June 2002 posts
There are a few things on the Trollop Board from the Emmy Event> -- Rufus, 02:35:27 06/19/02 Wed
Link above....
Also there are some lovely pictures at: wireimage.com
[> So what exactly WAS this event? -- Wizardman, 03:26:04 06/19/02 Wed
Was this an Emmy-promotion type event- ie. getting the word out to whomever does the nominating? If so, why were only James, Alexis, Alyson, Michelle, and Nicholas there? Or were their's the only pictures posted at this time?
[> [> Behind the Scenes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer...info inside -- Rufus, 03:37:44 06/19/02 Wed
http://www.emmys.org/activities/2002/buffy.htm
The Academy of Television Arts & Sciences Activities Committee,
co-chaired by Conrad Bachmann and Bryan Byrd,
Presents:
Behind the Scenes of
Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Tuesday, June 18, 2002 - 7:30 PM
Panel scheduled to include:
Joss Whedon, Creator/Executive Producer
Marti Noxon, Executive Producer
Alyson Hannigan, as "Willow"
Nicholas Brendon, as "Xander"
James Marsters, as "Spike"
Michelle Trachtenberg, as "Dawn"
Carey Meyer, Production Designer
Raymond Stella, Directory of Photography
Leonard H. Goldenson Theatre
5230 Lankershim Blvd.
North Hollywood, CA
*****************************************
Hopefully over the next while I will be able to find some more stuff, like a transcript of the event...if I'm lucky. There were a few spoilery things so I've left most of the stuff over at the Trollop Board aka ConverseBuffyverse. The link is above.
[> A potentially explosive question... -- Darby, 05:59:15 06/19/02 Wed
If I'm in the wrong here I apologize, apologize, apologize, but I don't expect this will filter back anyhow...
Does anyone know, is Marti Noxon pregnant? She certainly appears to be in the photos.
Are we about to see another power shift? Who takes over if she takes a leave? Who would we like to see take over, except for Joss?
[> [> Re: A potentially explosive question... -- Rendyl, 06:28:10 06/19/02 Wed
With telecommuting taking a leave doesn't have to mean being completely cut off from work. Unless there are complications most women can get back to some degree of work (if they wish) as soon as they are feeling up to it. She could certainly use email and conference calls to keep everything organized until she was ready to go back.
-Ren
[> [> I think she looks it too, D. -- neaux, 06:40:40 06/19/02 Wed
[> [> She's definitely pregnant -- Rahael, 06:48:58 06/19/02 Wed
I remember reading it in several places - and she's made some jokey comments about the difficulties of childbirth versus scriptwriting.
[> [> Re: A potentially explosive question... -- darrenK, 08:07:20 06/19/02 Wed
Well, she is the boss, the showrunner, and her workplace isn't the world's most conventional so I imagine there is probably space in her office for a crib and a playpen.
While some post-production duties might have to be parceled around to others, writing and story guidance duties only require she write and be at story meetings.
And she can write from anywhere.
dK
[> [> Clarification -- Darby, 10:09:06 06/19/02 Wed
I do realize that she can still do the job with an infant (you never know, though...priorities certainly change, sometimes in unpredictable ways), but the nature of ME creative staff, especially the exec, is very hands-on through production of the episodes (I think that's what's been missing with Joss elsewhere this season) - listening to writers' commentaries on the DVDs confirms that working upstairs from the studios encourages that. But parts of that full-immersion supervision will have to be passed to others - the cast often works through to sunrise - and having seen a change when Joss passed it to Marti, I wonder what another pass will do...
[> It's easy to forget how pretty all of these people are -- tomfool, 07:33:18 06/19/02 Wed
Great pictures of everyone. Alyson Hannigan, Michelle Trachtenberg, Nicholas Brendon, James Marsters - all very sexy and movie starish. I sometimes forget that at least a tiny part of the shows draw is the visual appeal of the actors. No, really, I'm not shallow. Really.
Comics, chaos, and other brain spill -- Off-kilter, 02:45:47 06/19/02 Wed
All right. I've been lurking here for months and only recently had the nerve to respond to a few threads. This board is really relatively free of trolls and errant flamers, but the clarity, power, and coherence of intellect from the regular posters leaves me quaking in awe.
I'm greatly a'feared of ya all.
But, you all have inspired me to put to print some of my shallow thoughts. So it's your own fault really. Here goes.
I haven't picked up a comic since I was about 14 but used to steal them from my brother. It's kind of funny, but quite a few of the themes common in comics mirror the dramatics of soaps. I doubt that pre-teen/teen boys would agree - perhaps they're just looking at the skin-tight outfits on the super heroines' heaving bosoms! If my memory serves me correct, in comics all the heroes have issues about being "special" and apart from the rest of the world. A lot of their stories deal with internal struggles to balance their humanity with the "other" within them.
Some of the characters are born with powers/destiny - Superman, Wonder Woman, the X-men. Some get them accidentally/fate -Spiderman, the Hulk. Occasionally, they CHOOSE their path. Of those, you have ones that get "super-powers" on purpose, like Flash (I'm almost certain) and Capt America; then there are those that fight using no "super-powers" like Batman and Ironman. *Although they do use "super-lots-o-money" and "super-advanced-technology" to help them out*
Guess what? The Big Bads of the comics get their power in EXACTLY THE SAME WAYS! The only difference is what the character does with this trait/power that sets them apart from the rest of the world. The fun part of comics is seeing the hero trying to stay heroic, even if they don't feel like it, and the villains thinking about being on the other side though they rebel. In Shadowkat's essay about Willow and Spike's Geek Within(part 3 I think) she talked about the Powers That Be (PTB=good) and the Forces of Darkness (FoD=evil) swapping knights. The comics I read (stole from brother) had this as a running theme. If you missed a few issues and got back later in the year you could be in for a big shock. The guy you were rooting for would have gone bad and a hated bad guy would be on "your" teams side. Both haunted by angst and suitably hated/distrusted by each side respectively.
It made for good stories. Are the heroes going to use their uniqueness to keep humanity safe, even when unappreciated or unacknowledged? How do you cope with being set apart from the group? Even when in a group of superheroes, the motivations and personality make-up separate each from the others. How much do you give of yourself before you begin to feel you *deserve* more than what has been given to you? A reader could understand the draw towards evil while supporting the character's fight for good.
The villains were also drawn 3-D with reasons for doing evil (not always sane, good reasons, but hey!). Many of them felt forced into their role by public rejection/fear of their "difference" (the Mutants in X-men), some savor a "payback" of the way they were treated pre-superpower (Catwoman), some feel that they really ARE above all others and therefore DO deserve whatever they want (Lex Luther). With all of these, a reader can feel the dangerous power of evil and see potential for redemption in the worst character.
The edgy balancing act is what makes the stories so compelling. Especially with the characters on the knife-edge. Superman is good, great, angsty and all, but he lacks the seductive appeal of Batman to me. Superman has his powers and is firmly on the side of the PTB. He may hate it at times, even despair, but you don't really doubt that he will always be good. Truth, justice, and the American way, and all that blather. Batman wasn't born with superpowers. Bruce Wayne made the persona to avenge the childhood trauma of losing his parents to crime. He is a force for good, but follows his own rules. Bruce is tormented by his past, by the violence that he craves. He assists the Mayor of Gothem city, but is often tempted to give in to his darker impulses. His vigilantism challenges his status as hero.
The seduction of good by evil (and vise versa) is shown very well by Batman and Catwoman's attraction for each other. The tension is palpable and HOT! Two very powerful people pulled toward each other. Each can see themselves in the other. By the grace of God go I. One would have to change sides for this to work, but which one? Do they want to change? And if they do, will the attraction be the same?
I think this is why Buffy/Spike sucked me in so much more than Buffy/Angel. B/A had the whole tragic star-crossed lover thing going for them, but it was circumstance that kept them apart. Like Romeo and Juliet, outside forces kept them separated, but they didn't question their love for each other.
I love you and you love me, but in order to keep this love we can't live it. B/A made it much more palatable than R&J. I am most likely an uncultured barbarian, but I HATED R&J. Other characters in the play were very cool, but the lovebirds were dopey and pathetic to me. All "fate's conspiring against us" and heartfelt sighs. B/A was tragic and touching, but more grief for the "might have beens" than for what actually was. They loved each other for what they could have had, instead of what they actually were. Does that make sense? It seemed that B & A both were in love with being in love. They looked at each other saw the sun; they looked at the future and saw nothing.
Buffy loved Angel, but not enough to accept what he could offer- she wanted more. She told him that she couldn't accept the limitations imposed on his "condition" when she told him about dating Scott (Revelations). In LW they say they're willing to just be friends and Spike scoffs. He hits a cord in Buffy who tells Angel, again, that their relationship must end since they can't have everything. Angel agrees and wants to leave so Buffy can find that "everything" with someone else (the Prom &Graduation). Of course, to twist those heartstrings even more, she backtracks and says she doesn't want him out of her life. Too late. Angel loves Buffy, but not enough to let her decide if what he could offer was enough. To them, there was no middle ground to meet.
The de-soulment, re-soulment, going to Hell and back (for both of them) kind of put their relationship in a holding pattern at the "this is the perfect love" stage. They put each other on a pedestal and hated the outwardly imposed restrictions. They never got to really know each other very well. I don't think they realized this till they had been apart a long time.
When she goes after Faith, Buffy is enraged and is disenchanted with Angel for taking Faith's side --the wrong side, in her view. He even hit her! How could her soul mate not back her? Faith is bad! He was faking being attracted to Faith before, wasn't he? Angel's armor is tarnished by this act in a way that him leaving (for her own good) and him being Angelus (not his fault) never did. Angel's image of "perfect" Buffy is shaken too. Why can't she forgive Faith? Did she really ever forgive him? She hit him first!How could she move on to someone else so quickly? She can't really love that Riley guy, can she?
When Buffy's mom dies, we see that he is there for her and all the feelings come back. But once again, she wants desperately what he can't, and won't, give to her.
Life goes on. Until it stops. Buffy doesn't try to get Angel to help her against Glory - it doesn't seem to occur to her to even tell him about Dawn's real origins. Angel is upset that he wasn't there for her, but seems to put her memory to rest and look at Fred then Cordy in a new light. Buffy comes back from the grave and doesn't call Angel. He calls her, but we don't know who told him. They meet, things happen; no one talks about it afterward. Methinks that the two were underwhelmed by their feelings toward one another. All they have now is the memory of a perfect love; it's probable that they looked at each other and weren't even sure if they knew this person staring back at them. Better to love the memory and let the person go. They were unable or unwilling to change to make it work.
B/S is much more dangerous. They don't have the fairytale, the pedestals, the "perfect" image of one another. Hell, they don't want this! They don't even like each other! Spike is hit first; he's always flirted with death and loved it. Now he loves the embodiment of a vampire's death- the Slayer. He hates it. It goes against the unlife that he has worked so hard for. Like shadowkat said, he uses the vampire to hide the geek within. It also lets him express his hedonistic sensual side. He loves the whole "fists and fangs" up against the odds, hot wings, alcohol, TV, sex, rock & roll, love and slayers. He likes to FEEL strongly and doesn't like things halfway. Hated the wheelchair, hated seeing Angelus with Dru and unable to do anything about it. Hated fighting the Slayer and not killing her or being killed. Hates loving Buffy just as much as he loves loving her because he can't fully do either. He means it when he begs, "please, no", in OoMM. He is a man (vamp) ruled by his passions first and foremost. And he knows it.
In FFL we see Spike's moment of empowerment- being vamped. We can sympathize with his previous incarnation, and be understanding of how he became what he is today. We see him not as unmitigated evil that should be eradiated, but as a misunderstood outcast that found love and purpose on the side of the FoD. His nature is not ruled by the FoD, it's just a way to indulge in his passions. Spurned and angry at the end of FFL he snatches up his shotgun and storms off to kill her. Finding her in tears, he hesitates and his first master -love- kicks in and he offers her comfort instead.
Sympathy from the Devil leads to sympathy for the Devil. Have we all not railed against the injustice of being outcast from heaven? Except we can sympathize with Spike more than any devil, because he was once more like us than any angel who might have fallen from grace. Spike's love, as involuntarily given as it is, draws him somewhat away from the FoD and more towards the light, which has always fascinated him. Like a very dangerous moth to a flame, he's not sure if he wants to put it out or let it burn him up.
Buffy certainly doesn't want this. Love is what she had with Angel- perfect, passionate and unattainable. Wait, no. Love is what she had with Riley; comfortable, reliable, and treated with kid gloves- it might break. No, that doesn't work either. Well, whatever love is, it most certainly
isn't what she feels for Spike! He's annoying, evil, unworthy. But she doesn't kill him when she can and probably should. Even goes so far as to protect him from the Initiative, other vamps, loan sharks and the like. First she sees him as a threat, then a necessary evil, then a bothersome annoyance, an uneasy/untrustworthy ally. Throughout season 5 she starts to see him as an entity outside of the vamp persona. She may not particularly LIKE this entity, but she acknowledges him. The knowledge that he loves her is fascinating and useful when she needs someone to help her, and by Intervention and The Gift, she is grudgingly grateful for his loyalty. It's something she didn't feel she got from Angel, Riley, or even Giles. Not enough to love him, but still, something. Enough for a chaste kiss, an invite into her home. She starts to SEE him.
Of course, dying has a way of interrupting even a tentative relationship. Buffy comes back and is at first drawn to Spike for comfort. He can't expect anything from her, because she never willingly gave anything of herself to him before. She can just be. Be the angry, confused, overwhelmed and numb person that she is now. She treats him like a puppy she can tell all her secrets to and he'll never judge, never tell. She can even kick him and he'll come back still loving her. Except she'd never treat a
dog the way she does him. For a while, he accepts this role without question, gives her room to be comfortable around him. She even lets her guard down to feel some physical attraction to him. She thinks that's OK, because he's not pushing, and she'd NEVER do anything about it. Then he does
push; she does do something.
She's powerfully attracted to him. And she hates it. She doesn't want to see him like that. She doesn't want to see herself like that. She doesn't want to question what this says about herself, or him. She is firmly in the PTB team, by destiny rather than choice, but her pockets of darkness frighten her. Angel turned to Angelus, Faith switched sides and back again, and "death" is her gift. What if this means she's evil? What if her friends, Dawn, Giles finds out? Unacceptable. She's really not that close to the edge - Bruce Wayne is much more gray than she'll ever be- but she's still afraid of what it means. For a while she indulges herself in secret, hating herself, him, and what they are doing - but it feels too good to stop. She finally ends what they are doing rather than change it.
Same song, different verse for all her lovers. Wanted perfect love with Angel. Couldn't have it all. Neither would change their expectations of love. Relationship over. He left, she grieved, the end. Wanted safe, normal, reliable love with Riley. She couldn't let herself need him too much. He needed to be needed, not just old reliable. Neither could accept what the other was offering. Relationship over. He left, she grieved, the end. Wanted to feel alive with Spike. She just wanted, well, sex and hated everything about it (except for the actual sex, I'm assuming). He wanted more. Neither budged in what they wanted from the equation. Relationship over. He left, . . . Ooops. What do you mean he didn't leave?!!
For the first time, Buffy has to deal with an ex on a semi-regular basis. Like most of us, they deal with the breakup unevenly. In HB they are mostly respectful, even wistful in acknowledging what they had. They could have tried to build on what they had before the sex, but it's just too easy to go back to old habits. She puts him down; he tries to seduce her. An old, familiar tune. You might despise it, but it's stuck in your head.
Finally, in SR, Buffy tells Spike one more time that she doesn't love him, and it really sinks in this time. Probably because they are somewhat calm and almost respectful in the bathroom scene. Both are letting their vulnerability show without a lot of bravado. This time, instead of a song, it's a dance. A new dance, neither knows the steps, but Spike feels like he's stumbling. In a panic, he tries to re-enact the old dance steps. Fight her or make love to her - I'm not sure he knows what response he's trying to get. Anything but this new . . . ending. When she slams him against the wall, he realizes she's right. This can't go on. Relationship over. He leaves; she doesn't know what to feel.
Instead of accepting that love with Buffy won't work like Angel and Riley did, Spike does what he has always done. He fights. He's willing to change if that is what it will take to make it work. Buffy can't accept a soulless vamp that she can't trust? Alright. He'll get a soul or die trying. Of
course, in a way, he dies when he gets the soul too. Possibly won't help him get Buffy, but their story is most definitely NOT over.
*Non sequitur- Angel with soul doesn't fight for the PTB until motivated by love/lust of Buffy. Spike without soul doesn't fight for the PTB until motivated by love/lust of Buffy. Now that he has voluntarily sought out a soul, if he continues on the PTB path, does that mean he is FURTHER on the path to redemption than Angel? Things that make me go "THIS SUMMER HAD BETTER BE OVER QUICK!"*
Catwoman didn't cross over to the side of the PTB, but I know other characters have successfully switched sides. Comics have really pushed the envelope on dynamic switches on the spectrum of light and dark. I know that Willow's transformation has been explored in them much better. Of course, comics don't have sweeps and seasonal structure to deal with- their timeline/framework is much more flexible.
There were several posts about Willow mirroring the Phoenix/Dark Phoenix storyline were a hero turns evil then back again. It's probably a valid comparison. I thought that Willow's turn to the dark was a lot like the Angel/Angelus story. Liam was kind of bad in a petty type of way until he stumbled into the Darla and became Angelus, an avatar for the FoD. He knew his place and reveled in it. Then SNAP!, he gets a soul and became Angel, who didn't have direction or purpose. Angel had potential to be an asset for the PTB, but it took Whistler to show him Buffy and give him a reason to be actively good. He was tormented by the darkness within, but was firmly over the fence line on the PTB side until losing his soul vaulted him SNAP! over to the FoD again. Then back over with reintroduction of previously mentioned soul. He doesn't get shades of gray until he goes away for his own series. Even then, he tends to react fully on PTB or FoD without too much wavering. Wesley seems to be doing a great job staying somewhere undefined on the borderline between the two.
Willow was like Liam, except neutral good rather than neutral evil. She was a goody-goody mostly because she was afraid to be anything else. Buffy came and Willow saw that she could use her talents to fight for the PTB. (Buffy is everyone's turning point) Willow, like Angel, has power that is rooted in darkness that she uses for good. Unlike Angel, she doesn't see the danger in her power. When she lets the power use her, it's like Anya says. She just goes, "kablooey". Not so much evil as irresponsible. Maybe it's the writing, maybe it's just me, but her story doesn't seem to be a slide into darkness so much as a very strong potential. Until SNAP! Tara's death knocks her to the FoD. She doesn't care anymore about the PTB. Her anger overwhelms her and she accepts the darkness. She vents, with spectacular results. Then a dose of "good" magic and Xander's love reminding her of her basic alignment towards good pull her back.
From all of this I get the feeling that Angel and Willow are more "set" in their alignment towards the PTB and the FoD. They feel the FoD in them, and when they give in, they go overboard. But, soul included, they are stamped PTB. Perhaps the writers meant their loyalty to be a bit more
questionable, but I didn't feel it. The Master, the Mayor, even Mr. Trick are loyal in the same way toward the FoD.
Spike, Anya and Faith are chaotic in their alliances. That's why I like them so much. They're the wild cards that need watching. The PTB and FoD may try to tempt the Buffy's and Mayor's of the world, but mostly they don't bother. It's the fluid ones they work to change.
It's kind of interesting that Spike, Anya, and Faith are all outcasts and let love/acceptance rule their lives. Spike becomes a vamp after being rejected by Cecily and accepted by Dru. He goes from being a non-player to being a force for the FoD. When he falls for Buffy, he fights it at first, but then switches teams (sort of). It doesn't really bother him if he's helping the PTB or the FoD as long as he serves his love. You can count on him being love's bitch, but not on how love will shape his behavior. It's what made the whole attempted rape and even the soul search seem realistic and yet shocking. Posters bitch that he's not characterized consistently, but they're wrong. He has always been consistent in two things. Love and being unpredictable.
Anya becomes a player after being cheated on and then becoming a vengeance demon. Reminds me of a Mother Goose rhyme. Instead of rings on her fingers/bells on her toes - she has a necklace of power. Instead of having music wherever she goes - she incites chaos and destruction. Even after losing her powers she creates havoc in Doppelgangers. She served the FoD, but only as a side effect. Falling in love with Xander, she easily stopped being on the FoD roster and served the PTB. But only as a side effect. Totally unpredictable what she was going to do after Xander dumped her. She tried to go back to vengeance, but kind of didn't do very well. She decides to help the SG for Willow's sake, and we're not sure why. We don't know
what's going on in that pretty little head even though she isn't shy about telling you whatever pops in there.
Faith gets dealt into the game by Destiny sticking a big honking "Slayer" stamp on her head. She works for the PTB, 'cause that's what slayers do, right? She's a Slayer; fine she'll kill vamps - it's kind of fun. But doing her job doesn't seem to give her the perks she thinks Buffy is getting. She's wild and cynical, but also vulnerable and needy. Unfortunately, no one sees that she's crying out for help. Then she kills someone. An accident, but still. Buffy is horrified; Faith tries to cover her own feelings with the "I don't care; it shouldn't matter" facade, because she doesn't want Buffy to reject her. But Buffy can't accept Faith's take on the matter and Giles agrees with Buffy. Faith killed. She is a killer; fine, she'll work for the FoD. They'll have to accept her. And the Mayor does that and more. He seems to care for her in a way she's never had anyone care. She goes with her heart and revels in the darkness. After coming out of her coma and switching bodies with Buffy, she doesn't actively work for the FoD; she's just playing. Then a person that she reluctantly saved from
a vampire thanks her. Acknowledges something good that she did. Awakens a dormant conscience. Still takes many wild swings back and forth in an internal struggle before she decides to finally choose the redemptive path. And she does that mostly because Angel believes in her.
All chaotic, all make for good stories. None labeled firmly "evil" or "good". Even Wesley gets caught up in this, though it takes longer than the others. He starts out as strongly Lawful Good - very narrow-minded and firmly in the PTB's side. Then he loses his job as a watcher, hooks up with a vamp with a soul, and has demons as companions. Humans like Faith and W&H company shake his beliefs on what equals good or evil. He becomes more chaotic, but stays on the side of good. He sees the struggle that Angel is having with redemption and tries to save Connor from Angel by taking the baby away. What does he get for his attempt at good? He is almost killed by the FoD and then almost killed by Angel. His comrades turn away from him and he is alone. Now the FoD are tempting him to their side, and it looks
like he is considering it. He went from straight arrow to wild card. And he is more interesting because of it.
That's it. Please tell me how crazy I am. It won't be the first time. You expected a point? Sorry, I'll try better next post.
Special thanks to shadowkat, who encouraged me to put my fears aside. You are my muse!
[> Awesome post ! (except for Willow) -- Etrangere, 03:25:21 06/19/02 Wed
Loved this writting, great comparasons and analysis of the evolution.
I don't agree for Willow because I think she was really driven to do good not only because that's how she was raised, but because she has a true compassion. When she went bad, it was with self-rightousness. I think her story was more about how Good can lead to Evil when there's too much hubris.
[> Re: Comics, chaos, and other brain spill -- Rufus, 03:27:30 06/19/02 Wed
I'm greatly a'feared of ya all.
This always surprises me, we are all so nice.....specially some of us who are Canadian.....oh well and a certain person who is addicted to Canadian Chocolate...:):):):)
All chaotic, all make for good stories. None labeled firmly "evil" or "good". Even Wesley gets caught up in this, though it takes longer than the others. He starts out as strongly Lawful Good - very narrow-minded and firmly in the PTB's side. Then he loses his job as a watcher, hooks up with a vamp with a soul, and has demons as companions. Humans like Faith and W&H company shake his beliefs on what equals good or evil. He becomes more chaotic, but stays on the side of good. He sees the struggle that Angel is having with redemption and tries to save Connor from Angel by taking the baby away. What does he get for his attempt at good? He is almost killed by the FoD and then almost killed by Angel. His comrades turn away from him and he is alone. Now the FoD are tempting him to their side, and it looks
like he is considering it. He went from straight arrow to wild card. And he is more interesting because of it.
May I take a moment to say Mmmmmm Wesley.....sigh...
The thing about good and evil, they are always recruiting, always on the lookout for a convert....that keeps the whole game going. The struggle is so much more fun when something happens to a character we have come to take for granted such as Willow....she was a disaster waiting for enough power to stir and cause a near apocalypse. Even Giles assumed that she was made of stronger stuff than he was so many years before...not one to be corrupted. But life is always throwing curve balls that we never factored into the gameplan......Angel is the one who opens the portal with Acathala.....Buffy has sex for the first time and the guy goes all evil.....Spike gets a chip......Willow becomes powerful enough to destroy the world (so much for the horsies she was so concerned about in Spiral). These heroes and villians reflect us, the inner conflicts we have through the metaphors of demons, portals, apocalypses (sp). Then there is the lovely Chaos element to the whole thing, of course chaos not being so nearly chaotic in the end. All systems tend towards chaos.....said by Giles in Band Candy.....it was part of Buffy's preperation for the SATs. There is chaos in the Buffyverse but not always of the entropic variety. In season six we saw the Scoobies fall apart, their fears leading them to "walk alone" like predicted in "Once more with Feeling". Just as Entropy proved how far apart the Scoobies were becoming, in the end a return to order happened in Grave.....a hope for a new beginning in season seven. BTW.....have you read Fray?
[> [> Fray'd not -- Off-kilter, and don't kill me, 03:37:59 06/19/02 Wed
Too much Robert Asprin and Piers Anthony in my upbringing. Love to read Fray, but I don't know where to get the dang things.
[> [> [> Re: Fray'd not, no more.......;) -- Rufus, 04:13:52 06/19/02 Wed
http://www2.tfaw.com/index.html?redir=t
That's where I got my copies....we are up to issue six out of eight......also for a synopsis of each issue go here. Fangirl does a wonderful writeup of each issue, doesn't replace the real thing but it outlines each issue with a few pictures.
[> [> [> [> I'll try to be less punny. -- Off-kilter, 23:42:21 06/19/02 Wed
Thanks for the link. Have you read any Spider Robinson? I'm a sucker for cool word play, even if many go zooming over my head.
[> [> [> [> [> less punny? why?? -- anom, also known as..., 00:02:33 06/20/02 Thu
...Master of Pun Fu! Please don't stop being punny, O-K? 'cause I'm a glutton for punnishment!
And Spider Robinson, yeah! See you at Callahan's!
[> [> [> [> [> [> If I'm going to punnish anyone . . . -- Off-kilter, 00:25:06 06/20/02 Thu
. . it'll be at Lady Sally's House. I've got my House name. Care to join me?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> haven't read that one yet... -- anom, 11:20:50 06/20/02 Thu
...just the jacket copy, or I wouldn't know what you were talking about! It said enough to give me the impression that Callahan's is more my kind of place, & nothing about this "House name" business, so that went right past me.
Thanks for the invite, but I don't know you that well yet! While that may not be necessary for most of the denizens of Lady Sally's, it is for me. But don't let that stop you from going & getting your kilt, er, off.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Read it! -- Off-kilter, 14:20:11 06/20/02 Thu
If you like Callahan's, you'll like Callahan's Lady! It's great fun. Just don't bother with the follow-up books. It's up to you, of course. Lady Sally has a strict "no push" policy. You can always stay down by the bar and listen to Fast Eddie when he visits.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> giving orders now? -- anom, 11:09:22 06/21/02 Fri
Is that your specialty at Lady Sally's? Sorry, but that's not what I'm into. Guess that "no push" policy applies to management, not...how you say...consenting customers, hmm? @>)
But if Fast Eddie is playing, maybe I'll stop by.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oops. Sorry. -- Off-kilter, cringing, 08:23:11 06/22/02 Sat
Didn't mean to be too feisty. Just loved the book. The cover and jacket blurb are misleading. Not more graphic than the Callahan or Mary's Place books. Will try to be less obnoxious in future. Just didn't want you to miss the Pun-festive best of Spider due to sensationalized cover.
By the way, your little, "get your kilt, er, off" is hysterical. I was just too slow to get it at the time.
Bowing to the Master Pun-Fu. May I learn from your skills.
[> Re: Comics, chaos, and other brain spill -- Wizardman, 03:36:51 06/19/02 Wed
Etrangere, don't knock yourself! This post was really good! I'd like to hear more of your analyses for the other characters, say Connor for example. Don't be a stranger!
[> [> can you say huh ? -- Ete, 03:41:42 06/19/02 Wed
Off-kilter wrote the post, not I, off-kilter. Yes ? :)
Besides I only compare Buffy character to Manga and SF fantasy books characters, I don't do comics :)
[> [> [> Manga? Isn't that ... -- shadowkat, 06:03:43 06/19/02 Wed
I thought manga were japanese comics? Very good by the
way. Of course you could describe them as more graphic novels but American comics have become graphic novels in the last few years.
(Yes, I read everything I can get my hands on, I admit it.)
[> [> [> [> Manga, comics, BD -- Ete, 06:32:30 06/19/02 Wed
Even in french I use different words to speak about american comics, francophone comics (BD, for Bandes Dessinées) and japanese ones. It's just different kind of stories, each ones has its pecularity (though there's a lot of influences between each others) in the drawing style and the type of stories.
So when I say "comics" I think, American comics with superheroes 'n all. Of course there's some (probably a lot) of american comics that are not about superheroes and suches...
[> [> [> [> [> Education in American Comics -- shadowkat, 07:15:15 06/19/02 Wed
For snobby literary types (I don't mean you Ete!) ;-) who frown on comics - a brief education.
