to men, with accompanying actions taken to keep them so. This can be done in many ways--some people (men and women) are sexist in the belief that their actions are in the best interests of women--as when it was believed that women's brains couldn't handle complex ideas and too much study would cause their wombs to atrophy and cause all kinds of illness. So preventing women from getting an education was comparable to keeping a child away from friends who have chicken pox. Misogyny is based in sexism, but it develops into hatred because of an unacknowledged understanding that women are not, in fact, inferior to men. To get it out of the realm of Slayer powers, misogyny is often born out of a male's envy/resentment of women's power to give birth, a resentment of the power of the Mother. To me, it seems very related to the Oedipus complex, and while I wouldn't get all Freudian and say that the Oedipus complex underlies all male psychological functioning, there certainly are men for whom it is operative. The desire for the Mother is threatening (it will lead to punishment by the Father), it is overwhelming, and most importantly, it is all HER fault--he's just the baby, she's the one with the power, she's the one with the breast.
In this light, the fact that Warren is constantly trying to dominate women, and is drawn to yet hates strong women (he first is attracted to Katrina because she's smart; she's obviously a very self-confident woman; she must have been attracted to Warren to begin with or she wouldn't have come home with him over spring break, yet she is very definite about leaving when the truth outs), and sees women not only as sex objects, but as objects whose sexuality he wishes to control, fits him right into that Oedipally conflicted misogynist role. (And if we're going to go on about Warren's "orbs," it seems significant that he shoots not only Buffy but Tara in the chest-->breast.)
Warren may want to dominate the world (or at least Sunnydale), but he also wants to do it a) as the head of a band of other males, whom b) he consistently turns into "women" in order to keep them subordinate to him. His influence upon Andrew and his latent homosexuality has already been much-commented upon, but it's worth remembering how Andrew's response to Warren's abandonment of him is specifically couched in the words of a girl wondering where her boyfriend's gone--there are many kinds of homosexuals, but Andrew very specifically takes on the "girlfriend" role in relation to Warren. Then, when Katrina is killed and Buffy must be framed, Warren forces Jonathan--the one who is trying to rebel, pull away, question--to "be the girl" and take on Katrina's shape to delude Buffy. Warren's actions even with men show that he regards "female" as inferior, and the way he tries to bolster his masculinity is to dominate women by reducing them to sex toys, and men by turning them literally or metaphorically into women. (Which makes it unbelievably appropriate that he is finally killed by a lesbian.) I really don't see how you could describe this as anything *except* misogyny.
Final note--Spike may sometimes refer to women as "bitches", but that "love's bitch" remark was after all in reference to himself.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Warren as emasculator -- auroramama, 16:06:58 06/18/02 Tue
Eeee. Hadn't thought about the way in which Andrew's post-abandonment dialogue resembles the April-bot's. He's not just taking on a "girlfriend" role, he's taking on a *Warren's* girlfriend role. Okay, now I do feel sorry for him. It's a role I wouldn't wish on anyone, or anything, for that matter.
Re: bitch. Spike is using the term in the sense I grew up with umpty-ump years ago: "female person who is being mean to me." Warren is using it in the more modern sense: "person I can treat like a worthless whore." To me, that's a *huge* difference.
auroramama
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> This was an amazing post leslie.. -- shadowkat, 19:13:40 06/18/02 Tue
If exegy and redcat hadn't already convinced me that Warren clearly fit the definition of misgynist below, you surely did.
You also do a wonderful job of pointing out the distinctions and overlap of sexism and misogyny. Below Ete makes clear that we need to be precise on how we define misogyny which I was also concerned about. Is it about epithets? Or actions? You clearly show the actions, which I'd argue are for more important.
In rewatching Flooded tonight, I was struck with how clearly Warren directed his partners soon to become minions in crime to misogynist tendicies. The interest in "chicks"
and how they want to hypnotize Buffy to be their sex slave.
Warren is deceptive here - he doesn't appear interested in hypnotizing Buffy, he doesn't want sex with her, he wants her dead and sends the Ms'Fashknik demon after her. Even here, you get the impression that Warren is treating the others in a subservient way.
You also go somewhere redcat and Exegy avoided, and I sort of wish they had since it is so blatantly obvious - the Oedipal complex. As redcat mentions below - Spike gets into Warren's house way back in IWMTY by the invitation of Warren's mother. He gets in again in Smashed by that same invitation. He clearly has an odd relationship here. And I am beginning to wonder about these writers - in I Robot You Jane - the robot Malcom mentions a Chinese Banker taking out a contract on his mother - and states good for him. If this was an isolated incident in the series, I'd shrug it off as I did when I first saw the episode, but the mother seems to be a heavy and dark influence on so many characters - from big bad mommy Walsh, to Drusilla and Darla, to William's mother (which you indicated may have been on the controlling side) to single parent Joyce, to Willow's busy, inattentive mother Sheila, to good old Catherine Madison. Did Joss Whedon take Freud? We know he read Oedipus - he literally does a portion of the play at the end of puppet show. All of this leads me to believe, that your thesis is in line with what is going on in the writers heads.
One final pt: I love how you show the emasculation of Jonathan and Andrew and how Warren literally has one of them pose as his old girlfriend, while leading the other one on in that area. Warren seemed to wince a bit when Andrew mentioned how cool Spike was. I'm wondering if Spike may not be the BB Warren wanted to emulate, wanted to be?
That too would be ironic. (This should not suggest in any way that I think Spike is misogynistic or like Warren, quite the contrary. I actually agree with what Exegy and redcat and Sophist say regarding Spike...)I just think Warren's desire to be demonlike would be an interesting theory to pursue. Just as his statement to Buffy in SR - this is the first time you've had to fight a real man.
How's it feel to be beaten by one? Oh one final note on Warren vs. Buffy - rewatching the Willow vs. Buffy battle I was struck by how similar the dialogue was. Both Warren and Willow call Buffy - super-bitch and both empower themselves in the lower regions with magic before fighting her.
Thanks again - great post!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> "I have a problem with mothers. I'm aware of that." -- Off-kilter, 21:02:46 06/18/02 Tue
Don't forget Kralik! Makes you wonder if Joss has a few issues. LOL!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> David Greenwalt on Joss -- Rahael, 01:53:58 06/19/02 Wed
In a DVD commentary, David Greenwalt said that Joss was fascinated by 'the sick mother'.
(I don't think it was Greenwalt first hand - one of the other writers quoted him. I'll dig it out!)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Excellent additions, leslie!! More ... -- Exegy, 20:39:36 06/18/02 Tue
Thanks for mentioning the Oedipus complex, because I know I avoided that aspect in my previous posts. But I agree--the symbolism supports such a Freudian analysis. Warren resents and fears the powerful female, to the extent that he shoots two women through the chest ... the initial source of woman's power over him (as you say, the babe sucking at his mother's breast).
Freud argues that the mother is our first connection to this world; as such, she is the first object of our love ... and the first object of our hate. For the baby takes comfort and nourishment in the mother ... but when the mother absents herself, the baby frets aggressively. Flashforward about twenty years, and you see these same principles at work in Warren. He desires the powerful woman he sees in Katrina, but when she rejects him ... then comes the aggression, heightened after so many years away from the breast. This aggression eventually feeds into a vicious, inescapable downward spiral. Warren cannot break free, because he is fixated on the image of the powerful woman as something to be diminished or destroyed, thus made acceptable to him. This is an impossible goal, for the "mother" will always be above him in his thoughts, the source of his very life. She will dominate him, literally coming before and above him (Warren exists in the basement of his mother's house). She will super-impose herself upon his existence ... and so it's Willow, the vessel of very female aggression, who destroys him, exposing him as what he is to the world. And turning the tables on him, boring into his chest with the phallic bullet.
Here we have a further bit of Warren's complex unearthed. As you so brilliantly put it, he must assert his masculine superiority by converting his followers into "women" (nice catch on Jonathan taking the shape of the dead girlfriend!). So Andrew takes on the feminine role in their interactions (also appropriate because Andrew is so submissive, exactly what Warren wants in a girl). And there is a lot of "latent homosexuality" (Warren patting Andrew's arm reassuringly, comforting him and playing him all at once). Quite interesting!
Thanks for the brain candy, leslie!! This post was particularly insightful!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Excellent additions, leslie!! More ... -- leslie, 09:03:38 06/19/02 Wed
To expand this line a little further, the apparently random shooting of Tara now makes a lot more psychological sense, since she has been the "maternal" figure throughout the season. And Willow's retaliation for Tara's death is a sexual inversion of everything that the Oedipal child fears--that the desired Mother's partner will murder him once (s)he knows of the child's forbidden desire. Still, I also like the fact that such an Oedipal misogynist should be killed by a lesbian--the one kind of woman whose sexuality is beyond his reach.
I am currently at work, proofreading an enyclopedia of psychology. I find it really interesting that the kinds of psychology that show up in BtVS--and in most other television shows that have psychological themes and subplots--tends to be Freudian--a school of psychological thought that is really out of fashion these days. There's also a lot of less overt Jungianism, of course--also fairly discredited in the academic field. Then, there's Maggie Walsh, a hardcore behaviorist--SO passe, so post-World War II, when science could do anything. Nonetheless, these are the psychological theories that lend themselves best to narrative, it seems.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Tara/Willow -- Rahael, 09:25:12 06/19/02 Wed
There was a discussion about the idea of a mother-daughter dynamic in Tara and Willow's relationship in November last year, in a thread started by Tillow, called 'Willow's addiction'. It was of course Age, Tillow, among many others brought up some great points. The link to the archive page is here - though the thread is quite a way down.
http://www.ivyweb.net/btvs/board/archives/nov01_p2.html#84
Anyway, here was my response to Age then:
"Hard to add anything to such a well thought out and complex post...............
Just a little note on Tara - Tara has already shown before that she can 'separate' herself from the destructive parent.
Also, she has lost her 'mother' before. We know from the Body that her mother died when she was young.
And to echo Tillow, your examination of the parent/child dynamic in the T/W relationship crystallised for me the emotional reaction I had to Willow's caring attitude to the brain-sucked Tara. "I'll always find you". I found that very moving, but at the same time, the disturbing conflicts were already erupting between them. Tara is brain sucked partly because of the fight she has with Willow. And mark the hostility that the brain sucked Tara has toward Willow - "Bitch! I'm supposed to work out the fractions!".
David Fury, writer of Helpless commented that Joss was fascinated by the 'bad mother'. If Joyce is the 'best mother in the world' (David Greenwalt), could Glory be the ultimate depiction of the 'bad' parent'? Her main role is to 'harm' the baby, the daughter, Dawn. Buffy has to chose between being a 'child killer' like Glory, or taking the self sacrificial route, which the parent always has to chose. The much maligned but interesting episode WOTW explored the ideas of sibling rivalry, family tension, and the idea of infanticide.
The harmful parent idea has previously been explored in 'Helpless' when Giles betrays his child, Buffy, under orders of his employers. "
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Specifically misogynous or generally misanthropic? -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:06:33 06/15/02 Sat
Well, my opinion may change in the next couple weeks, because I have not seen Flooded or Life Serial yet, which are the first two epsiodes with Warren. It's possible that misogyny is made clear there. However, I have never seen Warren direct hatred towards all women, but only against Buffy and Katrina.
Also, saying that Warren wants submissive women isn't entirely true. In "I Was Made to Love You", he says that he thought he would love April, the robot/woman who he forced to love him, but got bored with her.
Lastly, why is a gun a phallic symbol for Warren but not for Darla?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> One more response ... -- Exegy, 08:36:30 06/16/02 Sun
Warren hates Buffy and Katrina so much because they represent that which he fears most: emasculation. A point that is illustrated (somewhat in hindsight, mind) in IWMTLY. Warren creates a submissive woman who will respond to his every desire. This is his ideal female figure. A perfect "girlfriend." Except he finds the ideal rather lacking. He's attracted to Katrina, a woman who challenges him. And a woman who ultimately emasculates him. Here we have the source of Warren's highblown misogyny laid bare before us. The challenging woman is unacceptable; she must be diminished, effectively destroyed as a person.
Warren retreats into his fantasy world, returning again and again to that ideal which is so lacking when realized. He's stuck in a truly pathetic loop. I feel sorry for him, because he's making the wrong choice every time, entrapping himself further and further in his obsessiveness. Stuck in the basement with the lower inclinations of his mind.
He has the ability to do better for himself. His first interactions with Katrina in DT are sincere. He wants to get back together with her. But then she emasculates him again, and we see him return to a heightened version of his earlier misogyny. He takes Katrina, removing her autonomy and remaking her into the image of the dutiful robot. This is the ideal he once found lacking, and yet he returns to it again and again. Instead of moving from the Aprilbot to Katrina, he moves from Katrina to the Aprilbot. It's downward growth.
And when the powerful woman cannot be diminished, she must be destroyed. Warren can't let Katrina move out of the basement, because then he'd have to admit how stulted and pathetic he's become. How utterly emasculated. No, he can bash the woman's head in and assert his male superiority, proving everything fine. Warren's caught now, even if he doesn't know it. He'll never escape his misogyny. Stuck in the basement.
His desire to degrade and destroy Buffy represents the height of his obsession. This woman is the object of his fear, the reflection of his own weakness. If she is obliterated, then he proves his masculinity. This goal ties in directly with all Warren's previous issues with women, everything we have seen about the character in the show.
The only women who have become acceptable to him are those who will do his bidding. Those whom he can prove his superiority over (as he tries to do with the ladies in the bar). Any powerful woman does not fit into this category. These threats must be destroyed for Warren to become a "real man."
There is not the same singleminded obsession involving powerful men. He doesn't actively search for men to degrade and humiliate. Because he does not associate men with his most obvious emasculation.
On Darla--I did not mention her among the villains because she is not a major adversary (in BtVS). That said, she too uses the phallic symbol to attack Buffy as a woman--as the woman who has stolen Angel(us) from her. Once again, there is the inversion of stereotypes (begun on BtVS when Darla emerges as the thing to be feared ... when she plunges her teeth into a boy's neck, her unwelcome bite a figurative rape). Darla hates Buffy's womanhood; she fears that which represents a threat to her hold on Angel(us). So she tries to destroy the woman ... not the Slayer. She uses guns, natural means to kill the girl, not supernatural means to kill the Slayer. She's driven by fear and jealousy, very human weaknesses. Just as Warren is driven by weakness, reacting with misogyny.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Pistol-packin' Darla -- Arethusa, 13:37:37 06/19/02 Wed
I'm still trying to write that paper on noir, which brings up women and guns....
Darla is the Bad Girl, the Femme Fatale, who rejects the socially acceptable of wife and mother as boring and confining. She tries to control the man she wants by seducing and emasculating him, and takes on masculine traits herself-sexual agressiveness, masculine clothing, and the use of phallic objects such as cigarettes, guns and knives. Darla tries to drag Angel down to her deviant level, literally-underground in the Master's lair-away from the stability of life with the only other type of woman in noir-the Madonna.
Buffy is the Good Girl, the Madonna, who offers a "normal" life to the noir hero, which he can never have due to his inherent flaw-he's a vampire. Wedon and Greenwalt said Angel's bloodlust was a metaphor for alcoholism, and many noir heroes are alcoholics. Because of his nature Angel will never fit in with the rest of society-he is doomed to isolation and lonliness, and never will have the stable, normal life he craves even more than blood.
(Of course, there are many, many aspects of the B/A dynamic that aren't noir, because "Buffy" is such a mish-mash of styles.)
So Darla is both an inversion of stereotypes and the poster child for the most stereotypical of females-the femme fatale.
[> [> [> Why did he abandon April? -- Malandanza, 10:36:45 06/16/02 Sun
"Couldn't control Katrina, so he made an April-bot of her, which he couldn't control either...Later, tried to control her with the spell, and still couldn't."
The sexbot predated Warren's relationship with Katrina -- in fact, he gave up the 'bot because he found her to be less than satisfactory when compared to a real girl. I think that Warren was made some significant progress in his attitude towards women when he abandoned his sex toy. Unfortunately, he backslid considerably after Katrina dumped him and he joined up with two boys who reinforced his adolescent notions of women.
There's also a weak parallel between Warren rejecting April and Spike rejecting the Buffybot after Buffy's death -- and I say weak because Warren apparently rejected his sexbot without requiring outside impetus -- for Spike, it took Buffy's death to make him realize that the 'bot was unsatisfactory.
Anyway, I think Warren's behavior toward women is less about misogyny and more about growing up. He talks about women the way high school boys in a lockerroom talk about them.
[> [> [> [> The Buffybot -- Sophist, 13:43:30 06/16/02 Sun
Didn't Spike give up on the Buffybot after Intervention? Seemed to me that he did; I don't think Buffy's death affected that one way or the other.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: The Buffybot -- shadowkat, 14:24:15 06/16/02 Sun
"Didn't Spike give up on the Buffybot after Intervention? Seemed to me that he did; I don't think Buffy's death affected that one way or the other."
True Buffy's death had zip to do with it. That happened in Intervention. Spike lost possession of it after he got tortured by Glory. The gang took it back to the magic box where Willow attempted to fix it but wasn't able to in time to find out whether he told. So Buffy posed as the Buffybot.
They did not give it back to him. (Can you imagine Buffy letting him have that again? She scolded him for it, remember?
Spike: "and my robot?"
Buffy:"That was gross and obscene."
Spike:"It wasn't meant to.."
Buffy:"That wasn't real...but what you did for me and Dawn, that was real."
The Buffybot then sat in the basement of the magic box until the Gift where Xander and anya bumped into it. They pulled it out to fight Glory.
The next time we see it - it is posing as Buffy in Bargaining and Spike winces everytime he sees it. Clearly regretting having created it and feeling shame - he can barely stand to see it.
In the comics - Spike has it hidden from everyone as if he wants to forget it and the SG threaten him into unearthing it. But since this is a comic and not the show - I'm hesistant to believe it. I think it makes more sense that
Willow took it over and fixed it over the summer.
As far as outside impetus? I think Spike would have given it up on his own anyway. Sort of moot pt. Since he literally put himself on the line to save Buffy.
[> [> [> [> Re: Why did he abandon April? -- shadowkat, 14:10:58 06/16/02 Sun
"Anyway, I think Warren's behavior toward women is less about misogyny and more about growing up. He talks about women the way high school boys in a lockerroom talk about them."
Have to disagree with you here. This may be a good description of Andrew and Jonathan but not Warren. Warren doesn't consider women real, he talks about them in the same way that Forrest did
way back in The Initiative - as objects. Objects for his fun and games. They weren't worth the time of day. Forrest is in my view the classic misogynist. Threatened by strong women -which makes sense since he's had to deal with Professor Walsh. Talks about them as if they are things. And can't understand Riley's relationship with one. Warren is starting to echoe this.
You are right - Warren's not a true misogynist yet. He doesn't hate women. He just doesn't see them as worth thinking about beyond his own pleasure. And if they threaten him, they deserve to be put down. That isn't the definition of a misogynist. A misogynist is someone who hates women, gets no pleasure from them, and would like to just hurt them. Sees them as demons or things. Warren is coming awfully close to that, but he isn't there yet. If he survived? Who knows...
Warren can only relate to women as objects for his own pleasure. When we first met him - I agree, he wasn't that bad, just a creep with the Aprilbot and if Katrina had forgiven him, perhaps he would have had a chance I don't know. At that stage he didn't see women as objects - he was just lonely. April wasn't a sexbot, she was girlfriend, someone to love him. He was lonely. Then Katrinia took an interest in him - and he realized he didn't need the bot. So yes he had outside impetus - Katrina. If Katrina hadn't found him interesting - he probably would have stuck with the bot. (I think you are giving Warren way too much credit, here.) By the time he shoots Buffy - he is coming very close to the definition of misogynist. He wants so desperately to be evil but he doesn't want to pay for it. He sees the world in two dimensions not three, it's just a comic book, it's not real. 'I can go get a demon gang and kill people, aren't I cool'. That's Warren. Of the villians I've seen on Btvs - Warren is the scariest because he is the most real, a true sociopath - he sees people as play things for his amusement. He is a potential serial killer or rapist in the making. No amount of "growing up" will ever change that. I've met these people - they aren't like boys discussing women in the locker room, I only wish they were. They are the boys who start out drugging girls drinks so they can have sex with them. They are the PArker's who tell you how great you are and once they score treat you like a toilet seat. And don't realize they've done anything wrong. They are the poor pathetic creeps that I've met at bars and been lucky to get away from. ME made an interesting point this year with the Trioka - that sometimes those nerdy little boys you don't take seriously, consider harmless, can cause for more destruction then a demon from the gates of hell. From a female perspective - the nerds scared me far more than any of the other villains, because they were too real.
[> [> [> [> Chances to Grow Up -- Exegy, 17:46:04 06/16/02 Sun
Both Warren and Spike operate as adolescents. Neither has a "grown-up" attitude on relationships. Each pursues a limited end--with Warren, the end is defined by destrudo; with Spike, the end is defined by libido. So Warren's goal is to diminish or destroy the female in order to assert his own power; Spike's goal is one of all-consuming passion ... passion which can only find its fulfillment in the bedchamber. Both goals are eventually self-destructive, far more dangerous than idle "locker room chat." But Spike's goal at least entertains some type of reciprocal attraction. Warren limits himself to his own needs ... he always has.
Let's look at his treatment of the Aprilbot. He uses her, and then he discards her when a more challenging conquest appears. He doesn't even have the respect to shut her off; he lets her run down, her program set to always await him ... to be hurt at displeasing him. Regardless of his "human superiority," Warren has the obligation to care for his created "girlfriend." He made her to feel for him ... but when she no longer satisfies him, he could care less for her feelings. He tells Buffy that she was more than a robot, but he certainly doesn't treat her as a person. She's an object for his pleasure. She's an object that can be tossed away at his convenience. But his brush-off of her eventually comes back to haunt him. Katrina sees how he's objectified the female, and she is properly horrified (this is not an exaggerated reaction, especially as it seems that there have been previous problems in their relationship). She stalks off, leaving Warren at a crossroads.
Warren has the chance to grow up. He's made some progress with Katrina; there's no reason to assume that he couldn't work at a relationship with another girl. He could learn from the debacle of the Aprilbot.
But Warren doesn't. He retreats into his fantasy world, viewing the emasculating female with more and more aversion. She's the enemy, the source of his weakness ... if he conquers or destroys her, then he can prove his manhood. He grows downward into an obsession. Warren eventually fixates on Buffy as the end of this obsession. His goal becomes her destruction. Taking over Sunnydale is really all about supplanting Buffy.
And now we have the strong parallel between Warren and Spike in SR. In each case, the male threatens the powerful female, nearly beating her down until the momentum switches and the female seizes her strength back. But look at the different ends. Spike does not want to destroy Buffy--he wants her to feel for him the way he feels for her (the reciprocal attraction). So he reaches out for her ... however misguided the attempt, he reaches out for her. He can't understand why she doesn't love him when she obviously feels something for him. He doesn't get that she needs to be able to trust him before she can love him, and she can never trust him as he is (an amoral, opportunistic demon). He doesn't get that--he thinks that passion should be enough. Physical union is his highest end. This end is ultimately self-destructive, as the imagery of AYW implies (Spike making his bed beside the dark seeds of passion, unconcerned that he may be destroyed himself, and then remaining in the wreckage of the ruined affair afterwards). As for Warren, his highest end is the destruction of the powerful female, the symbol of his emasculation. He needs to prove his supremacy over her. He needs to show her what a "real man" is like. By ending her life. "Good night, bitch."
Buffy recovers her strength in both cases. She seizes back her power from two different threats (libido and destrudo). And now we see the reactions of Spike and Warren to what they have done. And these very different reactions tell us a lot about the characters. And a lot about the separate paths that they take.
Spike's immediate reaction is one of horror. He cannot believe what he has just done. He's betrayed every ideal he's ever believed in ... and the highest ideal of all, his love for the lady. His identity as "love's bitch" has been destroyed. Leading him to seek a new identity ... not as a Big Bad who would destroy Buffy, but as a souled being who would give her what she deserves. Spike thinks not just of himself ... he thinks about himself and the other. His quest for a soul means something.
Contrast Spike's painful transformation for Buffy's sake to the empty words behind Warren's soul talk (SR). Warren doesn't care about the girl he's talking to. He cares only about himself. Women are objects for his pleasure, devices that can be made or bought (by waving money at them, by impressing them with brutal physicality). Warren doesn't grow up when he's had the chance; he grows downward. He doesn't progress from the Aprilbot to Katrina; he moves from Katrina back to the robot girl. He destroys all that woman's independent vitality--he remakes her into a "dead thing." A thing that can be dressed to suit his fancy. A thing that can serve its master. A thing that can be shut down with a blow, made literally dead. And then removed, because it is easier to deny the action than to accept its utter wrongness. Better to say that Katrina deserved this than to admit weakness. Better to stay hidden in the basement than face the consequences as an adult.
By continually making all the wrong (and easy) choices, Warren has gotten himself into a bind. He cannot escape from what he's become even if he wanted to. His obsession has consumed him. For we see that Warren, unlike Spike, follows his goal to its ultimate end: his destruction. He shoots Buffy in her backyard; he accidentally shoots Tara. Once again he reaps what he's sown. Willow comes after him, and Warren falls right into the trap of his own making. He doesn't leave Sunnydale when he has the chance; he remains tangled in the dark woods of his soul (all that he's become). Literally ensnared, seeking the destruction of the woman to his very last. Except this end leads to his own. Willow comes, yes she does, and she meets Warren in the heart of the woods. He does his best to maintain the illusion of power, but she exposes him for what he is: a pathetic human acting out of his own weakness, his misogyny a product of fear.
A human who never risks growing up ... a human who makes all the wrong choices, turning inward upon himself until there is nothing but the selfish obsession ... a human who thus dies in the hell of his own making.
So I believe that Warren's misogyny is inextricably linked to his inability to grow up. It's his signature reaction to his own weakness, just as Spike's possessiveness is a reaction to his weakness. Both characters operate as adolescents arrested in their growth; but Spike has chosen a path that may lead to adulthood, if he can only follow it.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Chances to Grow Up -- Malandanza, 06:34:59 06/17/02 Mon
I loved your post! I have a few quibbles (of course) but in general, I agree with what you've said. But I want to address a couple of points by Sophist and Shadowkat first (and I don't want to make three or four separate threads).
Sophist: I think the difference between Warren and Spike comes down to this: with Warren, pretty much the only actions we saw him have with women were misogynistic. ...Warren's behavior with women was one-sided, Spike's is not.
Warren's actions were more one-dimensional this season, but in IWMtLY his actions were not quite so monolithic:
WARREN: Then something happened. Katrina was in my engineering seminar, and she was really funny and cool -- she was always giving me a hard time, real unpredictable. She builds these little model monorails that run with magnets. Anyway, I fell in love with Katrina.
and at the end of the episode:
Warren is in the living room, packed duffle-bag at his feet. He's talking miserable into a phone.
WARREN: (into phone) Trina? No, wait... I'm so sorry... Yes, I am so... just give me a chance to explain... yes... no... yes, but... Really, I'll do anything. No! Don't hang up!
He sighs and hangs up. He turns to find himself face-to-face with Spike, who is holding the cardboard box of Buffy-shrine stuff (the sweater sticks out the top a little). Warren jumps.
WARREN: How'd you get in here?
SPIKE: Your mum let me in. I'm placing an order.
WARREN: I'm not making any more girls.
So Warren demonstrated that he can relate to women in other than an overtly sexual way and showed that he understood that the sexbot was wrong. Taken out of context, the "monorails and magnets" speech is even cute and romantic (but it's hard to ignore the rampaging sexbot). It's not that I don't think Warren is a misogynist, I just don't believe that misogyny is his defining characteristic. I don't think it's necessary that a person be misogynistic in all his relationships with women in order to be branded a misogynist. Think of it like racism -- how many times do you have to hear a person use racial epithets before you decide they are a racist? (Once is enough for me). So I think there is still good reason to call Warren a misogynist and better reason for calling Spike the same.
Sophist: Didn't Spike give up on the Buffybot after Intervention? Seemed to me that he did; I don't think Buffy's death affected that one way or the other.
ShadowkatTrue Buffy's death had zip to do with it. That happened in Intervention. Spike lost possession of it after he got tortured by Glory.
Spike had the Buffybot taken away from him (not quite the same thing as giving it up) in Intervention -- the first time we saw him express disgust with the 'bot was in Bargaining. By contrast, Warren chose to give up April.
Shadowkat: Warren doesn't consider women real, he talks about them in the same way that Forrest did way back in The Initiative - as objects. Objects for his fun and games.
Exegy: Both goals are eventually self-destructive, far more dangerous than idle "locker room chat."
I think you both are giving the boys in the locker rooms far too much credit. It's been a while since High School, but from what I recall from my PE class, the conversations were all about women as sex objects (and strategies for seducing them) in terms that would make Parker blush. I don't think times have changed that much -- I can recall working with a group of High School boys a couple of years ago where the boys (from good families and private schools -- High School Seniors) talked about the incoming Freshman girls, which ones they would "initiate." These were not "idle" remarks, or even mere braggadocio -- there is a reason that date rape is so common. Saying that Warren has the mentality of a High School boy with regard to women is no compliment.
Exegy: Let's look at his treatment of the Aprilbot. He uses her, and then he discards her when a more challenging conquest appears.
He treated her like an object -- but, remember, she was an object. Okay, from a metaphorical standpoint, if we treat Katrina as if she were a real girl, his behavior is inexcusable -- but then why didn't ME just make her a real girl? Also, I wouldn't say that Katrina was a "challenging conquest" -- he doesn't seem like much of a conquistador to me. Compare his treatment of April with Spike's treatment harmony -- Harmony has actual feelings.
Well, I'm not finished, but I have to go to work. Sorry if this ends abruptly.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Chances to Grow Up -- Ete, 08:05:50 06/17/02 Mon
You're racist metaphore made me understand exactly why I don't agree with the way you used the misogynist epithete, thanks :)
Things as I see it : we all have sometimes some impulse of racism or, for men, misogynie (and for women, probably of misandry too). We all, everyone of us, at some time gets disgusted by something Other we don't understand, or angry, or afraid etc. How many people here after 11/9 felt that muslims and arabs were just bad, inhuman, uncivilised, and felt, maybe only for an instant, that they were all the same in that. Ofcourse this is racism. Does that make all this people moved by a rightous anger some racists ?
I don't think so, most of the time (I hope), they realise nothing is that simple, they feel ashamed of this feeling, or they just don't act upon it...
I would only describe as a racist someone who believes is the ideology of racism, which is something quite specific, and not made of (if built upon) mere racism impulses.
So if it is the same with mysogynie, as you say, I wouldn't describe Spike as a mysogynist because I don't believe one second that he has a whole ideological vision of women and men's role that could be described as misogynist. Yes, sometimes he acted in a misogynist way, but that's not enough to say he's a misgynist.
For Warren, it's more complicate, because as you said, he didn't seem to be really a misogynist by the time of IWMTLY. His actions by the time of Seeing Red were more like it, but i'm not quite sure it's enough to say he was one.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agree with Ete on this one -- shadowkat, 19:26:29 06/17/02 Mon
"Think of it like racism -- how many times do you have to hear a person use racial epithets before you decide they are a racist? (Once is enough for me). So I think there is still good reason to call Warren a misogynist and better reason for calling Spike the same."
I agree with Ete - if that's the case then everyone i know
is a racist and every man I've ever met is a misogynist.
We all use epithets we shouldn't. Must be careful not to generalize. Although I think Ete may have put this better than I did.
Exegy actually came closest to showing how Warren would be identified as misogynist - by his actions more than his words actually. Spike comes across more in Exegy's words as the adolescent entirely controlled by libidio. I don't see the misogynistic tendencies in him - not even in School Hard. Sexual predatory tendencies yes - but those aren't the same. As anom states above, we need to be careful about defining misogyny as the same as sexism. Don't misunderstand me - I do think Spike does some creepy things. Just as Angelus creeped me out. But for the same reason I wouldn't define Angelus as misogynist, I can't put Spike in this category. Sexist? maybe. Predator? definitely.
I also agree with you about the high school boy chatter - that isn't misogyny. Yes it is offensive. But it is more male bravado. Women actually do the same with men believe or not. Yes, we can be crude too. ;-) Faith was an excellent example of this. But I would not define Faith as necessarily misangy (word anom used for man-hating I think, thanks anom). Though she came pretty close in Season 3, except for her love of the Mayor.
The people who come the closest to misogyny on Btvs are Warren by Villains - his is a gradual arc, yes Exegy you convinced me. And Forrest who just was from the get-go. His conversation with Riley and Graham is a perfect example of your point about misogynistic language. But it's more than that with Forrest. Forrest avoids women like the plague. He worships a masculine non-female mother figure. And gets off on the ability to destroy the slayer. Billy in Atvs is an even better example of a misogynist. If you want to see how one should be defined compare each character to Billy.
In fact Angel more or less indicates to Cordy that vampires are immune to the misogyny Billy passes around. It's something the vampire doesn't really care much about. Or at least that was my reading of what he said.
Oh finally on the Buffbot, didn't mean to suggest that Spike gave up on his own, he didn't. But - I agree with exegy and redcat when it appeared that he grew bored of it and showed definite shame when she commented on his use of it. Shame was something I never really saw from Warren. Maybe if he had shown it - he might have had a chance? Don't know. Maybe he did and I missed it?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Undecided -- Rahael, 02:15:05 06/18/02 Tue
I have a slight problem here. Are we denying that the outward signs of behaviour are no way to judge what a person really thinks? Are we confining it to simple name calling? What about someone who only commits one beating while shouting at racial slurs? Can we adequately judge whether he's a racist?
But I could be leaning toward Mal's argument simply because I don't have regular contact with people who do use racial slurs unthinkingly. Even my right wing friends who have views very different to mine about race and immigration and so on would never dream of doing it. Also, I went to an all girls school, and the boys that I did hang around with didn't refer to women in derogotary terms. When I lived in halls of residence at University, I had a huge shock. It was very much part of the reason I didn't spend very much time in my individual college, and spent more time in the University community at large.
Actually, I don't think it's misogyny that I encountered, rather more a public (private in England) school bravado, from men who also had been at single sex establishments all their lives and didn't know what to make of all these girls all at once. And I think I would equate casual racism, with casual sexism. It's part of our culture. There are many forms which don't have to be part of a rigoruous ideology that has to be signed up to. There are severe and dangerous forms of racism that only a few sign up to. But prejudice? that's pretty common. And it seems pretty obvious to me that it exists.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Undecided -- shadowkat, 05:38:04 06/18/02 Tue
I agree with your take, but it is very different from what I think Mal was saying. The epithets you clearly describe as sexism - yes! That's it. Not misogyny. Very different.
Although they can definitely led to misogyny!
I think racial statements can lead to prejudice, just as sexism can led misogyny. Living in NYC and working in the Bronx I am surrounded by this on a daily basis. Most of the words are meaningless.
New Yorkers just like to use crude language for shock value more than anything else. And I went to public schools...
and worked in areas where language wasn't necessarily a good indicator of the beliefs and values of the person.
Unfortunately movies and television usually does use words for a reason, they aren't throw-away lines. So they hold a different weight than the words we might use on a daily basis. Do I think ME was going for misogyny with Warren?
Actually Exegy has just about convinced they were. Spike?
Sorry, no. I think Spike remains a far more complex entity with a tendency to want to place women on a pedestal or to love them in a possessive manner - that's a far cry from misogyny or sexism. It's not healthy. And it is just as obsessive as Warren but it also quite different. None of the vampires we've known hit me as remotely misogynistic.
Remember they tend to use their demons as metaphors for human weakness on the show, and I think vamps are being used more for the dark sexual impulses metaphorically - ie. lust, incest, S & M, obsessive love, narcissim, well but
not wisely?. I think the demon they used as a metaphor for misogyny was Billy in Ats.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Undecided -- Malandanza, 10:19:23 06/19/02 Wed
"I have a slight problem here. Are we denying that the outward signs of behaviour are no way to judge what a person really thinks? Are we confining it to simple name calling? What about someone who only commits one beating while shouting at racial slurs? Can we adequately judge whether he's a racist?"
One of the problems I have with the "Spike is not a misogynist" line of reasoning is that the justification seems to be that since he usually behaves better towards women, his misogynistic outbursts are mere aberrations of behavior. In fact, I think the opposite is true both in the real world and in Buffy -- people should be judged by what they say in unguarded moments rather than by the often hypocritical facade they show the world.
An example: when I left Arizona to attend college in Missouri, I had the view that AZ was a benighted, backwater state and was thrilled to finally be somewhere else, among people of culture and intelligence. One of my earliest recollections of the disillusionment I found at college was when a group of us (boys) were hanging out together and a rather attractive black girl stopped to talk to one of our number. They chatted amiably for a time, then left together. No one had expressed any prejudiced remarks during that time -- but as soon as they were out of earshot, the other boys started in on the most hateful, racist speeches that I had ever heard -- reinforcing every Southern stereotype I had ever seen. Should these boys have been judged by their impeccable initial behavior or their subsequent racist remarks? For me, the decision was easy. They may not burn crosses on the weekends, but they're still racists. (And I'm happy to be permanently back in progressive Arizona.)