American comics - since don't really know the others:
1. super-hero ones - have branched out and gotten a bit more complex in nature to compete with the japanese
and the movies and graphic novels. We ended up with the
complex: Dark Knight Returns series by Frank Miller which did a revisionist view of Batman in the future. Really intriguing. The Watchman. And Batman Year 1. The X-men
series has gotten more literary and thoughtful in last few years, but it tends to be sporadic. I stopped collecting
recently...my obsessions tend to fluctuate. Clearly ME's
writers read them - the nerd squad and SG reference
them all the time. "spider sense" is tingling in I Robot
You Jane, Xander reading the comic for Onslaught series
of the X-men where Prof X is joined with Magneto in Tough
Love. (Everyone - all heros join together to defeat him).
Dark Phoenix - references in Two to Go. And of course the anti-vigilante theme in Angel.
2. Real Life Angst Story/Non supernatural - these range from ordinary stories such
as the underground cult Ghost World - which recent movie
was based. Strangers in PAradise is similar.
This may be more in keeping with magna. Magna if memory serves hits all categories and does lots of real life
stories. Also the story about the Holocaust called MAUS
fits here.
3. Fantasy/Philosophical Works - Sandman by NEil Gaiman,
Swamp Thing (amazing comic), House of Secrets, These are well drawn and thought provoking works that reference myth, and religious views.
4. Graphic novels - Frank Miller and Alan Moore do a lot of these. Several are crime mystery novels. Violent, reads like a really good Dashielle Hammet -(The Maltese Falcon).
The art is dark and beautiful with dialogue that is crisp and often literary. There are not so great ones...but the good ones are worth a look.
5. PArodies or Graphic comics that make fun of hollywood or movies or other things. Sort of make me think of the French comic on Asterix (sp? last time I saw it was in France in 1981...) and Tin Tin (British comic saw in the 1970s)
6. Imported Japenes comics and magna
7. Comics based on tv shows, classic novels, and pop culture books: fray (pretty good, but only have second issue), the summer after Buffy died, only have one issue, but also not bad, Angel and Buffy comics, Ann Rice novels made into comics - the vampire series was cool, etc.
8. Standard fare cartoon collections.
See there are as many varieties of comics as there are books. IF you've never read a comic - you are really missing out on a fascinating art and literary form. Brave
the racks of that comic book store and take a peek!
(I did wayyy back in college and haven't regretted, although my pocket book did. ;- ))
[> [> [> [> [> [> Not snobism, lack of time/money -- Ete, 07:41:51 06/19/02 Wed
I would love to get into comics. I've read a few ones, and not only the Buffy ones, but I can't get into it like I do with SF, like I'm half doing with mangas because that would need some kind of dedication I can't allowed myself anymore.
Your first category was obviously the one I'm refering to when I say comics, though I would have put the third ones with it :) (I'm in love with Gaiman's writing, but the first time i tried to read his comics, I was horrified by the graphism. I've been told it goes better in latter books. Some day I'll try again. Quite enjoyed the one illustrated by Amano, though :) But then i'm in love with Amano's drawing) As I said, I never think that american comics were only about superheros. Actually I almost mentionned Maus there :)
Graphic novels, is that the big books a la From Hell ?
By the way you've got Asterix' spelling right, but, when you say Tin Tin, I hope you don't mean Tintin :)
I think one thing that's very different between all the three countries' comics is the way it's published. In France it's mostly into thin, big, coloured book, a bit expensive. Mangas usually makes small, black&white, cheap paper books. American comics as far as I'm aware are published in magazines and coloured. Though ofcourse for all of them there's lots of exceptions. Humm stopping the anthropologic mindframe now :)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Not snobism, lack of time/money -- shadowkat, 08:52:33 06/19/02 Wed
Well understand this difficulty - hence the reason I keep quitting the habit...lack of time and money. The piles
of comics I've bought but never read..sigh.
Actually the better comics in US come in book form, glossy, expensive, and thick. Sometimes they start out in thin
magazine form.
The superheros all start out in mag form.
Yeah I think I meant tintin - was very long time ago and a neighbor had it.
From Hell is one of the more gruesome ones. I've stayed
away from some of these - too graphic for my sensibilities, just like some of the japanese anime. I particularly have troubles with the rape graphics some of the more violent
ones depict, can't read them, can't buy them. So never
looked at From Hell. Watchman was more tame.
Stopped collecting again recently due to time/money thing.
2$ in the states for the mag form now. Used to be 75c in
college. Some are $4...getting too rich for my blood.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Not snobism, lack of time/money -- Ete, 10:03:49 06/19/02 Wed
Then I've really got to say to you, Tintin is not Brittish, it's Belgian, like Hercule Poirot :)
I didn't think that From Hell was very graphic. Dark and disturbing, but more because of the story content than the images itself.
But then, I'm seldom chocked by those japanese anims either. so maybe that's just me
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Neil Gaiman -- Darby, 09:51:57 06/19/02 Wed
Love his stuff, have little time to read it beyond his online blogger journal, but my wife's going to read American Gods soon.
It was really interesting to watch Harry Potter with a knowledge of the Books of Magic - I wouldn't go so far as to see plagiarism, but Rowling had to have read Gaiman's stuff, there are just too many details that match.
Incidentlally, any Potterites currently in withdrawal, try The Books of Magic, especially the collections from the first series. It is slightly more adult in content than Harry, though.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> American Gods -- Vickie, 11:38:14 06/19/02 Wed
I read this on a mini-vacation recently. Classic Gaiman, and thoroughly enjoyable. Your spousal unit is in for a treat.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> So who's up to write. . . -- crazed SF geek Ete, 11:53:18 06/19/02 Wed
an essay comparing American Gods and BtVS intituled : "Through death and resurection"
come on ! you know you wanna do it !
If not it's going to be "Path of redemption for a vampire : Spike and Gerald Tarrant", and since they don't have anything in common apart the whole vamp, redemption bit, you're in for troubles.
Oh anyway I'm just bitter because no one answered by Spike / Sandor "the hound" Clegane comparason...
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Sounds like Ete should do it... -- Vickie, 12:59:25 06/19/02 Wed
I'll beta review, if you like. I don't have cycles to write one just now.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> American Gods is only THE best book I've ever read! -- Rob, 09:12:31 06/20/02 Thu
I'd love to do an essay, comparing it to "Buffy." In fact, while reading it, I did notice a bunch of links that could be made to BtVS.
I was actually planning on rereading it this weekend, by coincidence! So as I go through, I'll take down some notes to write an essay.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Great ! You're hired ! :)) -- happy Ete, 13:05:23 06/20/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yay!! Although, since I'm the only applicant, I'm not surprised I got the job. ;o) -- Rob, 19:37:21 06/20/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Gerald Tarrant? From CS Friedman's books? -- Exegy, 09:30:24 06/21/02 Fri
Um ... that would be interesting. I'm reading the series right now in my spare time. There do seem to be a few parallels (I've only just begun the second book). Vampirism and redemption, as you say. You could pull off a decent comparison to Spike, I imagine.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Gerald Tarrant? From CS Friedman's books? -- fresne, 15:12:08 06/21/02 Fri
Yes, well wait till you get to the end of book 2. Although, Gerald comes off as a bit too controlled for Spike. Angel/us perhaps.
The Cold Fire trilogy is one of my litmus tests for what sort of things a good writer can make me forgive a character for doing. Right up there with the first book in Tanith Lee's Flat Earth Series. Or for that matter, given the thread's origins, the comic series Lucifer.
Does it make me morally unsound if I like a character because he speaks in a beautiful font.
Although, given Ete's Sandor complaint, all of a sudden I want to compare Spike to Cu Cuhulain, the hound of Ulster. There was a vampire in that story too.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Okay, now I must finish the Cold Fire trilogy ... -- Exegy, 14:10:12 06/22/02 Sat
... as soon as I read these fifteen other books I've started. I'll check in later.
[> Great post - cut to print...will respond later! -- shadowkat, 06:06:46 06/19/02 Wed
And thanks for the compliment! See not so bad. ;- )
I may disagree with Ete on Willow, have to read through and see. But I think there was quite a bit of pride there.
Remember she wants to fight Giles not Buffy. Magic against
Magic. The student against the teacher. That is all about
pride. And it echoes the scene in Flooded.
But more later...keeping thread alive until then. ;-)
[> [> Awesome! -- shadowkat, 17:59:07 06/19/02 Wed
I loved your analysis of the B/A and B/S relationships and comparison to comics - which actually I think works with where these writers heads are. They refer to comics so often in their episodes.
On Willow - I sense the typical comic book explanation - the same one that btw was used for Jean Grey and cjl forgot to mention. Jean Grey ten years later was brought back and when she was we learned that Dark Phoenix wasn't really her, it was an entity that took her body and form. I forsee that they'll show that the power Willow unleashed came from the forces of darkness that possessed her as the hyena possessed Xander or Egyhorn possessed Jenny or Angel became Angelus and once the darkness/powers are drained, all will be forgiven. Buffy to Willow: "It wasn't you." We intellects may not like it - but it is a typical comic book
way out. sigh.
[> [> [> I didn't forget. I was hoping to avoid that part of the comics myth.... -- cjl, 18:45:04 06/19/02 Wed
Mainly because I thought it was a copout. The whole post-death, Jean Grey doppleganger plotline (with Maddy Pryor) obviously wasn't working, and Marvel wanted to bring back the original. The solution actually wasn't too bad (turns out The Phoenix REPLACED Jean in X-Men #100), but it took away from the power of the choice she made and the death scene in #137. I stopped collecting the X-Men shortly after Jean's return...
As for Willow, I hope they don't cop out.
But they probably will...
[> [> [> [> Re: I didn't forget. I was hoping to avoid that part of the comics myth.... -- aliera, 19:18:58 06/19/02 Wed
I hope they do it right also. I really would love to see Willow be able to use her magic for herself and good as a gift not an addiction. A tiny part of me whispers that the earth magic could be the catalyst.
[> [> [> [> Cop-out! Cop-out! -- Off-kilter, 20:43:30 06/19/02 Wed
I am hoping the same thing. Ever since the DF interview (think it was there) when they said that Willow "wasn't herself", I have been seething. This is a great story; don't back out of it now! After she goes through Slayer rehab in England, I bet they do back slooowly away. Booger.
[> Willow and Dark Phoenix -- cjl, 09:03:19 06/19/02 Wed
Off-kilter, this was exactly the right time for a comic book thread, mainly because we know Joss and his crew are major comic book geeks, and especially since one of the most in(famous) comic book characters of the past 30 years was specifically mentioned in "Two to Go":
Dark Phoenix.
Talk about a character who flips from light to dark and back again! For those of you out there without comic book knowledge, Dark Phoenix (Jean Grey) started out as "Marvel Girl," one of the founding members of the X-Men, a moderately powerful telekinetic and telepathic mutant under the tutelage of the world's most powerful telepath, Professor Charles Xavier. In Uncanny X-Men #100, Jean was apparently possessed by an elemental force called the Phoenix, escalating her powers to almost cosmic proportions. She fought along her team-mates in her new incarnation, but as time went on, the connection to human existence and sensual experience seemed to corrupt the Phoenix force, and Jean went bad. I mean REALLY bad. As in, destroying an entire alien civilization bad. Xavier had to place psychic barriers into Jean's mind to lock the Phoenix inside forever.
Eventually, though, Xavier's lady love--the ruler of an extra-galactic empire--declared that even a neutered Phoenix was too big a danger to ignore and ordered Jean (there's no other word for it) lobotomized. The X-Men fought a titanic battle on her behalf on the surface of the Moon, where Jean sacrificed herself to save the team and her true love. (OK, Jean Grey/Scott Summers superhero romantics in the audience can dab their eyes now...)
Jean's death in UXM #137 didn't end her story. (Joss and Chris Claremont won't let nuthin' stop their heroines.) But for purposes of discussion, we'll take this first phase of Jean's career as "the end."
When Willow was tearing down Sunnydale Prison, Andrew said she was going "all Dark Phoenix on us," and the annoying virgin had a point. Just like Jean Grey, Willow was slowly corrupted by an extraordinarily powerful energy source, subverting her usual good-guy tendencies, eventually unleashing a monstrous version of herself. Also, Jean--in trying to assimilate the cosmic power of the Phoenix--was continually pulled back to humanity by her love for Scott. This echoes the "addiction" plotline and how Willow stopped messing with the dark magicks in order to win back the love of Tara. Finally, during that battle on the moon, Xavier's psychic barriers holding back Phoenix dropped away when Scott was injured; we all know what happened when Warren killed Tara.
It's interesting to note that just as Buffy fans are debating how Willow should be punished for murdering Warren, X-Men fans and Marvel Comics staffers debated about the price for Dark Phoenix' genocidal actions. Author Claremont wanted to go for the psychic lobotomy, but Marvel Editor-in-Chief Jim Shooter put his extremely large foot down and said in no uncertain terms that Jean had to die. She had simply gone too far, and no amount of telepathic hoodoo was going to cut it.
Gee, this was fun! Like being in high school again, only without the social trauma....
Any other Buffy/Comix character comparison come to mind?
[> [> Buffy and Power Girl -- Darby, 10:01:34 06/19/02 Wed
At least, Buffy from the first two seasons - some of her outfits (white top with deep-cut squared neckline) were even reminiscent.
Power Girl was an alternative Supergirl (much less powerful, though) notable for her short blond hair and abnormal-for-comics-in-the-70s body type: short with cleavage. Buffy was even shown playing Power Girl as a kid in Killed by Death. I don't think that the character was ever intended to be a riff on Power Girl, I think it was just an acknowledgement by Joss the comics geek on the resemblance.
[> [> Dawn as Shadowkat (no, not OUR shadowkat...) -- cjl, 10:14:21 06/19/02 Wed
The one in the X-Men. Kitty Pryde, sweet, Jewish girl from Michigan who can walk through walls and knock out electronic equipment by phasing through the machinery. When Charles Xavier found her in UXM #130(?) she was in exactly the same position Dawnie was at the start of S5: a normal kid living in an extraordinary world (with superheroes, mutants, etc.), unaware of the power she possessed. She was the first of the next generation of mutants to be introduced into the series, just as Dawn was the first of a younger set of characters to be introduced to the Buffyverse (Sophie and Connor came later, with more undoubtedly to come).
I have no doubt that just as Kitty discovered her amazing mutant abilities and joined the grown-up team, Dawn will eventually uncover her talents as the Key and become a valuable member of the Scoobies
[> [> [> Willow as Kitty Pryde -- auroramama, 18:52:26 06/19/02 Wed
*That's* why that scene in "Halloween" is so familiar! And Willow is actually Jewish (unlike Dawn). Willow in those days is kinda young-looking and young-acting, too.
Otherwise, yeah, I like the analogies with Dawn.
auroramama
[> [> [> [> OMG, you're right. How could I have missed that?! -- cjl, 19:15:29 06/19/02 Wed
Once, when I was discussing Marvel Comics with OUR shadowkat, I remember describing Willow as a combination of Kitty Pryde and Jean Grey...
[> [> [> [> [> And guess who I based my online name on? -- shadowkat, 12:22:17 06/20/02 Thu
Not jewish. But I identified with Kitty and Willow,
so hence the name. Also seems to be less popular than
variations on my real one. sigh.
[> [> Xander as Matter-Eater Lad -- ponygirl, 10:27:52 06/19/02 Wed
Sorry, I can't really make any actual comparisons, but I couldn't resist throwing in my all time favourite stupidest super-hero name ever! And points for obscurity. Truly the geek within never dies...
[> [> [> lol, for a very, very long time! Lad - that word alone gets me! (imagining costume...) -- yuri, 10:34:46 06/19/02 Wed
[> [> [> Re: Spike/John Constantine -- Brian, 07:51:42 06/20/02 Thu
For attitude,looks, and dress, you can't beat the similarities of these two
[> [> [> [> Re: Spike/John Constantine - YES! Yes! -- ponygirl, 08:24:38 06/20/02 Thu
If there is any sort of justice in Hollywood (which of course there isn't), the ghastly idea of Nicolas Cage playing John Constantine will thrown onto a trash heap and Joss and co. will take over the project with JM in the title role.
(shudder Nicolas Cage)
Actually I can also imagine Giles in a more Ripper mode having a lot of similarities to Constantine. I haven't read the Hellblazer books in a long while, but he was a pretty fascinating character - on the side of good, but dark as can be, and more likely to get the people he was helping killed than anything else.
[> [> [> [> [> JM as John Constantine is box office gold...Nicolas who? -- cjl, 08:51:15 06/20/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> John Constantine -- fresne, 09:43:01 06/20/02 Thu
Okay, Nicholas Cage! Please tell me this isn't definite. That's just wrong. It's so wrong I'm driven to use poor English - It's wronger than casting him as Superman. Gagh.
I'm inclined a bit more towards ASH as John in as much I save JM in my head for the Corinthian (the second one, not the first), but they both could do an excellent job in the role.
Actually, Giles whole electric coolaid past, playing with demons and forces he wasn't prepared for, makes me think very much of John's teen years. Down to the disastrous event that changed the course of their lives. Although, happily Giles didn't go the insane asylum route.
[> [> [> [> [> [> JM as the Corinthian, and Eliza Dushku as Death -- cjl, 09:46:11 06/20/02 Thu
Who plays the Sandman?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> AH as Delirium -- ponygirl, 11:04:53 06/20/02 Thu
Mainly 'cause her hair would look nice with the funky colours. Though it'd be nice to see Juliet Landau as a very scary Delirium. Sandman is hard! If we're limiting ourselves to BtVS actors maybe 1st season DB when he was a lot skinnier and broodier. Or Ford from Lie to Me, good actor and there was that one Roswell episode where he had spiky hair!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Brain-sucked Tara-style AB could be a great Delirium...and Miss Kitty Fantastico could be Barnabus! -- Rob, 17:44:32 06/20/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: John Constantine -- Darby, 10:20:12 06/20/02 Thu
Okay, I couldn't be vaguer(?) here, but a last year PBS' Mystery ran a BBC series about a very flawed inspector whose specialty was serial killers. Don't remember the series, don't remember the actor, but it struck me at the time that he could easily play John Constantine. Marsters could do it (not sure if he could get the same measure of quiet danger), but I can't imagine Cage pulling it off. Maybe the crash-and-burn failure of his last two films will get the studios looking elsewhere - of course, they'd only look at our guys if they decided to go on the cheap.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: John Constantine -- Freki, 11:21:23 06/20/02 Thu
Would that be the Touching Evil series? If so, the actor was named Robson Green. It was an excellent series, very dark. Definitely worth catching if they show it again.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> That's it! Thanks - I'm getting senile, but fortunately I forget that a lot... -- Darby, 11:50:26 06/20/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> Absolutely agree! Give it JM and Joss! -- shadowkat, 12:43:36 06/20/02 Thu
JM would be amazing as Constatine. Also very good as
Preacher...not to mention the Vampire Lestate.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Absolutely agree! Give it JM and Joss! -- Tymen, 14:44:28 06/20/02 Thu
JM would be amazing as Constatine. Also very good as
Preacher...not to mention the Vampire Lestate.
-----------
James Marsters could definitely play Cassidy.
[> [> Re: Willow and Dark Phoenix -- Chris, 10:48:46 06/19/02 Wed
Thanks, cjl, for this explanation (lurker here). Not being a comics reader, the Dark Phoenix allusions just passed me by and I knew I was missing some important background. Much obliged.
[> [> "With great power comes great responsibility": Buffy, Xander and Spiderman -- cjl, 11:01:29 06/19/02 Wed
From Psyche's transcript of "Flooded":
ANYA: Um ... i-i-if you wanna pay every bill here, and every bill coming, and ... have enough to start a nice college fund for Dawn? (big smile) Start charging.
BUFFY: (irritated) For what?
ANYA: Slaying vampires! (Xander looks embarrassed) Well, you're providing a valuable service to the whole community. I say cash in.
Awkward pause. Xander still looks uncomfortable. Anya doesn't pick up on it.
BUFFY: (carefully) Well, that's an idea ... you would have. Any other suggestions?
ANYA: (softly) Well, I mean, it's, it's not *so* crazy.
DAWN: Yes it is! You can't charge innocent people for saving their lives.
ANYA: Spiderman does.
DAWN: He does not!
ANYA: Does too.
DAWN: Does no-
Dawn stops herself, calms down a little.
DAWN: Xander?
Anya looks at Xander. He continues looking uncomfortable.
XANDER: (reluctantly) Action is his reward.
____________________________________________________________
Saw "Flooded" again last night, and this sequence was even better than I remembered it. Not only did we get Anya at her money-mongering best (and battling with Dawnie like a pair of fourth-graders), we luxuriated in prime Xander geek-age, and some superb SMG reaction shots. (The girl is soooo good with comedy.)
But even more, we got a mini-dissertation on one of Buffy's role models as a superhero. Just like Peter Parker, Buffy was a teenager when imbued with superhuman abilities, and disruption of ordinary life at that tender age made both Peter and Buffy reluctant to embrace Destiny. Right after his empowerment, Peter went for the cash (just like Anya suggested), but the brutal murder of his Uncle Ben by a criminal Peter let slide by convinced him that he had these powers for greater reasons than getting rich. "With great power, comes great responsibility" is Spidey's credo, and to a certain extent, it's Buffy's as well. Frightened by her imminent death in "Prophecy Girl," Buffy wanted to ditch the Slayer calling and return to life as a 16 year-old. But the murders in the Student Lounge reminded her of her true purpose.
[> [> Willow and Dark Phoenix... responsibilty... drawing lines -- yuri, 11:16:05 06/19/02 Wed
The parallel you make is very interesting to me, because at first I think it really isn't accurate... I think (and excuse me if I just misinterpret the hell out of this X-Men thing because I've never picked up an issue... though I'd like to!) that there is a huge difference between Willow and Jean Gray's respective freak-outs because Jean Gray was actually posessed, an event that [i assume] she had no choice in, wheras one could argue that Willow's descent or ascent or whatever was entirely her own doing.
Now, where it gets really interesting is when I start thinking about where you draw the line between something someone brings upon themselves and something someone has done to them... like the question of responsibility, I guess. When is a person responsible for their own actions? The thing is, the way I see it is it's either all one way or all the other. Either a person is responsible for EVERYTHING that happens to them, or nothing at all. Except we can't live that way. We'd just implode or something, we couldn't function in society... right? So we have to draw these somewhat arbitrary lines, fighting to create for ourselves a set of guidelines that tell us when we need to take responsibility for our actions and when we do not. But let me back up for a sec because I'm not sure I made my point very clearly...
Going from the fantastical (comics) to the very, very, real, (and I can't say this doesn't throw me off-kilter (heehee) a little, but I suppose it illustrates how much the two are connected even though some people try desperately to prove they are not) I had a conversation with a coworker the other day who's half palestinean and just returned from a two-year stay in Palestine, and is basically totally shellshocked. (I apologize if I've mentioned this before here and am rehashing to a certain extent, it's just been on my mind a lot.) He was talking to me about how he couldn't handle just talking to people, listening to their problems, because they seemed so stupid, so trivial, so irrelevant compared to what he had been through. It was interesting, because the first thing that popped in to my head was the one other time I've heard someone describe so intensely that sensation of being alienated and disconnected by the triviality of people here (besides, of course, the extent to which everyone does feel that at many points in their lives - both these people felt it to a real extreme) - when a friend of mine was released from two months in the hospital where she was hospitalized for anorexia nervosa. While her friends worried about this and that, about grades and friends and what time the next rally was, she had to worry about rolling over in bed and her bones breaking.
(bear with me, I'm approaching my point.) I wanted to tell my coworker about this friend of mine, but I thought for a moment... would he think that her problem was trivial? Would it seem disrespectful to parallel a girl whos problem is generally had by the [relatively] wealthy and well-off, to a person who was actually starving because they had no food, and whos family and friends were being killed all around them? It made me think... my friend was about as near death as possible, but because her state seems so much more fixable, like there are so many ways out, it seems much more shameful to be her than to be, say, a palestinian in Jenin right now. It's more "her fault," isn't it? But to think this is, I think, to give less credit than is due to the constraints and opression that can happen in a person's mind. People constantly appreciate and take in to serious consideration all that is physical and visable before all that is not. I am reminded of dream's post below, that spoke of hating the sin and not the sinner, because really if a person has sinned it is because of the circumstances that person has withstood, biological or social or familial, have caused that person to sin.
So my point is, I don't think you can blame an anorexic any more for their condition than one can for a civilian prisoner of war. They are both the casualty of some force, physical guns and violence, or biological or social imbalances and imperfections. Willow is just as much a victim of external forces (because by this philosophy one would probably say there really is nothing that is solely internal) as Jean Gray, or Jean Gray is just as much the agent as Willow. It only makes sense to me to think about it either entirely one way or entirely the other. But we have to distinguish, right? We have to at least put on the facade that says there is a difference... or else... or else what? People may stop trying to fix things, just fall in to their traps? That only happens if one doesn't really understand the concept, but it will happen. Anyhow, I beg response. (And apologize for the probable inelegance of grammar and such due to my typing this very quickly.) This feels like it might be one of those cliche things that people think and worry about, (like "is this reality really reality?") and if it is, I'm even more eager to hear what someone else has decided about it.
[> [> [> Responsibilty and drawing lines -- cjl, 11:32:56 06/19/02 Wed
yuri, I'm going to chicken out on the more serious issues you commented on here, but thank you for bringing them up just the same.
I'd just like to point out that ME seems to have given Willow a small "out" regarding her near-genocidal behavior by having her "possessed" by Dark Magicks. When she absorbed the contents of those books, she started talking about "Willow" in the third person, as if the magicks were an outside force eclipsing Willow's own personality. When Giles interposed with "Good Magicks," it allowed Willow's original personality to assert itself under Xander's tender loving care.
I do agree with you that Willow voluntarily absorbed those dark magicks, but Willow may not have been in her right mind, as she was reeling from Tara's death. (In the same way, Jean Grey was supposedly given a choice by the Phoenix force whether or not she would join with it--but given that her "choice" was either absorb the Phoenix or the X-Men get splattered all over Long Island upon re-entry from space, it wasn't much of a choice at all....)
It's a tough one. To what degree is Willow culpable for her actions? As I said in the post above, X-Men writer Chris Claremont had one view about Jean's culpability but his boss had another. Jean had to die for her crimes.
Serious business for funny books.
[> [> [> [> Re: Responsibilty and drawing lines -- JM, 14:07:17 06/19/02 Wed
Actually, I thought it was the "white magics" that were responsible for the genocidal impulses. It seemed to me that Giles nearly precipitated an apocolypse through miscalculating the affect of dosing Willow. It was her supersensativity to human pain, and her genuine desire to stop all the suffering, that prompted her to end the world. Luckily it cut through the nasty numbing buzz of Rack's magic enough for to her to be able to hear and feel what Xander was saying. If not for that little bit of luck with Xander's timing, Anya's would have had a point with "maybe it would have been better if you hadn't come," though a moot one.
Giles seemed to think he would be able to get through to Willow right away. I don't think that he had any conception of how much of the destructiveness was purely Willow, not subtance imbued at all. The dark magic mostly stripped her inhibitions away. Some of those petty angers and frustrations with her friends had been there all along. And the desire to make pain stop because she says so. So I'm thinking that the lines of responsibility go something along the lines of Willow being responsible for Warren's death because she deliberately chose to juice herself up, knowing the effect of the magics and the moral issues of what she intended to do. (Temporary insanity probably not going to cut it here.) Still responsible for threatening/attacking Andrew, Jonathan, and the Scoobs, though it's more a distortion of her true personality. She chose to absorb Rack's magic, but it was pretty powerfully affecting. Still you get yourself drunk or high, you're morally and legally responsible for what you do under the influence.
On the other hand, I don't think you are responsible when someone slips you a drug -- what Giles did to Willow. So I think she is *slightly* less culpable for her choice to kill everybody else. Still got herself to blame for getting to that moment. Anyway, it's a bit of an out.
[> [> [> [> [> Agree with you about Giles' White Magic Mickey... -- cjl, 14:26:00 06/19/02 Wed
But not so sure that Willow was guilty of killing Warren while she was "drunk" or "high." After Tara was shot, she walked out of the Summers house frighteningly calm, almost as if she were in a state of shock. (She probably was.) That's when she absorbed the dark magic(k) books and went on Rampage #1. A good case could be made for Willow's legal insanity due to the combination of witnessing Tara's bloody, gruesome death and the mind-altering effects of the dark magicks.
Of course, that's assuming we could find a courtroom in the U.S. which would even consider a legal debate about the mind-altering effects of dark magick....
Perhaps she'll have to be judged by a court better suited for her particular crime. The coven in Devon? The PTB themselves?
Fan fic anyone?
[> [> [> [> Re: Responsibilty and drawing lines -- yuri, 16:33:13 06/19/02 Wed
ahh, thanks for clarifying about Jean Grey and all, I guess that part of the analogy didn't work so well. And I suppose in a way your points support mine - that there really is no uniform way to make the distinction, just grayness upon grayness and covered in fog.. It was a rather serious post, though, wasn't it? I feel like I do that a lot, and it might be a little groanworthy, like oh there she goes with the issues again, but I can't help it, it's just what I think about. Well, I don't think there's a rule that says we can't get too serious...
(off to check the FAQ!!)
[> [> [> [> [> Don't feel that way! -- Rahael, 16:38:23 06/19/02 Wed
I enjoy reading your posts.