So when Spike makes remarks like this:
SPIKE: You're a tease, Slayer. Know that? Get a fella's motor revvin', let the tension marinate a couple of days, then -bam! Crown yourself the Ice Queen.
my feeling is that we're seeing the real Spike. All his romantic talk about never hurting Buffy (oddly enough, at the same time he inflicts some rather brutal emotional torture on her -- but, hey, you always hurt the one you love, so that's okay) is just that -- talk. Maybe he'd like to believe that he's a Courtly Lover, but the truth is that he's Warren.
Which brings me to other problem I have in this debate -- Warren and Spike can perform the same actions but Warren is (rightly) condemned as a misogynist while Spike is excused as a Romantic.
Warren builds a sexbot to be the perfect girlfriend (but not a copy of an actual girl): submissive, obedient, and ultimately unsatifying. He gives her up for a real girl. Conclusion: Misogynist
Spike has Harmony for the same purposes -- she has "many exciting labor saving attachments." He dresses Harmony up in Buffy's stolen clothes for some role-play. He stakes her because she won't shut up when he tells her to. After she leaves him, he also gets himself a sexbot. Conclusion: Romantic
Warren obtains orbs of power and uses them to challenge the woman who's thwarted his every evil scheme. Conclusion: Misogynist
Spike obtains the Gem of Amara and uses it to challenge the woman who's thwarted his every evil scheme. Conclusion: Romantic
After being rejected by Katrina, Warren kidnaps her and tries to rape her. Conclusion: Misogynist
Spike knocks Buffy out, chains her up and threatens to kill her if she doesn't admit she loves him. He offers to stake the great love of his life to prove his devotion -- but only if she gives him a few assurances up front. In Season Six, he tries to rape Buffy when she rejects him. Conclusion: Romantic
Warren calls dead Katrina a "bitch" -- this was the woman he loved? Misogynist
Spike calls Buffy a "bitch" (repeatedly), "Ice Queen," "Tease," etc. But he "knows what kind of girl she really is" so these are just terms of endearment. Romantic.
I have no problem calling Warren a misogynist (or a sexist if anyone wants to play the semantics game), but I do think that the reasoning should be applied equally. No double standard.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Undecided -- shadowkat, 12:42:48 06/19/02 Wed
Quick answer because no time. But my feeling with Spike
is the crude talk and BB behavior is all posturing. Not
real. While with Angelus everything he said was intentional
and real - no posturing. And with Warren? All real no
posturing.
Just my take.
[> [> [> [> [> Excellent posts exegy -- shadowkat, 07:35:24 06/17/02 Mon
Your posts are always very insightful and I completely agree.
My only problem is the use of the word misogyny, but it is actually a problem I have with every post on this thread.
Perhaps I'm defining it too narrowly? But the only time I've truly seen misogyny in Btvs or ATs is in the episode of Ats with Billy, where he passes on misogyny to every man who touches him. While Warren may have severe problems with women and show misogynistic tendcies, he is not misogynistic. Stating Spike is, well that just doesn't work with the definition. Hatred of women. Again I may be defining it too narrowly. But a true misogynist wouldn't have had the relationships these guys did. Forrest in The Initiative seemed to be a better example of misogynist.
[> [> [> [> [> [> I actually agree. But I define misogyny in slightly broader terms ... (Long) -- Exegy, 09:04:49 06/17/02 Mon
Warren isn't as clearly misogynous as Forrest, but he's still defining himself more and more as a misogynist with every action, until he is so ensnared in his own behavior that he cannot escape from such a definition even if he tries. He's grown to hate what he fears; he seeks the destruction of the powerful women who emasculate him. He limits women to objects, destroying them as individuals (note--he hasn't regressed this far in IWMTLY, but the seeds have been laid nonetheless). I see this end of destroying the powerful woman as misogyny, the fear of women made hatred. The only women who are acceptable are those who have been made completely submissive. Warren hasn't always been so limited in thought (as Forrest always appears to be limited)--he was open to a relationship with Katrina. But she beat him down, reinforcing his negative image of women. And then he spins into a downward spiral, limiting himself until only he is left, alone with his hatred in the depths of his soul (the dark of the woods).
Warren knows how far he has fallen. The recriminations of the Katrina shade tell us what he has been thinking of himself all along. That he is a worthless human being, one who should have been killed when he still had some decency in him (before he destroyed that which he could have loved). He's buried such thoughts, but they're present, tangled in his psyche. And now he's alone with them, because he's turned inward, closed to any type of equal relationship with a woman.
His final act is one of desperate destruction. He seeks once again to kill the most powerful woman (now Willow). He's caught in his obsession. He can't escape from the dark woods of his soul; he can only send the simulacrum of himself out (the hollow image of the Warren who would do the right thing). It's actually funny that both Warrens are killed ... telling the audience that no matter what he should do now, he's a condemned man. Condemned by all the wrong paths he has taken to get to this point. Alone with himself and his weakness. Now the only words he can offer to Willow is that she should not be like him. She should not go down those paths she might not be able to escape. But Willow is like Warren. She reacts out of her weakness, and she chooses the path of no escape ("I'm not coming back"). She looks into Warren's eyes, and she follows him right into the darkness of the soul (like following him into the woods in the first place). Fortunately, Willow doesn't go all the way down her path of self-destruction. Something in her is reached before she can destroy herself and her world. Some depth of human caring. The caring Warren has continually denied and buried throughout the season (as Willow later tries to bury the pain under a Big Bad visage).
Warren's closed himself off. I think Spike's been far more open, but he's also caught in a self-destructive cycle. He also cannot achieve an equal relationship with a woman. It all comes down to his "love's bitch" complex. He's a slave to all-consuming passion. He follows the ideal of the courtly romances, in which the knight is the passionate servant of his lady. Here there is a different objectification of the woman; she is not set below but above, some exalted ideal that can never quite be reached. Until she falls of her own accord, giving her love to the highest romantic end: physical union. Once she has been possessed, she cannot be let go. She must be consumed again and again ... until there is nothing left (something Spike cannot realize--note his horrified surprise when Buffy says the relationship is killing her ... he also doesn't realize that the relationship is destroying him). No, he doesn't understand this ... he only sees Buffy leaving him. Because she is better than him. She is the exalted ideal, and the only way he can continue to have her is by bringing her down to his level. Emotionally manipulating her to remain in the shadows with him, because he cannot come into the light with her ... he is by his nature and his adolescent ideals limited.
This type of relationship is not acceptable to Buffy. She breaks free of her passion (notice the bondage imagery in the twisted collar of DT and the heart necklace of OAFA). She rises above her weakness. She conveniently "forgets" about it. Perhaps not realizing the lasting damage that has occurred. For we see that Spike has not gotten over it. He's still stuck with his limited fancies, and he cannot have it any other way. He once again reaches out to Buffy, attempting to relive their past unity. But his definition of love is not her definition of love. Buffy defines her love by trust; she's been burned too many times before to have it any other way. She can't trust Spike, and his near-rape of her only cements this opinion of his untrustworthiness. This is where that romantic ideal gets you. Not to sustained heights of glory ... but to eventual self-destruction ("I'm nothing").
Unless you can change. And Spike does change. He breaks out of the cycle ... something Warren cannot do. I think the main difference is that Spike is open to some type of reciprocity in the relationship. He is not only concerned for himself ... he is concerned for Buffy. And hence he seeks what she deserves. Warren, OTOH, limits his concerns to himself. He comes to care less about the needs of Katrina or any other woman. The female must be limited to an object. If she cannot be thus diminished ... she must be destroyed.
Spike could have taken that path ... the path that would have led to his total destruction. At first he seems to go that way. His comments have definite misogynous overtones (meant to parallel Warren's) ... he seems to desire Buffy's destruction. But he doesn't. He still seeks her love, but this time he desires to obtain her definition of love (his definition has led him to the point of nothing). He wants to become a being worthy of her trust. And for that he needs a soul.
A soul means something to Spike. It means nothing to Warren. Witness his empty talk of souls to the girls in the bar (SR). Warren has neglected his soul for so long. It's grown dark and tangled, treacherous even for him. And now his driving goal of destruction has trapped him to his own end. He sees the horror his soul's become (think Kurtz in Heart of Darkness). He's alone with his darkness. Shades of his buried guilt rise up to reproach him. He cannot escape. He's made this place for himself--he's chosen it as his last stand. This is where his path has led him, this is where he ultimately defines himself.
And here is where we see his misogyny ... as a cover. What he has shown to the world by remaking himself into a villain ... is nothing but a costume. A reaction to the weakness that lies at his very heart. The weakness that eventually is all that is left of him (when Willow strips him of his costume and skin). Misogyny is the last face he chose to show to the world, however, and that is how I shall judge him ... as he has judged himself.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Addendum (and keeping great thread alive) -- Exegy, 09:32:45 06/17/02 Mon
We see that misogyny is Warren's last defense. It's his last resort in protecting himself against exposure--the last face he presents to his female attacker(s). It's the last mask he shows to Katrina, the object of his greatest guilt. "You deserved it, bitch!" he desperately cries--his pitiful defense against what he knows to be the truth about himself. Misogyny is the mask he maintains as long as possible with Willow ... but she can see into him, better than Buffy ever could, because she suffers from the same weakness. It's the fear of having your costume stripped away, leaving you bare and vulnerable before the world. She makes this fear come true for Warren. He's not a Big Bad ... he's just a boy who has assimilated the trappings of misogyny in order to protect himself from the feared female. He's made himself a monster in order to escape the weak man underneath.
ME has just proven that not all "monsters" are demons ... they can be humans who react out of suffering, trying to deny their weakness. Humans who define themselves as monsters because it is easier to present that face to the world than to present personal weakness. And if you define yourself as the monster long enough, that becomes the only face you can show, your only identity aside from the weakness you try to hide. Which is what I think happens with Warren.
*Thanks to Finn for starting such a great thread. I disagree with the original post, but I have to write what I believe about the characters. I can only hope that I've expressed myself well without offending anyone.
Thanks for reading!!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Exegy, you truly rock! Great posts in a great thread. -- ponygirl, 10:22:05 06/17/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> great post -- Rahael, 10:31:16 06/17/02 Mon
I like the point you make that connects Spike and Warren's view of women - Spike 'idealises' and Warren degrades.
Just a further point. Isn't Spike's conflicting view of Buffy and Harmony connected? If a woman isn't Buffy, isn't some kind of out of reach ideal, she's Harmony. Not worth paying attention to. Not worth writing poetry about. Simply someone standing on the fringes of his life. The crucial thing is that's she's out of reach, so the ideal can always look that perfect, because when you come closer, you can see all the little faults.
What happens when Spike get's closer to Buffy? When he sees her faults? he wants to drag her into the dirt and the darkness with him. He revels in her 'wrongness', he urges her to be cruel, to beat him up.
I have to say that I disagree with a point you made in another post, that the wrongness of Buffy and Spike's relationship was necessary to put Buffy on the right path. I fervently believe that suffering does not ennoble human beings. Most often, it deadens, and causes severe emotional problems. Buffy's suffering was as unfair as Tara's death. Was it necessary for her to be severely unhappy so that she could deal with her 'inner evils'? No, the best conditions to deal with your emotional problems would have been security and happiness. People do not make great decisions when they are desperate and panicking.
I do, however, think that people show us what kind of character they have by how they deal with the
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thank you, Rahael and ponygirl. On Harmony ... (S6 Spoilers) -- Exegy, 11:17:54 06/17/02 Mon
I do agree in part about Harmony ... she is neither the light nor the dark ideal that Spike possessed in Buffy and Drusilla, respectively. And so she is not worthy of his adoration. He could care less about her. In fact, he uses her, dumping all his frustrations (left over from the Dru break-up) onto her. "Ain't love grand," he snarls, disillusioned in his love for Drusilla (this disillusionment is echoed perfectly in SR, now with the light ideal). Drusilla was his, and she's spurned him; Buffy was his, and she's spurned him. Because he couldn't be dark enough. Because he couldn't be light enough. He's caught in the middle, unable to reach either ideal he has set for himself. Hence the ultimate failure, the ultimate disillusionment.
With Harmony, Spike is able to vent all his frustrations. She's not the ideal, so he can dump all his misery on her (like Buffy dumps all her misery on Spike). The relationship with Harm has misogynous implications, but it doesn't make Spike a misogynist. Rather, it reinforces his "love's bitch" complex; the only good woman for him is the ideal, that perfectly elevated standard. Harm is not that standard; she's the stand-in, the hollow replacement for Dru and/or Buffy. Spike can pretend with her, but she's not what he wants. So she gets all his anger.
Still, as cruel as Spike is in his relationship with Harmony, he never descends into a hatred of women. Harm is just unlucky enough to be his scapegoat, the woman he specifically targets his relationship frustrations upon (Buffy's another story....).
Um, in my other post ... I didn't mean to imply that the wrongness of S/B was necessary for them to save each other. However, Spike and Buffy were suffering anyway, and they latched onto each other, depending on the other for salvation. And to some extent, each was saved. Buffy's old spark is ignited by the torch Spike bears for her; she gets just enough of that feeling back to keep on living ... although eventually the fire threatens to consume her. Which is not a good thing, by any means. Buffy is perfectly right in getting out of the relationship when she does.
As for Spike, he is saved as soon as he realizes that his notions of all-consuming passion are not enough to sustain his love. That such notions will eventually destroy him and all he holds dear. They were destroying him, bringing him to the point of nothing. Only such a drastic betrayal (SR) could have told Spike that he was reaching for the wrong ideal all along. Which is why I think that the dysfunctional S/B relationship helped him to see how dangerous the pursuit of limited ideals can be. How ultimately unsatisfying and destructive. Showing him that he needs to change (where before he was perfectly satisfied with his lot).
I think that strength can be born of suffering, even when the suffering is cruelly unnecessary. It's all in the response of both parties, because both parties cause the suffering (revealing the depths of character, then growing out of the knowledge of such depths). No, such suffering is not right, which is precisely what Buffy and Spike should realize. Then they can work toward a true reparation, overcoming the limitations they have been operating under (and not just with each other). I think that both can become better individuals because of this (not that it had to happen, but you have to work with what you make, and the big moments are going to come ... it's all in what you make of it afterwards). Hope this makes sense.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Thank you, Rahael and ponygirl. On Harmony ... (S6 Spoilers) -- Rahael, 14:53:13 06/17/02 Mon
I do see what you mean Exegy - I picked up on your comment, because I am having a lot of misgivings, about Spuffy, and about Season 6. As someone who has been an enthusiastic supporter of Season 6 all the way throughout, I have to say that my misgivings are almost totally based on reading the board. It could simply, be, of course, the sheer volume of posts about Spike. But I do appreciate your posts, not only because they are well written, but because they do not attempt to white wash the complexities of the Spike Buffy relationship.
Let me quote your comment because I don't want to misrepresent you or paraphrase you as I did earlier:
"As horrible as Buffy's relationship with Spike became ... it's what was needed to save her. By nearly destroying each other, Buffy and Spike came to the point where they could rebuild.
Buffy casts off her delusions of being a "normal girl." She's saved from her path of destruction"
My question is, was Buffy so weak in Season 5? Was she so completely lost when she made her decision in The Gift that when she came back she had to be rescued by a dysfunctional and dark relationship?
I'm still trying to trust ME. I'm trying to trust the decision to have Spike do what he did in SR (which I thought was a great episode, actually) but it is becoming very hard to do so, especially in having people try and integrate this event into a story of Redemption.
I accept that Spike had to be razed to the ground, so he could rebuild. I'm having difficulty accepting the same for Buffy, because she's the one character I have such an emotional attachment to, that I can't bear to see her put through that ultimate hoop for our viewing pleasure.
It seems to me, following on from the debates on the depression thread, and some other recent ones, I'm one of the few who think that Buffy had nothing wrong with her. Her problem was that she thought she was wrong. And her problem was that like society, she had this idea of what a 'normal' girl was like. Warrent tried to create such a 'normal' girl - so did Spike. They turned out to be insignificant copies of the real thing (though the Buffybot was so charming!!).
What's a normal girl? Buffy is, slayer powers and all, darkness and all. Willow is, hatred, black eyes and rebelliousness and all. Tara is, gentleness and strength and witchcraft. Dawn is, green energy made flesh. Anya is, ex-demony and capitalist dance of superiority.
I think we are actually in agreement about Buffy trying to cast off her delusion - but I would word it differently. Her delusion is that for some reason she isn't normal. She might be 'different' and 'other' but that's not the same thing at all. Difference is normal.
In the meantime, I'll keep on watching BtVS for Buffy, Anya Willow and Giles (please let him stay!). I think Spuffy was a mistake artistically - the unwatchable episodes strangely coincide with Spuffy. I think it was a mistake for Buffy as a human being. Their relationship had a dangerous dynamic that actually degraded both of them. My liking for them both has taken a beating, and I think in Spike's case, it's unrecoverable. I don't think Buffy reached a triumphant epiphany in Grave, she just survived. All she did was scrabble out of the dirt that she had consigned herself to.
I'm fully aware that this is a minority view - probably totally unsupported by any evidence. But believing it is the only way I can keep on watching BtVS. ME better do some bloody fantastic dialogue, and James Masters better act his socks off next season if they expect me to watch full blown Spuffy again.
And at the moment, there's only one dark, brooding, conflicted hero for me -(okay, there are three of them!) - Wesley, Angel and Connor.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Buffy -- Sophist, 15:29:29 06/17/02 Mon
I agree completely with your comments about Buffy. Especially about the end of S5. I've come to see her behavior in S6 as depression caused by her return, as you and others so wonderfully developed this point.
As for Spuffy, well, I like that. True, there were many dysfunctional aspects to the relationship, some his and some hers. But there was also real affection both before (Afterlife, TR), and after (HB, "are we having a real conversation?") the sex began. The chemistry between the 2 actors is wonderful (JMHO). Whatever his faults (and they are legion), Spike is funny, he cares not just for Buffy, but for Dawn, and he has insight into Buffy's problems. IF ME ever decides to make a relationship work (HINT TO ME: sometimes they really do!), this one could.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy -- Rahael, 15:59:12 06/17/02 Mon
I suspect Sophist, that I would like Spuffy, or Season 6 Spike much more were I not online - I've only been online throughout Season 6. By the end of OMWF, I was all starry eyed and ooh, look at all that romantic tension! Every other season I've watched alone.
I think it was Seeing Red that was the point of no return for me. I know that others accuse Buffy of being self righteous, cold hearted and bitchy, but I so wanted her to tell him where to get off, hurt feelings and pain and all.
The attempted rape is just too much for me to rationalise or metaphorisize away. God, can you imagine what the reaction would have been if Riley had tried to do this in his pain and jealousy that Buffy didn't love enough? His name would have been mud. But I'm enough of a fan, to wait for ME to persuade me, and no doubt they will. But I'll be whining and griping and criticising all the way.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:11:40 06/17/02 Mon
Thing about Spike is, unlike Riley, he was never supposed to be a good guy. He can be a villain, an anti-hero, or a reluctant hero, but never actually good. Spike can get away with things like attempted rape because he's EVIL, he does bad things, but you can't act shocked or hurt because everyone knows he's evil and excepts it as part of his character.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy -- shadowkat, 19:47:17 06/17/02 Mon
You know...going online almost ruined Spuffy for me as well just as the attempted rape did. A scene I can't rewatch.
I was able to deal with it because of one very important factor that people keep forgetting but Buffy got and literally shoved in his face: Spike has NO soul. He didn't intend for it to get out of hand. It wasn't Riley or a man who did this, it was a demon. JE says it in her interview - we need to separate it from a human act and recognize it was the demons' which is why it horrified him into getting a soul. They did it to reiterate to the audience why you can't redeem a soulless vampire. It worked. Sort of. Spike shippers and exitensialist refuse to accept this.
If Riley did it - it would have been far worse. Riley has a soul. Just as Angel's rape of Darla which she enjoyed, so maybe that wasn't really rape? was a bit darker - soul. Xander was possessed by the hyena so we forgave him - but that was pretty dark and that was the dark part of Xander influencing the hyena, just as the other kids influenced the hyena's to bully Lance in the Pack.
Now Spike has a soul. Any relationship between him and Buffy will never be the same. If they get together again, it's not Spike and Buffy. Any more than it was Angelus and Buffy in Season 3. Angelus killed Jenny, worse than what Spike did. Snapped her neck and put her in Giles' bed. Could you forgive him? Well yeah, he became Angel again.Ensouled. But he regretted it. Spike regretted his actions before getting a soul - he will really regret them after.
I'm not justifying the attempt. I'm just trying to get people to see the character arc - it's an interesting one if you don't let yourself get bogged down by the external stuff.
Of course i've never been that emotionally attached to Buffy. At least not until this year. This was the first year I ever identified with the character. In Prior years - I felt closer to Willow. I agree - there was nothing wrong with her. But she does need to see her dark side, not let it seduce her, nor give into it entirely, just accept it as a part of who and what she is. I thought she had in Season 2, but Angel/Angelus sort of threw a whammy into it. Now I think she's getting back there.
Also - as much as I liked the beginnings of Spuffy and love the chemistry, I agree, the later episodes as the relationship got increasingly dark - I found close to impossible to watch. I still cringe watching Dead Things, AYW, Entropy, SR, Wrecked, and to some extent Gone. I loved the sexual chemistry and Smashed was truly excellent, but the way they acted together - her shame and self-hatred and his manipulation and desperation unnerved me, and I'm not sure if that was because I was spoiled or because I was online reading the reactions. Next year I may try to watch without reading the reactions or being - I think I enjoyed the show better unspoiled.
Sorry for the rambling, is late, must go to bed.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I solved that problem -- Sophist, 20:03:53 06/17/02 Mon
by ending the season half way through SR. The rest of it involved too many OOC moments and too much contrivance, too many bad lines and too many vignettes presented in too little space. It's part of my general theory of life: ignore the bad and focus on the good. Works great for TV shows, still working out the bugs IRL.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Good solution! -- Rahael, 02:36:44 06/18/02 Tue
Though I didn't have the same problems you had with Willow/Tara, so I'll just extract the middle portion.
This is all so frustrating. I was such a Spike/Buffy shipper from Intervention onwards! I'm still waiting for someone to write a brilliant post explaining why I can't get behind the ship. I'm coming round to your point of view about the OOC, apart from the fact that I don't think Spike even had a consistent character in Season 6. Or is there a fundamental, unerasable ambiguity about his lines in OMWF? Should he kill her or save her? In which order? Perhaps his unpredictable character arises from the faultlines of his own position - neither dead nor alive, neither good nor bad.
(See, I'm already working on my rationalisation!).
But I am glad about one message that BtVS sent out this season. Buffy didn't 'save' Spike. She didn't save him with her love, which is a very Victorian ideal, since we are talking about contexualising ideas. Spike may have thought she might - but in the end he had to go that extra mile himself.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Good solution! -- Sophist, 10:02:01 06/18/02 Tue
Ete gave a great answer to the S/B relationship, better than I could. And for all my criticisms of the SR scene, shadowkat is right -- it's irrelevant now that they gave Spike a soul.
In fact, that's part of my disappointment with the conclusion. They contrived a scene to make us hate Spike, gave us something truly awful, then undid it and made it irrelevant by giving him a soul. Blech.
As for W/T, it was not that I personally had a problem with the cliche issue, so much as that I sympathized with those who did (and, frankly, was shocked that some people were so willing to deny those who did any validity to their feelings at all). As for me personally, I thought Tara's death could have been handled better in that respect, but that did not affect my view of the ending.
My real problem with this part of the conclusion is what they did to Willow. She has always been my favorite character other than Buffy. They destroyed that character, and I can't see any way to rehabilitate her over the course of the summer. Actually, I can't see any way to rehabilitate her over the course of ever. This is really bothering me.
I can understand the decision to give Spike a soul, but it disappoints me. It was a second best choice. Still, if they do it well, I can live with it.
My other big problem is Xander. As much as I like Willow, I dislike Xander. Making him a hero is disgusting to me.
This leaves me with S/B to look forward to. Join me.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Good solution! -- dream of the consortium, 13:52:59 06/18/02 Tue
I've heard the same complaint from a lot of people, but I still just don't get how giving Spike a soul makes the scene in Seeing Red irrelevant. If that's the way ME goes with it next year - Spike comes back as sensitive and intense as always but all shocked, simply SHOCKED at all the evil things that demon did while it had a hold over his body - then, sure, the ensoulment has been used as a way out. But I don't think we will get something that simple. I remember last year a few people were concerned that bringing Buffy back from the dead was going to be cheap, particularly after the attempted resurrection of Joyce. It was anything but (I remember clearly how intensely shocked I was when Buffy told Spike that she thought she ahd been in heaven). And I must admit that Seeing Red didn't make me hate Spike. Disgusted, horrified me, yes. But I didn't hate him because he did stop when Buffy kicked him off and was as disgusted and horrifed as I was. Does that make the act of attempting rape any less horrible? No, but I come from an old Catholic hate the sin, not the sinner perspective. He is truly repentant to the point that he is ready to endure trials and do something that must be truly terrifying (after all, he must know how Angel's soul tortures him) to ensure that he never commits such an act again. You know, penance. My guess is that he will find that the soul doesn't ensure any such thing - but then again, I tend to see this as a nature versus nurture arc, coming down firmly on the side of nurture. I know some people see rape as inherently more despicable, more unforgiveable than any other act. I can't believe that rape is worse than torture, murder, etc. I do understand where that belief comes from - for a very long time in this society, rape was treated very lightly. Of necessity, people have had to counteract those attitudes by strenuously emphasizing the horrible nature of rape. This is completely appropriate - rape is terrible, reprehensible, horrifying - but we seemed to have reached a point where we can look artistically at rehabilitation for those who murder but not those who rape - or, in Spike's case, start to rape and stop (Sure, Buffy kicked him, but there is no reason he could not have attacked her further. The look of remorse on his face leads us to believe it is the realization of what he was doing that makes him stop, as much as her self-defense.)
No, what I didn't like was the whole "bitch is going to get what she deserves," spoken with anger, as a red herring. It's simply not believable - if he's going to get a soul, he's not going to be calling her bitch.
Willow was always my favorite character as well. She's, well, she's the most like me of any character I can remember on television - or at least like I was in high school (well, I wasn't that thin, or a lesbian, or a witch, but other than that). I really didn't mind her arc - I have (minor) substance abuse tendencies myself, and don't think for a moment that they are not bound to control issues so deeply that the two cannot be pulled apart. I also know that at that age, having always been trained to be soooo nice and accomodating, so worried about what other people thought of me, I was full of anger and resentment. It was interesting to see an exploration of what happens when that sort of person gives in to the anger, lets go all at once of social constrictions and indulges the "substance" and the fury. I would have rather a longer stretch of bad Willow myself, with more elaborated development, rather than such an explosive burst, but I found it interesting anyway. And I can imagine forgiving Willow, eventually. But I'm a big believer in rehabilitation. I think nothing is unforgiveable. You can take the girl out of the Church, but....
Xander - well, I believe that Xander was the appropriate choice to bring back Willow, because of the duration and depth of their relationship. The only other person that could have gotten through to Willow, the only other person Willow hadn't exhibited some subtle resentment of in the past, was of course Tara. But I really didn't want to see Tara's spirit or ghost or whatnot help Willow through her grief, because she's gone. That's the point - Willow has to get through the grief without her. But I can't say that I like Xander either. Never have. Don't begrudge him his moment, but I don't like the guy.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Great post dream. -- Sophist, 14:31:45 06/18/02 Tue
Dealing with Spike first (don't we always have to?). When I meant his soul made SR irrelevant, I meant that he is now a different person. Just like Angel was different than Angelus. No doubt Angel's memories of Jenny's murder plague him even now, but we (as outsiders) can make the distinction between Angelus who committed the murder and Angel who did not. The Judge made that distinction before the murder. Buffy made that distinction when Angel returned. So did Willow and Giles (not sure Xander ever did).
Once the SG realizes Spike has a soul (not sure how he proves this), they should accept him back the same way they did Angel. Kisses and all. Whether we hated the sin or the sinner (and I think ME intended the latter), it wasn't the new man, it was the old vamp. That's what I mean by making it irrelevant, and I think it's bad writing to cheapen a scene like that.
I didn't mind having Willow "let go". It's having her go so far. Hypothetically, I could imagine forgiving Josef Mengele. But I don't think it's very likely. And I wouldn't do it after the passage of a summer. What saddens me is that I can't ever see "my" Willow again.
As for Xander, I guess I'm a party of one on this, but I didn't like the ending of Grave. Personally, I thought Buffy was the appropriate one to reach Willow. Xander is not a good person, and hasn't been for years. The ending seemed contrived to make us like him, in the same way SR was contrived to make us dislike Spike. We're supposed to have warm fuzzy feelings for Xander now, despite the fact that he has yet to pay for a multitude of mistakes and cruelties over the last 4-5 seasons. Lots of people seemed to get emotional satisfaction from an ending that elevated a character who doesn't deserve it over one who does (or did). I can't.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> WOW! you said everything I've been thinking for sooo long -- shadowkat, 19:35:16 06/18/02 Tue
dream...this was absolutely amazing. Thank you! You put into words the emotions I've felt regarding these two characters arcs, the attempted rape, the responses to them on the boards and how I feel about Willow. I've written over 25 essays now and I couldn't find a way of stating what you just did so clearly and succintly and tactfully.
Thank you for posting this.
I too was Willow in high school and college, sans the thinness, the great red hair, the lesbian tendencies and the magic. I also was raised Catholic and even though I'm no longer practicing, what you say is true...take the girl out the church - so like you I tend to blame the sin not the sinner.
Willow has always been my favorite character. Her arc fascinated me for all the reasons you mention. And like you, I think only Xander could have stopped her. There was just too much repressed envy and jealousy regarding Buffy for Buffy to do it and shame and anger at Giles for him to be effective. Xander...outside of Tara, he was the only one.
"And I must admit that Seeing Red didn't make me hate Spike. Disgusted, horrified me, yes. But I didn't hate him because he did stop when Buffy kicked him off and was as disgusted and horrifed as I was. Does that make the act of attempting rape any less horrible? No, but I come from an old Catholic hate the sin, not the sinner perspective. He is truly repentant to the point that he is ready to endure trials and do something that must be truly terrifying (after all, he must know how Angel's soul tortures him) to ensure that he never commits such an act again. You know, penance. My guess is that he will find that the soul doesn't ensure any such thing - but then again, I tend to see this as a nature versus nurture arc, coming down firmly on the side of nurture. I know some people see rape as inherently more despicable, more unforgiveable than any other act. I can't believe that rape is worse than torture, murder, etc. I do understand where that belief comes from - for a very long time in this society, rape was treated very lightly. Of necessity, people have had to counteract those attitudes by strenuously emphasizing the horrible nature of rape. This is completely appropriate - rape is terrible, reprehensible, horrifying - but we seemed to have reached a point where we can look artistically at rehabilitation for those who murder but not those who rape - or, in Spike's case, start to rape and stop (Sure, Buffy kicked him, but there is no reason he could not have attacked her further. The look of remorse on his face leads us to believe it is the realization of what he was doing that makes him stop, as much as her self-defense.)"
Yep, absolutely completely agree. This in a nutshell was how I reacted to the scene and describes my frustration with the boards before and afterwards when discussing it.
Thank you for making me feel a little less alone...was beginning to think I was the only one who felt this way.
You made my night!
;- )
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Why now? -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:15:01 06/18/02 Tue
Why are there so many people who hate Spike NOW? I mean, as bad as his attempted rape of Buffy was, his attempted murder of a woman in Smashed was even worse. The only reason that didn't generate outrage was a)he tried it on a stranger that the audience doesn't care about, and b)rape seems a lot more real world and tangible than murder does in the death count filled show. Also, the demon eggs? I mean, that's like being an accomplice to mass murder. If Spike had succeeded, oh boy! I still think it is rather illogical for people to be mad at Spike for trying to rape Buffy when he has done worse things this season.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Because . . . (just a guess) -- Off-kilter, 22:15:13 06/18/02 Tue
You're right. It is illogical for people to find an attempted rape more reprehensible than attempted murder. Some people seem to feel that Spike's attempt to kill the woman in Smashed was "within character" for a vampire, but that he betrayed his "love's bitch" ideals when he attacted Buffy. For some reason, a romantic fool is given a lot of leaway for the sake of love.
Buffy's attack is seen as a personal betrayal to the viewer's perception of what Spike IS. It's not so much that viewers think that a vampire raping a woman is worse than killing her (or countless others indirectly), it's that they didn't expect this out of SPIKE.
Of course, neither did Spike. Or Buffy, for that matter.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Because . . . my guess -- Rahael, 02:10:18 06/19/02 Wed
Not many of us have been threatened by a vampire, but quite a few of us have experienced what it was like to be Buffy in that bathroom in SR.
I'd also like to say that I have absolutely no problem with Spike being forgiven or moving on with his newly souled life. What I object to is having Buffy subjected to the indignity of having a relationship with him. I know he's a different person now. But if Angelus had done the same thing, I'd have been just as squicked during Season 3. I can understand how Buffy would always have loved Angel, that familiar face, even when he was 'different'. But I would find it hard to understand how she could look at Spike's face again in the same way. I've always been honest - I have a problem with forgiveness - perhaps Buffy is just a bigger person. Maybe the hostility against this particular crime that I'm feeling is just a deeply personal thing. So it's not really objective.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> funny face -- Off-kilter, 03:27:09 06/19/02 Wed
I'm not saying Buffy+Spike4ever'n'ever, 'cause that would be stupid. Relationships are too fluid for that. But why would Buffy loving a souled Spike be an indignity? Angelus killed Jenny, threatened Willow & Joyce, tortured Giles, tried to end the world, and sadistically preyed on Buffy's sexual insecurities. And she loved Angel after all of that. If you can separate Angel from Angelus, why not Spike from whatever-Joss-has-in-store-for-us?
Perhaps it is a very personal thing. Could I forgive a person that attempted violence upon my body more quickly than a person that threatens violence upon my loved ones? Yep.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: funny face -- Rahael, 03:48:49 06/19/02 Wed
Loved ones being harmed? murdered/tortured/threatened? Been there, done that.
Do I want vengeance or punishment? no.
Spike and Buffy in SR? Been there. Don't like to think about it or discuss it. Want punishment? vengeance, not particularly. Never want to see him or be within one hundred yards? yes. The issue of a relationship with the same person + ensoulment is just profoundly disturbing to me. Maybe I can accept it on an intellectual level but the gut instinct is resisting.
Am I that unusual? Maybe I am. Anyway, I accept that this is a highly personal and irrelevant response.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Personal yes, not irrelevant. -- shadowkat, 06:42:53 06/19/02 Wed
First thank you for explaining. Our experiences do affect our interaction with the world around us and how we view
it. They are also the veil through which we look at entertainment or literature or art.
Your response may be Personal yes. But not irrelevant. The writers want to hit us in the gut. That makes their art
more interesting. More profound. If it didn't unsettle you,
then you wouldn't be interested and it wouldn't make you think. Your posts and experiences make me rethink it.
Dream put in perfect words why I experienced the scene the way I did. Fortunately I have never had the experiences you mention.
My problem with the forgiveness of Angel - is time and again he betrays on a deeply personal level people who love him. In contrast to Spike, I've found Angelus and Angel's acts to be far more frightening. Angel represents to me, and yes this is a personal response, all the jocks and cruel fratboys who tormented me in high school and hurt those I love. And I like Angel - he fascinates me. I also like B/A. But the character has always bugged me on that
level. I saw him as using Buffy never loving her. He seemed to be treating her like a fragile doll or seeing her as he wished to perceive her on a pedestal. I'm still not convinced Angel knows how to love. But again this is a gut reaction, which I try not to insert in my writing, because I see nothing to back it up. So I'm not sure if it is irrelevant or not. I do know that I didn't realize I felt this way until I started going on line, being on line seemed to extenuate the feeling.
From your posts - I get the feeling the same thing may have happened for you regarding Spike not Angel. The gut feeling from experience extenuated by online posts.
Our reactions to these characters can get deeply personal.
But we must remember what redcat says above: repeat after me, it's only a tv show, only a tv show...
If Buffy could forgive Xander the horrible attack he did while possessed by a hyena on her. Or Tara can forgive Willow the mindrapes - which to me was chilling, b/c I identified it with the mindgames an ex-boyfriend played on me. Then I think the writers will probably move past this as well, b/c it was the demon who did it, one without a soul. As, and I think it was ponygirl who said this - we need to keep in mind that the story and the themes are based on the personal experiences and reflections of the writers of ME. But that in no way makes ours irrelevant,
instead it makes our reactions fascinating - particularly to the extent that they intersect with the writers experiences. Because the writers are showing us another view, another perspective that makes us rethink or refeel it in a different way, changing and growing as we do. And
our sharing of these experiences on the board - heightens
that. We just need to be careful of each others emotions
and sensibilities in the process, which can be incredibly difficult to do. I know I for one have been struggling with it lately - due to personal issues that have nothing to do with the board, but threaten to come crashing into my posts.