Of course, I may be indulging in special pleading here. I'm hardly the poster girl for lightheartedness.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Second that thought -- Arethusa, 07:17:06 06/20/02 Thu
Of course, if I were a cartoon character, I'd be drawn with a little black cloud over my head all the time!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Third that thought...have you seen mine? -- shadowkat, 12:41:15 06/20/02 Thu
Certainly not the poster child for lightness myself.
My posts always tend to lean towards the serious side...sigh.
And yours are wonderful yuri!!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks so much, y'all. Reassurance from three wonderful posters is a great thing. -- yuri, who's declared her self-pity hour definitely over., 16:16:41 06/20/02 Thu
[> [> [> I wish I could accept this excuse for Willow -- Sophist, 16:27:58 06/19/02 Wed
I'd love to give her an out. The problem is, I can't see where to stop with your analogy. What about the killers of Matthew Shepherd? The church bombers in Birmingham? I could go on, but surely we can't just say these people were only products of forces beyond their control. And even if we could say that, don't we have to lock them up forever just to protect ourselves in case those forces get control of them again?
[> [> [> [> I'm not disagreeing with you, but if you're right, what the heck do we do with Angel? -- cjl, 16:58:22 06/19/02 Wed
You see, we've been dealing with this problem on Buffy ever since Angel came back in Season 3. This is the reason why a chunk of Buffy-dom Assembled hated "Amends," regardless of how much juicy back story it provided: a lot of fans couldn't swallow Joss' anvil-icious snowstorm. ("See, kids? He spent 100 years in Hell, and God says it's all right to forgive Angel!")
OK, Joss, OK--we forgive him. But what happens if Angel has a happy again, and Angelus comes out to play? (It almost happened in Angel S1's "Eternity.") Who's going to clean up the piles of bodies around Los Angeles? (I can't continue this paragraph. I have to eat dinner at some point...)
Think about this too much and you almost start to sympathize with Xander's point of view: "Soul. Right. So what? Still a vampire. Killed people and could kill people again. Where's my axe?" (Except in this case, Xander will be defending Willow to the rest of the group! Ah, Joss, you sneaky devil...)
The problem here is...this is a horror/fantasy series, and the fantasy elements don't fit into our regular system of jurisprudence. Our court system can judge the killers of Matthew Shepherd and the church bombers. But is Angel legally responsible for the crimes of Angelus, or did his soul-less state render him unfit for trial? Can a California District Court judge whether Willow's absorption of Dark Magick impaired her sense of right and wrong?
I'll say again that Willow MUST be judged, by a court able to deal with the loopier, metaphysical aspects of her crime. (No fluffy snowstorms and arm-in-arm walks through the town.) Maybe the coven or a tribunal of the PTB.
[But on a practical level, how do you punish Willow and keep AH in the series? 50 years in a mid-level hell dimension, equal to about three months Earth time? Any other suggestions?]
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I'm not disagreeing with you, but if you're right, what the heck do we do with Angel? -- Jane's Addiction, 18:08:36 06/19/02 Wed
I've always tried to stay away from drawing any corollaries between the mystical JossVerse and the legal system of OurVerse for this reason (well, and because I'm no lawyer). I guess I tend to see it in more of a psychological and emotional context.
But I imagine we'll see Willow's actions being dealt with (perhaps by the Devon Coven initially) in S7. Ultimately, though, I think it'll be about Willow (and the rest of the SG) coming to terms with not just her own actions, but the psychological issues and emotional frailty behind them. She may mete out the most severe punishment to herself.
Personally, I think the whole "Corruption of Our Will" story arc has been a pretty powerful way of examining the strengths and frailties of the human condition.
[> [> [> [> [> The Angel story arc gave us a way out -- Sophist, 19:10:11 06/19/02 Wed
And it isn't his time in hell (though that certainly helps). No, the "out" is that Angel and Angelus are 2 different creatures. One is not responsible for the other. They drove that point home time and again: The Harvest; the Pack; Lie to Me; Surprise; Innocence. It's not just the quotes, the whole story line requires that distinction.
Willow doesn't have that excuse. In fact, she doesn't have any excuse. I see no way we or the SG can forgive her, and if they go the Amends route, well, that's cheap even beyond your description.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The Angel story arc gave us a way out -- Jane's Addiction, 20:00:27 06/19/02 Wed
So, as long as we're examining things in this light, just how clear are we regarding Giles' excuse in the murder of Ben?
The SG's former resident adult did knowingly murder a human being, because of what? A psychotic hellgod within that had a very limited window of time (rapidly expiring as Giles committed the murder of the human host) to pull off an apocalypse to go home to the hell she came from?
If we're looking at things through the lens of our realworld legal system, does it not seem that Giles' actions come into very great question themselves? It seems there was more than reasonable doubt that Glory could've come out to stage another serious attempt at apocalypse anytime soon. Yet Giles, with what would seem to untrained legal eyes to be little in the way of mitigating factors, suffocated the human man.
Was it really to stop Glory from any future evil scheme she might hatch, or in vengeance for Ben's cowardly betrayal or Dawn? Remember that Giles might have been battling his own inner demons at that point for his own betrayal of Dawn (and Buffy), though that betrayal was for far more altruistic purposes. The fact remains, he murdered a human being for reasons that could be seen as far less than clear. And (aside from Tara's "mind-sucked soothsayer" proclamation, "You're a killer,") not one peep has been made about it since.
How has Giles been judged? Well, he hasn't been judged, because it has yet to even be acknowledged by the SG that he murdered a human being, never mind deciding whether he will be forgiven.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Not vengeance. -- Off-kilter, 20:27:36 06/19/02 Wed
I might have missed it, but Giles never knows about Ben's betrayal of Dawn. So, for all he knew, Ben was as innocent as Dawn. What does that say about him?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Not vengeance. -- Jane's Addiction, 20:48:49 06/19/02 Wed
Hmm ... You may be right. I'll have to go back and watch the ep again (sure - twist my arm, why don't ya?)
I guess I was mostly surprised that the whole matter was basically ignored in S6, with Giles gatting off back to England. But since he is expected to be in a few more episodes next season and will likely be somewhat involved in the Willow storyline, it would be nice to see him have to deal honestly with his own actions as well.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agree, loose threads galore- anyone got more? -- Off-kilter, 23:55:09 06/19/02 Wed
Yeah, it is kind of annoying that a great opportunity to explore the evil that happens in the pursuit of good. Unfortunetly, ME and Joss can't follow up all of the seeds they sow. After all, look at all of the other stuff they didn't address . . . yet.
Giles betrayal of Buffy in Helpless and Buffy's disillusionment. Buffy's attempt to kill Faith. Dawn stating that she's not sure she can be good. I know I had more things listed in my head, but the access code to my brain has failed.
Joss may be God in the Buffyverse, but I don't believe the oft used statement that he never lets anything go to waste. He does, however, do a brillent job of sowing seeds well in advance and also going back over his material and pulling out things to use for his new stories. Go Joss!
[> [> [> [> [> [> But the thing is, she's already been forgiven... -- Rob, 10:12:25 06/20/02 Thu
...and that is what got her to stop destroying the world, in the first place. Xander gave her unconditional love. He told her, flat-out, that no matter what she did, he loved her. Break-the-crayon Willow and Scary Veiny Willow are one and the same to him. It's this forgiveness that caused her to lose her will to off the world.
So I don't think it's a question of whether they forgive Willow, but whether Willow will be able to forgive herself. And, IMO, that makes it so much worse. Willow is surrounded by friends who want to help her and, I believe, will tell her it's okay, etc, but she will have a great deal more trouble convincing herself of that.
Re: Angel and Angelus. I never bought that they were two completely separate creatures. Each one is affected strongly by the other. For example, Angel's love of Buffy translated to Angelus' obsession with her. Also, when Angel first described to Buffy about psychologically torturing and then vamping Dru, he said "I did it," quite clearly. Not "Angelus did it." Angel assumes full responsibility for his actions as Angelus. If he didn't, then he wouldn't have gone through the over-100 years of guilt for his actions. He could have just said they were beyond his control.
But he didn't. Because Angel is merely Angelus + guilt/conscience.
If they weren't one and the same, why would Angelus have been so furious that Buffy had made him feel human, made him feel love? He could have written it off that Angel loved Buffy, not him, he had no control over it, etc. But I think the thing that scared him most was his memory of love and humanity, and the possibility that, as Angelus, he may still have had those feelings for Buffy.
Re: Your examples--
"The Harvest" example of "just a demon wearing your body with your memories, but with no human feelings, etc" was, I believe a bit of mythology the Watchers spread to make sure that Slayers would see vamps as only things to be killed. There was more evidence in other episodes that humans and their vamp-counterparts were closer than most people would like to think. The best example probably being VampWillow in "Doppelgangland," and Angel's ambiguous response to the statement that a vamp-personality has no bearing on the human's.
In "Lie to Me," it was still early on--Buffy still hadn't reached the point where she could accept that vamps were merely humans changed by demon physiology and minus their souls.
"The Pack" was a different case altogether--that was a demonic/animal "possession" where a completely external force was driving Xander and the pack's actions. With vamps, it's the exact opposite...it's the lack of an integral part of what makes someone human that creates the evil within them.
I have the exact opposite opinion as you. I think that the storyline requires the realization that Angel and Angelus are the same. If they were merely two completely different creatures occupying the same body, there would be no feelings of responsibility for actions done. Angelus wouldn't be mad that he, as Angel, had fallen in love with Buffy; Angel wouldn't be guilty for all the evil things Angelus had done over the years.
So I think Willow and Angel are in very similar boats. Willow, when she consumed the dark magic, lost her humanity, just as Angel had. And just like Angel, she will suffer internally for the pain she had caused. And just as Buffy forgave Angel, I think she will forgive Willow. It may be extremely hard, but let's think back to "I Only Have Eyes for You"...
BUFFY
He wants forgiveness.
GILES
Yes. I imagine he does. But when
James possesses people they act out
exactly what happened that night, so
instead he's experiencing a form of
purgatory. He's doomed to kill his
Miss Newman over and over again - and
forgiveness is impossible.
BUFFY
Good. He doesn't deserve it.
GILES
To forgive is an act of compassion,
Buffy. It's not done because people
deserve it. It's done because they
need it.
And I think that's the crux of the entire issue. The snow didn't come down on "Amends" because Angel deserved forgiveness, but because he needed it, to move on with his life, and to get over the past. Willow didn't deserve to be forgiven, but she was...that is what she needed to fight the evil within herself.
And I think that's a nice place to wrap up. :o)
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Love and forgiveness aren't the same -- Sophist, 10:58:50 06/20/02 Thu
Xander offered her unconditional love. That's not the same as forgiving her. Among other things, Xander is not the one who needs to forgive her; it's cheap coming from him. Does Warren forgive her? Jonathan? Andrew? Does society at large? Do you? And if you do, why?
The point of IOHEFY was not that Buffy forgave Angelus, but that she forgave herself. She blamed herself for Angel's turn to Angelus. There was no reason for her to do that, so forgiveness was appropriate.
Lie to Me was not "early on", it preceeded Surprise/Innocence by just 5 episodes. It was part of a consistent line we were told from, literally, Day 1. Buffy expressly says to Ford "You die, and a demon sets up shop in your old house, and it walks, and it talks, and it remembers your life, but it's not you." This is identical in substance to what Giles told Xander about Jesse in The Harvest. It is identical to what Angel told Buffy in Angel and again in Innocence. It is identical to what happened to Xander in The Pack.
It's not just the dialogue, Rob. The whole storyline involving the Judge won't work if Angelus doesn't differ from Angel. If Angel could be burned, but Angelus couldn't, there was, and had to be, a difference between them.
Angel feels responsible because he shares the memories of what Angelus did. That's understandable psychologically, but we outsiders need not pass moral judgment on him on that basis. That's the difference between memory and conscience.
As for Amends, that was Angel's forgiveness for Liam, not Angelus. "It's not the demon in me that needs killing, it's the man." Angel had brooded for 100 years before Buffy. Meeting her gave him a purpose. The purpose was fulfilled with the defeat of Acathla. He couldn't understand why a worthless man like him would be brought back again (honing his brooding skills some more?). He needed that forgiveness to move on. It had nothing to do with Angelus.
Willow has none of these excuses. And what she did is not forgivable.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Willow, Angel/Angelus and Chances -- Ixchel, 21:20:20 06/20/02 Thu
If Willow can act in a constructive manner from now on and help Buffy in her work (protecting humans from predatory demons, stopping the occasional apocalypse), then I feel the same way about her as I do about Spike (and Angel, Anya, Faith). She can't ever "pay" for killing Warren (and Rack, also), that's impossible. But, she can help others (as previously) and make something positive from her life. Of course, just as any future positive acts won't negate her negative ones, so too her negative ones don't negate her previous positive ones. Who knows how Willow's heart would balance against Maat? If it is quantifiable, she _has_ saved more people than she has killed. And how does one attempted apocalypse weigh in against assisting in the aversion of two others (would Buffy have been able to perform her sacrifice without Willow weakening Glory)? As to Warren, he's, perhaps, past such things (in his afterlife)? And Jonathan and Andrew should look for their own forgiveness (whatever that may be), the question of them forgiving Willow doesn't seem relevant to me (JMHO). They both took willing part in treating Buffy like an object and callously manipulating her life (not to mention everything they did to SD). Jonathan seemed to have learned something and tried to be better (though fear got the better of him). Andrew didn't really seem to learn anything, I'm not sure he even knows what he did was wrong. As to society, well Willow did stop her attempted apocalypse (with intervention from Xander). Her situation is, somewhat, similar to a vampire's, though she knew more what the effect of the magic would be (and how it "changed" her) than Liam or William knew about the effect of being turned. However, there is the question of how much more, she wanted revenge and so absorbed the "dark" magic from the books, not caring it would destroy her. But, did she know how fully it would unleash her negative aspect, make her want more "dark" power (and take it from Rack), enable her to (presumably) ignore her soul (as, it seems, being a vengeance demon previously did for Anya), and change her so much that she'd _want_ to harm her loved ones? I don't know that I "forgive" her, but I still like the character (she is one of my, reluctantly admitted because I like all the characters, favorites still along with Buffy and Spike) and I have hope for her.
IMHO, the CoW party line on the difference between vampires and the humans they were is extremely suspect (no matter how many characters espouse it). There has been too much physical evidence (IMHO) that contradicts this (the similarity in negative aspects of humans and the behavior of their vampire "counterpart"). And if there's no cognitive break between human and vampire (Angel remembers Liam, Angelus and himself as "I"), then the schism between Angel and Angelus (I like dream of the consortium's term "Angel Doctrine" for this assumed split) and _all_ vampires tends to seem irrelevant (to me). The AtS Pylea episodes showed the nature of the demon portion of the vampire (nonsentient, no personality) and the soul appears to be simply the "moral compass" and doesn't contain anything else (for example, it wasn't necessarily Buffy's soul that was in "heaven", it could've been her awareness or personality, stripped from her body and suspended in another dimension), so (to me) the vampire, having the personality of the human (clearly, though mostly the negative aspects are expressed, enhanced by the predatory nature of the demon) _is_ that person. Changed by their circumstances, with a strong inclination to be violent, their positive aspect mostly suppressed (without support of the soul), but still _them_ (their quirks, desires). Also, those who advocate the CoW explanation have a vested interest in doing so (another reason it doesn't stand up under scrutiny for me). As to Xander in TP, one difference is that he didn't lose his soul, other than that I agree it was like a human being turned (keeping in mind my theory). His manifestion of the hyena violence seemed specific to his personality (IMHO), as if the possession amplified the negative aspect of him, supressed the positive and sort of "disabled" his soul (basically what I believe happens with vampires, only they lose the soul entirely). He was still Xander, desiring Buffy and dimissive of Willow, only he didn't have his positive aspect to counterbalance this, respecting Buffy and loving Willow. My point being that nothing expressed by Xander when possessed needed to come from without, the potentiality for negative behavior was there and only had to be unleashed (and, possibly, enhanced). IMHO, this applies in almost exactly the same way to vampires (and vengeance demons and, perhaps, "aware" werewolves like Veruca, except the soul is presumably ignored for these two rather than lost). The potentiality for the most vile "evil" and the most sublime "good" is within everyone. Certain demon/human combinations simply manifest (mostly) the "evil" of a person.
I believe the storyline of the Judge works because Angelus (Angel with his negative aspect fully expressed and his positive aspect fully suppressed) couldn't feel any positive emotion, it was an anathema to him. All his positive feelings as Angel were converted (by force of will, by strength of his negative aspect?) to their negative expression (he _is_ all about control, control of others, control of himself). I postulate that the Judge based his detection of "humanity" on detection of positive emotion, which Spike and Drusilla had as part of their beings (a small seepage of each one's positive aspect into the negative one) and Angel had (his positive aspect supported by his soul being dominant), but Angelus didn't have (all he had were negative ones, acceptable to the Judge, I think). There is a difference, certainly, just as there is a difference between me at my cruelest and me at my kindest, but I'm still me.
I would also point out, if the CoW party line applies, Angel _isn't_ a "man", he's the demon who took over Liam's body and memories, and then later was cursed with a soul. He's _still_ the demon, just with a different view on his existence and a "moral compass". So for him to think in Amends that it's the man who "needs killing" doesn't really make sense (IMHO), again according to CoW doctrine. I could offer a twist on his speech and say that the _demon_ doesn't deserve killing (the mindless creature shown in Pylea just has predatory tendancies and blood-hunger), but the _man_ whose personality contained the seeds of Angelus' penchant for torture, desire for control and capacity for cruelty. The man who hated his father and killed him once powerful enough to do so and freed from the bonds of conscience. Angelus was the expression of everything negative within Liam (amplified) and Angel is the expression (most times, not always) of everything positive within Liam (buried fairly deeply, I would think, and perhaps never given form because of his father's treatment of him, though I think he may of been kind to his sister). Also, if Angelus was irrelevant, why was it that all the people the First Evil manifested as to torment him were people he killed as Angelus, especially his most recent and fairly important (because of Buffy) kill, Jenny? Why not people he had wronged as a human? And I doubt whatever he did when Liam was worth 100 years of brooding but, what he did when Angelus certainly could be. I believe some part of Angel knows how Angelus is his negative aspect unleashed (he has even deliberately unleashed a controlled portion of it, I say "controlled" because he is, mostly, careful of his friends), this has been quite emphasized on AtS (IMHO). I would think that in Amends, he doesn't understand why a _being_ such as himself, containing such "evil" potential, should be allowed a chance to be better. Maybe, the reason is that he also contains such "good" potential and he has Willow (a "good" action on her part, not that she can take credit for everyone he's saved since the resouling, but she _did_ make it possible) to thank for that soul that enables this potential and the accompanying chance.
Perhaps, Willow can't be "excused", but, maybe, she can have a chance to be better (as the Willow of before)?
All the above, of course, is JMHO and mostly ramblings (obviously).
Ixchel
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I am a redemptionist -- Sophist, 10:08:16 06/21/02 Fri
I've said so many times in the Spike debate. Like you (and that's generally the case with your posts), I love Willow. It's because I like her so much that I'm searching so hard for an answer here.
Yes, Willow can be redeemed. Yes, we have to judge her life as a whole, not just for her murder of Warren (which bothers me much more than the attempted apocalypse). Redemption (or rehabilitation) can come even for such horror. But you got to pay your dues; you know it don't come easy.
Willow now is where Faith was the day she turned herself in. Absent a nearly Christ-like act on Willow's part, it's hard to see her as redeemed within the life of the show. Do I really want to spend S7 and beyond (?) seeing Willow like Faith is now? Hardly. That's not Willow. That Willow is gone, probably forever, and that's what saddens me so much.
As for the Angel/Angelus line, I see it this way. If the characters on BtVS tell us something about real life, we don't have to believe it. When Spike says, "Love isn't brains, children, it's blood...", I can assess for myself whether it's true. It's not doctrine. In fact, ME can even contradict Spike (as they did with the school psychologist in BatB) and play it both ways. That's fair because different people can believe different things. The only requirement is that Spike continue to behave like he believes this.
The situation is different when we get to facts uniquely within the Buffyverse. Those are facts I can't independently assess. When we're told such a fact by an authoritative source, the integrity of the show requires that we be entitled to believe it. When that fact is then re-stated on at least 4 subsequent occasions, forcefully, then it's Doctrine. When that doctrine then becomes an essential fact in the major story arc of S2, ME can't back away from it. Ever.
Look at it this way. If Angel and Angelus are not really that different, then Buffy should be able to love Angelus (or vice versa). If she can't (and I take it there's no dispute here), then Angelus must be missing something, something important, that Angel has. That missing "something" -- soul, or whatever -- is enough to make the two creatures "different" such that one is not responsible for the acts of the other.
The ironic thing is, ME reinforced this essential logic when they insisted on giving Spike a soul. If they hadn't done that, maybe we all could have conveniently forgotten S2. They didn't, and we can't.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Reinforcing the Doctrine (and the futile wish for heresy) -- cjl, 11:30:38 06/21/02 Fri
It wasn't ironic. Spike's re-souling was Mutant Enemy stomping its foot on possible heresy within its own ranks and re-establishing the soul as THE necessary component for redemption. If Joss and ME really had a set of orbs, they would gone the existential route and tried to redeem Spike without it and flip our collective feet out from under us. (Could you imagine the debates on this board?!)
But no, no heresy within the Church of Joss. Can't really blame him for that--it's his story, his rules, and if we don't like it, we don't have to watch. But I held out vain hopes for a truly revolutionary outcome for Spike's quest for redemption.
Sigh.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Frustrated heretic -- Off-kilter, 19:49:43 06/22/02 Sat
*sigh*
Me too. Was hoping that the Church of Fundies would have a coup and Spike would be the Martin Luther nailing up a new doctrine to the door. No insights to offer, just agreeing with the sentiment.
*going off to mourn my dead storyline*
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Lost Willow, Doctrine and S2 -- Ixchel, 14:45:46 06/22/02 Sat
I just reread my post and I realized I might have seemed a little abrasive. I hope I didn't offend.
Regarding Willow, honestly (truly) I really don't completely understand what people mean when they say "redeemed". I don't think, for example, that Angel can _ever_ make up for what he's done (not just as Angelus, but there's also the "lawyer buffet"). Saving someone's life doesn't repay some other for the loss of his/hers. But he can _try_ to make up for what he's done and in doing this become a positive influence on the world. Maybe, this is the crux of your sadness about Willow? That she'll never be the same again? If so, I believe I understand. The innocent, "uncontaminated" Willow is gone, though I'm not sure she didn't begin leaving in TL. I still think, though, that the kind, gentle, empathetic, caring and loving Willow is still there. I believe, perhaps, this "contamination" of Willow is a reflection of Buffy's decision to kill Faith in S3? Only that Buffy was lucky that she didn't succeed and Willow wasn't, that Buffy had a clear chance of reversing what Faith did by killing her and Willow definitely didn't, that Buffy didn't seem interested in Faith suffering and Willow deliberately tortured Warren, and that Buffy seemed to regret immediately what she'd done and we don't know yet the extent of Willow's regret? As an aside, I wonder why Warren's death distressed people (including myself) much more than Rack's? Is it because of the torture (that may be it for me)? Do people assume that Rack doesn't count as a human? I don't see that Warren was any less "deserving" of death than Rack, but maybe others do? Regardless, I sympathize with your sadness over Willow.
As to the Angel/Angelus question, I suppose we're not going to agree on this. I believe that we have been given a mass of contradictory dialogue and "physical evidence", my theory is what I happen to extract from all this. It is, of course, JMHO, but I think it can be supported by events within the shows (along with many other interpretations, I'm certain). I believe that Angelus was incapable of positive emotion because, without the soul, his positive aspect (and I'm using a shorthand here, I suppose I really should say positive _aspects_, as I don't think they're so discrete as two distinct "entities") could not manifest in any way. This, however, could be seen as more particular to the personality of _Angel_ than a statement about vampires in general. For example, the Judge seemed able to burn Spike and Drusilla, and did burn the bookish minion. Maybe other vampires could have been burned as well, the Master had affection for Darla and the Annointed One, Harmony had affection for Cordelia, etc. That Angel so polarized his personality seems consistent with his _need_ for control and "religious" thought processes (with a soul I'm good, without a soul I must be evil). And that he must cling to this idea that there's an important difference between him and Angelus to protect his own idea of himself (and sanity, maybe) is apparent, IMHO (even if sometimes there seem to be hints that, on some level, he doubts the reality of the separation). As to the authoritativeness of Giles (I assume that's who you refer to), his views (that support doctrine) are based on the CoW's and the show has clearly shown how trustworthy they _aren't_. I don't see any subsequent seasons as backing away from S2, but rather we're being shown different facets of the situations present within the show from the beginning (just as later in life you might understand some event from earlier differently than you understood it at the time).
As to responsibility, I believe that both aspects of Angel are responsible for the actions of the other, in the sense that all these actions have their roots in the personality of Liam. However, the loss of his soul seems to completely incapacitate the positive aspect of Angel, so he is unable to struggle against his negative aspect. I think this is a difference of personality, like some human characters seem to have less trouble ignoring their souls than others. So, to me, the question of responsibility is very nebulous. I would postulate that it's _extremely_ difficult for a vampire (lacking a soul, having the predatory urges) to manifest anything other than the negative aspects of his/her personality. So much of a struggle, that most never try and, in fact, are completely unaware that they _can_ try. For example, Harmony is simple and acts the way she believes a vampire should act (as most do, I imagine, encouraged by their vampire "instincts"), but she's also so simple that she believed she could be different if she decided to. That she was later swayed back to a far easier path is understandable (she _is_ simple, a follower and it's _easier_).
I'm not sure that the "doctrine" was reinforced by Spike getting a soul. Spike, obviously (to me), had access to his positive aspect. He felt things that, according to doctrine, vampires shouldn't. He felt shame about the Buffybot (Intervention), guilt over failing Buffy (AL) and intense remorse over the incident in SR. The fact that he _wanted_ a soul (assuming that's true) is a subversion of the doctrine (IMHO). Also, we don't yet know how the soul will effect Spike. He could be more "Randyish", which would be acceptable to my theory, as I perceived "Randy" as being Spike basically without the negative aspects manifested. Or he could be even less different, to the point that he's annoyed that he went to all that trouble and doesn't feel _that_ different (just disinclined to act on negative emotions and able to extrapolate his feelings for, say, Dawn to random people like the girl in the alley, Smashed). I really believe that Spike wanting the soul is the important factor. That he now has one is, perhaps, better for him so his struggle won't be so overwhelming and it should increase his chances of controlling his (vampire amplified) negative aspects. As an aside, even if they had allowed Spike to be consistently "good" without a soul, I don't believe this would have required we forget S2. Angel is just one specific vampire, with his own particularities. He isn't _necessarily_ the "standard" upon which _all_ possible vampire behavior must be based (case in point, the "vamphos" show a remarkable restraint and, IMHO, sensibleness in their approach to being a vampire). Or Spike could be described as a truly exceptional vampire, able to do what others couldn't (even if they tried).
So, I really don't have any difficulty encompassing S2 within my theory (IMHO, I can draw support for it from that season). However, I don't mean to imply by any of the above that your viewpoint is invalid, or that my theory is correct and should be acceptable to you.
Thank you for your response, you've really caused me to formalize most of my thoughts on these issues (as this Board has about the shows in general). And, as always, I very much enjoy your posts.
Ixchel
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Love your responses in this subthread, Ixchel! -- Exegy, 14:59:49 06/22/02 Sat
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> me too! Esp. on Angel -- Rahael, 16:23:06 06/22/02 Sat
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> "Here's me [sincerely] basking in the love." Thanks, Exegy and Rahael! -- Ixchel, 17:32:06 06/22/02 Sat
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Your original post -- Sophist, 16:36:46 06/22/02 Sat
was not abrasive at all. Must be my response that made you think so. Sorry.
I think there are valid ways of seeing the Angel/Angelus issue. I'm a traditionalist, I guess. :)
Rack didn't bother me as much for 2 reasons: I wasn't sure he was human, and he had the ability to fight back.
You've identified the heart of my problem with Willow. Willow was always, for lack of a better term, cute. Adorable. Big eyes, great smile. Babbled sweetly. It's hard for me to see how she can do any of this anymore and have it appear anything other than offensive. Faith was never cute or sweet, but imagine seeing her act that way now. Wouldn't you want to gag if she did? That's the problem.
I don't like the term "redemption". Too many Christian connotations that I don't intend. I've tried using "rehabilitation", but it doesn't quite work. Neither one requires undoing the past; that's not possible. Both, as you rightly note, look to the future. Whatever term we use, coming back from what Willow did requires either an enormous sacrifice on her part or a great deal of time (in a series that probably has just one more season). It's hard to see how they can pull off either one.
And thanks. I feel the same way about your posts.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Warren and Rack, Innocent Willow and Humpty-Dumpty -- Ixchel, 19:59:22 06/22/02 Sat
Please don't apologize, it wasn't you at all. I just reread it and thought, that seems kind of arrogant, you might want to explain yourself. :)
I agree about the validity of the various angles on the Angel/Angelus question (I doubt we'll ever have a definitive answer, though). I suppose I must be an iconoclast. ;)
The more I think about the difference in my feelings about the deaths of Warren and Rack, the more I think it was the torture. Also, we "knew" Warren more than Rack (I think this might be a factor for me as well). As to being not human, I'm not sure either. But, though he hurt people, we never saw him kill anyone (not that I'd believe him incapable, quite the opposite). This is an interesting question, at what point might he have stopped being human (assuming he was to begin with)? The Mayor was "safely" ascended (with the correct combination for justified slayage: a threat to humans and a demon) when Buffy killed him, so there was no moral problem. But, at what point did he change? When he made himself impervious to harm? When he halted his aging process? I agree that Rack was _able_ to defend himself, but it didn't seem difficult for Willow to overcome him (it seems he foolishly overestimated his power over her). I believe it took Willow longer to overcome Warren, discounting tracking and torturing time.
I think I understand better now about Willow. I suppose the "innocent" Willow _is_ gone (and _would_ be discordant with what she has done). And I did like that part of her personality, it was endearing (just as Anya's bluntness is, to me). Though, even if Willow hadn't gone "evil" I'm not sure that Tara's death wouldn't have destroyed "innocent" Willow anyway. Honestly, I don't know that I _can_ imagine Faith acting like Willow used to, it just wouldn't be Faith. However, she did joke a little with Angel in Judgement and it wasn't offensive (IMHO). Maybe, they can preserve some of Willow's charm, if they are very skilled in writing it?
I agree about "redemption" and "rehabilitation", neither seems completely appropriate. I'm not sure the word we need even exists (in English anyway). Maybe, we (here at the Board) should create our own word? I think it'd be helpful for these discussions. As to what Willow could do to move in the direction of "repairing" the damage, I don't know. I do remember feeling much more positive about Angel after he saved Willow in Revelations (perhaps, I was influenced by her feeling that way). It _does_ seem like time is needed for Willow and there's not much time left. Her situation is fairly Humpty-Dumpty post-wall and I'm clueless about how they'll continue with this. Something I wonder, were all the positive Willow moments (saving Buffy in DMP and Villains, curing Buffy in NA) before her rampage meant to cushion the blow for us? To remind us of how "good", helpful and loving Willow has been over the years, before showing us the extent of her negative aspect?
You're welcome. It's so pleasant to be able to come here and discuss BtVS with people who give it so much thought.
Ixchel
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Needing forgiveness -- Off-kilter, 15:09:14 06/20/02 Thu
GILES
To forgive is an act of compassion,
Buffy. It's not done because people
deserve it. **It's done because they
need it.**
I wonder if this statement can encompass the person doing the forgiving along with the person being forgiven. To forgive someone, not because they deserve it, or even because they're asking for it, but because YOU need it.
Not saying that you have to forgive all trespasses against you, just that it can be helpful in order to live in this world where people -intentionally or not- are constantly harming each other.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Lovely Point, Off-kilter -- Jane's Addiction, 19:55:26 06/20/02 Thu
Jeez, look at all the trouble you started with your very first thread!
I fear to think what you'll do with your next;) Good job.
[> [> [> [> Re: I wish I could accept this excuse for Willow -- yuri, 14:44:11 06/22/02 Sat
I totally though I"d responded to this, and I'm probably just going in circles and repeating myself, but I wanted to say that yes, I believe the church bombers and the killers of Matthew Shepherd were just incredibly unfortunate people, products of really incredibly terrible circumstances. Yes, something needed to be done about them, but doing something (rehablitation rather than punishment) doesn't mean that they are entirely responsible for what they've done, or that they should be told that. Rather, they should be educated on the reasons why what they did were wrong and what in their past has steered them in the wrong direction.
[> [> [> Re: Willow and Dark Phoenix... responsibilty... drawing lines -- Arethusa, 09:34:27 06/20/02 Thu
There is always a point where someone makes a decision. No matter how clouded or faulty their reasoning is, at some point they do decide to pick up that gun, or needle, or esoteric volumne on Black Majick. Unless that person is truly not responsible for biological and/or psychological reasons, they have to be accountable for their own actions. It's unfair and puts the burden on the victim, but "if a person has sinned it is because of the circumstances that person has withstood, biological or social or familial, have caused that person to sin" is an excuse, not a reason. Whether it's a victim killing me or an "evil" person, I'm just as dead. We are obligated, by society and the moral compass that is inside almost all of us, to deal with our issues in a way that doesn't harm others-or ourselves, if possible. One can't help being a victim, but one can refrain from becoming a professional victim. Willow is responsible for all her actions. The circumstances surrounding her crimes should be used to mitigate her punishment, not lesson her degree of culpability.
Does any of this make sense?
[> [> [> [> arbitrary-ness (is there even a noun for arbitrary?) -- yuri, 12:09:23 06/20/02 Thu
I completely understand what you're saying, but my point is that everyone has biological and/or psychological reasons for what they do... if you discount a dislecsic's mistake in calculating an equation because of their learning disorder, than you (IMHO) should just as easily discount the mistake of a kid who has been raised in a way that makes them disvalue mathematics and resist teaching. If you go easier on a legally "crazy" person who's beaten their spouse, I think you should go easier on a person who's been abused in their life and so knows no other way to have relationships. There are always external causes for our actions, if you look hard enough. I think to draw the line at the moment when a person picks up a gun or even the moment they pull the trigger is to draw an arbitrary one. It seems to me that one can either be responsible for where one was born, how and where one was raised, and every detail of everything that happened to them in their entire lives, or they can be responsible for nothing. We make distinctions to make life easier.
I choose to believe that everyone who has ever done terrible things is a victim of circumstance. People in jail are just unfortunate people. I feel sorry for them, not angry. I don't use this philosophy as an "out" for any wrong things that I do... I don't know. I don't think that this means people should never be punished or repremanded for their actions, but neither do I think that punishment or atonement is always the answer. It depends on the person, and what tactic will most effectively change them for the better. This is hard for me to convey, I hope you understand what I'm saying. And thank you for the comment above, I appreciate it.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: arbitrary-ness (is there even a noun for arbitrary?) -- Arethusa, 13:22:22 06/20/02 Thu
It's amazing-this issue is one I deal with almost every day....
My younger daughter is handicapped; she will need some special accommodations from the teacher to circumvent her limitations. She won't be counted wrong because she can't answer questions like the other kids. But she is still expected to do as much as she can, which is fortunately quite a lot, and not let her handicap be an excuse to not participate or succeed. It's unfair and painful, but she will be better for it in the end.
I had many students who were so needy emotionally that they couldn't concentrate in class, and constantly disrupted instruction. I couldn't let them halt instruction so I disciplined them, but I made sure the counselor knew the child needed additional help. Most of the time, there was little we could do, because what the kid really wanted was his parents' love, attention and approval, and we could never make up for that lack. I knew their behavior wasn't really their fault, and I tried very hard to explain to them that although it wasn't fair they had to deal with so many problems, if they didn't make the decision to change their behavior they would fail.
Some teachers excused all or most bad behavior in certain students because they felt sorry for the child-this didn't help anyone. (Not comparing you to this type of teacher.)The teacher felt good because she got to be the good guy, the student liked the teacher because he wasn't criticized or disciplined, but the child still failed.
We are all, at different times, victims of fate, circumstance, and the carelessness or malice of others. How we deal with the aftermath reveals what kind of person we are, or want to be. One person I know had to leave home at 15 to avoid her father's drunken beatings. She slept in her school's science lab. She's now a nurse, wife and mother-what made her successful, when so many other children of alcoholics I know became alcoholics themselves? Why do some child abuse victims become good parents, whild others become abusive to their own children?
I truly believe that sometime, somehow, they made the decision to look foreward instead of backward, to accept no excuses for failure, to want to better themselves instead of sink into depravity. And I've seen many of the latter-they wouldn't to school, or put down that drink, or keep their knees together because it was difficult and boring and hey, they were abused as a child. As Fred might say, who *hasn't* survived a demon dimension (or childhood)?
This is a very difficult, complicated issue, and I want to totally agree with you-partially, to be honest, because then I could excuse some of my own less attractive behaviors, since I grew up in a demon dimension, too. But sometimes we do have to draw that elusive, cruel line that punishes the victim, who never deserved to suffer so much, so that we can prevent future victims.
Pretentious rant done. Thank you so much for responding.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Not pretentious at all -- redcat, 13:35:27 06/20/02 Thu
It's a basic set of questions for so many of us, as we look at ourselves, at others, and even as we interpret fiction. I'm not sure that we should ever punish the victim, though. Being a victim, especially of the forces of the hell-dimension that many of our childhoods (apparently) were is bad enough without the concept of being "punished" for it. But I do think we have a responsibility to stop the victimization from becoming the grounds on which even more victimization is based. In doing that, maybe we can perhaps "prevent future victims."
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Not pretentious at all -- Arethusa, 13:58:02 06/20/02 Thu
I meant: punish a perpetrator of a crime even though they had been a victim themselves. Like, discipline the neglected student who disrupted class, or put the abused child abuser in jail. I spent forever writing and editing that post, and still managed to be unclear. :o(
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> No, I actually agree with you on this point -- redcat, 14:38:59 06/20/02 Thu
Arethusa, I was merely trying to clarify what you were saying, not contradict you. I was in a rush and didn't do it carefully enough myself. Apologies extended. As you note above, it is not the victim-as-victim for whom you argue punishment is necessary, but the victim-as-criminal. I'm still not sure I agree with your use of the concept of "punishment," but we do agree on the difference between victims and perpetrators.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> pretentious mah foot. -- yuri, 16:09:41 06/20/02 Thu
I fully agree that punishment can be necessary, but I think "punishment" should only be used when it is going to better the recepient (I apologize if I"m repeating myself, I do it all the time). Two people can commit the same crime, and one will grow more from kindness and the other from repremanding. I think that while punishing someone, you aren't necessarily saying "this is your fault," and drawing a line of responsibility, it can just be a way to forcefully show them the "right" path (whatever that may be).
I do not think that this train of thought necessarily allows one to "excuse" all wrong that is done, even by oneself. Well it does in a way, but not in a way that says it's okay to do bad stuff. I think of excusing a wrong as releiving guilt for that wrong. I think that's okay. If you're excusing them, it means you know you did something wrong and you're unlikely to do it again. If you are in a place where excusing yourself allows you to do bad again, I think you're in need of some external help.I don't think that we should sit by the wayside and let bad things happen, like "oh, that's just so-and-so doing bad stuff because she had a bad childhood. Poor her. So - how about this weather?" You know? I believe in action, but I don't think it's necessary for people to take take the entire weight of the responsibility for whatever they've done. Sometimes it may be the most effective way to deal with things, like, I do think that what you choose to do with your "problem students" (isn't that a terrible way to put it?) is the best thing you could've done, it's what they need. I think it's very key that you told them that you understand it's not fair that they have to come from where they come from. I think the way you handle it is near perfect, but if a child doesn't respond to that, I still say that it's because of what they've been through... A good friend of the family works in program that helps out excons and their families, and she tells me the key to being a good counselor (or whatever she is called there) is to never give up on anyone. I think the only way to maintain that attitude is to accept that people's actions are totally shaped by their experiences.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> great post...crime and punishement -- shadowkat, 19:11:42 06/20/02 Thu
yuri, areuthsa and redcat - your posts remind of the time I spent in defender project in Kansas, defending the rights of prisoners in Leavenworth Penitentiary.
While there I helped a 45 year old bank robber get parole. He should have been paroled ten years ago. He became a bank robber due to a drug problem. He had two kids he hadn't seen in 15 years. While in prison, he entered drug rehabilitation, wrote a book on why it was a bad idea to use drugs, and eventually became a drug counselor for other innmates. The day we had to appear before the parole board, the prison was locked down. There had been a knifing the day before, so every cell was locked and the lights were low. We were sitting upstairs in a dim rotunda awaiting our turn to go before the board. We had to wait twelve hours, during a thunderstorm, so we talked to pass the time.
I remember him asking me if I thought he had a chance in the outside world or if he would just revert back. I said I had no clue. I didn't feel qualified to judge him, b/c I did not know what I would become if I had his parents, his life. He was African-American, born in Ohio ghetto, and
very little education. He came across as very intelligent
and thoughtful. But his environment was a painful one. His friends got him into the drug and the bank robberies. No that didn't excuse it. But not being him - I didn't know what I'd do. He was scared. And I tried to reassure him.
Then I told him prison rehabilitated him and he laughed.
Prison isn't about rehabilitation, he said - it's about punishment, retribution. And the punishment isn't the place it's who you're in here with. Just yesterday five inmates were killed in a knife fight, he said. The guards didn't stop it. The lockdown was a result.
Later I told this story to my brother - who told me that prisons were historically created as a means to remove the unsavory elements from society. Rehabilitation was a new concept, but hardly practiced. People were imprisoned because society did not know what else to do with them.
Yes punishment was important, but not rehabilitation.
A year later - I sat on the Kansas Senate Floor and listened to senators argue for the death penalty. The reason? Retribution. An eye for an eye. The people who get it? They aren't serial killers. They are the poor guy who accidently shoots the store clerk during an armed robbery. Or Warren in Btvs. Or the woman who killed her abusive husband. Or the post-partum depression mom who killed her kids.
When I left criminal law - partly to stay sane and partly because there were no jobs in it at the time I was looking, I remember thinking how sad our society was. We are more concerned with punishment, retribution, then we are forgiveness or rehabilitation. Ironic considering the principal religion is Christianity which btw is founded on the concept of forgiveness.
There's a funny song in the Gilbert and Sullivan Musical The MikAdo about her the punishement should fit the crime...but how does that work? Should a child abuser be abused? HAsn't that already happened? I don't know. I do know, from my own personal experience that it is so much easier to hate and want retribution than it is to want to forgive and try to heal the wound. I also know from the events of this past fall, that until we figure out how to forgive each other, how to rehabilitate our criminals, and how not to focus on the negative - ie retribution and vengeance - we'll never exit the cycle of hate and violence that continues to plague our world.
Just a few long-winded thoughts to add to the discussion.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Psychosis, not depression -- Off-kilter, 19:33:24 06/20/02 Thu
OT, but just wanted to clarify. The mom that drowned her kids had postpartum psychosis, a state in which a person has has hallucinations. Somewhat like a schizophrenic or a person dropping LSD. It is classified with postpartum depression because it happens during the same time frame, but is a vast escalation of severity. The woman was taking Haldol! Haldol is a drug used to control hallucinations. This was a case of a desperately ill woman that no one knew how to handle with tragic repercussions.
She's another case of, what do we do now? I have no answers.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> what an amazing experience that must have been... -- yuri, 14:56:31 06/22/02 Sat
I give you much respect (not that you don't have all of it already!) for making that cause your life for any amount of time. It must be incredibly taxing, but it's such a wonderful thing to do.
My mother is working on a documentary on this thing called the Prison Show in Texas where these ex-cons use the radio to keep in touch with their families, (I think I've talked with someone about this before -was it you?) since one huge reason people tend to relapse when they get out of jail is because they've lost all contact with the people they care about... I'm sure you know all that, but I've just recently been doing a lot of research on the topic and helping her with it, and it's fascinating. The people who are able to fight against such an imposing establishment whose sole purpose seems to be to break them, body and soul, are incredible.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: what an amazing experience that must have been... -- shadowkat, 15:34:39 06/22/02 Sat
Thanks. It was a very short period of time while I was in
Law School and circumstances more than anything else got me involved.
It did change me. Made me realize how tough it is to save the world, which is why I went to law school - to help, (learned it's hard enough to save ourselves), and that life is by no means black and white. Actually redcat did an amazing essay on why it's not black and white- stating how it's more day and night fading into each other, which I know from your posts you agree with - actually I think you might have been one of the people congratulating her on it.
In 1992, I remember taking a tour of the prison with other students on the project. It was just three months during the summer.
We toured Levenworth Penitentiary - The second largest Federal Penitentiary in the Country - frightening place.
Steril, institution with windowless steel doors that shut on bathroom or closet size rooms. Part of the program was for us each teach one class to prisoners on how to get legal assistance and pursue their legal rights. Another was
to handle several cases, which involved visiting with the prisoner and getting his trial transcripts and writing appellate briefs for either parole or to get his case retried. Some of the work also involved getting prisoners placed in solitary - phone and visitation rights. Most of the prisoners were there on drug convictions, all of mine were either from NYC or Ohio - so they had no contact with family members. In fact the only person they saw was me.
One guy - had gotten 15 years for possession of Crack. It was horrible - if he had Cocaine instead, he would have gotten five, tops. He wanted to get it reduced for first conviction but there was nothing I could do. He had a wife and family and truly regretted his mistake.
You're right one of the worst things is the isolation. I felt the pain of the man I counseled for parole. He so desperately wanted to be able to live a normal life. To rejoin his family - but he wasn't sure there was a job on the outside for him.
(No - I don't think we've discussed it before - although I have brought it up once or twice - once on the excellent "good people do bad things thread" by Sophist, in reponse to someone's post about "how it was justifiable to beat murders to death once convicted"...which made me cringe with horror.)
"The people who are able to fight against such an imposing establishment whose sole purpose seems to be to break them, body and soul, are incredible."
I agree it is. I was lucky to meet someone who did. He was inspiring - the bank robber I mentioned. But for everyone that does - there are lost souls. Giles' statement to Buffy in I Only Have Eyes For You is sooo true. "We shouldn't forgive people because they deserve it so much as because they need it." After my experiences in Legal Aid, Domestic Violence, Public Defender Office, The State Senate, and
Defender Project - I realized that only God should be judging whether people can be redeemed, not me. All I can do is try somehow to show some compassion for those as my Criminal Law Professor once pointed out - "There but for the grace of God go I."
I think everyone should at some point see the inside of a prison - it isn't what you think and it does effect you.
Just as sitting down with actual convicts does. It makes you realize how complicated the world truly is.
[> [> [> My take on this, Yuri -- Rahael, 10:25:58 06/20/02 Thu
I'll skip the comic book stuff, I don't have a clue about that side of things!
I can't really understand your Palestinian friends feelings. I've never found other people's problems that trivial. The actual feelings themselves, pain, loneliness, powerlessness - unfortunately, so many different situations give rise to these emotions. And that isn't trivial.
On the other hand, what I've always found alienating is listening to someones relatively mild problems (that cause irritation, not pain) for hours. Days. Weeks. Throughout your whole friendship. Yet you are never allowed to voice your problems because "they are too painful for anyone to take". Perhaps that's what underlay your Palestinian friend's problem - who wants to know that there are, at this moment human beings all around the world who are terrified? who are facing nightmares that Buffy would think herself lucky not to face? How can we function adequately when we simultaneously acknowledge both our relatively safe lives with the deeply unjust ones of others?
I also think it's important to not set pain in competition with other pain. Firstly it deifies pain - and suffering does not make you a better person. Secondly every human being is worthy of some fundamental respect, for their lives, for their experiences. That's why choice and responsibility is so very important - as Arethusa points out. I'm a very firm believer in choices, placed within contexts, and judged with compassion.
[> [> [> [> Very nice, rah. -- Sophist, 12:31:21 06/20/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> Re: My take on this -- yuri, 12:40:48 06/20/02 Thu
The actual feelings themselves, pain, loneliness,
powerlessness - unfortunately, so many different situations give rise to these emotions. And that isn't trivial.
You know, this is exactly what my response was when he first told me about his feelings! And I completely agree, but I also truly understand the inability to accept that, just having been what he has been through. There is no big emot-o-meter to rate the intenisty of emotion, but if it was possible to do so, and if, perchance, a wealthy kid in america felt similar levels of pain for something as a kid in Palestine did, it is still diffucult to feel empathy for that american kid, especially if you've just walked off of a battlefield strewn with your people.
And I do think that much of his frustration was, in fact, prompted by those endless irritations that some people find the best topic of conversation. It's really interesting to me that you wrote about how hard it is when you are never allowed to voice your problems because "they are too painful for anyone to take". You are amazingly on-target, Rahael, because that's the one major part of our ongoing conversations that I left out of my post above - the fact that he can't find anyone who will just listen to him without feeling, like, affronted or attacked or something. And its always on his mind, obviously, so that must be excruciating (sp?). I try to be that for him, but I think he really wants to be able to talk to his family about it, and they've completely shut themselves off to him.
I'd also just like to acknowledge the two points you make that really hit home -
How can we function adequately when we simultaneously acknowledge both our relatively safe lives with the deeply
unjust ones of others?
I think this is an eternal cause of strife for anyone who chooses to acknowledge the terrible things that happen in the world, and also an eternal reason why many people never do.
I also think it's important to not set pain in competition with other pain.
I've had many discussions about this point, more in the context of "there are no heirarchies of opression," but that's just because of my neoactivist roots. I think it's a very important thing to remember.
Finally, I'm respect your distinctions - "choices, placed within contexts, and judged with compassion" - I guess my only problem is that I personally don't know where the choice ends and the context begins, and if you introduce context at all it seems to absorb choice.
Thank you for this post, and for your reassurance above, it does mean a lot.
[> [> [> [> [> relative levels of pain; listening -- anom, 15:53:11 06/20/02 Thu
"It's really interesting to me that you wrote about how hard it is when you are never allowed to voice your problems because 'they are too painful for anyone to take'. You are amazingly on-target, Rahael,...he can't find anyone who will just listen to him without feeling, like, affronted or attacked or something. And its always on his mind, obviously, so that must be excruciating (sp?)."
The timing of these posts is also amazing--2 days ago I went to my 1st Dialogue Project meeting. What goes on there is exactly what you're talking about: Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims & Israelis/Jews (& others who care to get involved) talk about how they feel about the situation btwn. their peoples. Each participant has the chance to speak openly about their perspective & feelings while the others listen; all must be willing to listen to others even when they say things that are hard to hear or that they disagree with. This is going on primarily in New York, but I've heard about groups elsewhere. Where are you & your friend located, yuri? If he's interested, I'll try to find out if there's anything like it in your area. Of course, he'd also need to be ready to listen to difficult things from the "other" side, & given his recent experiences, it's understandable that he might not be.
"I try to be that for him, but I think he really wants to be able to talk to his family about it, and they've completely shut themselves off to him."
It's great that you listen to him. But there's only so much you can do. If it's causing problems in his family, it might be worth considering some kind of counseling (that would address the lack of communication in the family as well as his need to talk about the past 2 years), if he's open to the idea.
"'How can we function adequately when we simultaneously acknowledge both our relatively safe lives with the deeply unjust ones of others?' I think this is an eternal cause of strife for anyone who chooses to acknowledge the terrible things that happen in the world, and also an eternal reason why many people never do."
It's also hard to live w/the limits of what we can do about it. But one thing having safer places does is show people in unjust situations that something better is possible. Imagine if those people looked around & couldn't see any place where things were better--if your friend's family hadn't had a place they could go to where they were safer. I'll leave aside for now the question of whether/how much such places' prosperity is related to the injustice in other places....
As for the choice/context question, I don't agree w/an all-or-nothing view on responsibility. I don't think we're responsible for things beyond our control, though there may be questions about what is within or beyond our control. To drag this back to the Buffyverse, I don't think Cordelia was responsible for Billy's release & its consequences. W&H and Angel were. Cordelia was being used. There was nothing she could have done about what was happening (& sometimes that's the hardest thing to accept); therefore, she wasn't responsible for it.
After all that, I hope it's pretty clear that I join the chorus clamoring for you not to stop sending serious posts to the board, yuri. And after all that, this may seem a bit trivial, but yes, it's "excruciating"; on the other hand, it's "arbitrariness."
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: relative levels of pain; listening ...oh yes! -- aliera, 18:28:28 06/20/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> Wonderful posts! Agree...loved this. -- shadowkat, 19:16:51 06/20/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: relative levels of pain; listening -- Rahael, 00:05:27 06/21/02 Fri
I agree with Anom's advice, Yuri. Your friend has just left Palestine. He's probably in a great deal of pain; perhaps he has PTSD. His pain may be too immediate not be angry. And, I should think, if he feels that people in the West have an enviable safety, he too may be feeling very guilty for having escaped, and leaving behind all kinds of friends and relatives in ever growing danger. As for his family - he may be the only person in that family voicing those feelings. They may need him to do that, but it creates intolerable pressures.
I know I did - I had to justify every day to myself. Why did I deserve it? It just magnified my own sense of worthlessness. So an interesting perspective on context/responsibility - a lot of people feel far more responsible for situations that they shouldnt; that they cannot control. This guilt and powerlessness also creates great unhappiness. There are things that we can't control.
I was reminded by a friend that different people react to suffering in different ways. Some may react to pain by vowing to always be on the lookout, that they may never be the cause of unnecessary pain. One of my failings is that I find it really hard to understand people who act without thought, causing pain carelessly, consistently to other people in their lives. Not because they are deadened by pain, but because they don't seem to have the respect for other human beings that is required. I'd always err on the side of considering how you might be affecting others around you, because sometimes, your own behaviour is the only thing you can control. And that choice, that sense of agency is the only power available to many human beings.
[> [> [> [> [> [> that sounds amazing, anom! -- yuri, 14:29:13 06/22/02 Sat
What a cool thing to be a part of! We're in San Francisco, and I'd be interested in knowing of any similar things are happening around here. However, this guy's in his mid-thirties and kind of has this way of looking at me always in context of my age. He listens to me, but always has that tone that kind of says "well you're young, you don't really know..." and so he may not be very responsive to any suggestions I might make. But I'll tell him anyhow.
It's also hard to live w/the limits of what we can do about it. Yes. I think I've come to the conclusion that before you can really do good things for ~the world~, you've gotta do good things for yourself, and maintain them throughout any outward work you do.
Thanks for your post.
[> Re: Comics, chaos, and other brain spill -- Ronia, 10:19:01 06/19/02 Wed
Wonderfull post...you can sit next to me... :0)
[> Catwoman -- Tanker, 10:36:22 06/19/02 Wed
It might interest you to know that Catwoman HAS switched sides. I'm a little foggy on exactly what happened in the old Catwoman book, but I know she went to prison, and then Selina apparently faked her own death. With help from Dr. Leslie Thompson, she's remade herself as Catwoman, with a new costume (and new book, starting over with issue #1). She now acts as a vigilante, much like Batman. The new Catwoman book is written by Ed Bruebaker in a gritty "hard-boiled detective/film noir" style, with art that's inspired by the Batman animated series (very cool). It's one of my favorite books, and I highly recommend it.
As for the rest of your post... KABOOM!
[> [> Go Selina! -- Off-kilter, 22:36:07 06/19/02 Wed
That's cool. Haven't been keeping up with the comics since my brother lives too far away to steal from anymore. I'll see if I can get him to buy the book and "borrow" it. :-P
[> Wonderful post! -- yuri, 11:30:51 06/19/02 Wed
... one of those where I just enjoy every word, mostly because it was like looking at the whole B/A and B/S scenario all over again with different eyes. But what I really found fascinating was your idea that some characters are "stamped" by the PTB and FoD for good (or evil... you know what I mean). Whether or not they meander towards the other side, that's where they belong. That's an interesting concept, because it's pretty illogical at first glance, but only if you insist on proving goodness or evilness by mathematically calculating the amount of good and evil done by people. Your idea implies that there's something beyond that that determines who people are. hmmmm, munch munch munch.
At first I thought I may disagree with the characters you found to be wanderers - Faith, Spike, Anya - because they all do seem like they'll ultimately end up doing good. However, on second though it makes sense because, as you say, these people are guided by something other than a desire to do good or bad. Hmmm. Brain food. It's good to cut out when you realize you're just repeating the person you're replying to! Again, wonderful job, glad you delurked.
[> [> illogical, that's me. -- Off-kilter, 23:11:06 06/19/02 Wed
I look at everything a little different from the rest of reality. Hence my name. Glad my post was worthy of being munched instead of tossed! Yes, I believe that people can't be measured by a single act or even a mathmatical calculation. Most have different "guiding stars" that are the dominant theme of their life. People are usually too wrapped up in their lives to worry about good or evil. I know that *I'm* not good "for goodness' sake"! I'm dancing to the beat of a different drum, slightly out of step too. *no rhythm*
[> [> [> well color me very glad you are here, then! -- yuri, 13:00:19 06/20/02 Thu
[> Great post!! Welcome to the community. (We'll get less coherent as you get to know us...) -- redcat - knows zip about comics but enjoyed this analysis!, 11:32:12 06/19/02 Wed
[> [> Domo arigato (thank you) to all who responded. -- Off-kilter, bowing to the nice people, 01:07:46 06/20/02 Thu
[> Wow, impressive brain spill !!! (Late praise, I know ...) -- Exegy, 08:29:47 06/20/02 Thu
A point to be made? Who needs a point when you have such wonderful thoughts?! I certainly didn't make any sense when I posted my first thread (just over a month ago now). But hey, this is a very welcoming community, and pretty soon you'll be a seasoned poster with legions of adoring fans. Oh wait, I think you've got the legions of adoring fans already covered!
You have such a great, accessible writing style. Very nice. I like some of the points you make about the "star-cross'd lovers" dynamic of B/A. My thoughts exactly. I also like what you have to say about S/B, although I will disagree that Spike never puts Buffy on a pedestal. He may not want to love her, but he's a slave to his passion anyway ... "love's bitch." And so he follows the dominant female, hoping to gain her affections. When she does descend to meet him, he puts up with all of her abuse ... because he must keep her the only way he knows how. She won't "lower herself" to engage in a real relationship with him ... so he will maintain this unhealthy union for as long as possible. He's fine, as long as he possesses her. Not a healthy approach, but this is Spike we're talking about here. He's operating under a limited set of ideals, and he doesn't even know it.
He can't rise up to meet Buffy's expectations ... so he'll keep her in the shadows with him. He's knocking her off her pedestal, but at the same time he is continually reinforcing the image of her above him. No, this is not a pretty ideal; it's messy and complicated, everything that Buffy can't believe her love for Angel was. That was an innocent love, the first awakening of a girl to romance ... and as such idealized. Kept away and apart, the standard that can never be approached. A fantasy that has died to this reality long ago (see the imagery of B/A smoochage followed by the "In Loving Memory" gravestone, Bad Eggs; see also the continuation of that imagery in Innocence, when Jenny stands over the grave of that happy love in Buffy's dream).