Thank you for your posts Rahael, I always read them and never find your impressions irrelevant.
Hope this made sense.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Personal? Yes. Courageous? Also yes. Irrelevant? Never!! -- redcat, saying thanks, Rah, for this post and so many others, 11:59:55 06/19/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Not irrelevant. -- Off-kilter, 17:34:44 06/19/02 Wed
I don't mean to suggest that your feelings are in anyway unusual or irrelevant. Looking around at this and other boards, there are many people who feel the way you do.
I have never actually had my loved ones be physically threatened, so I can only speculate how I would respond. Had something like SR happen to me but much less violent. He produced a mea culpa and attempted amends. We have a close relationship now. Was his act unforgivable? Most people would say yes. Did I rationalize away what happened? Maybe. But every situation and every person is different.
I would never presume to say that the way I resolved my relationship is how it should be for all. It just worked for me. This is a highly personal topic for me too. I hope I didn't inadvertently re-open a wound.
I was just trying to say that if Buffy could forgive Angel for what he did without a soul, she might forgive Spike too. She still wanted Angel, but I do get that she may never want Spike+soul.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: WOW! you said everything I've been thinking for sooo long -- dream of the consortium, 08:36:31 06/19/02 Wed
Shadowkat, thanks for your kind words. It sounds like we have a lot in common. Let me know if you're ever in the Boston area - we should hang out.
Sophist, I sympathize deeply with your feelings of loss regarding Willow. We will never be able to relate to her in the same way again. Cute Willow is gone for good and that IS painful. But I do like that a show is willing to try this, take us emotionally to places we don't want to go. At the same time, this is fantasy, and everything is writ large. Realisitically, could we forgive a friend for torture, murder, and an attempt to end the world? We might try, but we would probably fail. But this is fantasy - realistically, every last Scoobie would have had a nervous breakdown by now.
I think the biggest question about Spike and the soul depends on how much you believe the Angel doctrine. I really think that show has been trying for a very long time to show that the Angel/Angelus split is not so simple as it first appeared. If we are to assume that Angel is not responsible for what Angelus did, that they are two completely distinct people - then we are left with a bevy of questions. Such as, why did Angel not stop killing immediately upon the restoration of his soul? Why did Angel start to refute Buffy's statement that VampWillow had nothing to do with Willow herself? Why was VampWillow "kind of gay"? Why did DarkWillow use VampWillow's catchphrase? Why does Angel do so many really awful things? (I don't know much about what goes on on Angel, but I've read enough references - Angel's dark side does not seem limited to Angelus). Why is Spike capable of action for the good, particularly when there is no reward (watching Dawn over the summer)? How can Spike feel remorse for attempting to rape Buffy?
I expect/hope that next season is going to bring the whole question of what ensoulment means to a new, more complicated level than we saw with the early Angel arc. Maybe Spike will want credit for the good he did while a vamp and not want to take responsibility for the bad, and the rest of the gang will be forced to say out loud what they've obviously known for some time: that Unsouled Spike knew the difference between good and bad. If they can blame him for when he choose evil (and they will, I think - Dawn first and foremost), they also have to credit him when he often chose good. And that gets sticky (but in a marvelous way I can't wait to see). I think that Buffy resists the breakdown of the Angel doctrine for the same reasons the audience can - because if Spike can be both good and bad even without a soul, why was Angel so purely evil as Angelus? Is it not something about souls, but something about Angel? And if creatures without souls can be brought to goodness, how can Buffy's slaughter of them be justified? (There are lots of ways, and I think Buffy has become mature enough to consider them, but egads it complicates the matter.) I am really hoping that these questions will tie into the "ultimate arc," the one that Joss says he has been planning since the beginning of the show, which is (again, in my hopes) an explanation of the origin and nature of the Slayer. Of course, I could be completely out there. Maybe they will just put all of Spike's actions in a closet labelled "Pre-Soul" and leave it at that, with just a bit of an emotional hangover a la Angelus. But I really don't expect that. I expect a breakdown what the characters believe about souls, good and evil, etc. I don't see this as a destruction of the show's premise (though I know there are those who do), but a fascinating enlargement.
By the way, Sophist - love your way of dealing with the end of the season. It's the way I dealt with the end of Twin Peaks. I had the same issue with the finale of the show and what happened to Dale Cooper as you did with the Willow arc. So, as far as I am concerned, the series ended with the solving of the Laura Palmer murder. The rest of it never happened. (I also came up with a way to make things all better if David Lynch were to decide to make another Twin Peaks film in twenty years, thereby fulfilling some odds and ends of foreshadowing in the series and redeeming the horrible, unjustified things that happened to Dale, but it was rather complicated and I've forgotten it now. This all just goes to show why I can't allow myself to watch too much tv - I get really overly involved.)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Love your summary of the soul issues -- Sophist, 09:41:48 06/19/02 Wed
I thought of some of those (you came up with many more). That's why I wanted them to leave Spike unsouled; I thought these issues made more sense that way. If you're right, and if they can work them all in even now, that would be great. I just hope they do it in such a way that I can keep my emotional twists and turns from S2. Not an easy job.
Alas, poor Willow. I knew her, dream; a girl of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy; and now, how abhorred in my imagination ... my gorge rises at it.
The comics thread above reminds us how Dark Phoenix had to end.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks for the insights here, Rah -- redcat, 15:45:50 06/17/02 Mon
"Normal" is not the same as "average," although folks often make the semantic mistake of equating them. "Normal" includes all the parts of the spectrum of behavior and aptitude that humans are capable of, including expressions of our shadow selves, our ids. "Average" simply means the middle of the spectrum, the "mean" in the middle of opposing ends. A good way to think of the difference is eye color. Statistically, brown eyes are average for humans, but blue and green eyes, and even violet and black ones, are absolutely "normal," just not average. None of the characters are average, even Everyman Xander. Each is special in both their strengths and weaknesses. I, for one, would have been bored long ago if they were anything else.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The "Normal Girl" Delusion -- Exegy, 19:53:22 06/17/02 Mon
I think Buffy is actually at her strongest in The Gift; she's at the height of her resistance following the shockwaves. She's able to take on a hellgod (symbolic of the uncontrollable chaos that has plagued her throughout the season, the "mad god" of nature). She gives all that she has to give of herself. She transcends her reality, claiming death as a part of her life, and living on in Dawn. Her time on this earth is complete.
But then Buffy's ripped back. She's torn from the womb apart from time. She no longer has the condition of childhood available to her. She is now the first generation, the adult. And Buffy cannot accept this. She always looks back at that "normal girl" ideal (the girl who was taken care of by her parents, the girl who didn't have to struggle with her personal demons--because they didn't exist then). She wants this as her reality, and she struggles with this dilemma most of season six. She's fixated on the image of her childhood, that insulating womb (that becomes the institution of NA). It's terrible; she's trapped herself in her own mind, unable to fully participate in one world while another presents such an irresistable lure.
Because these two options are equally viable for Buffy. She cannot choose between them, for if she accepts one, then she denies the other. And so she's mired in inertia, sleepwalking through her life. She's not all here (Dawn's accusation in Gone). She doesn't want to be here. A part of her wants that other world, the world that is made real in NA.
But is the girl in that world "normal?" No--she's insane. Because this balance of ideals cannot be maintained forever. One option has to give. Buffy chooses, and she denies the ideal of the "normal girl." She closes that door in her mind, knowing that she can never return to the time when her mother was alive for her. She can only live by Joyce's words (it's the memory of her mother's belief in her that keeps her going). She can only follow her mother's example (playing the adult in Villains).
So this is what I mean by Buffy's "normal girl" delusion. I refer specifically to her fixation on the image of her childhood. The self-made mindtrap that has caught her almost all this season.
I actually rather agree with your opinion of Buffy. Scrabbling herself out of the dirt she's consigned herself to ... that's a pretty accurate description, I would say. Because Buffy's buried her emotions, lived a sort of half-life this season. She's dying, her feelings rotting inside ... the only time she has the freedom to express herself is with Spike. I think this expression is a necessary component of her survival in the past season ... if she hadn't given vent to all those emotions that were eating away at her, I don't think she would have made it.
So to some degree I think the relationship was necessary (or perhaps inevitable) given Buffy's psychological state. She needed something to awaken her buried feelings. Spike gave her that. He ignited her old flame ... and the twin seeds of salvation and destruction were developed. Fire gives life ... and it consumes. You subject yourself to the one function, and you risk the other.
I think the S/B relationship was a great artistic choice, if only because it shows how incredibly complicated and twisted a pairing can be. You know, I like this kind of "dangerous dynamic." It intrigues me. I think it was well-done, and I'm willing to see where ME is headed with it.
PS. I hope Giles stays, too!
This has been a great thread, with some truly magnificent responses. Thanks all! Keep it going!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yeap, even S5 Buffy lacked the Fire -- Etrangere, 03:17:46 06/18/02 Tue
"My question is, was Buffy so weak in Season 5? Was she so completely lost when she made her decision in The Gift that when she came back she had to be rescued by a dysfunctional and dark relationship?"
Do you speak about the S5 where Buffy became catatonic when things started to go wrong ? Do you speak about the S5 where Bufft couldn't imagine to live in that world with such terrible choice to do ?
When Buffy jumped from this tower in the Gift, she was strong with determination, yes, but she already had that problem that was the whole S6 routine. She didn't know how to enjoy life anymore. She only knew duty.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Rational responses to irrational problems -- Rahael, 04:45:04 06/18/02 Tue
I don't think her catatonia was a psychological flaw, it was a rational response to a irrational situation. (And the flight from Sunnydale was analogous, in my mind to Christ's 40 days and nights praying. The doubt she expressed to Giles was 'My God, My God, why have you forsaken me.)
It was a coping mechanism that went badly wrong in Season 6, as the situation she found herself in a totally irrational world (from her point of view). My contention is that Buffy always had the answers within herself. Her turning point wasn't Spike, but Normal Again, and the
solution was the cause of her problems - the loss of Joyce.
Buffy shuts down because someone of her power and strength cannot afford to go on Willow like rampages - because we see what happens if she's even tempted to do that - Dead Things. At the point of crisis, between strength and weakness, doubt and certainty, Buffy found her finest moment.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Love that, especially the second paragraph! -- Exegy, 05:04:00 06/18/02 Tue
And don't you think Glory was a pretty good representation of the irrational forces Buffy had to deal with? She defeats Glory in season 5, but the chaos doesn't go away (because Glory wasn't in control either, she suffered from those same uncontrollable forces of which she was the representative). In Bargaining, Buffy wakes up to a world of violence and hard, bright light. And all she can think of is to return to her resting place, that womblike environment (returning to the limbo between childood and adulthood, never growing up). This resting place was her reward ... she wants to seek that oblivion. Her fixation on that ideal nearly destroys her ... we see the psychological process that has been trapping Buffy in NA. I agree, this episode is when she begins to assert herself as an adult. Because she has turned away from her dependence on her mother (the final shot of the closed door with its small window). She does not forget her mother; she honors Joyce's memory, finding strength in the parent's confidence. Buffy takes on the role of Joyce (as symbolized by the prominent placement of the mother's picture in the Villains scene where Buffy speaks as an adult to Dawn's child). Buffy seems so different, so grown-up, because she is so different. She's escaped from the trap of her own mind--the strongest trap of all.
Thanks, Rahael and Ete! I really like what you have to say.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yes and No -- Ete, 05:36:51 06/18/02 Tue
I agree that Normal Again was one of the most important turning point, and was centered around Joyce, not Spike, yet I don't think it was the only turning point. I didn't rely to the enjoying life part, which Buffy only realises in Grave. ("there's so much things I want to show you")
What Spike gave her, even in the middle of all this self-destruction and unhealthy relation ship, was this sense of selfishness that's healthy. Just the idea that, sex is not wrong, you know, and she shouldn't always be the one suffering for others 'n all. He does say it a few times, HB and NA included, and Buffy doesn't really listen to him at the time but she does get the message eventually, without relying that knowledge to him (and maybe she found it by herself, maybe it's something you should discover by yourself and no one else can teach you... I do have some troubles explaining depressed friends why I find life something wonderful and beautiful even while being so cruel and hard)
(Exegy, thanks, I absolutly love your posts, you makes so well-written and insightful points)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You're welcome! NA is just one of many turning points ... -- Exegy, 06:23:22 06/18/02 Tue
... but it's an extremely important one, and I thought I had to emphasize that.
I love your posts, too! Who could have thought that this thread would become so fantastic?!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yes and No -- Rahael, 07:21:57 06/18/02 Tue
We agree about so much! And then there's Spike, where don't, lol!
Okay, you say that the relationship with Spike taught her that there was nothing wrong with sex. I've got two qualms about that:
1) What was up with all those gratuitous sex scenes with Riley? Just cos I didn't want to see them doesn't mean that Buffy didn't enjoy it.
2) Posters here say again and again that the scene in SR was complex, that there was fault on both sides, that Buffy wasn't open, and therefore, Spike in his pain was driven to a desperation.......
If Spuffy taught Buffy lessons about sex and selfishness, I don't think they were positive ones. It might have exposed Buffy's confused and complex feelings about sex, but it did not resolve them, as far as I can see it. Perhaps you need to point them out to me.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Not exactly what I said but if you want to take it there -- Ete, 08:10:27 06/18/02 Tue
First, Buffy and Riley's sex...
Do you remember Where the Wild Things Are ?
The problem came from repressed sexual emotions. Poltergeist were born and then unleashed by hidden sexual impulses. In this episode, Buffy and Riley are helpless because they lie when they want to have sex (with an excuse such as "can you go upstair help me with my homeworks"); Willow and Tara are because they're still in the closet, talking about horseriding instead of sex. Same with the other people in the house, you use fake talk to seduce girls (like french language :) Only Xander and Anya, because they are so frank and open about talking about their sexual life, are in the end able to free Buffy and Riley. And that was the one time they had the wild and passionnate, shamefree kind of sex. The first time they did it, actually, they were being watched and comdemned by Big Mother and Riley's super ego of Maggy Walsh.
Should I speak about S5 when they had such a satisfying sex life that a restless Buffy went out to satisfy herself by hunting vamps at night (oh, don't forget the blowjob symbolic meaning of her leaking Dracula's blood on his finger, there's a reason Riley was so jealous) and Riley to go yo vampire protitutes.
Indeed Faith's "because it's wrong" that concluded her little speech to Spike in WAY was at that time a good representation of Buffy's belief about sex. Riley was all about doing the proper and clean kind of sex in the right boundaries with very little space for the, hello, this is supposed to be about shared pleasures aspect. (again in WTWTA the sarcastic over representation of Riley picking some condoms answering the critisms about this in the time of the B/A ship)
It is not that she learned that sex wasn't wrong with Spike, exactly, it is that she learned to face her desires in that subject (the whole experimentation aspect of the relation ship that depicted quite a variety of positions, places and accessories); and she finally came to say to her friends (Xander in that case) this is none of your buisness, you can't judge who I'm deciding to sleep with.
Buffy in the beginning of the relation ship believed it was wrong because it was with Spike (evil undead thing) and because of the way she was behaving during it ("I'm not an animal !")
At the end of it she realised it was wrong because she lied about it to her friends and because of her abusive / using behaviour with Spike.
About your second point, I DON'T CARE what other posters said again and again. For me, Buffy stopped to treat Spike really badly by AYW (though she kept it secret and never apologised for a few things but that has absolutly nothing related to the AR) and though I can empatize with Spike's desperation I don't think in the least that you could say Buffy was responsible for it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Great post, Ete. -- Sophist, 09:13:57 06/18/02 Tue
IMHO, the only person to blame for the scene in SR is MN. I have absolved both characters. Fantasy? Reality? Of course I can tell them apart!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Love that, especially the second paragraph! -- Rahael, 07:11:18 06/18/02 Tue
Agree with your take on this. The key to The Gift, and to Buffy's malaise is the idea that Joyce dies, as the older generation always does, and the younger generation have to grow up, find their place, become the parents. Glory asks Dawn why on earth human beings bother - they live pain filled lives, all of them trying one way or another to get off this planet, to drug themselves or deaden themselves to the world. Glory represents the ultimate bad parent - she's an adult who has never grown up, vain, frivolous and selfish, and her role in Season 5 is to kill the child. Buffy's role is to give up her life for ‘the child', to step aside. And this link to childbirth/fertility/eventual death can be found in the Doc slashing Dawns stomach, as the blood drips away. The drip drip of the blood seems to signify both menstruation and the passing of time (our heartbeats, marking time, carrying us forward to death).
In a thread last December, I brought up the idea of Hospitals and Doctors in Season 5. Age pointed out that Ben is associated with hospitals, which is where Joyce goes to die, and where Hank and Joyce return from with baby Dawn in WoTW. People are born in hospitals, die in hospitals, and ‘Doc' is a black clad figure of death on Glory's scaffold, which plays out the eternal story of dying and renewal, night and the inevitable dawn.
So I agree with you, the theme of parenthood, childhood and acceptance of responsibility is the clear link between Season 5 and 6. I've quoted Wordsworth's poem here before, which refers to the ‘shades of the prison house' which grow about us as we leave childhood and enter adulthood. I'll try and find it again. It's interesting that Buffy again returns to the symbol/image of the Hospital, sterile and white in Normal Again. I do think that the angst the Scoobies have suffered this season is the threat of adulthood, the loss of childhood. Xander and Anya's story dealt with marriage and relationships; Willow's did also, but the bigger theme was emotional maturity.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yep, I was going to mention the hospital/institution imagery ... -- Exegy, 08:57:24 06/18/02 Tue
... but you beat me to it. Wow, totally agree with that. Hey, there's that saying about great minds ... ;-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> 'Twixt pedestal & dungeon (S6 Spoilers) -- Fred, the obvious pseudonym, 12:51:47 06/18/02 Tue
There is, however, a parallel between Spike's worshipping of women and Warren's effort to degrade them -- both approaches deny the essential humanity of the women themselves. Neither view allows the holder to see the women as PEOPLE -- with good and bad intermixed, but worthy of well-judged positive regard.
In so doing Spike is objectifying the women he contacts as much as Warren does, albeit in a somewhat less damning fashion.
It's interesting that the women with whom Spike has the most real and best relationships -- Joyce & Dawn -- are both presented as being "out" of the "mating game." Joyce is Mom and Dawn is "little sister" -- there would be incestual issues with any kind of romantic/physical relationship with either. As long as love & sex are OUT of the picture Spike can have a relatively positive, normal relationship with women; it's when those two particular demons (love & sex) enter that he becomes weird.
Ask Buffy.
Perhaps the Buffster realizes this; this may explain why she's willing to leave Dawn with Spike in "Villains" hours after his attempt at rape. Dawn is off limits, even for Spike.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> What about Anya ? -- Ete, 13:05:06 06/18/02 Tue
Explain to me how he can be so respectful of Anya after their sexual intercourse if he was a misogynist ?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> What about Anya? -- Fred, the obvious pseudonym, 13:13:16 06/18/02 Tue
Fair enough; possible point -- Anya is not only woman, she is demon -- a rather different category. [Hmmm . . . come to think of it, itself a rather interesting characterization; Anya is not only female but she is possessed of special powers to change reality. As such she is in a category all her own. Perhaps Spike's relationship with Willow, for good or ill, could be explored as well.]
I'm not married to this interpretation -- but it might work. Or, I might just say that Spike has been having a good day vis-a-vis misogyny/worship.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Then what about Harmony ? -- Ete, 13:22:03 06/18/02 Tue
You've got to be consistant there ! In what Anya's case is different from Harmony's ?
Both are comfort sex, while in break up pain, without love, and both of them are demons. Yet, he acts as a jerk with one, and with empathy and respect with the others.
Is that only because Harmony is less powerful than Anyanka ?
Is it because Spike has changed between both cases ?
Or because he simply has no systematic trend to treating women that could be described as being a mysoginist ?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> and anyway Spike didn't know Anya was back the vengeance biz in Entropy -- Ete, 13:26:15 06/18/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Misogyny & pedestals -- Fred, the obvious pseudonym, 15:26:33 06/19/02 Wed
I think I wasn't being all that clear . . . may still not be. When Spike/William worships certain women (under specific circumstances) even tho' his treatment is far better than that of the "standard" misogynist it still dehumanizes them. Remember William was a Victorian, b. c. 1850-1860. The upper-class men of that era tended to see women in the Mediterranean fashion -- as the madonna or the whore. You worshipped your wife and the women of your family -- and considered the women of the lower classes whores.
Now William may be middle-class -- they were much more constrained about their views, although, IIRC, the men still had that dichotomy. (They just didn't act on it as much as the aristos.) So in either case, William/Spike may be re-enacting (in certain ventures) his old indoctrination; and, in either case, he is dehumanizing, even objectifying, women.
It is true that Anya is an exception; it might be that he has known Anya longer (by the time of Entropy) than he knew Harmony when he established his brief physical relationship with her. As such, he may be more willing to see her as a person (I was about to say "human being," but that might not well apply.)
Possibilities; I will concede that Spike doesn't act consistently in this regard -- only predominantly thus.
But then, our Spike is supposed to be unpredictable.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hmmm. -- Sophist, 13:16:36 06/18/02 Tue
Although the difference between sexism and misogyny is still not entirely clear, it seems to me you are describing sexism here. Spike's "woman on pedastal" views are stereotypically Victorian; sexist but in no way misogynistic. Warren's views are equally sexist, but his attitude is not symmetrical with Spike's because Warren's views point towards hatred of women and Spike's do not.
BTW, Spike's behavior with other women does not appear to depend on their "availability" as sex objects. Willow was not gay in SB or The Initiative, nor was Anya in WTWTA, yet in neither was Spike misogynistic. Nor is it clear to me why you write off Dawn or Joyce as "unavailable" for him (well, Dawn is too young for network television; joking here). This may have been true after he began having a relationship with Buffy, but they were "available" before that (and afterwards, Joyce was dead).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Spike & Women -- Fred, the obvious pseudonym, 13:22:25 06/18/02 Tue
Suggestion:
1.) While Spike is about 100 years older than Joyce, in his own mind Spike seems to see himself as an eternally-frozen young man. I believe he considered Joyce "off limits", or, at least, as an older woman not the subject of sexual interest. Certainly by early season 5, as the mother of his object of fascination she was off limits.
2.) You are correct in that perhaps this is an example of sexism rather than misogyny; I apologize for ill-use of terms. The point I was making is that objectifying women, whether as sex-toy whore (Warren) or as goddess (Spike) in either case denies them humanity and makes any relationship problematic, to say the least.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> If the soul serves as a conscience, -- Sophist, 13:32:25 06/18/02 Tue
then a soulless vampire probably wouldn't consider any female "off limits" for sex. Even Dawn or Joyce -- he wouldn't be able to see what was "wrong" about it.
Certainly Buffy's and Spike's views of women will need to be reconciled if they ever are to be a couple now that he has a soul.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: If the soul serves as a conscience, -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:52:37 06/18/02 Tue
Just because he doesn't think it's wrong doesn't stop him from thinking it's icky.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh, and Xander didn't see Joyce as "off limits", so why should the soulless vampire? -- Sophist, 13:41:37 06/18/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> ideals vs women -- redcat, 12:33:31 06/17/02 Mon
This is a great! sub-thread, Exegy, shadowkat, Ete, Rahael, Mal and Rob. This last set of
posts, Exegy, is really finely written and offers what I think is a very useful and insightful
structural comparison between the characters.
I hope I have something to add here, inspired by your analysis of the difference between
Warren's misogynistic treatment of women and Spike's tendency to place at least Buffy (and I
would argue also Drusilla in an earlier ear) on the pedestal of courtly, romantic, idealized love.
I think you are very right that there is a structural relationship between the attitudes of the two
characters. And the analyses offered above richly explain why Warren's behavior
degenerated from his original relationship with Katrina to his actions thru S6; as well as Spike's
quite abusive treatment of Harmony.
In both characters' cases, what their relationships with various women show is that they each
have a relatively fixed, static and limited notion of what relationships with women "should" be.
Warren is very explicit that he built himself a "girlfriend," not just a sexbot. He says this as if
it's an excuse for having built April at all. But think about it - what is "a girlfriend"? What does
that mean? By what standards is that defined? Judged? What components go into such an
entity? Where are the boundaries between girlfriend and not-girlfriend? By the very act of
definition, one inevitably limits, draws boundaries around, the named. Yet the world teaches
us that the signified can never be exactly the same as the signifier we use to name it. Warren
had the opportunity to build a real relationship with a real woman, Katrina. This would have
demanded that he be willing to engage with, interact with her as the person she REALLY was,
rather than struggling to place her and his relationship with her into some pre-set ideal form
called "a relationship," in which she was "the girlfriend" and he "the boyfriend." In RL, real
people (of opposite or the same sexes) interacting in an intimate, long-term relationship have
to learn to relate to each other, not to some ideal form of each other. It is very hard, but is
central to the "growing up" process that Exegy has written about earlier in the thread. In
IWMTLY, Warren is at a crossroads. He's found his limited ideal unsatisfactory, but rather
than taking responsibility for where that narrow vision has led him, he attempts to run away,
ignore his immaturity and its consequences. When Katrina finds out what he's done, she does
not "beat him down," she rightly rejects him. She walks away. At this point he has a choice -
he can either acknowledge that Katrina is right to have left him because of his behavior (think
about this, really think about this - he built himself a robotic, sexually-active, fake girlfriend,
then left her behind in a cowardly fashion when he ceased to be satisfied by her, and then lied
about her to his real girlfriend, which almost got her killed) and, having acknowledged that to
himself, he could begin the hard process of growing up; OR he could blame Katrina for his own
failure, and allow his internal self-disgust and self-hatred to turn outward, acted out as violence
against women in a pattern of increasingly sadistic misogyny. He chooses the latter, and I
have always wondered how much effect Spike's showing up at the very moment that his
apology is rejected by Katrina had on his later choices. Spike comes to him, box of Buffy
parts in hand, to demand that Warren build yet another idealized pseudo-woman. Here is
Warren's ideal version of the Big Bad wanting what Warren himself wants - the woman who
will not leave, not reject, not challenge, the woman who is ideal and never changing. And who
lets Spike into Warren's house? His mother, a woman Warren no doubt knows very well and
who is, I think we can safely assume we're supposed to assume, given the show's track record
with portrayals of parental failure, is probably not ideal at all.
Whoa, I'm not even gonna start on the links between misogyny and hatred of the mother.......
Watching Intervention carefully, I think I see ME trying to indicate that Spike quickly begins to
tire of his pre-programmed Buffy-substitute. His directive to her not to use the word program,
and the almost bored look on his face when the ‘bot is giving him the blow-job in his crypt lead
me to think that his strategy of create-a-lady-love has already begun to dissatisfy him (although
in fairness, in the latter case, JM could have been trying for insouciance rather than boredom, I
have a hard time telling them apart). Even before he realizes that his ideal's automaton has
been taken from him by the real woman who's the object of his romantic obsession, he
acknowledges that the real "not-so-pleasant" woman is his true concern. When she confronts
him with the obscene nature of his failure, his first emotion is shame.
This is the critical difference between Spike and Warren, and perhaps is grounded in the
difference between their ideals. Warren wants someone to serve him. Spike wants someone
to serve, just as I've always imagined that William fantasized himself the knight serving his
lady in all those classic tales he must have read during his time at university. It takes Spike
awhile, and many more painful and self-awakening experiences, before he is ready to make
the kinds of changes that will allow him to relate to Buffy not as an ideal, and not as a
degraded version of that ideal, but as a fully-rounded female human being, someone full of
light and shadow, heroism and pettiness, strength and weakness, joy and pain. If he can find
and acknowledge these things in *himself,* then perhaps he can one day begin to build an
intimate, long-term relationship with a real woman. I'm not sure that woman should be Buffy
(although I see wonderful dramatic possibilities that can be built around the question of their
future relationship and the tensions implicit in Spike's return to SD). But wherever Spike and
Buffy take or do not take their relationship, I have a feeling that what we will see in S7 is Spike
beginning to see and accept Buffy for all that she is, and Buffy growing in her ability to see and
accept Spike for all that he (now) is. We have the example of Xander accepting and loving
Willow on the cliff to guide us. But these two characters are the only two in the show who
have known each other since childhood, the one time in our lives when we can build intimate,
long-term relationships, friendships, that have NO sexual component. As adults, the
characters in the show have to do the work of building real relationships with each other that
include the possibilities of sexual desire and the complications that can arise from it, and to
take responsibility for their actions, and inactions, in the face of such desire.
This has been another fabulous thread, folks! Thanks to all the posters who've contributed
here and elsewhere to these fascinating discussions!
redcat
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: ideals vs women -- modern v. Victorian -- Sophist, 13:22:03 06/17/02 Mon
One footnote to your comments about William and his view of romantic love (can't you just see him reading and internalizing Ivanhoe?). The troubador's sense of the superior lady was, in a different way, replayed in Victorian times. (Remember Marx's aphorism: History repeats itself. The first time is tragedy, the second time is farce.)
The idealization of females as ladies rather than people would have been part of William's cultural context even if he never read Sir Walter Scott. We should be careful not to label that context misogynistic, since no one at the time would have seen it that way. Indeed, few even would have considered it sexist.
It's not surprising that Spike failed to change such attitudes -- he spent most of his unlife with Dru, who likely shared them. Spike's attitudes reflect his upbringing, not a moral failure.
I should hasten to add that there are limits to cultural relativism. I am only making the limited point that we need to be careful not to apply our sense of "misogyny" (however defined) to the prevailing views of Victorian England.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I absolutely agree! -- redcat, 14:33:59 06/17/02 Mon
Which is why I strongly resist the notion that either William or Spike are misogynists, in either
19thC or 20th/21stC cultural contexts, as also do Exegy and shadowkat in their posts above to
which I was responding. I assume (hope) you are addressing someone else (Finn? - not sure)
when you warn against presentist historicism, but wanted to be clear in case you read my post
as saying that I think Spike *is* a misogynist because I see his idealization of women as
structurally linked to Warren's. Quite the contrary. I do not even see Spike's abusive
treatment of Harmony as misogynistic. But I do think that Warren's increasingly obsessive
hatred of women, acted out as increasingly more aggressive violence against them AS
WOMEN, defines the very concept of misogyny. ‘kat reminds us of Billy's story, which I think
serves as a classic example of what Warren could have/probably would have developed into
had he continued down that path, rather than pissing off the most powerful witch in the
western hemisphere.
Ete aks us to be mindful of the difference between misogynistic behavior and being a
misogynist - the difference between an adjectival descriptor and a subject noun. This is good
advice. Warren not only acts misogynistically toward women, his attitude toward them
determines that behavior. Spike often acts abusively toward women ("I'm a bad, rude
man."), just as he does to men (and male vamps - Angel, Angelus and Dylan all come to mind).
But his attitude toward women in general or toward any one woman in particular is not defined
by hatred of women as a group, and is not primarily acted out as violence toward individual
women because they are members of that group. Spike relates to different women in different
ways. Certainly his behavior toward Joyce and Dawn indicates he often feels quite good in the
presence of women. Thus I hesitate to label any of Spike's abusive behavior as grounded in
misogyny, but am more than willing to label Warren himself as a misogynist as early as mid-
season 6.
And, yes, I can absolutely imagine the scene where William, sighing deeply as he finishes that
last page of Sir Walter's poetic myth, clutches the slim volume to his breast and
melodramatically rededicates himself to his romantic idolization of Cecily. Ahhh..... Do you
think it's possible that you, Joss and I have all seen the same bad, old, black-n-white movies
about the Victorians? Hmmm....
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Of course not you. -- Sophist, 15:43:32 06/17/02 Mon
No, no. I meant those on the other side (which may be just Finn by this point).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> ahhh..(sigh of relief)...glad to hear it. Thanks for clearing that up -- rc, 16:08:14 06/17/02 Mon
Oh, and I SO much want to ask you what you think the limits of cultural relativism are, but that's not a discussion for this board and I refuse to highjack another thread. So forget I even brought it up!
But you can always email me if you're interested in the question...
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: ahhh..(sigh of relief)...glad to hear it. -- Rahael, 16:55:42 06/17/02 Mon
and deprive us all (okay, deprive me??).
Of course, this is the summer. No new eps. You could always start a new thread. Easy to find some way to link to some stray thought about BtVS.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Sounds good to me. -- Sophist, 20:09:39 06/17/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> cultural relativism? Oh please info! -- shadowkat, 05:46:02 06/18/02 Tue
"Oh, and I SO much want to ask you what you think the limits of cultural relativism are, but that's not a discussion for this board and I refuse to highjack another thread. So forget I even brought it up!
But you can always email me if you're interested in the question..."
No - tell us! Or at least me! I'd be very interested in a discussion on this topic. Please?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Okay, Sophist, the brief's in your court -- redcat, 12:06:15 06/18/02 Tue
With two requests to lead the witness, I'm officially asking the question:
What DO you think the limits of cultural relativism are?
Feel free to start a new thread and connect the dots to some (even if tiny) point about BtVS or AtS. Willing minds want to know...
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> It's going to take longer to find a way to connect this to BtVS than it is to explain my view. Hint. -- Sophist, 12:51:41 06/18/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'm dumb. What's cultural relativism? -- Off-kilter *scratching head*, 22:50:06 06/18/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: tragedy and farce -- leslie, 13:01:07 06/18/02 Tue
"Remember Marx's aphorism: History repeats itself. The first time is tragedy, the second time is farce."
Interesting then that ME's strategy for BtVS seems to be to present the themes of the season first as a farce ("Something Blue," "Tabula Rasa,") and then as a tragedy (usually the final third of the season, when it all comes to a head).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Great point. I'm sure there are lots of other examples. -- Sophist, 13:37:24 06/18/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> the consequences of ordering the buffybot -- shadowkat, 05:57:58 06/18/02 Tue
"I
have always wondered how much effect Spike's showing up at the very moment that his
apology is rejected by Katrina had on his later choices. Spike comes to him, box of Buffy
parts in hand, to demand that Warren build yet another idealized pseudo-woman. Here is
Warren's ideal version of the Big Bad wanting what Warren himself wants - the woman who
will not leave, not reject, not challenge, the woman who is ideal and never changing. And who
lets Spike into Warren's house? His mother, a woman Warren no doubt knows very well and
who is, I think we can safely assume we're supposed to assume, given the show's track record
with portrayals of parental failure, is probably not ideal at all."
First excellent post rc! You reminded me of something that always bugged me. What would have happened if Spike hadn't ordered the Buffybot?
Remember Warren didn't know Buffy very well. And when Spike shows up at his house - he says, "No no more robots."
Spike threatens him and he looks down, and we see the specifics on Buffy. We know he gave Warren quite a bit of info - so much that the SG couldn't tell the difference between the two initially. Could the combination of programming the Buffybot for Spike and having Buffy take care of Aprilbot have been the beginnings of Warren's obsession? I'm convinced he blamed Buffy for the loss of Katrina, not himself. Warren's pattern has been to place blame on others. When his plans go awry in Gone - he blames Jonathan and Andrew. But mostly he blames women, specifically Buffy, the slayer. So did Spike's helpful schematic help him there? Probably. Also if Spike hadn't shown up - would Warren have just left, never returned, and let it all go? We'll never know. But it is an interesting question to ponder.
You also bring up the mother - I'm beginning to wonder about these writers. Last night in IRYJ - Malcome makes a comment about hearing everything on internet and how a chinese businessman just took out a contract on his mother, "good for him" - he states. The numerous negative mother images in the show are overwhelming. Okay - Joss, did you have a negative mother experience? OR did you just spend way too much time studying Freud? Of course this is balanced by the negative father imagery in Ats. But I'm beginning to wonder about it. Why all those negative images?
Or have I spent too much time with Freud lately? ;-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Happy families make dull drama. -- Arethusa, 16:04:59 06/19/02 Wed
And everyone can relate to family issues. Families are the basic unit of society, the crucible that molds our personality, the source of most of our angst.
Warren's angst surely can't be blamed on Spike; such a strong pathology probably started in childhood. Mrs. Meers could have been dominating and controlling, hence Warren's desire to dominate and control women. Which would make Warrren a victim also, unable to break his pattern of abuse and have the relationship he wanted so badly. Who knows if he could have changed, and saved his soul?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Courtly Love and some other stuff -- fresne, 16:16:42 06/17/02 Mon
"…I think Spike's been far more open, but he's also caught in a self-destructive cycle. He also cannot achieve an equal relationship with a woman. It all comes down to his "love's bitch" complex. He's a slave to all-consuming passion. He follows the ideal of the courtly romances, in which the knight is the passionate servant of his lady. Here there is a different objectification of the woman; she is not set below but above, some exalted ideal that can never quite be reached. Until she falls of her own accord, giving her love to the highest romantic end: physical union."