I think that Buffy realizes her relationship with Angel was built on fantasy. And this disillusions her to no end. It becomes so hard for her to love, to give of herself. She can't open herself to loving Spike ... he's the image of everything she should be against. It's better to avoid the reality and retreat into pleasant fantasy, as she does in NA. Except even the fantasy has become unpleasant, for a part of Buffy knows living in the dream-world is crazy. Impossible, even. Holding onto such delusions can only lead to gradual death in the real world ... a sort of half-life between existences.
I think Buffy has given up her clinging belief in a resumption of B/A. She still loves Angel, with all that sacred love of youth. But she doesn't walk in his world anymore. She never really did. They built a fantasy together, one so pleasant and compelling. But one fated to die in reality, as all such idyllic loves do. Leaving only the loving memory....
[> [> Pedestals, passion, . . . persuasion? -- Off-kilter, preening and annoying with p's, 18:49:45 06/20/02 Thu
Thank you! This post has gotten more responses than I thought and brought up many interesting threads. I also wanted to say that YOUR posts have been very thought provoking. Have you really only been posting a month? You have a very confident feel to your writing.
Just wanted to clarify my thinking about Spike. I don't think he never puts Buffy on a pedestal. I just think that he didn't have an idealized image of her at the beginning of his courtship. He states several times that he knows that what he feels is wrong. He doesn't even like her much when he realizes he loves her.
Spike's love creates a "halo" effect around the object of his affection. He still thinks fondly of Dru, his "dark princess", stating that she was always forthright even if she "didn't have a single buggering clue about what was going on in front of her." I think most people have this filter when it comes to their loved ones. I can bitch about my mom all day, but if someone else dares a derogatory remark they'll get ripped to shreds!
When she does descend to meet him, he puts up with all of her abuse ... because he must keep her the only way he knows how. She won't "lower herself" to engage in a real relationship with him ... so he will maintain this unhealthy union for as long as possible. He's fine, as long as he possesses her. Not a healthy approach, but this is Spike we're talking about here. He's operating under a limited set of ideals, and he doesn't even know it.
Agree/disagree. Spike does make his love the sun that determines his orbit, but I don't think he is happy to have her no matter what. I'm going to be presumptuous and re-print part of a letter I wrote to shadowkat about this subject:
"I do think that he thought the relationship was wrong. What he wanted might not have been healthier (because he wanted her to accept him evil) but the situation that they had was NOT what he had in mind.
SPIKE:this, (pointing to Buffy, then to himself) with you, is wrong. I know it. I'm not a complete idiot. You think I like having you in here? Destroying everything that was me, until all that's left is you, in a dead shell. -Crush
It bothered him. It bothers him. But since he can't give up on it, he'll change to make it work."
RILEY: You actually think you've got a shot with her?
SPIKE: No, I don't. Fella's gotta try, though. Gotta do what he can. - ITW
I think he DOES understand (possibly not fully until SR) that he's in over his head with this relationship.
He often tries to quit, to leave, but he can't. He's too attached to love.
SPIKE: No, it's not that easy. We have something, Buffy. It's not pretty, but it's real, and there's nothing either one of us can do about it. - Crush
Hasn't everyone, at some point or another, KNOWN that they were doing something irrational, but not been able to stop themselves? Whether it be eating another piece of cheesecake after you're full, or staying in a relationship that is doomed, we've all looked in the mirror, shrugged and did it anyway.
Doesn't mean he's not bitter about being "love's bitch". Even when he has her, he's unsure about his assessment of Riley's "better deal".
SPIKE: The only reason you're here, is that you're not here. - Gone
SPIKE: (sighs) What is this to you? This thing we have? . . . Do you even like me? - DT
SPIKE:We were never together. Not really. She wouldn't lower herself that far. -SR
He was trying to bring her into the shadows, but only after trying to get her to accept that he could change towards the light. She wasn't buying it, so he let it drop.
Totally agree with your comments on B/A. 'Twas never a realistic day-to-day romance. You picked up on one of my favorite sentences in my brain spill: "Better to love the memory and let the person go".
Thanks again for the encouragement.
[> [> [> Re: Pedestals, passion, . . . persuasion? -- shadowkat, 19:28:47 06/20/02 Thu
Thank you for reprinting that portion of your letter! This was the portion that changed my mind. The online posters had me almost convinced of what exegy said:"He's fine, as long as he possesses her. Not a healthy approach, but this is Spike we're talking about here. He's operating under a limited set of ideals, and he doesn't even know it."
But you changed my mind. And Joss Whedon oddly enough seems to support this in his emmy interview - he says, and I'm afraid to quote it exactly - it's on the slipstream link,
but that the B/S relationship was about two people with real feelings for each other, harsh, physical, sexual, which don't always mix. The metaphor of the house was they had no foundation, their relationship had none, so it was doomed to collasp. Both knew it. But couldn't resist the attraction. That's real life. B/A was about romantic, mysticl love. Not real. Not sexual. the love of dreams.
I think you are right about both B/S and B/A. So glad you decided to share these thoughts with everyone else!
And see - you got tons of responses! Addictive, ain't it?;-)
[> [> [> [> Very additive. About that 12-step program . . . -- Off-kilter, not attending, 19:37:28 06/20/02 Thu
Notice that you are responding to me while I respond to you above. ;-) Love ya!
[> [> [> Persuading himself he is fine ... (Spoilers) -- Exegy, 21:18:49 06/20/02 Thu
It's too bad that different connotations of the word "fine" can't come through well on the Internet. I don't mean to imply that Spike is happy with the progression of his relationship with Buffy. In fact, we see that he is less than satisfied. (Sorry, but here I will reiterate some of your previous points.) He's not happy to be in love with her in the first place.... He senses that this is a love which may very well destroy him as a vampire (his "Oh god, no!" in OOMM). This isn't right; she's his mortal enemy, everything that he should be against. Yet his love for her remains, no matter how hard he tries to get rid of it ... he's truly "love's bitch." He becomes the hollow shell of what he was, until only the image of Buffy fills him, super-imposed over his existence (cf. Crush). He's lost, as Drusilla says. And he cannot regain his former sense of self. Love dominates his being; he's a slave to his passion, willing or unwilling. He cannot let go of this identity, even as it destroys him.
And so he accedes to a relationship that is less than satisfactory. He briefly stands up for himself in Gone, but such integrity doesn't hold up for long. If it comes to keeping or losing Buffy, Spike will always choose to keep her, even if this decision is a "wrong" one. He puts up with her abuse ... and I think he hates himself for it. And hates her as the object of his torment, even as he loves her (wanting to kill her or save her simultaneously). So he becomes her "sex slave," and he later expresses much dissatisfaction with such a status (cf. Normal Again). But he comes to her again, unable to help himself. In SR, he fails her spectacularly, set up by the fact that their relationship has never had any firm foundation to begin with. Not because they hold hopelessly romantic ideals about each other ... but because of who they are and what ideals they hold upon themselves.
So Spike is love's bitch, and he projects this mentality upon the figure of Buffy. He sets her above because he should be below, the servant to love. This is what he thinks of himself. And since the ideal is limited and doomed to failure with Buffy, Spike comes to think precious little of himself. He is the dirt that she likes to roll in. She could never descend so far to admit to a real relationship with him. No, what they have is wrong ... but if this is the only way he can possess her, then he will be wrong. Because he is nothing if he is not the slave to love ... as he finds out when he betrays his love in SR. The ideal comes crashing down. The identity is destroyed. Leaving Spike to reinvent himself ... to place himself under a new ideal that is acceptable to Buffy.
And acceptable to himself.
Thank you for the compliments, Off-kilter. I just started posting a month ago ... the first time I've EVER posted on the Net. And I only post here, because this is all I have time for. And this is the best, most addictive board! I can't stay away ... not when there are all these great, thought-provoking posts all the time!
[> [> [> [> Ahhh! I understand you now, and agree. -- Off-kilter, 23:05:11 06/20/02 Thu
His love does rule him over all else even to the point of destruction. As a matter of fact, I wrote another letter to shadowkat about how he has been trying 10,000 ways to get Buffy to love him, unsuccessfully. Now he's doing something even more radical, "dying to be born again" by getting a soul. If you like, I can send you a copy of the letter.
[> [> [> [> [> Or you can ... -- shadowkat, 07:24:09 06/21/02 Fri
Just post it here for others to respond to. You made some good points. :-) shadowkat
Who cares if Clem ate the kittens? Demon-philia and cultural relativism -- Sophist, 09:17:14 06/19/02 Wed
We all saw the poker game. We've all heard the rumors. Are they true? Well, consider this. We've seen Clem eat. Lots of fat, lots of starch and sugar. Did you ever stop and ask: What's his protein source? Think about it. Even demons need protein. Clem's gettin' it somewhere. Put two and two together.
I'm here to say -- and I know I'm going out on a limb here -- that I DON'T CARE! I'm ready to overlook Clem's culinary habits in the name of tolerance. Diversity. Multiculturalism. A decent respect for the opinions of the other posters requires that I declare the reasons which impel me to this conclusion.
The Buffyverse is even more culturally diverse than our own. Naming the ethnic groups in Los Angeles pales in comparison with naming the species of demons. In such a world, we have to take special care not to impose our values on others who may have grown up with different, well, tastes.
At the same time, we have to recognize Buffy's special calling as slayer of said demons. How can we draw the line to absolve Buffy of demonicide while preserving the value of the multi-cultural experience? Here's my proposal:
IMHO, there are certain core values which are fundamental to human (and demon) integrity. I would identify these values as the following:
1. The right to equal treatment and equal protection of the laws. This means no discrimination on the basis of race, creed, color, ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.
2. The right to freedom of expression.
3. The inalienable rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
4. The right to bodily integrity; in essence, the right to maintain and dispose of our bodies as we think fit.
Demons which themselves violate these core values subject themselves to punishment, just as humans do. That's where Buffy comes in. But demons willing to live within these constraints should be free to spawn in peace.
The consumption of animals as food does not violate any of these core values. We in the US eat cows, chickens, pigs, buffalo, and occasionally bunnies. Other cultures have eaten dogs. Indeed, even now the World Cup quarterfinals includes a team which may, for all we know, serve dog at its training table.
Are kittens somehow different? I say no. It is true that not all cultures eat them. Some prefer to drown them straight up (see The Great Cat Massacre). But that's not why that country was eliminated in the first round of the World Cup. We don't discriminate on that basis.
So let it be with Clem.
A special thank you to Ete, who knows she is guilty.
[> I'm not worried.... -- dream of the consortium, 09:23:44 06/19/02 Wed
no demon alive is a match for my Siamese!
[> Love it! -- Rahael, 09:41:28 06/19/02 Wed
Great linking!!
Robert Darnton and Clem in the same post. Damn! Why didn't I think of that? lol
A more serious response later....
[> [> Ditto, Rah; it is very cool to see someone mix Darnton and Whedon -- rattletrap, 10:26:45 06/19/02 Wed
[> Clem vs Alf -- Darby, 09:44:03 06/19/02 Wed
It's just that kittens are so darned cute!!!
If they were cats, there'd be applause from some circles (some people rail at the scientifically-proven fact that we're all here on the planet merely to serve the felines, and want to serve them a la The Twilight Zone).
Keep in mind that this comes from someone who "Baaa"ed at his wife one too many times while she was preparing lamb, so I speak with authority on the whole cuteness thing.
...I miss lamb...
[> Equal Rights for demons! Equal Rights for demons! -- O'Cailleagh, 09:45:43 06/19/02 Wed
[> [> Hey, Hey! Ho, Ho! Demonphilia's got to go! -- yuri, 10:29:52 06/19/02 Wed
I am not the most sentimental person when it comes to kittens (if I'm holding one, yes, it's cute and I love it, but hey, I also think baby chicks are cute) and I've always found it humerous how much that disturbed people. Unless you're a person who feels that way about everything - like you'd feel the same way about a farmer gambling a few chickens away - I think it's silly. HOWEVER, I won't discount dubdub's kitten liberation theory. You never know... ;)
[> ATTENTION REDCAT!--Do NOT Read the Above Post -- Wisewoman, 10:50:50 06/19/02 Wed
It's just too horrifying...
[> [> Sorry, dub-dub, too late...but thanks for the warning. -- redcat, 10:52:48 06/19/02 Wed
[> Re: Who cares if Clem ate the kittens? Demon-philia and cultural relativism -- redcat, 10:50:55 06/19/02 Wed
Great post, Sophist! Been re-reading your Jefferson, I see. And hey, if you like the Darnton,
you would probably *really* enjoy the French lawyer-politician Jean Bodin's 1580 treatise on
witchcraft that includes a section on the appropriate treatment of cats as witches' familiars,
_Demonomanie des Sorciers_. Or, for terrifically enlightening accounts from the German courts,
the widely-published trial records known as "Judgement on the Witch Walpurga Hausmann,"
who along with her cat was tortured and killed in 1587. Or perhaps the work of Italian cleric Fra
Francesco Maria Guazzo, the _Compendium Maleficarum_, which was originally published in
1608 and went through 25 editions over the next 150 years, and which describes in fairly
explicit detail why cats are among the Devil's best allies and should be tortured before being
hung. If you live in a large city with a good university library, you will probably be able to find
these three and other inspiring accounts fairly readily. The document anthologies of Monter
and Rosen are good places to start and some edition of the full Guazzo, which has fantastic
woodcuts, BTW, can usually be found without too much trouble.
Knowing that you are a lawyer, I offer these examples because they sustain your argument
that all species have the right to equal treatment and equal protection of the laws. In the cases
I site above, the public torture, vivisection and killing of cats on moral grounds was completely
legal, not because cats are animals nor because some might find them edible, but because their
species had been legally declared evil, or, in those cases where this was never made legally
explicit, were treated as if the cultural assumption was legal fact. Bodin and Guazzo, in
particular, present very logically-structured arguments, and both use quite legalistic language
to make their cases about cats and other evil creatures, like witches. This mid-millennia notion
of the legality of cats' culpability simply for being cats is chillingly similar to the ways in which
the Nazis legalized the attempted extermination of three specific categories of humans - Jews,
Gypsies and homosexuals. German law, as it developed under the Third Reich, made such
genocide not only legal but legally required, and provides good justification for using human
body parts in ways not too dissimilar from the use of cat's intestines for violin strings.
And therein lies what, for me, is a critical problem with your otherwise quite witty analysis.
Whose laws are we talking about in the first "value" on your list ? And for whom do those laws
provide equal treatment, who do they protect? I find it interesting that you seem to be arguing
for a fairly relaxed sort of cultural relativism, and while I generally agree with you, before I can
accept either your argument or your schema in toto, I need to know whose laws I'm accepting
as the basis on which we judge the violators?
[> [> Re: Aaaauuuuggghhhh! I was too late... -- dubdub, 10:52:06 06/19/02 Wed
[> [> Bodin -- Rahael, 16:18:12 06/19/02 Wed
My mind is still refusing to be serious....but Jean Bodin does raise nightmarish thoughts for me. First year finals, essay about resistance theorists. Wanting to mention Catholic Resistance writer Jean Bouchier, and I write Jean Bodin instead. Yep, Bodin, that well known rebel against established authority.
I only realised my mistake while I was blithely relating how it had all gone to RJW Evans, Regius Professor of Modern History. That was REALLY embarrassing.
[> [> I intended my post to raise only one issue, -- Sophist, 16:18:57 06/19/02 Wed
namely, the extent to which we accept practices from other human cultures insofar as they affect other humans. I had to fudge a little, since some demons in the Buffyverse are so close to human. The use of Clem as my example may confuse things a bit; just think of him as human for purposes of this discussion (most do anyway).
Given your interest in and knowledge of witchcraft, you might want to read The Radical Enlightenment by Jonathan Israel. An attack on popular beliefs regarding witches formed what might be called the spearhead of the Enlightenment. The authors of such tracts were outlawed and persecuted by the Church, since their writings were seen as undermining Doctrine (and, in fact, often did).
[> Down my Pants -- neaux, 10:51:14 06/19/02 Wed
I'm almost positive I remember an old opening monologue of Steve Martin on Saturday Nite Live where he sticks Kittens down his pants. And If I am mistaken, then it had to be in a Monty Python Skit.
Now while it is funny, does that denote cruelty to animals? I dont think so. But this could be a nasty closet habit that Clem might have. hmmmmm...
[> [> So how often does one celebrate Sexual Innuendo Day? -- Darby, 11:01:22 06/19/02 Wed
[> [> [> You mean it's not an everyday celebration? -- Deeva, 11:35:03 06/19/02 Wed
[> [> [> yeah.. I need a new shtick -- neaux, 11:46:54 06/19/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> Is that one? -- Darby, 12:35:27 06/19/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> doh! -- neaux, 13:53:29 06/19/02 Wed
[> [> [> Every Satyrday -- Arethusa, 14:50:23 06/19/02 Wed
[> [> Re: Down my Pants -- leslie, 13:40:48 06/19/02 Wed
Pretty sure it *was* Steve Martin, who seems to be generally attuned to feline absurdity. I especailly like "Mars Probe Finds Kittens" in _Pure Drivel_. Monty Python, that would be the cat xylophone, where (I believe it's) Graham Chapman performs musical numbers by pulling cats' tails.
[> [> [> "I fling her" -- Dead Soul, 13:49:10 06/19/02 Wed
Monty Python did the mouse xylophone where, when struck by Terry Jones with a mallet, the mice squeaked "The Bells of St. Mary." There was another Python skit where a man (Graham Chapman) was being presented as the man with a cat that could fly (I think). Asked if the cat flew by itself, he says "No, I fling her." and proceeds to whirl the (obviously) taxidermied cat around and around by its tail before throwing it.
Amid all the knee-jerk Pythonalia, I've completely forgotten the point I'm supposed to be addressing.
Dead (confuse-a-cat) Soul
Season 3 of 'Angel' better than season 6 of 'Buffy' -- Liam, 11:04:39 06/19/02 Wed
In my opinion, season 3 of 'Angel' was far superior to season 6 of 'Buffy' for the following reasons:
1. Plot: Season 6 of 'Buffy' started out well in the first few episodes, with the future prospect of an Evil Willow, addicted to power; but the writers appeared to chicken out, giving us instead a pathetic 'addiction' storyline which was itself badly written. Evil Willow only emerged in the last few episodes, due to her girlfriend being killed, too late to make a difference.
Season 3 of 'Angel', by contrast, started out badly (baby Connor), but produced two great story arcs, in the shape of Holtz/Connor, and Wesley's well-intentioned betrayal and its consequences.
2. Characters: In 'Buffy', Buffy and Willow were, thanks to the writers, destroyed. Buffy became a sex addict, who engaged in an abusive relationship with Spike, to the detriment of all her other responsibilities, including dealing with the Trio, something which might have put Warren behind bars. Even after Spike attempted to rape her (messed up with her 'yes means no, no means yes' attitude), she was still prepared to entrust her sister to his care! This was (sort of) predicted by Faith on 'Consequences':
Buffy: No, Faith, you're sick.
Faith: I've seen it, B. You've got the lust. And I'm not just talking about screwing vampires.
Buffy stops in her tracks.
Buffy: Don't you *dare* bring him [Angel] into this.
Faith: (taunting her) It was good, wasn't it? The sex? The danger? Bet a part of you even dug him when he went psycho.
Buffy: No! (continues walking)
Willow has also lost all her moral credibility due to murder, attenpted murder, assault, destruction of property, and, of course, attempted genoicide of the entire human race, making Mao, Stalin and Hitler look pathetic. Angel, for trying to get the world sucked into hell, had to spend centuries of torment in a hell dimension. Will Willow be properly punished in season 7? I don't think so.
Spike culminated in becoming what we began to see in season 5: a pathetic caricature of his former self, kept around only because of his popularity with fans, the writers having to invent ever more incredible stories as a result.
Regarding the other characters, Giles's departure left a big gap in the show. I got to really like Tara, who grew a backbone, leaving Willow and becoming the responsible adult; but she had to be the one who got killed. Xander was not allowed to grow as a character. While I liked the fact that he saved the world, the yellow crayon story was pathetic. Dawn was suitably bratty, but I felt that she should have been constantly demanding to be allowed to do something useful, on the grounds that, thanks to them, she can't have a normal life.
In 'Angel', I detested what was done to Cordelia towards the end, in terms of her new powers, and her conversion into a higher being, combining the worst of 'Ghost' and 'Touched By An Angel'. Also, I didn't like how Gunn was written after Wesley's betrayal, feeling that it would be more in character for him to be a supporter of Wes. The Gunn/Fred relationship I feel was contrived, for the purpose of isolating Wesley prior to his betrayal.
Set against this has to be Holtz, whom I feel to be one of the best villains the Jossverse has produced, on a par with the Mayor of Sunnydale. Wesley has really developed as a character, sacrificing all he held dear. Connor has also made his mark, despite only being around in the last few episodes.
3. Group dynamics: I perfer the group dynamics of Angel Investigations, in that people who behave badly _may_ be forgiven, but it doesn't restore everything, the betrayal having conseqences. Angel's betrayal of the group in season 2 was (too soon) forgiven, but at least he forfited his leadership of the group to Wesley. The latter, in season 3, was aware that his betrayal of the group would not only mean the forfeit of his leadership, but also of his membership.
By contrast, the Scoobies seem prepared to quickly forgive any of their number, no matter how horrible their actions, which seem to have no consequences.
4. The next season: While I will look forward to the next season of 'Angel', I'm not sure about 'Buffy', because of the question as to how the writers are going to properly punish a Willow guilty of attempted genocide and portray a Spike with his soul restored.
[> Punishment? -- DickBD, 13:19:07 06/19/02 Wed
I realize these are fantasies, but I suspect most of us are too hung up on punishment. What good is it other than to alter behavior? In fiction, of course, there has to be a sense of justice, too, I suppose. I think you are really emphasizing that aspect of it and also thinking of it from a revenge perspective. In any case, I think the depth of characterization is more important than some of the plot aspects you discuss. Being male, I can judge Spike more fairly or objectively than some of you, and I think he has become one of the most interesting characters in either series. And I can't wait to see how the "new Spike" plays out next year.
Joss gives some information about Spike's motives in aquiring a soul in last nights interview. -- VHF, 11:13:44 06/19/02 Wed
Nathan who attended the ATAS Buffy event wrote this.
"The moderator asked Joss about the ending of Season Six, with Spike. She said, "I thought Spike wanted the chip taken out," and Joss said, "No - that's what you were misled to believe. It's called a plot twist." And then either Joss or Nicholas joked about Joss getting a royalty whenever anyone else used a plot twist. But the point Joss seemed to be making, unless I misunderstood, was that Spike did go to Africa with the intention of getting his soul back. Which surprised me. I didn't think Spike was acting like someone who wanted his soul back."
[> URL to this? -- Masq, 11:20:16 06/19/02 Wed
[> [> Re: URL to this? -- VHF, 11:29:52 06/19/02 Wed
He posted it here
http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/tb_display.cgi?id=12545#470999
You can also email him at Richard-Nathan@att.net
Hercules says in the AICN article that Richard was the one who attended the event and wrote the article for him.
[> [> [> The Ain't it Cool News full report is at the Trollop Board -- Rufus, 13:53:45 06/19/02 Wed
As well as a report from the Kitten Board, which was quite fair given the anger and grief that has been on that board since the death of Tara.....there will be spoilers in the reports for next season.
[> [> [> There's also an excellent and much more detailed report here: -- Dyna, 14:16:34 06/19/02 Wed
http://www.slipstreambbs.com/ubb/Forum11/HTML/002657.html
It's a much more detailed recap than the AICN article, for those who are, uh, extra detail-oriented. ;)
Dyna
[> [> [> [> Got that one Dyna -- Rufus, 14:54:31 06/19/02 Wed
In two parts on the ConverseBuffyverse Trollop Board
Slipstream report pt 1-4
Slipstream report pt 5-7
[> Oh, and... -- Masq, 11:25:02 06/19/02 Wed
It was my impression that Spike is rather out of touch with his own desires/feelings. He can nail other people's motivations, but not his own. He hides under the mask of how a demon ought to think, feel, and he even believes that's what he feels.
What cracks me up is that slowly, over the years, Spike has seen the wisdom of becoming exactly what he's always claimed to loathe: he's becoming Angel. First he decides not to kill the Slayer, then he falls in love with Buffy, then he becomes a member of the scooby gang, now he's off to get a soul.
"I'm just a big fluffy puppy with bad teeth".
[> [> Re: Oh, and... -- leslie, 12:42:14 06/19/02 Wed
Obviously, we will have to wait to see exactly how this pans out. But.... The dissonance the viewers all seem to express about Spike *wanting* the soul from the beginning seems to be based on an assumption that he is doing this out of the, urg, goodness of his heart, and we feel that if this was the case, he shouldn't have been so grouchy about the whole thing, muttering about "what the bitch deserves" and so on. However, if it is in fact the case that he went there specifically to get his soul back, then it seems that we are misreading his intentions. He's pissed off about having to do this. He feels that it is all Buffy's fault. He may, in fact, not *want* to get his soul back, but feels that he *must* get his soul back. (Okay, just finished proofreading the article on cognitive dissonance, which is probably affecting my perceptions here...) 1) He is in love with Buffy; 2) He is a romantic; 3) He has just done something terrible to the woman he loves; 4) She doesn't trust him-->in order to preserve his self-image as a romantic lover, he must give her "what she deserves" EVEN IF IT ISN'T WHAT HE HIMSELF WANTS. (Or thinks he wants.) So, if ME are that insistent that Spike went to Africa knowing that what he wanted was his soul back, then we have to change our perception of his feelings about the whole process. And this might well result in a certain amount of resentment on his part towards Buffy when the full repercussions of souledness hit him.
[> [> [> Re: Oh, and... -- maddog, 12:52:40 06/19/02 Wed
I think you're still relying too much on what he's saying instead of what he's intentionally not saying. If he really wanted Buffy dead then he would have said so...plain and simple. But he doesn't...specifically ambiguous. I don't see Spike being grouchy about having to be there...I think he's grouchy because of what he's just gone through. Cause you're right, if he was grouchy about the situation then he never would have gone. As for using the word "bitch", he also uses it in his part of "Walk Through the Fire" back during OMWF("I'm free if that bitch dies", but notice he follows this with, "I'd better help her out"...for the average human that's dirogatory...doesn't seem that way for Spike) and I don't think he means it. It's just kinda the way he talks...his attitude towards things.
[> [> [> Cognitive dissonance, I'll buy that -- Masq, 12:57:07 06/19/02 Wed
Being an old psych major type : )
[> [> [> It still leaves the problem... -- Malandanza, 14:27:15 06/19/02 Wed
Suppose it was Spike's "Secret Supplication of the Heart" (a Mark Twainism) to have his soul restored so he could become the man that Buffy deserves -- good, noble, kind to dumb animals -- in a word: Riley. Why did the demon grant his request?
Spike comes to Africa having fallen from the path of true evil -- the demon knows this and says so rather clearly. Spike demands to be restored, presumably so he can wreak vengeance upon those who have "castrated" him, but the Cave Demon sees through him -- into his heart -- and knows that what Spike really wants is to be Angel (without the curse). Instead of twisting Spike's words to make him regret the wish, he grants Spike exactly what he really wants. Thus, he permanently removes a warrior for evil and replaces him with a warrior for good.
Maybe the demon is just really incompetent and could use a few lessons from Anyanka about wishes, but it just doesn't make sense for an evil creature to help a supplicant become good.
There's also the problem with the lack of secrecy from ME. If Spike really did want his soul back, it's a big plot twist -- why would they tell us? Doesn't it kind of ruin the surprise for next season? Has Joss just decided that since hecan't fight the spoilers, he'll just start spoiling the show himself? I can't help but believe this "wanting" a soul thing is a lie.
[> [> [> [> The demon made a bargain, and lived up to his end of the deal. -- Arethusa, 14:46:24 06/19/02 Wed
No doubt he never thought Spike would win.
Or...he's not an evil demon. The magical energy coming out of him was green, like the good magic Giles passed on to Willow.
[> [> [> [> [> End of Season 6 Spoilers Above -- Arethusa, 14:47:45 06/19/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> Re: It still leaves the problem... -- maddog, 15:10:21 06/19/02 Wed
If Spike really did want it back then don't you think he would know who to go to to get it back? Why go to someone you know won't give you your soul back? That would be dumb. I can't say anything about the motivations of the demon, but there have been odder things on this show. A demon who doesn't care whether you're good or bad doesn't seem that far off.
I think Joss told you because it really has no bearing on the coming season. Just because he wanted it then doesn't mean that by the time he gets back to Sunnydale that he won't be mad that he's got it...or who's to say that after seeing everyone and they all treat him like dirt that he won't regret it. Motivation here won't kill next season because it's just that...motivation. Sure, we know why he did it...but no one else does. And that'll be his big secret. And relating to that, the "big plot twist" was for the end of the season...I'm pretty sure that's what he meant. That's why he can so freely talk about it now. It's obvious that he fooled the majority of you like he wanted. Hence your big plot twist.
[> [> Re: Father issues -- Rufus, 13:51:05 06/19/02 Wed
What cracks me up is that slowly, over the years, Spike has seen the wisdom of becoming exactly what he's always claimed to loathe: he's becoming Angel. First he decides not to kill the Slayer, then he falls in love with Buffy, then he becomes a member of the scooby gang, now he's off to get a soul.