Hmmm…very interesting. I want follow up a bit on the whole Courtly Love thing,
Something to keep in mind is that Courtly Love, in the medieval French tradition, (yes, yes, this is the wrong era for William/Spike, it's just that the sum total of my Victorian Courtly Love talk would be, Angel/Whore, Sir Walter Scott, Charles Dickens, oh, look repression.) isn't all Wine, Angst and Roses.
Heck, even when it is all about Roses, Courtly Love can literally objectify the woman/Lady. The Romance of the Rose, one of the most well known Courtly Love poems, is a long poem about a man who seeks to win a Rose. The woman has been completely objectified into a non sentient, but very pretty, plant. The forces of which guard the Rose, personified by characters like Reason, are to be gotten around and vilified.
On the more practical end of things, in the Art of Courtly Love by Andreas Capellanus, Father Capellanus defines courtly love. How to get it. Who to love. What Courtly Love will do for you.
Courtly Love is all about a man seeking to improve himself (gain fame and better table manners) through love of a woman (generally, but not always) of superior rank to himself.
All of the arguments/dialogs by the men in the pickup line section of the book work on this theme. Let me love you because I'm a project that needs improvement. The women, if they are of higher rank, want to know what's in it for the them. Generally, prestige for having socialized the man. Unless, he's just too far beneath them socially, in which case she rejects him. If the woman is of lower rank, the woman will argue that there's just no point to this relationship, the man couldn't gain anything by it.
One of the more chilling dialogs is between the Noble of High Estate (a Prince) and the Woman of Middle Rank. Basically, he doesn't leave her with a choice. While downright squick is the statement fairly early on that you can't love a peasant. If you find one attractive, well have sex with her, but you couldn't possibly love her or have a consensual relationship with her.
So, to bring this all back to Buffy, when Spike mistreats Harmony and then in the next act deifies Buffy or Drucilla, that's Courtly Love in action.
Like all things of the world, the Courtly Love tradition was a complex social phenomenon. Misogynistic? Well, beyond the whole women as goddesses (dark or not) it's not by how I define the word, which boils down to Billy=misogynist (hater of those who are gyn), Tara's family=sexist users of those who are gyn. But, ultimately these are semantics of personal word choice.
Is Warren is he a misogynist or not, hmm. I'll sidestep the issue somewhat and say that Warren, as he is in S6, is a sexual predator. He (and his little friends) want a invisibility ray to spy on women in the shower. He wants the sphere so he can control Katrina, who he plans on sharing with his cohorts when he is done with her, the ultimate in "you mean nothing." Upon gaining the spheres, he goes to a bar to hit on women. The boy has/had issues.
He wants to defeat Buffy and his language is sexualized when they fight, "Real man" etc.. And yet, Willow is the primordial force of the monstrous feminine that Warren does not expect. I think of Jason of the Argonaughts betraying Medea, anyone spying on the Maenads at their revels, or Tereus's rape/mutilation of Philomel. Unexpected consequences.
Warren and his cohorts spy on Buffy for months. And yet despite opportunity to learn of Anya the Vengeance Demon, Willow the witch, heck, Tara the witch, they focus on Buffy. She of the stake and speed and strength.
Of the powerful women in the series, they focus on the one woman whose powerbase is on the table and, while not necessarily masculine, deals in the coin of masculine power. Impaling stakes. Swords. Upper body strength. Sunlight. The cross. Holy water made by priests. Willow, who finds the Trio's hideout, who understands the freeze ray, doesn't merit a single attack. Willow, whose power is rooted in the pentagram, gestures, words, hidden thoughts, the Dark Arts, women power blah, blah, blah.
Which briefly diverts me into the thought that like Mr. Hyde, who spoke in a high emotional voice, male characters like Oz, lunar cycles, in some way tap into that power of the monstrous feminine. However, I have nothing to back that up with and so I shall jump back to the topic.
Warren went to face Buffy, the Slayer the woman, wildly waving his gun about. It was an emotional attack. The shooting was emotional and inefficient (Even if Buffy had died, next stop murder trial with Xander as an eye-witness). And then that unexpectedly violent consequence from a woman that was barely a blip on his radar. He expected the Slayer and he got a witch who took an axe in the back and got up again (how labyrinthine - double headed axe of her).
As you pointed out, even in his last moments, at Willow's mercy, Warren plays tries to play powerful and villainous and just comes off as sad. He threatens Willow. Blames Katrina. Tries to puff himself up. Only to be literally striped of all his illusions. Disappearing in an instant flash of light.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Excellent. -- Rahael, 16:25:32 06/17/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Very, very insightful! -- redcat, 17:29:14 06/17/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Courtly Love and some other stuff -- Arethusa, 20:32:15 06/17/02 Mon
>>(Even if Buffy had died, next stop murder trial with Xander as an eye-witness).
How very interesting. I never noticed the obvious until you said this-why didn't Warren shoot the eyewitness standing right in front of him-the guy who stood up to him at the bar earlier? Warren never even considered shooting Xander, it seems. Would this be more ammunition for the misogynist camp?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Courtly Love and some other stuff -- Exegy, 05:11:20 06/18/02 Tue
Warren's so intent on destroying Buffy, that he doesn't even see Xander. Defeat of the powerful woman, the source of his emasculation, has become his overriding goal, soon to lead him to his own destruction.
He's trapped himself.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Courtly Love and some other stuff -- shadowkat, 06:10:25 06/18/02 Tue
Agree. Oh excellent posts by the way - fresne and exegy, more stuff to kill trees with ; - ).
On Warren not killing Xander, while I agree that he had a singular purpose - kill the slayer and I solve all my problems - I think he would have shot Xander if Buffy hadn't pushed him out of the way. That said, it's interesting to note that he didn't do it after he shot Buffy.
The reason he doesn't worry about an eyewitness? Well why does he stay in town? I think Warren honestly believed "kill the slayer - I become the all powerful OZ -no one can harm me and demons will bow at my feet". Notice his first stop is a demon bar where he proceeds to brag to the demons amusement and annoyance. He actually thinks he's one of them now. They make it clear he's not. And off a panicked Warren runs to Rack. Who reiterates it.
I think there was more then misogyny here. The slayer is not just a Woman to Warren - she is the mytical protector of Sunnydale, Superman to Warren's lex luther. In the comic book world of Warren's mind - you kill the hero, the world is yours for the taking. It never occurred to Warren that the hero might have a powerful friend. Why would it? As Jonathan states...it was just willow. Warren's underestimation of Willow - who by the way was the person who has defeated him at every turn not Buffy, (Willow figures out about invisibility ray, Willow helps figure out about Katrina - although that was really a combination of people, Willow figures out who is behind the video cameras and locates them, Willow locates where Warren and company
are at the amusement park, Willow rebuilds Warren's Buffybot) It's ironic that Warren believed Buffy was his nemesis, the one who was defeating him - when it was actually Willow. And Willow is the epitome of feminine energy. The yin. Everything Warren believes he can control, that is beneathe him.
I find Willow/Warren conflict actually more interesting in retrospect than the Buffy/Warren conflict.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yes, and I'll agree with your extension ... -- Exegy, 06:31:11 06/18/02 Tue
... and I find it very interesting that Warren's ultimately defeated by a woman who shares his own weakness. The man who sets himself against all women actually has the most in common with a woman! Talk about the parallel and the contrast there. I gain new respect for Villains every time I think about that set-up. Love the imagery on this show (and those who so ably discuss it)!!!!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Courtly Love and Power -- Rahael, 02:59:32 06/18/02 Tue
Just adding a few more opinions on the above.
Courtly love doesn't just idealize the man and the woman in the depicted relationship - it was necessarily and unrealistic and artificially idealized relationship. Why unncessarily? because the woman was usually married, and married to a more powerful man than the loving supplicant. Think of the social chaos that would be caused if people acted upon it!
Georges Duby's famous thesis is that courtly love was functional -that it served to socialise restless young men, and the young man's worship of the woman was really a way of worshipping her husband. In fact, the woman becomes completely invisible, despite being the central figure on the story. Like all ideals, she's just something to aspire to. Now Duby's contentions have been qualified, but I think it still holds force (and I'm not a functionalist, so I'd still prefer to think of literature as being more than that).
Of course, there is a famous example of a knight who rapes a woman, and that is in Chaucer's Wife of Bath. There to, the real issue is that of power. The moral of the story is that women should have the power, that the man should cede power to women within the marriage. The Knight's slow path to this realisation starts with his rape of an innocent woman. The king wants to punish him with death, but the Queen usurps the King's power, and suggests that she would be content if the knight is raped by a woman. And that, metaphorically is what happens. The knight has to agree to sleep with an old hag. Luckily for him, this being the stuff of romance, she turns into a beautiful woman at night.
I had got the impression that Capellanus' take on courtly love was satirical? but I'm not very familiar with it, and I'm weak on medieval history. But an early modern take on courtly love is 'The book of the Courtier' by Castiglione, which presents both sides of the argument in the form of a debate (a la the Symposium). I wouldn't really call it a page turner though, so this isn't a recommendation.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Courtly Love was mostly a dream for the nobility to enact ... (Long) -- Exegy, 06:18:33 06/18/02 Tue
... unrealistic and unsustainable. However, it was a pleasant diversion (as we can see in its proliferation of the literature of the time). It rested on the central theory that love and marriage were incompatible. In marriage, the man had complete and authoritative power over his wife. Since marriages were often political unions, love was not always present. The authors of courtly love took this basic idea of marriage and inverted the positions of the man and the woman. In romance, the woman was dominant over the knight, her adoring servant. She was the painfully exalted ideal, the merciful goddess whose "gift of love" was an unexpected boon. The knight could only worship his lady from afar, hoping that his deeds might merit the consideration of his lady. For the solace she might give him in the bedchamber was the highest end of all, comparable to unity with God. Indeed, the bed became as a devotional shrine (the image of Lancelot worshipping beside its "altar" comes to mind). In the bedroom, man and woman were free to consort as they wished, to be driven by passion. They might share such passionate love with each other, and then the woman could return to her loveless marriage, none the worse for her indiscretions. Ah, what a pleasant fantasy.
But also an unrealistic and dangerous one. As you say, the women were usually married. And contrary to what courtly love might have us believe, dire consequences awaited those who broke the bonds of marriage. The various forms of the Meleagant abduction of Guinevere prove this. Guinevere is suspected of adultery. She is either literally or figuratively put on trial. A guilty verdict results in her death ... Arthur is usually powerless to thwart the system of justice he has put into place. But then Lancelot comes to save her. The knight in shining armor! and the adulterer himself. Lancelot does save Guinevere, but he thwarts justice in doing so, and his actions further cement the disintegration of Arthur's happy ideal. The peace of Camelot has been fractured, and soon it will be entirely broken apart. Real consequences for the fantasy.
With Spike and Buffy, there are equally dangerous consequences to this limited ideal. It doesn't conform to reality. So Spike may worship his lady goddess, serving her as the loyal knight, aspiring only to please her (his actions of late season 5 and early season 6). But he is not content with this lot. He desires the end of the bedchamber, and his desire is burning him. He's sexually frustrated. It's like a slap in the face when Buffy calls him a "neutered vampire." Is this how she sees him? Then to hell with her! Either she will get off her pedestal to "misbehave," or she will leave him alone to his torment. He cannot continue any other way.
Then Buffy "lower(s) herself" to sleep with him. And for Spike, it is like a goddess descending from on high (literally coming down from heaven). He describes their first physical union as a "bloody revelation." A religious ecstasy (compare the heart of St. Teresa being pierced by the arrow of her love ... for God). Once he has experienced such ecstasy, he cannot let the lover go. He cannot just let her return to her high state. Because then she would not be with him, to feed the flames of his passion. He needs her, he needs to possess her in any way possible ... and so he turns to emotional manipulation ... to make her stay in the shadows with him. This is the only way she will let him keep her. So they both relent to the fires of passion. It's such a pleasant fantasy ("This isn't real / I just want to feel!").
But it's a fantasy that carries very real, very dangerous consequences ... not the least of which is total self-destruction. Passion burns and consumes ... until there is nothing left. Buffy realizes this--she sees the dark products of their union in the demon eggs beside the bed. She destroys these eggs, getting out of the trap the relationship has become in order to save herself. But she doesn't extend a helpful hand to Spike. She would prefer to leave all memory of her disgrace behind (consorting with a lower being might be quite fun, but in reality it is degrading). And so she leaves him behind and below, alone in the wreckage their relationship became.
Spike cannot save himself so easily. He's lost to the limited ideal of romantic pursuit. He doesn't see the danger; he's perfectly content to make his bed beside the dark fruit of their passion, risking his own destruction all the way. Passion burns and consumes ... until there is nothing left. Trust in a relationship is for old marrieds. Not for the couple that is unwed and free to indulge. Because living under God wouldn't be nearly so fun (paraphrase of Wrecked banter).
Except Buffy realizes that this type of relationship is not for her. She cannot love Spike if she cannot trust him. She feels for him ... but it can't be love. Not as long as he remains as he is--a soulless, amoral, opportunistic vampire whose highest goal is physical union. Buffy doesn't live by that romantic ideal. She gave into her passion as a means of escaping the world ... it was her fantasy, her release. But now that she has connected more to the real world, such fantasy has no place. It shouldn't, because it ultimately destroys that which is real.
Spike discovers just how limited his notion of love is in SR. He betrays that which is his highest ideal: the love of his lady. He betrays that which he has been a slave to all along. He betrays his identity as "love's bitch" by living out the inevitable end of the "love's bitch" scenario. He's lost, brought down to nothing by those actions he thought were the highest available to him (climbing up the stairs after Buffy, then forcing her to relive the height of their passion along with him). This is what his misguided love has brought him to. It's destroyed him, consumed him as monster and man. And now he's nothing ... unless he changes himself.
The old ideal is destroyed. It could not conform to the real world's standards. It could not conform to Buffy's standards. And so a new identity around a new ideal must be sought. An ideal that does conform to Buffy's standards. He'll give her what she deserves ... he'll transform himself into a being she can trust.
This type of reinvention for the woman's sake is one of the themes of Chretien de Troyes' Yvain. This story basically subverts romantic conventions in order to fit the Christian ideal of marriage. So Yvain's notions of knightly prowess and passionate love fail him in his union with Laudine. He's driven mad by his betrayal of his former ideals. Brought down to nothing, he rebuilds himself, centering his identity around the image of the courageous lion whom he befriends by an act of charity. For here is an end above and beyond the solace of the bedchamber. These charitable acts can be performed to enrich the lives of everyone, not just the lady. The horizons are expanded ... Yvain becomes someone worthy of Laudine's trust. And now he can work toward her love, as they are united again.
See any similarities? I surely did.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Love, Literature, Agree, Disagree, Meander -- fresne, 10:37:13 06/18/02 Tue
"Georges Duby" Rahael, thank you. I've been trying to remember his name for quite some time. I had a copy of a book of his essays, but alas got rid of them in a, "it's been years since college and it's Lit Crit in a foreign language, hmmmm" kind of way. And then you know, regret sets in. Especially since I found Duby's theory quite persuasive in a homosocial way. When two men contend for one woman, the story often does become that of the men relating through competition while the woman fades into a desirable cipher.
As to Capellanus, well he never came off to me as satirical, although it could just be me. He just has too many raw nerves that come through the cracks in the text. However, based on a complete unwillingness on my part to re-read it for textual evidence, eh, oh well.
Now Marie de France, she's sarcastic. Personally, I love the way the commercial element keeps entering the picture of the pure and perfect loves. "My God, she's beautiful, and she really does have enormous tracts of land/goods."
Actually, the one of the problems here is that we're dealing with a number of texts written by a variety of people, who like us, had different interpretations for the same ideas. Look how much discussion has been generated from determining a common definition for a single word - misogyny. It's only going to get thornier, like a magic forest thrown up to protect/hide a lady fair, as we begin to discuss a complex social phenomenon that took on different flavors for every country and every era that took it on.
At this point, I really wish I could remember what we said at my Literature Orals, oh the years ago. As I recall, we got into this long discussion about the differences between the Victorian concept of Romantic Love and the Medieval, which would be very useful right now. Ah well.
There is also the internal difference between Courtly Love stories that end in adultery (Gwen and Lance, Tristain and Iseult la Blonde, etc.) and Courtly Love stories that involve our participants marrying and then dealing with the social consequences of marriage (Eric and Enide, Yvain, the Romance of Silence, etc.).
It's interesting that Spike and Buffy play out the adulterous love affair, secrecy, burning bright passion, but you know, no husband to betray. Actually, as I think about it Angel and Buffy were much closer to the Courtly Love ideal in that they both highly idealized one another and they could really never be together. It was all about the anguish of stolen kisses, forbidden desire, tears cried late at night. All durm and angst. Which is why I suppose people cling to the relationship so. In Courtly Love, they ought to be pining for one another forever, whereas life and episodic television has them move on to different and yet equally "Oh, the anguish" relationships.
"In the bedroom, man and woman were free to consort as they wished, to be driven by passion. They might share such passionate love with each other, and then the woman could return to her loveless marriage, none the worse for her indiscretions. Ah, what a pleasant fantasy." - Exegy
Okay, I'll disagree a bit here, in that while all the men yearn for and seek out their ladies favor, sex isn't always the point and if they do have sex, there are generally consequences.
Oh, the Sweet Pain, how I love it so…
I never got the impression that the most important point about Courtly Love was the adultery, it was the longing for adultery, which is a fairly subtle difference, but an important one. The man, being a guy, wants to "make sweet love" with his lady, but the important thing is that he longs for her. Love is about suffering for years for someone that you can never be with. The consummation would actually end the pleasure of suffering and denial. Thus the repetition in troubadour poetry and in the romances of young men falling in love with women by reputation. He's off somewhere, he hears about this lady, she's the most beautiful (and wealthy) woman in the world, therefore he falls in love with her. Never met her, but he loves her. It's also why Courtly Love has so many stages and rules. The participants are having too much fun carrying out the dance.
Consequences
As in your example, Guinevere and Lancelot's affair has fairly critical consequences. Tristan and Iseult's adultery has consequences. In several of the Lais of Marie de France, there are often bizarre consequences. My favorite consequence being the one where the two women meet, become the best of friends and join a nunnery together. The consequences are part of the whole spice and allure of the illicit love. Dying for love. How romantic. Maybe roses will grow from their graves and twine together in death or some such thing.