You have to remember that in a way Angel is a father to Spike in that he is the sire of Spikes sire......so what does a child fear most...usually becoming like the parent...then has the horror of discovery when they realize that that is exactly what they have become....;) No surprise to me that Spike went for a soul...it was obvious because the writers took such pains to make many think that he was going to give Buffy what she deserved in the form of a second funeral.
[> [> [> Re: Father issues -- Arethusa, 14:21:03 06/19/02 Wed
I guess I'm dense because the *only* thing that occurred to me was that Spike wanted a soul-I never thought that he wanted anything else. I took Spike at face value-he loved Buffy, he wanted Buffy, Buffy didn't want him because he was souless. (Or so she said.) Ergo, a soul. If he wanted to give Buffy a second funeral, he would have killed her when he discovered the chip didn't work on her. Why go to a magical demon for a chipectomy when he didn't need one? The only misdirection I can remember is when Spike said he wanted to be what he used to be-and that's a bit of a cheat because he didn't become either human or a "regular" vampire. He became what Angel is, not what Spike was.
[> [> [> [> Re: Father issues -- maddog, 15:13:08 06/19/02 Wed
It's funny, I saw both sides, but was pretty sure he wanted a soul. I'd say the chipectomy angle wasn't about Buffy as much as it was about being able to hurt anyone.
[> [> [> [> Re: Father issues--& a side question -- anom, 21:41:01 06/19/02 Wed
"If he wanted to give Buffy a second funeral, he would have killed her when he discovered the chip didn't work on her. Why go to a magical demon for a chipectomy when he didn't need one?"
Because after he killed her he would need one. First, the surviving Scoobies would hunt him down & dust him, & he couldn't defend himself against them. Second, until they did, he would still need to eat, & according to Riley (or somebody else in the Initiative), he can't hurt any living thing (okay, other than demons*)--which means he can't even feed on animals the way Angel did. He's apparently been living on blood he buys from some butcher in Sunnydale. He'd almost certainly have to leave town if he killed Buffy, & it'd be hard to either get money or establish reliable contact w/butchers in a new place while on the run.
*It just occurred to me that this raises a new question. (Well, if it's not new I missed it the 1st time.) Can a vampire feed on demon blood? We've never seen it done...maybe it's just not possible. Of course, most vampires have never needed to. We've seen various different colors of demon blood, so most demons' blood is probably significantly different chemically from human blood & might not sustain vampire (un)life. We've already seen Angelus recoil from the taste of the blood of an almost-transformed swim team member. I tend to believe it wouldn't work, but Spike might try if he got desperate enough. It might have some...interesting effects.
[> [> [> Re: Father issues -- Masq, 14:22:37 06/19/02 Wed
It's funny that Angel had his father issues start before he died, while Spike had his (grand) father issues start after he died.
At least, that's the way I imagine it... William struck me as one of those lads who was very (overly) attached to "Mother".
[> [> [> [> Re: Father issues -- Arethusa, 14:40:32 06/19/02 Wed
Our only insight into Spike's feelings regarding fathers is "Tabula Rasa."
GILES: Older brother?
SPIKE: (scoffs) Father. (Giles looks outraged) Oh, god, how I must hate you.
GILES: What did I do?
SPIKE: There's always something, and what's with the trollop? (indicates Anya)
ANYA: Hey!
GILES: Her?
SPIKE: I saw you! Sleeping together.
GILES: Resting together.
ANYA: Look! (holds up her hand with the engagement ring) It's okay. We're engaged.
GILES: (smiling) Oh.
ANYA: It's a lovely ring.
SPIKE: Oh, great, a tarty stepmom who's half old Daddy's age.
ANYA: Tarty?
GILES: Old? You little twerp, I'm young enough to still get carded.
SPIKE: 'Made with care for Randy.' (looks at Giles angrily) Randy Giles? Why not just call me 'Horny Giles,' or 'Desperate for a Shag Giles'? I knew there was a reason I hated you!
SPIKE: (to Giles) You never showed me affection like that!
SPIKE: Dad can drive. He's bound to have some classic midlife-crisis transport. (puts arm around Giles's shoulder) Something red, shiny, shaped like a penis.
[As they were leaving the Magic Shop.]
Spike goes over to Giles and they hug awkwardly, then Spike pushes Giles away.
SPIKE: Right.
GILES: Good, then.
So-can we assume Spike's father was cold, distant, and busy chasing the maids around the dining room table?
Then Angel-always busy putting Spike in his place, and much later putting his hand up Drucilla's skirt.
Hey! What if Spike knew Cicely *and* Halfrek? Spike definitely had *coughdaddyissues*, so maybe he had his father choked by an aspidistra, or be forced to chase strumpets until he died of exhaustion.
quotes by psyche
[> [> [> [> Oh Yeah...... -- Rufus, 14:49:26 06/19/02 Wed
Remember way back when I first started writing anything on Spike I said that he had a father that was either dead, or unavailable for some reason (poss out of country)...I got that from his effete manner and his mention of "Mother is expecting me" in FFL. It was such a small comment but spoke volumes of the possible family situation that his mention would be of his mother not "father" or "family".
Also not lost on me was the relationship he had with Angel when you see him pushing all the buttons Angelus possessed to get some attention again in the mineshaft in FFL....he appeared to relate in a rebelling childlike way to his "sire". Angelus was the vampire to impress (later swiched the same feelings to Giles in Tabula Rasa)....when Spike finally killed a slayer.....Angelus was Angel and could no longer approve of his surrogate son. Spike doesn't know this and assumes Angel is jealous. In School Hard, the "Uncle Tom" comment is so ironic given the fact that Angel was cursed with a soul then Spike evolves to seek a soul. I love how the familial bond with vampires is used in a way that you can see that Spike has indeed become his "father".
[> [> [> [> [> oooh, this is juicy stuff to use in the Fanged Four fan fic... -- Masq, 14:55:02 06/19/02 Wed
Not to mention throwing an interesting angle into Spike's oedipal complex.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Uh huh......you're just trying to get me started -- Rufus, 14:56:57 06/19/02 Wed
If I were a fan fic writer you could imagine the twisted tale I'd be capable of.......Joss and co. give us such good stuff to work with.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'm not a fan fic writer, either -- Masq, 17:22:52 06/19/02 Wed
Never did it in my life until just now. Interesting challenge, writing someone else's characters.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Same here...hmm first time -- shadowkat, 12:30:49 06/20/02 Thu
Hmmm I'm wondering how many of us in the fanged four project are first time fan fic
writers? Between us we certainly have written enough
character essays.
The father/son relationship is interesting on the show.
Definitely see the father/son connection between Spike and Angel/Angelus. And I doubt it was a nice one. Plus the abandonment when Angelus got the soul. ME is so odd on this - they explore the sick mother and send Daddy packing in almost every relationship on the show. OR Daddy stays
and torments his son as a disapproving father...
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Same here...hmm first time -- Masq, 12:37:43 06/20/02 Thu
Yeah, I see Angelus' treatment of Spike as sort of a continuation of the way Liam was treated by his own father. Spike does act rather like Liam--being a fun-boy, drinking, getting into fights.
Still, at some point in the FF fic we need to show the "yoda" part of this relationship. I have this feeling that even though Angelus is not the sort who finds it easy to love anybody, he has a sort of fascination with the idea of having a "vampire family". In a fatherly sort of way (father by ME's standards) he wants to guide them, provide for them, discipline them. It's all part of his need for control over things.
What do you think?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Same here...hmm first time -- Arethusa, 15:05:55 06/20/02 Thu
One of Liam/Angelus/Angel's strongest traits is his need for positive attention, acceptance, and approval-all denied to him by his father. This manifests itself in many ways:
-His attraction to superior women who will reflect well on him-wealthy, sophisticated, beautiful Darla; lovely, Super Slayer, ex-cheerleader Buffy, and gorgeous Champion Seer ex-cheerleader Cordelia.
-Kills that emphasize artistry and skill, not quantity.
-Need for followers who will reinforce the image he wants to create for himself.
-Concern for his image. ("I am not a eunech!" "She said I was melodramatic?" And my personal favorite:
>>Angel is looking at himself and feeling his hair, trying to push it down.
Angel: "Okay - this is because of going through the portal, right?"
Cordy: "No. It always looks like that."
Angel turns to look at them.
Wesley: "Angel, while we search for the proper incantation, it might save time if you go with the host. Hit the streets, see if you can document any - portal activity."
Angel: "I don't get it."
Wesley: "Well, the host knows this world, we need to ascertain if..."
Angel turns back to the mirror: "No, I mean why didn't anybody tell me about this? Look it's..."
Plays with his hair again.
Cordy: "Uh. You look good."
Angel checking himself out in the mirror again: "You're not just saying that, are you?"
Wesley pulls him away from the mirror.
Wesley: "Angel, please! Go with the host. (Angel bobs to look past Wes at the mirror, and Wes moves with him in an effort to stay in his line of sight) Track down his cousin Landok. Speak to his family and find out..."
Lorne: "Whoa, whoa, back up, back up. You want me to talk to my family? On purpose?!!"
Wesley: "Well, it's that - or face the possibility of *never* returning to our own dimension again."
Lorne sighs then pulls Angel (still staring at himself in the mirror) towards the door.
Lorne: "Come on, gorgeous, you can stare at yourself in my grandmother's glass eye.
( quotes by psyche)
The dynamics of the Fanged Four could be father/mother/children, or Frat President/Cheerleader Trophy Girlfriend/Sorority and Fraternity Minions. Angelus creates a society held together by mutual wants, needs, and fears, like a fraternity or a family. The children/pledges are initiated, indoctrinated, and shoved back into line when they stray. Angelus's need for control could be based on his need to control his image of himself, created to counter the image of a lazy womanizing lout his father instilled in him. And remember-Angelus never loved anybody.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Same here...hmm first time -- Rufus, 15:55:24 06/20/02 Thu
Yeah, I see Angelus' treatment of Spike as sort of a continuation of the way Liam was treated by his own father. Spike does act rather like Liam--being a fun-boy, drinking, getting into fights.
Funny how patterns of behavior manage to survive death...and how Angel keeps re-living the dis-approval of a loved one over and over again.....his father, now his son, both seeing him deficient. Spike and Wesley are in similar boats where they tend to act out familiar patterns when they are around Angel.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Feeling slightly exhilarated -- Rahael, 15:44:41 06/19/02 Wed
since I've just dashed off my first contribution to the Fanged Four fan fic.
Masq - v. v. naughty! leaving me with the sex scene!
And I'm already picturing the epilogue - Angelus at the opera in New York, watching Don Giovanni's descent into hell.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Feeling slightly exhilarated -- shadowkat, 12:33:44 06/20/02 Thu
And you skirted around that sex scene brillantly...as did
I. LOL!
Feeling exhilirated myself. First contribution.
And did you notice I got a little torture and a little
father/son in there? hee hee...
Actually fan fic is sort of fun.
[> [> Re: Oh, and... -- skeeve, 15:50:17 06/20/02 Thu
If Spike has become a vampire with a human soul, someone has been cheating.
Spike asked to become like he was. That could mean a human or a vampire without a human soul or a chip, but not a vampire with a human soul.
[> Re: Joss gives some information about Spike's motives in aquiring a soul in last nights interview. -- dream of the consortium, 12:07:48 06/19/02 Wed
He wasn't. The writers had to bend over backwards to imply one thing while another was happening. To my mind, it didn't work, and was the most jarring aspect of the finale. Strangely, it wasn't jarring on the first viewing, because I simply assumed that Spike had not know he was going to get his soul back. The unlikely aspect of the plot scenario (why would he go to a demon to take the chip out?) didn't occur to me until after I had read the Joss quote. On the re-watch, the "misleading" build-up to the plot twist struck me as painfully contrived.
[> [> Agreed -- Earl Allison, 12:16:55 06/19/02 Wed
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Yes, some viewers saw it that way, but not most of them -- to call this a plot twist leaves out, IMHO, two words.
Badly written.
Yes, it's what we were supposed to believe. It's also what most of Spike's body language and comments led to, too.
Generally I respect Joss' words, this time, I have problems with it.
NOTE: I do NOT have a problem with anyone who saw the end of "Grave" coming and felt it was foreshadowed. I just have a problem with it being called a twist, it WAS a bend-over-backwards type deal (again, IMHO).
Take it and run.
[> [> [> Re: Agreed -- maddog, 12:58:19 06/19/02 Wed
ok, maybe someone who won't yell at me because of my response. I did see it coming, but I want to understand the other side, so I'd like to know why it didn't feel like a twist to you. You expected him to be dechipped and instead you got a soul. That's not a twist?
[> [> [> [> how it was for me -- yuri, 15:07:04 06/19/02 Wed
I don't know about the definition of "twist," but the great thing about most twists is that when you rewatch what came before, you're like "oh, of course" but in this case I agree with dream, that every little thing in those scenes before spike's souling implies he wanted his chip out. I had the same reaction when I first watched - I thought the demon tricked him, giving him what he thought he "truly" wanted, but not actually what he was asking for. Later, when I heard the Jane Espenson interview, I realized he was actually supposed to have been asking specifically for a soul the whole time.
I can manipulate my perception of the ep to fit that.. It's actually interesting when taken that way because the anger you see in Sunnydale that you think is directed at Buffy must actually be directed at himself, which is angsty and interesting. But I can't let go of the fact that after my first viewing, there was no way ever in hell that I would have thought what, aparrently, we were "supposed" to think, and I actually faught pretty emphatically with some people about it. If I wasn't online, I would still think my way.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: how it was for me -- maddog, 15:22:18 06/19/02 Wed
That's the thing though...you weren't supposed to think he wanted a soul...hence the twist concept. Some of us however interpreted Spike differently. We saw what Joss didn't want us to see. Go figure.
And I guess we do have a different definition of twist because I always considered it something you weren't supposed to see...not even going back and rewatching it. Foreshadowing seems more like what you're describing.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: how it was for me -- yuri, 16:22:14 06/19/02 Wed
I think good plot twists come with good foreshadowing (Dawn -730, you know the drill.) I don't think you should be able to see it coming, but I do think it should make sense when you think about what came before. And I do think that good plot twists leave you saying "of course! it completely makes sense! All these signs point to it-" and you just aren't able to see those signs until it's happened.
In any case, even if we do disagree on that point, I didn't feel what I was evidently "supposed" to feel, and I think many people are in the same boat. We were supposed to say "oh, spike wanted a soul all along - I get it now, that's what he was talking about when he said buffy would get what she deserves," whereas I actually thought "Whoa, good call big green eyed thing, that's what spike actually wanted. How ironic that he said Buffy will get what she deserves meaning he'd kill her, when actually she's gonna get what she deserves in another way..." I'm just saying many many people read the scene way differently from how it was written, and that means they did something "wrong." (The wrong is in quotes because that's obviously an entire philosophical debate in itself that I will leave untouched!) I only wish that I'd read it "right."
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: how it was for me -- maddog, 16:47:44 06/19/02 Wed
"I'm just saying many many people read the scene way differently from how it was written, and that means they did something wrong."
See, I've been hearing that since the finale and I'm having to disagree with it. Just because the audience didn't get slapped in the face with the truth(like they thought they were being) doesn't mean the writers didn't do their job. It's very easy to blame someone else when you didn't get what they were trying to say.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: how it was for me -- Earl Allison, 02:23:13 06/20/02 Thu
Disagree.
If THAT many people missed it, and still don't see that as the direction things were going, it was poorly written.
Remember the old rule -- SHOW, don't TELL.
If it had been something most people could look back at and say, "Of COURSE that's what he meant, now I see it," that'd be one thing.
The fact that JW and JE had to come out and tell the viewers says (to me, IMHO) that they did a poor job of execution.
In other words, if there are that many people that see it differently, and feel cheated/lied to/whatever, I congratulate those who saw it, but still think that wasn't the gist at the time.
Take it and run.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: how it was for me -- maddog, 07:27:41 06/20/02 Thu
There's no real way to keep going back and forth like this. We just see the opposite sides of this. I'm just as shocked as Joss that he had to explain this as he initially was. Just as I'm shocked he had to defend himself with the Tara killing. I can see your point...trust me. That was never the issue. But it's hard to agree overall when you don't agree on the base issue.
[> [> [> [> Maybe this will help -- Earl Allison, 03:05:32 06/20/02 Thu
This next bit is quoted from the buffy newsgroup, from someone named Tom Breton;
"If they wanted to mislead us and make it pay off, they had to credibly turn it around in the final scene and make us say "Ah, so it was a *soul* he wanted all along". Not "Huh? Did he just get tricked into soul-having?""
Thas summed up my comments - if it were a clever mislead, most people would have gotten it WITHOUT JE and JW commenting. In fact, it's possible that JM and the episode writers didn't even know the intent JW and JE claim were there (speculation, admittedly).
It'd be like writing a murder mystery, setting up one character, and then having someone never in the novel (until being revealed as the murderer) being guilty -- sure, no one expected it, but was it clever? Hardly. Was it a twist? No, more of a lie to the audience.
It's the poor (IMHO) execution that gets me -- if that was the intent, it should have been a LOT clearer, if not at the time, then at least in reviewing the scenes.
Take it and run.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Maybe this will help -- maddog, 07:40:50 06/20/02 Thu
While I'm trying to stay quiet on this issue from now on, I can't agree with your murder mystery comparison. Spike wanting to be with Buffy didn't just come out of nowhere like "someone never in the novel". It was clear for quite a bit of the last two seasons that Spike wanted Buffy desperately. While the soul restoration wasn't obvious, it certainly wasn't that far from a possibility.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Agreeing with yuri and Earl -- Malandanza, 09:33:54 06/20/02 Thu
I think that in your fervor to defend Spike, you're missing the heart of our complaints.
A plot twist is something like what happened in The Fight Club or The Sixth Sense, where you smile and nod thoughtfully when it is revealed. It makes perfect sense once you see it -- and relieves all those nagging suspicions you had while the movie was building up to that point.
So Spike going to Africa to have the chip removed and getting a soul instead is a plot twist. In fact, it's great. Poor, stupid Spike who's schemes always go wrong because he rushing into them without thinking about consequences gets a soul because he worded his wish badly. All that work and he gets nothing. It's perfect. Genius.
Spike wanting a soul so he can become a real boy and give Buffy what she deserves (a stable, good, decent, trustworthy boyfriend who won't have sex with her friends and won't rape her when she rebuffs him), going to Africa to get his soul, and having a demon grant his wish in spirit rather than literally is not a plot twist. It's still something we could all accept -- ME has bent over backwards to make Spike seem ambiguous in his evil. It is consistent with his behavior that he might make such a decision (again, without considering the consequences -- like would he still be Spike? And would Buffy even like the new person?) It's not a plot twist though. For one thing, there aren't any twists.
The problem is that ME played everything one way -- that he wanted the chip out to wreak vengeance on Buffy for his own failings, that he visited an evil demon to have it done. In retrospect, we're told that he really wanted his soul back all along to become a good guy and that the demon was really a nice demon (with paintings of torture and death on his cave -- but maybe he's just renting and the original occupants left those behind) who really wanted to help out poor Spikey. This isn't a plot twist. It's a retcon.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ditto -- Sophist, 09:51:49 06/20/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Question I've had for some time... -- dream of the consortium, 11:40:20 06/20/02 Thu
"retcon"
Where does it come from? Does it stand for "retroactive contrivance?"
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Agreeing with yuri and Earl -- maddog, 14:18:07 06/20/02 Thu
For one, I'm not defending Spike, I'm defending Joss. I think one of the many things I've disagreed with people here is what a plot twist is. While I can't find an exact definition, I've alway seen it as something you never saw coming...no foreshadowing. That would fit this situation. Everyone was so sure they were seeing what was in front of them that when Joss pulled the bait and switch no one saw it coming and most were stunned. That's what I found truly genious about it. Now, personally, I had a hunch that he was looking for a soul(as a few others did), but I guess I'm either strangely perceptive(which doesn't make sense cause I never am) or just lucky.
ok, people have to get out of their heads that all demons are not only bad(uh hello Clem, while eating cats, is harmless otherwise) but can be bad and still choose to grant you what you wish. It's not like with a shiny smile he just gave Spike his soul back. This demon put Spike through what he felt was a set of impossible tasks. And somehow Spike gets through it. A deal is a deal and the demon grants him what he desires. Only problem is what we're all lead to believe what he desires isn't the case at all. That happens in real life. People put up fronts. They make us think they're one way when deep down they're not. That's exactly what I saw here. A vampire who was so angry that most everyone assumes he wants that damn chip out so he can go ruin many lives including Buffy's. But it's funny, he never mentions the chip.
and I'd like to ask one person who was sure he wanted the chip out exactly when he said that...cause I never heard it and oddly enough it's in everyone's defense. Taking how he "acts" is assumption. Plain and simple.
Now after saying all that I understand your frustration. If we'd seen the same thing I'd be as confused as you. So when I say what I feel don't take it as condemnation...I'm just defending my position.
[> [> [> [> [> Sounds like "I Know What You Did Last Summer"!! (And nice quote. I like.) -- yuri, 12:49:10 06/20/02 Thu
[> [> Re: Joss gives some information about Spike's motives in aquiring a soul in last nights interview. -- maddog, 12:55:09 06/19/02 Wed
Why is it that when anyone here disagrees with something Joss has done it all of a sudden becomes "contrived". It's like if you can't see it he must have forced the issue.
[> Re: Joss gives some information about Spike's motives in aquiring a soul in last nights interview. -- maddog, 12:42:45 06/19/02 Wed
Not to tute my own horn, but I've been saying that since day 1. You have to read between the lines with Spike cause contrary to popular belief, he doesn't always say what he means. I'm just glad Joss cleared that up.
[> [> Exactly! The same pt I tried to make to Mal below -- shadowkat, 12:49:18 06/19/02 Wed
He does a lot of posturing. Just rewatch HEll's Bells or
Fool For Love or Becoming PArt II or Lie to Me...to see numerous examples. It's subtly played.
[> [> [> Re: Exactly! The same pt I tried to make to Mal below -- alcibiades, 14:07:47 06/19/02 Wed
But the difference in this case, is that the posturing was directed at the audience with no one else nearby.
I'm talking about the words on the motorcycle as he leaves Sunnydale. Not his words to the demon.
Iago giving his soliloquy to the audience and misleading them.
frankly, I prefer my explanation which is somewhat similar to yours shadowkat.
He went away aware there were two options and deeply conflicted about what he wanted and in the course of the trial he is too drained to hold onto his hatred and resentment of Buffy so that his real feelings surface and his heart is clear about what he wants by the end. In other words, the real opponent he had to face and to conquer was himself, not anything external.
I certainly agree with leslie in any case that there will be issues next year for Spikey to work out about being soul possessing.
[> [> [> [> awesome! -- lele, 14:58:25 06/19/02 Wed
"He went away aware there were two options and deeply conflicted about what he wanted and in the course of the trial he is too drained to hold onto his hatred and resentment of Buffy so that his real feelings surface and his heart is clear about what he wants by the end. In other words, the real opponent he had to face and to conquer was himself, not anything external."
I totally agree. The difference in his behaviour b/n the first scene in Africa and the last scene is significant. In the first scene with Lurky- he postured and said 'bitch is going to see a change.' In the last scene he seems tired and almost defeated and says, 'make me what i was so buffy can get what she deserves.' His internal conflict seems to have been a big deal this season(his song in OMWF, talking himself into biting the girl in Smashed, trying to understand why buffy was so distressed about accidentally 'killing' katrina in Dead Things, etc), but after his trials when everything was stripped away, his decision was made.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: awesome! (sort of spoilery from emmy interviews) -- shadowkat, 19:37:55 06/19/02 Wed
After reading the Emmy Interview transcripts and Joss'
odd statement that he planned on taking the character and actor where neither had been before..I'm thinking that
we are going to see the psychological warfare inside him big time next year. "I hate violence and only want to create objects of beauty" and "I'm a bad poet but a good man" William meets "Hello! Vampire! I'm supposed to
be treading on the dark side!" and "I'm a killer, that's what I do!" Spike. Hmmmm can't wait to see the fire works
and in the process maybe Joss Whedon will finally define
what it means to ensoule a demon??
Oh agree with alcibades post. I also agree that they could have written the Spike scenes a little clearer...I sort of wish they'd left that speech in from the shooting script in Villains..."She doesn't know who I was..." What I think happened is they watched one too many campy Vampire horror flicks and decided to borrow. (I rented John Carpenters Vampires last weekend, very cheesy flick, and was dismayed to realize how many lines and scenes were lifted from it.
UGH! David ...you couldn't have plagarized a better film??)
[> [> [> [> [> [> He's a conflicted vamp ... (Spoilers) -- Exegy, 07:49:10 06/20/02 Thu
I always view Spike's attitude in the last episodes as a reflection of the attitude he expresses in "Walk Through the Fire." He's so frustrated ... he could kill Buffy and then he would be free of this misery. He could be free of the torment his love for her has inflicted upon him ... that weakness he so denies with his Big Bad posturing. But he's torn. He wants to kill her, to make these feelings stop ... but he also wants to save her. As every night during the summer he has saved her. And we see that this last desire wins out. When the Big Bad exterior has been stripped away, all that remains is this desire for positive change ... which has perhaps been buried for so long within the frozen vampiric state.
We see this desire in Randy ... it was there all along, really. The potential for positive growth. The immediate conclusion that he is a souled vampire, a noble warrior on the side of good. These latent feelings could not have been expressed if they were not already present in some form ... we see them come to the fore in the final shot of the season. This is what Spike secretly wants, this is his aspiration. What he couldn't express when he was posturing, his identity as the Big Bad vampire relatively intact ... what he can only truly express when he is beaten down, stripped to the core of himself. He wants a soul ... so that he can be a noble warrior worthy of Buffy.
Note--he pointedly does not embrace the full weakness of humanity. That is not his desire. He wants to keep his vampire prowess ... sorta like having your cake and eating it, too. We don't know exactly what sort of conflicts will be set up for him, though ... it could be that his desire to change has some unintended consequences.
And we still don't know the identity of the Cave Demon ... that dark figure we couldn't quite make out. There may be implications here that we just don't see....
[> [> [> [> [> Re: awesome! -- dream of the consortium, 07:22:56 06/20/02 Thu
I like that explanation, because for the life of me I can't put his behavior while leaving Sunnydale together with trying to get a soul. It's not that you don't see it at the time (I expected the whole time Spike would end up with a soul), but it's that when you watch it again, you still can't believe that what is coming could possibly be coming. I just can't believe that Spike would be all Big Bad posturing for the sake of absolutely no one just as he has decided that he's going to go out and get himself Angelized. The idea that he wasn't really thinking through what he wanted, that he just wanted a change, and that the trials actually stripped him bare to his deepest desire - okay, I can buy that. Maybe. But I don't see it so much in the script - mostly because I can't believe that a demon is going to be much help for the chip, so he must have had the soul in mind all along. But then I'm back to the incongruity of the way he was acting in Sunnydale.....
AGH..my head hurts.
No, can't make it all work. Stuck with bad writing.
By the way, maddog, you might not want to make such broad generalizations about people throwing around the word "contrived" when they are unhappy with something. I've been pretty positive about this season overall, and am willing to overlook smaller plotholes. How does Buffy find Rack's place? I don't know, Anya helps her, she grabs the first vamp she sees - I don't care, really. But I reserve the right to complain when the writing is not up to par, and often the place where Buffy can fall down is by forcing things that don't quite work. In this case, I can't see any way out of it but poor choices. I believe ME could have written and directed Spike's exit from Sunnydale in such a way that we were mislead without feeling cheated. I think they were afraid too many people knew that Spike would get a soul, so they pushed in the other direction so hard the coherency fell away. It was really the only time this year I felt like this (other than perhaps Buffy's miraculously fast deduction of the inappropriate wish in OAFA, and all of As They Were, though I tend to read that as a brave but failed attempt to create an entirely ironic episode).
But as far as my personal Sunnydale history goes (the narrative with my own internal edits that make it work for me when the version on screen doesn't), Spike thought the demon could deal with the chip (not through removal but through some sort of pain-resistant build-up in his brain? maybe?) and then decided he really wanted a soul. Thanks for the help.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: awesome! -- maddog, 08:31:37 06/20/02 Thu
ah, there's the retaliation I was waiting for. I wrote it and then realized that it sounded like I was picking on you, which I wasn't trying to. It was one of those "straw that broke the camel's back" things. I've just heard an abundance of people bitch and moan about a season(and it's not just Buffy) and then pick the one thing they hated the most and call it contrived. My apologies. We just see things differently I guess(as it seems I do with most of you).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: awesome! -- dream of the consortium, 10:11:54 06/20/02 Thu
Retaliation seems a little harsh. How about simple response? :)
It can be very frustrating to find something satisfying and then find out a large number/majority agree disagree with you. Personally, I liked OAFA - thought Dawn's rage pretty interesting, liked the return of the vengeance demon thing, adored Tara's interactions with Spike and so on. Disliked the very end and the Buffy-figures-it-all-out-in-ten-seconds-flat thing, but otherwise thought it was a pretty enjoyable, though certainly not superior, episode. Was quite surprised that everyone here seemed to hate it as much as they did. And I certainly didn't have the problems with Seeing Red that a lot of people did. On the other hand, I really didn't like Tabula Rasa. I have a general dislike for any and all amnesia plots (and alternative dimension plots and doppelganger/mistaken identity plots, though that didn't keep me from loving Doppelgangland and Normal Again and not even minding the Xander double ep, whatever that was called). Tabula Rasa didn't change my mind. I found it boring, flat. Was stunned to find that it made everyone's favorite list. (Wouldn't say it was contrived, though. Just dull.) Even the best analyses failed to pique my interest in it. Not worth getting irritable about, though. People have different opinions. If they can support them, I don't get my knickers in a twist.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: awesome! -- maddog, 14:30:32 06/20/02 Thu
I say retaliation because you sounded offended. And that wasn't my intention.
I haven't rewatched OAFA so I can't say I remember how quickly Buffy caught on and if it was practical or not. I'll have to wait for the replay and let you know.
I haven't had a problem with a single episode...of course maybe I'm just easier to please. I thought Seeing Red kicked ass. TR wasn't one of my favorites, but I realize that it was there to prove a point...to further the Tara must leave Willow/Giles must leave Buffy thing.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: awesome! -- ponygirl, 09:02:53 06/20/02 Thu
I have to disagree, I thought it was perfectly in character for Spike to go off and do the right thing, snarling and sniping the whole time. I do like the explanation that he was pissed off that he would be brought to such a state, and blaming Buffy for his predicament even as he suffered in his attempt to get re-souled. As for his speech on the way out of town, well Spike likes his Big Bad persona, he's internalized it to the extent that he does definitely keep to it even when no one's around. Remember his "nancy hair gel" speech? Or the bit just before the Initiative zaps him? Or the monologue in OoMM? The guy likes to talk to himself. For my own internal consistency meter it all adds up. But the important thing is that your narrative works for you, dream! (and I'm with you on OAFA and AYW!)
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: awesome! -- lele, 13:59:44 06/20/02 Thu
If you read this please tell me your thoughts on As You Were. I defended that episode on another board I visit b/c i thought it served its purpose (namely getting buffy on the right track and reminding the audience that spike's not a good guy-could not defend the way they did this). However, on the whole it wasn't up to par with Petrie's other episodes.
Spike had an alternative (Spoilery for Grave and yet somewhat O/T) -- Wisewoman, 16:26:14 06/19/02 Wed
Toronto Star
2002/16/16 01:00 EDT
Janice Mawhinney, Life Writer
Soul-searching decision
Online auction disconcerts not only eBay officials but also the vendor
There it was for all to see, a real first for eBay: "One
human male soul (no reserve bid)" read the auction listing.
Anyone browsing among eBay's psychic readings, ouija boards
and astral projection workbooks in mid-April might have come across the opportunity to bid on the soul of Kevin Douglas Smith.
Smith signed his soul away when he lost at a video game
called Halo, he explained in a telephone interview.
It seemed like a good idea at the time - 2 a.m. on Friday,
April 12, in his friend Paul Preissner's apartment in their
hometown of Chicago.
So what do you do with someone else's soul? Preissner was at a loss. Smith came up with the bright idea that he post the signed deed to the soul for auction on eBay. The suggestion had a certain clever and witty ring to it at 2 a.m. After all,Smith could always buy his soul back by being the high bidder.
Preissner posted it on eBay the same day, writing: "Upon the auction's end and the receipt of payment the winner will
receive one (1) human soul, and signed deed to said soul. It will then be the sole responsibility of the owner."
Smith bid. His friends bid. The price crept up in 50-cent
increments to $8. And then things took a Mephistophelian
turn.
Smith and his friends were outbid by someone whose eBay
identity is GrimReaperAwaits.
"That made me nervous," says the 31-year-old teaching
assistant and Ph.D. student in the English department at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
Suddenly Smith wasn't just a guy who didn't actually think
he had a soul. He was a guy who knew that if he did happen to have a soul, he didn't want it in the hands of anyone named GrimReaperAwaits.
As an English scholar, Smith knows Christopher Marlow's 16th-century play in which Dr. Faustus sells his soul and gets carted away by a company of devils at the end. It all began to take on an unnervingly personal edge.
"I started to feel really anxious," he says. "I didn't know
if I had a soul, but I started to think: What if I've got rid of something real that I'll never be able to get back? For three days, I really went around feeling that something was very wrong."
At that point it turned out that eBay officials, likely
sweating out visions of a rich variety of potential lawsuits, were suffering even more anxiety than Smith was.
They cancelled the auction in midstream, leaving
GrimReaperAwaits still waiting.
They explained that there is a rule against selling "body
parts" over eBay. Either the soul sale violated that rule, or it was selling something that doesn't exist.
They weren't exactly sure which, but either way they didn't
want to get mixed up in it, thank you very much.
This cleared the way for a happy ending: Preissner sold
Smith's soul back to him for $1.
"I felt relieved to get it back," Smith says. "I think at
the very least I learned that the concept of a soul is so powerful that it shouldn't be taken lightly. I'd never play with it again. I'm not even absolutely sure I have a soul, but I'm not going to take any more chances."
(Apologies for the weird margins--I got tired of trying to fix them after 1/2 an hour!)
;o)
[> Wow, very interesting. I appreciate the conclusion Smith drew! thanks WW. (and lol about spike.) -- yuri, 16:39:27 06/19/02 Wed
[> So THAT'S who sold Anya the Urn of Osiris... -- cjl, 17:02:30 06/19/02 Wed
[> I wonder how much I'd get for my dead one? -- Dead Soul (no...really!), 17:12:46 06/19/02 Wed
Creating Mr. & Ms. Right - robot metaphors in Btvs Part I (spoilers through grave) -- shadowkat, 17:48:45 06/19/02 Wed
Creating Mr. & Ms. Perfect: Robot Metaphors in Btvs Part I.
(Sorry for the title - drew a complete blank on it. I'm taking Exegy up on her challenge to analyze the Robot metaphors in Btvs. Hope this doesn't disappoint. Also it got really long so splitting it up a bit. Parts I & II are here. Part III to follow soon. I meant to stay away from Spike but discovered it was impossible for this analysis - the writers just like to use his character as a metaphor.)
Quotes: Psyche Transcripts and redcat. Thanks for the idea goes to the wonderful folks who participated on the What Happened to April Thread on the Misogyny Post, specifically exegy who hinted that I do it and redcat who gave me some ideas.
Spoilers through Grave!
At the beginning of the Spielberg film A.I, a movie about a robot boy who wants to be real, the creator tells his students -he created a robot child who can love. Everyone applauds. Then a woman raises her hand and asks: "But how do we get a human to love a robot? What if the human doesn't return the robot's affections? Is it ethical to create and give someone the desire for love and affection when it will never be returned?"
An interesting question, what are the ethics of creating artificial life? This question has been asked over and over again in sci-fi novels and movies. In Ridley Scott's Blade Runner (loosely based on the Philip K. Dick novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep), a bounty hunter or blade runner hunts down and kills replicants or artificial human beings who do not have souls. They only have memories and emotions imprinted and programmed into them by their human creators. They are used as slaves, weapons and companions in Scott's futuristic world. When a bunch of replicants escape from a prison planet, all they want is an extension on their lifespan, they want to live as humans without a due date. They want to be real. Of course, the blade runner kills them. But the question posed by the replicants echoes through the final credits - what is real? Do I have the right to be real? And why am I here?
Star Trek The Next Generation posed a similar question through Lt. Data, an artificial man who did not possess emotions, at least originally. In one episode, they hold a trial or tribunal in which they decide who should have control over Lt. Data's destiny on whether he is turned off or on? Does he as a thinking, autonomous entity have the right to choose his own path? Lt. Data had gotten tired of being turned off. He had gotten tired of feeling owned.
In Btvs - robots initially are used as objects of horror - the monster robot who can destroy you, then slowly they become humorous or just harmless distractions easily destroyed. But each robot seems real, almost human. And in a show that requires a soul for redemption or for someone to be deemed of value, the use of robots - the epitome of hollow beings is interesting. Robots are nothing but wires and chips and silicon. They aren't real. They can't love. They can't think for themselves. Right? Slaves to man, created by him to serve his needs, whether those needs be physical or emotional.
Part I. Being The Perfect Boyfriend: Malcom, Ted & Riley
The idea of robotic love is first breached in Season 1 with the episode, I Robot, You Jane. Poor nerdy Willow doesn't know how to talk to boys. Xander, the only boy she can talk to is infatuated with her best friend, the perky, pretty, super-hero Buffy. Luckily for Willow, Buffy doesn't share his affections or life would truly be hell. So Willow retreats to her computer and does what many of us unlucky in love types do - cruise the chat rooms and internet. Actually, she doesn't really need to cruise, all she needs to do is scan Malcome into her computer and list him under the file named Willow and he conveniently contacts her. Malcome - Giles states is a demon that tempts those who long for love and attention. Prays on young impressionable minds. Willow is an excellent target as are the other computer nerds. They all get validation and support primarily through their computer terminals.
Malcome is the perfect boyfriend, supportive, complimentary, interested in what Willow thinks and feels. And best of all he is safely contained behind a computer screen - she does not have to worry about the face to face rejection. When he asks to meet her - she understandably puts him off, even sort of panics, causing him to kidnap her instead. When faced with the real Malcom, Willow freaks - this is not the kind supportive friend she'd written to, this is a monster. He asks for her love, tells her they should be together, that they understand one another. But she rejects him and he tries to kill her. Buffy luckily saves the day. At the end of the episode, Willow wonders if she is truly doomed, the only person to ever take an interest in her romantically is a robot. And the audience notes that Willow has a serious problem - she needs someone to take an interest in her - to feel special, to be important. Hence the reason she was attracted to Malcom to begin with. The internet entity of Malcom made Willow feel wanted, less alone. But when confronted with the robotic reality - she was understandably horrified.
Joyce Summers has a similar experience in the Season 2 episode Ted. Recently divorced, struggling to raise a daughter and hold a job, Joyce doesn't get out much. She aches for companionship. She aches for someone to help her raise her daughter. So along comes Ted, the perfect boyfriend. He cooks. He appears to be good with kids, taking her daughter and her daughter's friends out to play golf. And most important - he is interested in Joyce. Joyce is the center of his world. Unfortunately, like Malcom, Ted isn't all he appears. He wants the perfect wife, the perfect child. Ted wants to control his world, just as Malcom wanted to control his. Except Ted really is a robot, a robot imprinted with the desires and personality of his human creator.
This is what Xander tells us about Ted: "So, I'm Ted, the sickly loser. I'm dying and my wife dumps me. I build a better Ted. He brings her back, holds her hostage in his bunker'o'love until she dies. And then he keeps bringing her back, over and over. Now, now that's creepy on a level I hardly knew existed."
(Is it? Sort of reminds me of few old stories: the first is the tale of Bluebeard who keeps hunting the perfect wife and beheads the ones who don't fit until he gets it right, hiding their corpses in the attic or proverbial closet, sort like robot Ted hides the bodies of his disappointing wives. This may have been based on Henry the VII who had eight wives and beheaded quite a few of them to get around the church's problem with divorce. Hmmm, divorce is a mortal sin, but murder is okay as long as you can prove treason? If King Henry could have created a robot wife, he probably would have.
Willow oddly enough appreciates Ted's abilities and sympathizes with him. Stating the sad part is he was such a genius. Willow would like to control love as well. To create the perfect boyfriend. Ted similarly wants the perfect wife, one who will stay with him. But, instead of creating this wife, Ted recreates himself - as Xander puts it - builds a better Ted. ‘I'll create the perfect husband. I'm not good enough as I am, she left the current version, so I'll make a better model.' This reminds me quite a bit of Willow who believes she's more interesting with magic. As she tells Buffy in Wrecked - without magic I was just a girl, Tara never knew that girl, she wouldn't have liked that girl. And later in Two to Go - Willow was the loser who people picked on for her mousy ways. (Outside of OZ and Tara no one took an interest in her.) Magic makes her better, builds a better Willow (a scary vieney Willow but a better one from Willow's perspective). I'm not unconvinced Willow wasn't somewhat impressed with Ted's idea of building a better self. An idea that sickened Xander. Both Ted and Willow believe that the fault lies with them. If they can be different - they can control love. They deserve love, they just don't know how to get it. Another character this reminds me of is Riley Finn. (Who I will explore in more depth in Part III of this analysis.) When Buffy first meets Riley he is the perfect studly boyfriend. Super-powered like she is. Although he notices with some chagrin she can still pummel him. Mystical energy beats the manufactured brand any day. Riley's strength is manufactured. His skills and natural abilities have been enhanced with drugs and other technological ingredients over time- providing him with super-strength. When these drugs almost kill him in Out of My Mind, Riley undergoes an operation and the super-strength is removed. He is no longer "super-solider" and therefore cannot keep up with his girlfriend either in bed or in the field. He believes that she can't love him as he is. Weak kittenish Riley. That he has to be the Perfect boyfriend just as he had to be the Perfect solider. As a result, Riley eventually leaves Buffy.
Joyce and Buffy really don't want perfect love or for that matter the perfect man. They would just like to be loved, appreciated. Joyce's attraction and disappointment in Ted was actually quite touching. He seemed to be the perfect man. He seemed to care only about her. What the human Ted didn't understand - is it wasn't super-strength or longevity his wife needed. It was love, unconditional and simple. If he had loved her he would have been able to let her go. Unfortunately robot Ted is incapable of understanding these concepts just as robot/demon Malcome is. Willow tells Malcome, ‘I'm not a possession.' That's Malcom's concept of love - she's a possession, she's his. Just as Ted's concept of love is Joyce is his. Riley, to his credit, is far more advanced, he doesn't view love in this manner. No, Riley's problem is he can't believe he is good enough for Buffy as he is. He can't measure up to her without the super-strength and stamina. Malcom and Ted know they measure up what they can't understand is why the objects of their affection don't appreciate it and return their affection. Why can't you love me? Why don't you want me to take care of you? Well, if you can't - I'll kill you.
PArt II follows.
[> Part II: The Perfect Girlfriend - April, Buffbot and Katrina (long! spoilers through grave) -- shadowkat, 17:52:56 06/19/02 Wed
Part II. The Perfect Girlfriend: April, the Buffybot and Katrina
The Stepford Wives, a book and later a 1970's horror movie, starring Kathryn Ross, is about a bunch of men in a small community who murder their wives, replacing them with robot imitations. The robots are the perfect wives. They do all the things a perfect wife should do: housework, cook meals, entertain at dinner parties, raise kids, pleasure their husbands and they never ever complain. Real wives want to work, paint, hire a housekeeper, get depressed, etc. But the Stepford Wife - well she's the perfect solution. Predictable. Programmable. And best yet, she will stay with you forever.
The Stepford Wives reminds me of a far older tale of a man who constructs the perfect female. The Greek myth of Pygmalion, the king who makes a woman out of ivory and has it brought to life by Aphrodite. Once he does, he teaches the statue how to be human and it is more or less under his control. George Bernard Shaw adapted this story and modernized it in his play of the same name about a rich linguist who takes a poor flower girl under his wing and teaches her how to be a lady, treating her as a thing or robot in the process. She makes the mistake of falling for her teacher only to discover that he is incapable of loving her - she is, in his head, just his creation. My Fair Lady, a musical by Lerner and Lowe is a much more positive presentation on the same theme.
In Btvs' I Was Made To Love You - Warren attempts to create the perfect girlfriend. He actually has purer and less sexist motivations than the creeps in the Stepford Wives. As he states to Buffy, " I didn't make a toy, I made a girlfriend."
BUFFY: They're not talking to you, you're not gettin' dates ... you start thinking, "hey, this isn't fair."
WARREN: Yeah, I mean, I felt like I deserved to have someone. You know, I mean, everyone deserves to have someone.
BUFFY: So naturally you turned to manufacturing.
WARREN: Kinda.
BUFFY: And how long did it take to build yourself that little toy?
WARREN: Oh, no, she's not a toy. I mean, I know what you're thinking, but she's more than that.
BUFFY: I'm sure she has many exciting labor-saving attachments.
WARREN: No, I made her to love me. I mean, she cares about what I care about, and I didn't make a toy. I made a girlfriend.
BUFFY: A girlfriend. Are you saying ... are you in love with her?
WARREN: I really thought I would be. I mean, she's perfect. I don't know, I ... I guess it was too easy. And predictable. You know, she got boring. (Buffy rolls her eyes) She was exactly what I wanted, and I didn't want her. (laughs crazily) I thought I was going crazy.
I can sort of identify with Warren here. It's awfully hard to find someone to click with, who gets your jokes, who loves you. And doesn't everyone deserve to have someone? That's why the creator in A.I. creates the robot boy with the special skill to love. That's why Gepetto creates Pinocchio. And that's why Pygmalion asks Aphrodite to animate his beloved statue. We all want someone to love us. But is it right to create something with the impetus to love you without any guarantee you will love it back?
What if you don't? The perfect girlfriend can get awfully boring. She does whatever you want, but there's no surprises, no suspense. As Spike puts it in Bargaining, that's all a robot is, perfect, predictable, boring, the perfect teacher's pet. While Warren is a step above the creeps who design the Stepford Wives - after all he really didn't want a slave at this point, he wanted a girlfriend, he doesn't understand that you can't just create something, make it love you, then forget it exists.
WARREN: Okay, I didn't really dump her, as much as I, uh, went out, and, uh, didn't come back. (Buffy stares) I left her, I ... left her in my dorm room.
BUFFY: (angry) You left her in your dorm room?!
WARREN: Well, I figured I could just kinda get away until her batteries gave out. Which should have been days ago.
BUFFY: Did you even tell her? I mean, did you even give her a chance to fix what was wrong?
WARREN: I didn't need to fix anything. I mean, her batteries were supposed to run down. Really, they should be completely dead by now.
The real world metaphor is pretty obvious. Riley leaves Buffy with a less than twenty-four hour ultimatum. Takes off. Doesn't give her a chance to even try and fix things. A common theme for Buffy. Every guy she gets romantically attached to or cares deeply about, takes off, starting with Hank Summers. From Buffy's perspective the worst thing that Warren could have done is just leave April sitting there, alone in his dorm room. It reminds me of scene from AI, where the mother takes her robot son out to the forest and leaves him there all alone with his teddy bear, nothing else. When all else fails, let's abandon the thing that didn't work out. The SG repeats this behavior pattern with the poor Buffybot in Bargaining. Willow mentions how they need to do something about it and Xander mentions it's a loss. Not worth salvaging. So the poor robot is tortured by the demon bikers and dismembered in a horrifically violent scene where they tie her arms and legs to four bikes and go off in four different directions. (Reminds me of an old Edgar Allan Poe Movie called Pit and the Penduleum.) It is ironic that the bot's original owner, Spike, is the one who finds her, driving up with her surrogate daughter Dawn on a demon bike. Spike, barely able to look at her, tells Dawn that she isn't real, that it's just a robot, but he goes and picks up her pieces, examining the wreckage, muttering, "look what they've done to you." The SG barely think about her. And to their credit, she was a nuisance, breaking up Willow's spell, bringing the demons straight to their doorstep.
At the end of IWMTY, Spike orders the Buffybot. Obsessed and lonely, Spike wants what Warren did, a girlfriend. But unlike Warren, Spike doesn't just want a girlfriend, not any old girl would do - if that was the case, he'd still be with Harmony or he'd just find someone. He really hasn't had any problems getting women. Sheila, Harmony, Drusilla, and the goth chick in Hells Bells all come to mind. No, Spike wants Buffy. Only Buffy. And since he obviously can't have Buffy, he orders the next best thing - a copy. Sort of similar to the parents in AI., who order a robot boy to love them, their real son lasped into a coma and may never get off life support. So they order a replacement. They miss the real thing of course, but the replacement offers some advantages - such as never getting sick. Spike also can't have the real thing, so he orders one to be made, one that is everything he thinks the real one would be if she loved him. One who slays vampires, loves her friends, and loves him. The result makes me think of a Harlequin novel or the romantic Buffy/Spike fanfic, makes one wonder if ME reads fanfic. (*Quick disclaimer - no I am NOT sabershadowkitten, no relation, do not know the woman or man who runs that site. I'm shadowkat. Never wrote fanfic in my life until I joined the Fanged Four FanFic Round Robin on ATP board… we'll see the results, a tad nervous. Now back to our discussion.)
Before Spike orders his robot, the writers do something fascinating, they compare him to April, scissoring back and forth between the two character's quests for love and acceptance. Building up their mutual desperation to the point that their resulting acts make perfect sense. Both are freaks. Both outcasts. Both hollow, soulless beings, that appear to everyone including the audience to be unworthy of love. First we see Spike try to speak to Buffy at a frat party. She understandably rejects him. (Wouldn't you? He had her in handcuffs the last episode and let Dru knock her out with a cattle prod. Actually she's quite polite about it. I would have staked him, especially after he tells her that she can put her hands on his tight hot body and throw him out. But then, Buffy is far more heroic and compassionate than I am. Not to mention forgiving.) Then April shows up looking for Warren and Warren hides from her. I think Buffy would have hidden from Spike if given half a chance. Luckily April throws him out the window. April is a little like Ted and Malcom - you don't love me or do what I want, you're dead. Robots up to this point were bad news.
The next comparison is far more disturbing and painful. It is, in a way, played for comedy, but the p.o.v is so clearly on Spike and April that we as an audience inwardly cringe. Spike rushes into the Magic Box on fire. Puts himself out and tries to interact with SG, in hopes of continuing his relationship with them and through them Buffy. They justifiably reject him and do so somewhat cruelly. He has formed a dangerous attraction for their friend, Buffy, and they cannot afford to encourage him in any way. Giles even threatens him, suggesting he move on or else. The way this scene is played, makes me cringe in sympathy for Spike. Then, as if to emphasize this, the scene shifts to April asking a bunch of people where Warren is. They proceed to cruelly ridicule and lie to her. This scene isn't as uncomfortable as the one with Spike, but it is just as disturbing. If you've ever had anyone reject you or treat you like an idiot - these two scenes back to back may have brought up some unpleasant memories. The people involved do not see their actions as cruel or reprehensible. After all April is not real. She's a robot. She can't perceive the cruelty. And Spike? Well, he's not real either, he's a loser, a soulless demon, evil. He does not deserve love, compassion, respect or tolerance. All he deserves is ridicule. Which I guess makes it okay. In Spielberg's A.I. there is a similar scene with the robot boy and the real son of the parents. The real son has come out of his coma and returned home. His parents have a party for him. During the party the real boy and his friends play with and cruelly ridicule the robot boy. You're just a toy, they tell him. You're not real. They could never love you because you aren't real! It's okay to treat someone cruelly if they don't deserve your respect, if they aren't human or real. Right?
After these scenes - Spike and April slowly degenerate into despair and rage. When April discovers that Warren doesn't love her but loves Buffy instead, she inflicts her bent-up rage and disappointment onto Buffy, even growling. What? April's a robot. She doesn't have feelings. Well apparently there was a screw-up in the programming, April does. Just like the A.I. robot boy did, reacting to the real son's ridicule and teasing by attacking him just as a real boy would. And what does Spike do? He packs up his Buffy shrine and takes it over to Warren, whom he's figured out created a robot girlfriend. Perfect solution, Spike thinks. I can't have the original, I'll get the next best thing a copy. He's lonely. And he needs someone. Is this evil? Who was evil in this episode? Personally I think we create our own monsters or at least have hand in their creation. Warren created the Aprilbot but was unable to shut her down or take responsibility for his creation, instead he runs away, hoping her batteries will run down and his current girlfriend will never find out. Of course the Aprilbot catches up to him and his current girlfriend, Katrina finds out, and leaves him in a huff. Buffy and the SG hope they can just ignore Spike, ridicule him, be cruel and he will go away and leave them alone, move on. But Spike is a demon and can't let go of things. No more than Angelus or Dru or Darla or the Aprilbot can, it's not their nature. They aren't human. They are like Ted or Malcom. The fact that Spike hopes to transfer his affections to a robot is actually an improvement over Malcom and April's desire to kill the obstacle or object. But his desire to build the Buffybot - to his specifications terrified me at the end of that episode. After all - look what happened with April? A violent robot on the rampage.
Ironic that the one robot in our lineup that did not turn out to be a violent creation was built to Spike's specifications. The Buffbot is a charming, witty parody of Buffy. In fact she seems to be more approachable and affectionate than the real Buffy. To the extent that her friends think she actually is Buffy. "You couldn't tell me from a robot?" Buffy accuses them. And the Buffbot's charming response? "I don't think I'm a robot." Spike wants more than just a girlfriend when he creates the Buffbot, he wants Buffy. And in the Buffbot we get a clearer picture of what he thinks Buffy is and why he has a thing for her. Forget for a minute their sexual excursions and think about her interactions with the other SG. Why did the SG buy her as Buffy? She doesn't react in the same way as April did with a one-track mind. She actually responds to the SG as if they are her family and friends. She wants to slay vampires. When they fight Glory and Giles is injured - Buffbot risks her life to save him, getting horribly injured in the process. In fact she beats the real Buffy to the punch. And when Spike goes missing? She goes to the SG to ask for help. Warren didn't come up with these little touches, he doesn't really know the SG. Spike did. Spike, as redcat puts it in her post on ideals and women in the long misogyny thread on ATP board, "Spike wants someone to serve, just as I always imagined that William fantasized himself the knight serving his lady." So when he creates the robot - he creates someone who will not only be sexually uninhibited with him but who he can also serve in the war against the vampires. Very ironic. Wouldn't it have made more sense for her to be against slaying vampires? Spike doesn't create a Stepford Wife or a sex slave, really, he creates his approximation of what a lady is. Complete with chaste knee length skirt and perky smile.
Except he grows bored of her after a while. I agree with redcat, who indicates in her ideal and women post that Spike has an almost bored look on his face while the Buffbot is giving him a blowjob and when she asks if he wants her to replay the program - he says, "no, program, don't say that, just be Buffy." And when Buffy pretends to be the Buffbot to see if he betrayed Dawn's origins to Glory, he acknowledges that she is his true concern. "When she confronts him with the obscene nature of his failure (building the Buffbot), his first emotion is shame."(redcat, ATP board). The Buffbot as Spike himself states in Bargaining, became predictable after awhile, boring, the perfect automaton. She'll never be exactly like Buffy and after Buffy dies, he finds that he cannot bear to be near her. Spike has learned the difference between real and not real. You can't create the perfect girlfriend.
What does the Buffbot represent metaphorically? The writers use her repeatedly throughout the show. First in The Gift as a distraction for Glory. Then later after Buffy dies we see that the SG have replaced Buffy with the Buffbot. The Buffbot manages to convince the world that Buffy isn't dead, so that Dawn isn't carted off to social services or to her delinquent father and the demons don't invade Sunnydale. And the Buffbot is more approachable and emotionally interactive with the SG then Buffy is when she returns. She goes with Dawn to school and charms the teachers. As Dawn states - they wanted to make it National Buffy Day. They loved her. Xander's snide reply: "And they couldn't figure out this wasn't Buffy?" The Buffbot lets Dawn sleep next to her at night and is kind to Spike. Spike can't bear to be near her, but she continues to smile perkily at him. She even tries to interact with Giles, who realizes that she just can't comprehend the notion of breathing or inner chi (neither can I for that matter…but hey, that's not the point). The real Buffy pushes everyone away, puts up a wall between herself and her friends and family. The only one who gets through oddly enough is Spike. Who she doesn't consider real. Buffy's sexual relationship with Spike reminds me a lot of Spike's with the Buffybot and Warren's with April. Using something to make yourself feel good regardless of what the thing feels for you in return.
The Buffybot is left for dead by the SG. As Spike tells Dawn, it's not real, it's just a robot. Which means we shouldn't care. When we last see her she is just a head and torso lying admist a bunch of bonfires and wreckage, looking very lost. Dawn bends over her to shut her eyes and she moves responding to the gesture. Asking where her other self, the real self ran off to. It is a touching scene, particularly since it follows the SG's abandonment of her. An abandonment that Buffy has always feared. Xander and Willow leave the Buffbot to the demons, racing through the woods to save themselves. The Buff bot had gone to Willow to be repaired as Willow programmed. But the creator neglects its creation to save itself. Yes, I know you can argue that Spike or Warren really created the Bot, but Willow brought her back to life, Willow changed her programming, and Willow imprinted the information to seek her whenever she got hurt. Willow became the bot's mother. Just as Willow becomes Buffy's when she brought her back from the Earth's womb. And just as Willow neglects the bot, allowing the bot to be destroyed to go after her own ends, she attempts to discard Buffy in an open grave fighting demons Willow has created. Like Warren, Willow wanted the perfect creation, but doesn't know what to do with it when it wants more than she can give. Echoes of Malcom? Or am I reaching?
At last we come to Katrina, the human turned into a robot by a dampening device. Reminds me a little of Professor Walsh and her behavior modification chips, which I will get to shortly. Also it makes sense that Warren would move in this direction - not that big a step from actual robot to turning an ex-girlfriend into one to realize one's desires. And Jonathan always felt he was more successful with women when they didn't see him as he really was. Like Willow, Jonathan uses magic to hide himself - dampening Katrina's ability to actually see him protects him from rejection. In fact that's why they do it - avoiding rejection from the girls. Buffy states it perfectly in IWMTY: "They're not talking to you, you're not gettin' dates ... you start thinking, "hey, this isn't fair."" So I'll make you "like" me. Make you be my slave. Make you my stepford wife. Actually the image of Katrina in the French maid's uniform brought back memories of the Stepford wives. In the film we are led to believe that the women aren't actual robots, so much as have been brainwashed into living automatons. I was actually relieved when I discovered they were actually robots. Warren's abuse of Katrina in Dead Things is at first played humorously, with light music and laughs, until the mood breaks and she comes out of it. Her accusation of rape takes them all by surprise. All but Warren. Warren has gone from manufacturing a girlfriend to creating a step-ford wife. A slave who will address his every whim. And when he accidentally kills her - he really doesn't see it as being much different than shutting off April. Yeah, he has to hide it. But it's no big deal. She was just a girl. Just a robot. For Warren - the distinction has become blurred. In fact, I would take this a step further to state that Warren is slowly becoming like the mad Prof Walsh - he no longer sees people as human beings, he sees them as things to manipulate to fit his ends. The metaphor of Katrina as a robot only heightens this view. As does his treatment of his underlings, Jonathan and Andrew. Tools to reach his ends.