I'm glad you mentioned Yvain, proving your psychic abilities. The fun thing that happens there is that Yvain is both the adulterous lover and the husband. And I apologize for essentially repeating some of your ideas, but it just proves you had a good example. Yvain starts out the feckless young knight who goes around challenging Mysterious Black Knights who guard mystic wells. The trick is, once you kill the knight, marry his wife (Laudine, who is clearly marrying Yvain to protect her, ahem, sacred well), then you become the Black Knight that guards the well against attackers. Yvain's madness comes as a result of his denial of his responsibilities. He left Laudine for more than a year and a day and she takes her ring back, which brings on his wild man of the wood madness. It's not just about learning to be a charitable Christian, it's the story of learning to be an adult and accept some responsibility for your actions and your life.
Which yes, it is much with the similarities.
And just randomly, I'll add my comment that this is a wonderful thread, which proves that we can pretty much milk anything for discussion.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Love, Literature, Agree, Disagree, Meander -- Sophist, 10:56:49 06/18/02 Tue
Wasn't a great deal of the attraction of the troubadors the implicit suggestion that maybe the adultery could proceed without consequences? I always thought that some of the "consequences" were there to please the Church. The meistersingers seemed to living on the edge by hinting at the "unthinkable". Or maybe not.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Longing for Love (Long, Spoilers) -- Exegy, 18:16:18 06/18/02 Tue
Yes, milking any subject for discussion is a good thing!
Thanks for your comments, fresne. You've certainly added a lot to this discussion (and started us on this wonderful subthread). Believe me, I've been waiting to pounce on the similarities to Yvain for a long time now. There are so many more connections. Someone could probably write a dissertation (not me, I'm too lazy and I'm only a sophomore in college).
I just studied medieval literature, though, so I'm on firm ground with courtly love's conventions (and the subversion of said conventions). Some view Capellanus as satirical, but I think he may actually have been rather sincere. As you say, "raw nerves" come through in the text. As for courtly love, I agree that "longing for love" is the most important thing. I thought that was what I was trying to say, but maybe not. I meant to state that this "longing" is a fantasy that, when realized (in adulterous affairs), actually carries severe consequences. These consequences are glossed over in the romantic ideal, not mentioned at all or diluted. But if one carries this "longing" to its logical end....
The romantic ideal can be very dangerous when applied to real life. Spike's pursuit of Buffy demonstrates this. Here are the limitations of courtly love. Here are the limitations that we also see brought to the fore in Yvain. Really, the stories are so similar ... did anyone else mention Yvain or Owein before me? Well, I guess I'll claim psychic abilities for reading many people's minds ... ;-)
Nice pick-up on the "sacred well" imagery. I always found a lot of humor in that. And on the neglect of responsibility ... we see that Yvain does not act like an adult at all. He clings to adolescent notions of knightly prowess and romantic love (comparable to Spike's Bid Bad might and "love's bitch" status). He originally goes after the Knight of the Well in order to impress Sir Kay and the other knights of Arthur's court. He's not doing something incredibly noble--the Knight of the Well never directly harmed him (merely his family name, see "disgrace" of Calogrenant); that Knight is essentially just doing his job as Laudine's husband and protector. Yvain takes that position away, and thus he takes on the responsibilities of protecting Laudine (forgetting about the "love at first sight" aspect). But Yvain neglects his responsibilities; Gawain, the most respected knight next to Lancelot, basically calls him a sissy if he remains a "homebody" and avoids the tournaments. So Yvain asks an unspecified boon of Laudine; she grants him his request, adding the stipulation that he return at a certain date (placing the iron wedding band upon his finger to remind him of their marriage). Yvain departs, and like an adolescent he ignores his obligations and overstays his time limit. Only after he realizes the depth of his betrayal does he go mad, essentially becoming a beast and running about in the forest (Lancelot also experiences a similar breakdown in various stories, think The Once and Future King).
Here we also notice the different worldviews of Yvain and his lady. The knight is driven by his emotions. He catches sight of the weeping Laudine and immediately falls in love with her (he's the prey of a love that inflicts incredible wounds upon him, and he loses himself to this experience, suffering exquisitely for his ideal). But Laudine ... she is practical. She is swayed by the reasoning of Lunette; she needs a protector, and Yvain must be a better protector than her late husband, so he should be okay. We're never sure if she loves her new man ... if she does, then her love is certainly betrayed by his later actions. She only accepts him again when he proves his worth to her, showing her that he's changed into a responsible and trustworthy adult. But she doesn't descend upon him with wide-open arms. There is a lot of work to do before the marriage can be built solid ... a lot of issues to deal with. But at least the two can deal with their problems together now.
Notice the similarities to Buffy and Spike. The vampire operates under the adolescent notion of burning, consuming passion. Trust is for old marrieds. But Buffy is practical--she's been burned before, and she's grown from her mistakes. She now knows that trust is the foundation of a working, loving relationship. She doesn't have that trust with Spike ... due in part to his very limited worldview. He proves just how dangerous this worldview can be by nearly raping her in SR. Like Yvain, he's unaware of the betrayal he commits at the time. But when he awakens to what he's done ... he's properly mortified. Like Yvain, he eventually seeks reinvention ... trying to become someone deserving of the lover. And his change is symbolized by one thing: the soul. Just as the lion becomes the symbol of Yvain's new identity as a truly noble knight.
Interesting. We'll see if the similarities continue!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The Silence of Joan -- fresne, 23:35:47 06/18/02 Tue
Well, it seems we could volunteer Leslie to write said essay on Yvain/Owein. I must admit I am now a little curious about the Welsh version and what differences lie in the culture gap between the two versions.
When discussing the consequences of Courtly Love's illicit desire, I can't help but think of an entire trend of Western literature in which the reward of sex is death and exile. (The why of it, in Courtly or any other kind of literature, being more than I want to take on.) The slasher film is but a low rent example of this trend. That sexually active blond girl, you know the one, her high heels break, gets killed in the alley. Buffy?s antithesis. Which when I think about it is odd, since the hero of most horror movies, as so many have noted, is generally the heroine. The bookish girl, doesn't date, wears clunky clothes. The Virgin to the blond girl's Whore.
In Buffy, we structurally combine both. Unlike Laudine, she doesn?t need a Yvain to defend her well from trespassers. I want to compare her to Silence, who although a woman gets to be both Silentia (beautiful) and Silentius (laying waste to armies), well until the very end of the story. Which also calls to mind that before Buffy got full blown into her relationship with Spike, she choose to be Joan the Vampire Slayer. The teenage saint, who wore men's clothing, fought battles, saw the value of a good cannon, and was ultimately immolated by convictions, politics, and a bonfire. Again with the fire imagery. And in an arc (if you'll excuse the expression) that's been all about climbing and falling, I can?t help contrast Buffy with Joan.
Joan takes innocent delight in slaying. Buffy is weighted down by her experiences. She is a Joan who has lived through the blaze and bears the scars. And while we're talking about Buffy clinging to womb of death/childhood, it's useful to remember that the historical Joan not only was a virgin, but never had her menses. Buffy, however, tumbles from heaven into the earth. Only manages to crawl out after a year of struggle. After falling into a crypt with Spike. Seeking (because someone has to say it) the little death. A little fire.
Perhaps, both Spike and Buffy get to be Yvain, clinging to childhood/adolescent dreams, denying responsibility, retreating into madness. Now that Buffy has chosen to live, can as in previous discussions, like Ishtar begin to pick up her garments and re-enter the world. How Spike will be as he emerges from his womb cave is left to anyone's guess.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Great post!! On love and death, womb and tomb ... (Spoilers) -- Exegy, 09:13:36 06/19/02 Wed
Heh, love as the little death. It's a common motif in literature, built along the twin principles of eros and thanatos. Here love and death are to some extent inextricably tied together. Passion burns and consumes the individual, destroying even as it enlivens. It's the fire that Buffy seeks ... why she reaches out for the torch Spike bears for her. She risks her own destruction in the flames, but she pulls back in time, thus only suffering the "little death" of their nights together.
But the concepts of eros and thanatos are so twisted in Spike's mind that he takes the "little death" to the extreme. He risks complete loss of self to passion ... he holds onto the flame until it scorches him, and then he still holds on. Until there is nothing left (his words in SR echo Buffy's earlier retort).
The "love's bitch" mentality has been destroyed. The old identity has been stripped away, leaving Spike to reinvent himself. To grow. For so long he's been frozen, arrested in his development. He's clung to the wedded image of love and death taken to the extreme. Note the interplay between Spike and Buffy in FFL, where the vampire outlines his beliefs. He also taunts the Slayer herself for being a little in love with death. Buffy as much as admits that he has a point; she's a "little" in love with death. She won't know how much it draws her until later.
In her affair with Spike, it seems as if Buffy is seeking a smaller version of that death, that release, she felt in The Gift. This is what she wants: to return to the womb that was her tomb. But the womb has been denied to her, and so the phallus becomes a replacement in this next stage of her life. The new source of escape. But Buffy's still always looking for that earlier connection, as we see in Normal Again. The walls of the womb become the walls of the institution, the hospital imagery denoting both birth and death. The Asylumverse Buffy is like a child, but she's sick and dying, trapped in a reality that has no substance. This child should have died in The Gift, but Buffy has kept her alive, fixated on the image of childhood itself. She's kept her alive in a sort of half-world ... because the child can only really die in the birth of the adult. And Buffy hasn't accepted the responsibilities of adulthood yet. She has not fully dedicated herself to the world of the Slayer.
She only reaffirms her existence in this world when she denies the possibility of the Asylumverse. She retreats from the image of the mother, leaving the child in herself to die ... in the institution, the womb that has become as a tomb. She leaves that scene behind, closes the door to that room in her mind. She later emerges from the grave, her tomb (and the womb of heaven). Buffy's reborn.
And this is not to say that her child self has been totally destroyed. The child lives on in Dawn, the next generation. It's as Buffy realized in The Gift ... it's the cycle of life she has been loathe to accept in reality. It's fine for Dawn to live on, the extension of Buffy, but the new parent has some obligations now. She's connected to this world, with Dawn as her primary support, her "blood ties." Buffy must accept that Joyce is dead and that she is the mother now. She gradually concedes; she starts to channel Joyce, playing the adult in Villains. And her full rebirth comes in Grave, the rebirth she's denied all season long.
Whew, wonderful imagery. And I agree about Joan. Buffy plays the martyr, and in her fantasy (without memory of her traumatic experiences), she is delighted. But in reality, she is miserable, and she returns to the misery again and again, "addicted" as Spike says. Always seeking that escape in death without ever fully committing to either life or death, caught in a half-world between. The true martyr dedicates herself to a cause (as Buffy did in The Gift), but Buffy has no real grip on a noble cause. She's without goal, without aim, torn inside. Her main adversaries reflect her inner ambivalence; they are not gods or monsters, clearly externalized opponents ... they are three pathetic little men she went to high school with. Their weapons are toys. But they do more damage to her and her friends than perhaps any other enemy.
And nice notes on the climbing and falling imagery. I have commented on that symbolism myself.
Thanks for the reply!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> They should film this thread and play it every year at Xmas! -- ponygirl, 10:48:32 06/19/02 Wed
Seriously this long long thread has seen some of the most amazing contributions. I am in awe of everyone.
Great points on the appeal of martyrdom, The Gift and Joan the Vampire Slayer. It reminds me of the line from Catcher in the Rye, about the immature person seeking a cause to die for, while the adult looks for a cause to devote his life to.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Returning the compliment, feelin' the love: Great post!! -- fresne, 18:11:15 06/19/02 Wed
No, thank you!
Although, at this point I'll throw in with the collective back patting. I agree with ponygirl, this thread should definitely be filmed and played at least once a year. It would go well with warm cider and festive bunting. Or would that be Pina Colada's and Tiki torches?
What's funny about this sub-thread is that we started out talking about misogyny and ended up talking about graves and cave wombs (i.e., Gyn, which can refer to female reproductive organs. Thus Gyn-ocologist).
Anyway, interesting catch that Spike is both ice/frozen, while at the same time holding the source of his own destruction, a fiery torch for Buffy. I wonder if it so much scorches or if it is a melting into a new state. Perhaps a sea strange into something new and strange.
We tend to focus so much on Spike's fiery exclamations that we forget that he is literally cold. It's worse than that, he's dead Jim. Almost the first thing that we see him do this season is set a vampire on fire. Our final image of him is a flash of light as he regains his soul. A form of the flash that consumed Warren. An inversion of the darkness that briefly swallowed Willow and then drifted off in the bright and yet smoggy light of day.
"She has not fully dedicated herself to the world of the Slayer."
This will hopefully coincide with a re-emphasis next year on what it means to be a Slayer. To balance between loving death, I don't think that Buffy could be a Slayer without death being her art, and loving the world that the Slayer defends.
In the graphic novel Tales of the Slayer, there is a repeating theme that the Slayer often has more in common with the things that she slays because she is often rejected by the society that she protects. Children who die young for their sacred duty that makes them outcasts.
Like to a certain extent Yvain, who as a knight errant roams from place to place fighting this or that, like the Slayers. However, he has no fixed place in the greater scheme of things. As an unmarried knight, he cannot even be considered an adult. I'm trying to recall, but I don't remember Joan ever claiming the position of Bride of Christ/the claim of an adult. This was a fairly common way for medieval nuns/saints to claim access to divine power. A sort of nya, nya, men just interpret the word of God, I'm married to it.
However, Buffy has long had a fixed place, a thing she defends, the Hellmouth. A thing that she keeps trying to leave behind. S2, she runs away. S3, she dreams of college. S5, she dies. In S6, we see Buffy's struggle to find her niche in Sunnydale as a adult or resisting same.
And briefly I'll light on the parallel of just about every single character in the series to Yvain's lion. So many of the characters posses or can wield tremendous power. Can be dangerous. Dark Willows. Rippers. It's the emotional acts of connection, the acts of charity that connect them to the world, which is good because the world is where they keep all their stuff.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yvain/Owein -- leslie, 13:36:23 06/18/02 Tue
Oooh oooh oooh--let me jump in here with some comments from the Welsh version of Yvain, the romance of Owein ap Urien. (Which was the subject of my dissertation, and I love it more than just about any other piece of Celtic mythological literature.)
When Owein first sees the Lady of the Fountain (Laudine in Chretien's version), she is in her husband's funeral procession (Owein is the one who killed him in combat). She is literally hysterical with grief, tearing her hair and scratching her face with her nails so that there is blood pouring down her fingers. Owein sees her, is filled with love, and says to Luned, the woman who is sheltering him, "God knows, that is the woman I love best in all the world." Luned responds, "God knows, she loves you not--neither a little nor at all." I find it hard to believe that there is not more than a little ironic humor intended in this scene, but the point is, what makes him love the Lady is seeing her in a distress that he himself has created--he didn't know anything about her when he killed the Knight, he was just doing his job as a knight errant, but when he sees her grief at her husband's death, Owein, in turn, becomes her "victim" in return. (Re-read, replacing "Lady" with "Buffy," "Owein" with "Spike," and "victim" with "love's bitch.")
Second, in the Welsh version of the story, Owein, when rejected by his abandoned wife, does not so much go mad as literally turn into an animal--he runs into the wilderness, where he keeps company with wild beasts until his entire body is covered with hair. He eventually becomes weak and ill and is discovered by another Lady, who restores him to health with a goblet full of what appears to be medieval Nair--some kind of magic depilatory cream. Owein repays her by fighting off an earl who is attempting to take her lands by force since she won't marry him. Then he goes off on his own, and runs into the lion. After he rescues the lion, he never can defeat an opponent without the lion's help--up to this point he has been pretty much invincible (only person who he can't beat is Gwalchmai/Gawain, and even there they fight to an impasse--neither can win). So, Owein's abandonment of his wife turns him into a "beast;" he had won his wife by attacking a knight, but now he turns into a defender of women (killing a cannibal monster who threatens to eat an earl's daughter, two youths who are trying to burn Luned at the stake for defending Owein, and a predatory "Black Oppressor" who kills men and takes their women hostage); after his recuperation, his martial aspect seems to be objectified outside him in the form of the lion. Finally, he is reunited with his wife. And he comes into his inheritance.
I think one of the things I love about Owein is that it doesn't end with a marriage and "happily ever after." Getting married happens about halfway through the story and Owein still has a lot to learn before he can be a real adult (there are major hints early in the story that Owein is all talk and no action, and very much an overgrown adolescent). I also see some parallels between Owein's "beastliness" and Spike's "vampirism." Each happens as a result of rejection by a beloved, but both Owein and William only think they know their beloved--in fact, each is an objectification, a distant star. And I have to say that for all the talk of "love's bitch" and "bad dogs," I have always seen Spike as much more of a cat than a dog, in the metaphorical sense. What Owein learns to do is to retain his "lion" qualities, but separate them so that they are available when he needs them, but do not overrun his life. (His wife rejects him because he gets so caught up in the jousts and festivities at Arthur's court--where he can display his martial prowess--that he stays for three years instead of only one.) Something that might benefit Spike as well.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> "medieval Nair"!! Too funny - you've made my day! -- ponygirl, 08:17:32 06/19/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> This is a great sub-thread. Fantastic job Mal, s'cat, exegy, rah, ete. -- Sophist, 10:42:16 06/17/02 Mon
[> Can you believe it? -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:19:34 06/18/02 Tue
When I posted this, if somebody had told me this thread would become so long (or that no one would agree with me) I wouldn't have believed them. Remember, all these gratifying conversations you owe to ME! MEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes, I'm egotistical, I know.
[> [> Giving Finn a *virtual handshake* -- Exegy, 20:52:59 06/18/02 Tue
Hey, I know we may disagree, but I have to give you credit for starting this amazing thread! Seriously, this may become the longest thread ever on the ATP board. (Anyone able to check? We may be approaching a record here.)
And it's all because of you, Finn! Congrats!!
You should be proud. Heck, I would be.
Like Spike says in School Hard: "I don't like to brag ... oh, who am I kidding?! I love to brag!!"
Thanks once more!
[> [> [> I agree, Ex. Often takes one who thinks extremely different than most... -- yuri (having a moment of appreciation for everyone), 15:20:40 06/19/02 Wed
to create such yummy dissent and elaboration. At first the post was more confined to Finn's topic, but it certainly did well for itself after that! Way to go, FMC, I'd be pumped, too. And way to go everyone else. every author on the board. yay us. we rock. we really do.
[> [> "Me" or "ME"? ;o) -- Rob, 13:48:36 06/19/02 Wed
[> [> [> I meant "me". The capitals are for emphasis. -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:08:05 06/19/02 Wed
Current board
| More June 2002