What if Katrina had really been a robot? Would her treatment have been justified? Is it more ethical to treat a robot in this manner? Would we have been less horrified if Warren had treated April or the Buffbot in this manner? Spike seemed to use the Buffbot in this way - except the Buffbot was a willing participant, even appeared to enjoy it. Just as Spike is a willing participant with Buffy, even seems to enjoy it. Except the Buffbot is programmed to enjoy it. Is Spike similarily programmed? Conditioned by the chip? By his desire for Buffy to accept any affection he can from her? Does it matter that she doesn't/can't love him while he can't help but love her to distraction? Does it matter that Spike doesn't love/can't love the Buffbot while the Buffbot can't help but love him? Does Spike's willing participation and the fact that he is not programmed make Buffy's actions less reprehensible morally? Should we use someone else, an entity with feelings, to make ourselves feel better?
In I ROBOT by Issac Asimov, later made into the movie Bicentennial Man with Robin Williams, this question is raised. A robot for years is used as a slave until he is finally set free and falls for and marries a human woman. His owner determines that it is wrong to enslave a creature with a mind of its own. Star Trek raises similar questions with two separate characters - the first was the robot Lt. Data on Star Trek Next Generation who initially is used to make the other characters feel better. Denise Crosby's character way back in the first season sleeps with him to feel better, he tells her that's one of his abilities. Later, after she dies, he touchingly mourns her. The Doctor on Star Trek's Voyager - a hologram, not real, struggles to obtain the right not to be moved about at the crew's will. Through these robotic metaphors - the writers express the immorality of using someone to make ourselves feel good without concern for their feelings. Btvs takes it a step further by comparing three selfish acts with different levels of severity. The worst is Katrina. The next is Willow's suppression of Tara's memories - very similar to the dampening of Katrina's consciousness and the third is Buffy's initiation of a sexual relationship with a vampire that she knows loves her passionately and to distraction and would literally stake himself for her. Each act is wrong. Why? Because in each situation the object is being treated as just that an object, to be controlled (Tara), to be used then discarded (Spike), or to be all three - (the robot-like Katrina).
It's easy to justify misuse of an object. It has no feelings. Just as it is easy to justify the misuse of an evil soulless thing. It's evil. It's feelings don't matter. It's not real. And if it's not real, not good, not worthy of respect, then what we do to it isn't real and doesn't matter. It's just a toy, after all. Something we throw in the closet, in the garbage or under the bed when we are done with it.
End of Part II - Part III to follow soon. Have to break these up - apparently I have more to say on this topic than I thought. LOL! Sorry exegy, you'll have to wait for my views on Riley, Sam, Prof Walsh, Adam and the chipped demons.
Thanks for reading. Any and all comments appreciated. Yes - I'm a feedback whore, otherwise I'd never write these things. ;-) shadowkat
.
[> [> The thread's back!!! Great, now I can submit my (long) response again ... -- Exegy, 10:37:05 06/20/02 Thu
First, wonderful essays, 'kat! I'm not disappointed at all ... I can wait for more brilliance. Keep it coming!
Second, love the comparisons to AI: Artificial Intelligence. Good parallels there. I'll expand a little ...
What Separates Robots from Humans
Warren on Aprilbot: I mean, her batteries were supposed to run down. Really, they should be completely dead by now.
What keeps April operative? The implication is that she has been recharging herself, kept "alive" by the hope of reunion with Warren. She's figuratively running on love and faith here ... very complex human emotions seem to be imbedded in her robot circuitry. These emotions are real, even if she is not. Just as David's love is real, even though he is not. The artificial intelligence simulates human synaptic functions, replicating emotions to greater or lesser degree ... and eventually an intuitive leap is made. The robot disobeys its programming; it acts on its own ... as an individual apart from its Creator.
And so April disobeys Warren's explicit instructions to remain as she is. She leaves the room where he has so flippantly discarded her; she seeks him out, striving to realize herself in his love. Similarly, David does not remain where his "mother" has left him; he does not remain an object that only responds to outside input. Something within him reacts ... he embarks upon a mythical journey only associated with humans. He is on a quest to realize himself ... for if he were only real, then he would be acceptable to the mother who has abandoned him. If he could only make his way through the dark woods of his robot soul, searching for that path he's lost ... searching for that Eden. And so here we have the origins of humanity within the robot ... that initial disobedience is an attempt, not to offend, but to reach the understanding of the God. It's a huge step in the evolution of intelligence ... disobeying the instructions one has been given, acting on one's own, and suffering from the abandonment as never before.
April and David cannot understand what they have done wrong. They must be wrong, somehow insufficient for their God's love. It must be that they are not real, not worthy for the higher being. And here comes the disillusionment. No matter how hard they try, they cannot obtain the love of the other. The other has left them behind to struggle on their own. Warren does not care if April dies; Monica cares for David only in a detached way. He's not her real son. The Creators are indifferent.
Aprilbot cannot sustain herself in light of Warren's supreme indifference. She cannot express the depth of her disappointment--she is not "programmed" for such expression. Instead she just fades away, the love that has been her drive smothered. How could Warren abandon her? How could he not return her love? Why?
April does not know the answers. She can only hope, in spite of all contrary evidence, that her doubts are unfounded. Maybe Warren didn't abandon her. Maybe he really does love her. Oh, and someday she will reunite with him. Someday.... April expires with her hope writ large across her plasticine face. Ever smiling. Clinging to that silver lining, looking for the dawn to relieve her darkest day.
There is a clear visual parallel in AI. David searches still for the mother. Long after she has gone, he searches still. Time may have sealed her away, but he has descended to the bottom of the timeless sea. Praying to the Blue Fairy, the embodiment of all his hopes, for deliverance from this exile. But she does not answer. She says not a word, moves not an inch. Ever smiling, ever reflecting his very artificiality in her own empty gaze. And so David remains at the bottom of the ocean, frozen in his hope ... the hope that only a robot ... or a child ... could maintain in the face of such silence.
So David sleeps, until he is thawed. His circuits reawaken. And there the Blue Fairy is ... he can reach her now! David rushes to her, but she shatters at his very touch. The source of his devotions has been hollow all along, a blank altar that has no meaning outside of the faith he has placed in it. She crumbles, as dead as Monica is now.
David cannot believe this. How should this be so? After this endless day ... where is the dawn to greet him? What of his hope? Has he attached himself to a construct that has no meaning?
The artificial beings, descendants of a vanished humanity, respond to his yearnings. They are the new evolution ... higher than those who have made them. For they are able to replicate the heaven that was. They can give David what he has sought all his existence ... they can make his dream real for him. Thus Monica returns, and she loves her "son" as she never has before. She returns all his wasted affection; their reunion in lost Eden carries a poignancy that was not previously present. So Monica listens to the tale of David's life, as he defines it for her. She listens to him and smiles. There are no worries in this womb she provides ... there is only completeness for the child who was never able to grow up. David's life has ended ... he ends in Monica's arms at the night of this eternally dawning day, and he ends forever and ever.
The artificial beings have given him what he wants. They have given his illusions life; they have made his heaven a reality. He is in the land where dreams come from, filled forever with the love of the lost mother God ... insulated from the dark outside world. Is this condition real? Or is it as artificial as a robot programmed to love ... a robot who may disobey but can never betray the source of his love?
And this begs the question--how real are we? How much have we been programmed? How much do we desire to connect with the God who does not appear before us? Do any of us really deny this desire ... or do we all seek some connection with our Being, some ultimate realization of the self in love? How free are we? How much of our state is conditional, and how much of it is absolute?
Like April and David, we do not know the answers. We know only that we exist as we are, as real as we are. And to some extent, all of us seek the greater realization ... the realization that can never be quite achieved here.
We hope.
[> [> [> WOW!! Thanks, Exe, for this beautiful post. -- redcat, 11:36:37 06/20/02 Thu
Loved this post! as I have many of your essays.
I do have one question, though, perhaps more a matter of my misinterpretation than your writing. But your conception of humanity's metaphorical Edenic journey is a bit unclear to me. You write, "And so here we have the origins of humanity within the robot ... that initial disobedience is an attempt, not to offend, but to reach the understanding of the God. It's a huge step in the evolution of intelligence ... disobeying the instructions one has been given, acting on one's own, and suffering from the abandonment as never before." I think you're using this to contrast the robots' attempts to return to the Creator with the human story of the expulsion from Eden. To me, however, this is also a pretty good description of the original human "fall" classically depicted in the Judeo-Christian version of Eve's expulsion from the Garden. Is not Eve's eating of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil an act of "initial disobediance" that can also be seen as "an attempt, not to offend, but to reach the understanding of the God"? Patriarchal interpretations of Eve's actions traditionally code it as arrogant, disobediant and impulsive, denying any spiritual motive. Feminist reinterpreations argue that it can also be seen as motivated by desire for the sacred ecstasy of enjoinment with the Creator-Beloved, the disobeying of the injunction not to eat the fruit coming from Eve's passionate need to, as you argue the Aprilbot did, "realize herself in his [His]love." In this sense, the robots' searches for their beloveds are distinctly "human," and perhaps like Eve's journey, deeply misunderstood.
Fabulous post, though!
[> [> [> [> Thanks, rc! I always associate the Fall with the Expulsion from Eden ... -- Exegy, 07:46:08 06/21/02 Fri
... because one leads to the other, at least in the Christian interpretation. The initial offense, the taking of the One Forbidden Thing, leads to banishment. And so goes David's story. The robot does not mean to wrong; he merely succumbs to the temptation provided by Martin, Monica's real son (who is jealous that David may have usurped his place in the mother's affections). Martin tells his "brother" of a way to impress Monica and prove his worthiness to her: David must take of divinity. He must steal a "golden" tress from the sleeping God. David follows Martin's advice, disobeying the unacknowledged law, and he gives offense by nearly harming Monica with a scissor. Now the mother withdraws, and the happy Eden disintegrates. David hangs suspended in the depths of his transgression (in the pool where he nearly drowns Martin), awaiting banishment.
Okay, let's see if this posts now ... if so, then I'll add a few additional points. Crossing my fingers....
[> [> [> [> [> Addendum: The Golden Tress -- Exegy, 08:11:08 06/21/02 Fri
It's interesting to note that the golden tress appears again. Teddy saves this lock for David, and it becomes the boon enabling reunion with long lost Monica (the artificial beings need a sample of the human to reconstitute her). So the fruit of the initial offense actually allows the return to Eden ... but this Eden is even more wonderful than the one that came before. Even more perfect. In coming full circle, David has grown into something more than he was ... as his very real tears show. He's achieved a state that could not have been possible if not for that first transgression. He has evolved ... as humanity has evolved.
I am reminded of the imagery of the two trees of Eden. We have the Tree of Knowledge, the site of the initial offense. And we have the Tree of the Holy Rood, the site of redemption. In reality, these trees are one and the same. For redemption could not be possible without the first sin; they are directly connected. The sacrificial figure stands crucified upon that tree from which the need for restoration arose ... just as David "dies" in the frozen waters (a clear echo of his immersion in the pool of sin). And redemption restores man to a state he could never have realized as he was before ... for he could not have grown without the initial offense. He could not have changed ... to be brought full circle to that which he was made more.
As I said in the previous reply, this is a Christian interpretation of the Eden myth. But it is one that I think works well in the context of AI, and so I am using it.
Hope I make sense--I have had to repost this so many times, I might not be as clear as before!
[> [> [> More brilliance from shadowkat and Exegy!! -- ponygirl, 12:23:43 06/20/02 Thu
First off, that was great 'kat! Solidifies some vague thoughts I'd had on IWMTLY, which at first seems to have the A story of April, and Buffy dealing with her Riley relationship fallout, and the B story of Spike's rejection, as you point out Spike's story is far more connected to April's than just a toss through a window and his meeting with Warren. I'm looking forward to part 3!
AI is one creepy movie. David and Monica's reunion is to some extent a reversal of their prior relationship. He has created her for the purpose of loving him, she can only exist for that one day, a day constructed to be David's perfect day. She is now defined by him. Is David behaving in the same morally questionable way that Monica had behaved to him? The fact that David follows her into oblivion does not lessen this question for me. In loving Monica, David has turned her into another artificial life form. It makes me think of the whole question of parenting. Why do people want to have children? Obviously it is a biological urge, but there is some element of selfishness in it. One creates a being guaranteed to love you, one dependent entirely upon you. Until the child gets older. Then the parent must see the child as a separate being, just as the child must learn to regard the parent as a person in their own right, not simply a godlike provider of love and shelter. It is a long and imperfect process that informs much of what we as adults become. For David, as for April or the Buffybot, their creators never allowed them the ability to move beyond their frozen states, which is perhaps the greatest crime against these robots. For me, in the context of AI and 'kat's essays the question is not how real I am, but how real do I allow the people around me to be? Not sure that makes any sense. Great post, Exegy! Makes me want to watch my roommate's dvd of AI again!
[> [> [> [> This was lovely ponygirl. agree see post on Frankenstein. -- shadowkat, 18:42:02 06/20/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> Re: More brilliance from shadowkat and Exegy!! -- Arethusa, 20:13:04 06/20/02 Thu
"For me, in the context of AI and 'kat's essays the question is not how real I am, but how real do I allow the people around me to be?"
It makes perfect sense. Do we treat people as real, or as reflections of ourselves, or as automatons? Xander still does not see Anya as real. Neither does Buffy re Spike. Buffy saw Dawn as a reflection of herself, as well as shadow-she tried to make Dawn into what she thought she wanted to be in high school. Protected, child-like. Normal. Tara was a mirror to Willow-a better Willow was reflected back from Tara's eyes. All treated vampires as unreal, in the one-dimensional vamps=evil sense. Then they started to grow up-to really see the people around them.
[> [> [> [> Wow, impressive response! AI *is* a creepy movie ... -- Exegy, 08:46:00 06/21/02 Fri
... the last scenes are not the simple fairy tale ending so many would like to believe. On the one hand, David does return to Eden, united in the love of the mother God. In his reality, he becomes a reflection of the divine presence, and so he is filled and complete. But how much of this sustaining life comes from the long dead Monica ... and how much is merely David's unanswered love reflected back upon him? For he has recreated the mother in his mind, and she is as he always wanted her to be. She doesn't seem to remember all of their former strife. How much of this is real, and how much David's fantasy? How different is the robot from the doctor who recreates his son ... a perfect son who "was made to love you"? These are unsettling questions, and ones that are in no way resolved upon the movie's ambiguous ending.
One thing we do know, however: David is not just the reflection of another's love--he is love himself. And his love is as real as anything ever could be. So even though David and the world he has recreated may not be real, his love is real. It protects him from the surrounding void, insulates him in a heaven of his own making. The love he has given out to the mute universe ... it is realized within him, a "closed circuit" of unending bliss. No matter how artificial the construct. There is something terribly bittersweet about this ending. Truly classic.
Okay, now I seriously have to go buy this DVD!!
[> [> [> [> [> Re: AI *is* a creepy movie ... -- ponygirl, 09:27:47 06/21/02 Fri
But is David's love the kind of love that any of us would want? Unending, unchanging, relentless in its need, and its goal, which is more love. David loves Monica because she is the one who programmed him to, not because of who she is -- the Monica he recreates is not the person she actually was. It is a terrible kind of love, pure in intent but scary in execution. One of the interesting things about Spielberg as a director is that he has a pretty dark view of childhood. I haven't watched the movie in a while, but the ending struck me as more bitter than sweet - David it is said has reached further than any other machine by being able to dream, but his version of heaven seems to be a return to the womb, and a failure to connect with anything other than the object of his love.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Well, I was viewing the end optimistically ... -- Exegy, 09:46:59 06/21/02 Fri
... but like you say, there is a lot of bitterness beneath the seemingly facile conclusion. Really, one can compare David's "heaven" to Buffy's heaven. Both represent a return to the womb Eden ... because the child cannot grow up. David literally cannot grow up; he is a child forever, with limited comprehension (contrast his perspective to even Gigolo Joe's more jaded maturity). And Buffy is unwilling to grow up; she is fixated upon the image of the mother as much as David is.
The Gift represents the transcendant realization of Buffy as a completed child. Just as David's end represents his realization as a child. This is the only end David can aspire to, but Buffy is not so limited. She cannot rest content in such a womblike state forever. Her calling brings her forth to continue life's trials. She is caught between the necessity of growing up and the desire to remain as she was, and so she lives a half-life, with only a tenuous grip on either world.
The comforting womb becomes as an institution for Buffy, trapping her in a state of arrested development. She's sick, dying to her real self in the illusion that she has made (just as David truly dies to himself in the arms of the mother). Buffy must grow above and beyond, in a way that David cannot. In the artificial world of the asylum, we see what was only implied at the end of AI. The truth of the land where dreams come from....
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Way to bring it back on topic! (and, oh yes, spoilers for AI and Ats finale!)) -- ponygirl, 10:54:48 06/21/02 Fri
Buffy in season 6 could be seen as what would have happened if David had got his wish to be a real boy. A wish he did not truly comprehend. I was thinking about Gigolo Joe's character too. In some ways he is able to do what David is not - transcend his function. His speech about what robots represent to humanity, and his caring for David suggests that he unlike David has actually grown on their journey. Significantly when Joe is captured he is pulled up into the sky, while David still focussed utterly on his quest descends to the bottom of the ocean. Shades of Angel and Cordelia! Except their motivations seem to be reversed.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Nodding in complete approval ... -- Exegy, 11:50:47 06/21/02 Fri
Gigolo Joe does seem to express a more mature understanding of the world. Where David sees a Blue Fairy, Joe sees a virus that has infected the robot community (i.e. a mythic archetype). Where David longs for the mother, Joe longs for the sexual woman (moving from womb to phallus). And where David descends into the ocean in search of his dream, Joe ascends into the heavens, caught by a device of the real world (also a subversion of the deus ex machina scenario). And he affirms his reality even as he passes ... with no illusion.
"I AM ... I was."
Love your connection to the AtS finale. Unfortunately, I did not see it ... :-( :-(
[> [> [> Beautiful beautiful. -- Leeann, 15:58:37 06/20/02 Thu
[> [> [> Exegy lovely post and how about Frankenstein? -- shadowkat, 17:43:22 06/20/02 Thu
I read your response post tonight and it was in a word
beautiful. It also reminded me of an older work, by a lady named Mary Shelley which has been sitting on my book shelf collecting dust next to Stocker's Dracula. (Yep, along with classic sci-fi, I've been collecting classic horror.)
What is interesting about the Shelley tale, is if memory serves, Shelley wrote it shortly after losing her own child. Haunted by nightmares of the child coming back dead or reborn as a monster, she wrote Frankenstein. She wondered what would happen if man tried to circumvent biology and god and death - creating life literally from death...creating if you like the monster. So instead of giving birth to an innocent child, Dr. Frankenstein gives birth to a monsterous creation that ultimately destroys him, first his reputation (which he hoped to build it on), then his wife,(whom it kills), then his sanity (when he tries to ressurrect his wife in the same manner), then his soul (when he fails to stop it from taking other lives or take responsibility for his creation) and finally his life.
He tries to redeem himself by killing it - but it is too late. This story has been made into numerous movies, the best is the oldest one and of course the Mel Brooks parody. The worste is a story that oddly enough parallels it - Kennethe Brannah did Frankenstein and his movie was filled with such hubris, that he is still trying to come back from it's failure, he broke up with Emma Thompson his wife at the time partly due to it (or so the tabloids said).
Hubris. Pride. We believe we can be god. That the ultimate act of reaching our creator or for those who no longer believe in such things, separating from the creator, is to become the creator ourselves. To, as cjl put it, control the very essence of life itself. And when we attempt this? What happens? Frankenstein. Ebola Virus. Chaos.
We don't understand that in order to create we must first value and appreciate life and the forces that make it possible.
The creator in AI didn't value life. He created David to be exactly like his dead son. But his hubris did not stop there. One of the most horrifying scenes in A.I is where David comes upon row upon row of boxed replications of himself. All David's. All just like him. "I'm unique!" He screams. But not to his creator. His creator tells him
that he is only unique because he is the first of several exactly like him. His creator did not make David to celebrate life or even as an appreciation of forces of life, he made him for the same reasons Warren made April, to exert control - to show god that he was better than god, he was god. Remind you of anyone? Lucifer. The Devil who fell from heaven, because he believed he could do a better job. He didn't get it either. And chaos resulted.
The creators' mistake was he made David to outlast his mother, his parents. David would never die. Just as Frankenstein could never die.
Anne Rice did a similar theme in Interview with a Vampire, for the same reasons MAry Shelley did. She lost a child.
So in her novel she creates a vampire child who is one of the most chilling monsters created. The child has no respect for life outside her own. The child is perfect - she will never die as long as she takes life herself, sucking it from women who try to be her mother. A house of vampires kills her by putting her out in the sunlight to die. Because to create a vampire child is a crime even in their book against nature.
Nature works in a cycle. Not a straight line. It's not linear. The Prayer of St. Francis even states this - to reach eternal life, we must die first. When we die, our body enriches the earth, gives new life, and our essence - well it does the same and we are renewed into the cycle once again. The ultimate sin is believing we should enforce our will upon that ancient cycle...to bend it change it make it ours...without first understanding and appreciating it for what it is. Respecting it. This is Willow's greatest sin. First in bringing Buffy back. Then in attempting to bring Tara. And finally in attempting to destroy the world.
Dr. Frankenstein. Professor Walsh. Dr. Moreau (Island of
Dr. Moreau). Warren. Willow. And David's creator - fail in this one thing. They allow their pride to get the better of them.
They believe they can be gods. That they are better than nature. And what happens? They all, without exception are killed by nature in the end.
[> [> [> [> Ooops except for Willow...she's still alive of course. ;-) -- shadowkat, 17:44:47 06/20/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> there's so much beauty and intensity swooshing around here lately. shee-it. (censoring for NR! ;-)) -- warm milk time., 18:01:13 06/20/02 Thu
thanks for that, shadowkat. I'm just feelin the greatness all about. Ya feel it? it's great.
[> [> [> [> It's pronounced Franken-steen! -- ponygirl, 07:00:45 06/21/02 Fri
Glad you included Young Frankenstein!
More brain rumbling on the nature of religion, and parenting. Is any sort of search for god an attempt to understand not only death, but also life and our own roles as creators (parents) and creations (children)? There are so many examples of bad parenting in BtVS. What is the responsibility of a parent to their child? Or a mad scientist to their robot? Or an artist to their creation?
[> [> [> [> [> Walsh and Adam -- Rahael, 09:32:04 06/21/02 Fri
Great thread.
All these themes - Frankenstein, the bad parent, the idea of Eden, can be found in Season 4 as well - Professor Walsh and her two 'sons' Adam and Riley
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Walsh and Adam -- ponygirl, 11:16:15 06/21/02 Fri
Very true. It's interesting how many ideas appear in one episode then reappear as larger themes. Some Assembly Required in s2 leads into Maggie Walsh and Adam in s4, Ted leads to April and the Buffybot, Superstar leads to Dawn. I forget who it was who wrote about the whole of BtVS being like a piece of music - certain notes are repeated and become melodies in their own right. Makes me wonder what will come out of this very complex season.
[> [> [> [> Returning your compliment ... [your post] was in a word beautiful! -- Exegy, 08:24:22 06/21/02 Fri
[> [> [> I'd say kaboom, Exegy, but it was more of a kaswooosh. -- yuri, making very little sense and liking it., 17:48:22 06/20/02 Thu
Hmm. wow. Okay, beautiful post, I think that maybe if you'd written AI I would've liked it better than I did (I didn't hate it, but I was disappointed, didn't feel like it made use of all the potential the premise held.)
But in response to your beautifully phrased question - how real are we? How much have we been programmed? How much do we desire to connect with the God who does not appear before us? Do any of us really deny this desire ... or do we all seek some connection with our Being, some ultimate realization of the self in love? How free are we? How much of our state is conditional, and how much of it is absolute? Well, this has much to do with what I've been struggling with today in the Off-Kilter's comics thread below, so my mind's been dancing with it all day. I think I believe (because I'm so cloudy by this hour that I'm not really sure what I believe) that we are entirely conditional... but then again, to be entirely conditional is to be absolute, I think. We do seek ultimate realization of self in love, but self and love have much more to do with, well.. the absolute-ness of our conditionality.*g* - I am such a dork sometimes. It's great. Anyhow, I do, at this point in my life, think we are entirely programmed, by our genes and by our surroundings, but if we all are entirely programmed, then we're all equal, and, well, I really do believe that once you reach an absolute - in this case, absolute conditionality, absolutely programmed, then it is the same as its opposite absolute - absolutely absolute. Whoo, I need to go skydiving or something, like, right now. That or warm milk.
[> [> [> [> Actually you make sense and on being real: Star Trek and Pirandello -- shadowkat, 18:15:17 06/20/02 Thu
Tempted to repost my essay on What is Real...but don't want to take away from Exegy's post. Besides if you really want to read it - go to the links and you can see it on my website. I think the website is www.geocities.com/shadowkatbtvs?
Your post and Exegy's question reminds me of an old Star Trek the Next Generation Episode (as my Mom once stated, Btvs is STNG for the current Generation...hmmm I prefer
to think they are both for all generations): the episode
deals with a hologram character who wants to explore beyond the holodeck. He has become aware of his existence, the existence of the Enterprise and the existence of the outside Universe. He takes over the ship and blackmails the crew into letting him leave the holodeck program in a shuttle. But they don't let him leave exactly - holodecks can't exist outside the ship's computer at this stage. So The ship's crew creates another computer program, one that they will never be able to access and sends the character into it - the character now is free to explore the limits of his new universe which the crew have programmed to be limitless. At the end of the episode, the Captain, Jean Luc Picard asks an interesting question : What if we are just characters within the confines of a box in someone's living room? And what if they are just characters watching us, while someone else is just watching them?
Now let's jump to literature - the excellent play Six Characters in Search of An Author by Pirandello. In this play the characters are forced to reach consciousness, to learn, to grow outside the confines of the story, when the writer gets writers block and tells them to make up their own story and leaves them to their own devices. The characters are suddenly stuck with an interesting question - are we real?
A better question, yuri and exegy, is how do we interpret reality? Our own? Others? Our universe? And do we control
our interpretations and experiences of it or does someone else? How we interpret it - has a great effect on how we experience it and what we choose to do about it.
I'm still struggling with this...intepreting and controlling how you experence your reality is a lot easier than it looks.
[> [> [> [> [> Shout-out to Luigi Pirandello!!! -- Exegy, 10:08:30 06/21/02 Fri
Yes, this is the question for every Pinocchio: What makes us real? How do we define ourselves? Is there an ultimate reality of definition, or is there only the subjective reality of our current experience? Is there some other out there to answer our questions, or is there only the answer we provide to ourselves?
None of us know ... our interpretation of what is real rests upon our belief. We need belief to bridge the gaps ... it's this hope that allows David to become more than a mere robot. He becomes as a human, a child who fulfills every child's dream in his perfect return to the mother. This experience is real for him, however illusory it may be to an outside observer.
So perhaps it is true that only we can define our reality. Only we can choose the state in which we reside (a heaven or hell of our own making). This seems to be the lesson also of BtVS (cf. Life Serial). Only Buffy can determine her reality, as she eventually does in Normal Again. She denies the Asylumverse life, and she accepts the life of the Slayer. It's the choice only she can make for herself (as Spike apparently realizes by leaving her to do what she will with the antidote). What is the antidote? Returning to the "normal girl" ideal? Or turning away from that girl? Buffy's antidote becomes to escape the illusion, and so she makes the life of the Slayer her reality. This is her definition, one that only she can make regardless of the objective nature of the world. Her belief, as the shade of Joyce tells her.
Buffy, unlike David, is not obligated to follow always the mother. She chooses her own path, and so assimilates the mother into herself. An interesting comparison, I would say.
Thanks for allowing me my glory, 'kat! I must now refresh my memory on what you had to say in What is Real. Gone for now.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Woop woop! Lui-GI!! -- yuri, 14:46:55 06/22/02 Sat
My school performed that play last year and though not incredibly well done, it urged me to check out the play for myself. VERY interesting.
And I'm gonna have to go check on that essay too, 'kat!!
[> [> [> [> "The universe was born when I was, dies when I do. . . " -- Off-kilter -"and exists for only me", 03:07:53 06/21/02 Fri
According to my father, this is a Blackfoot Indian philosophy of life. I don't really know if it connects with what you were saying, but it is the first thing that came to my mind when I finished reading it. That quote, and the STNG episode 'kat mentions above.
I remember wondering in 5th grade if everyone was a robot except me. I was just a lab experiment and all of my experiences were just set up to see how I would react. It was kind of reassuring because it meant that whatever I did wouldn't really matter. It was just a test. Sometimes I would think that if I just turned a corner quickly enough, I would see them settin up the props for my next hoop to jump through.
I *AM* off-kilter, I know.
Just thinking these thoughts is disorienting - giving me a bad case of vertigo. If everything is conditional, where do we ground ourselves? If everything is absolute, what's the point? You're making me think deep thoughts and I am a shallow person! Stop, stop!
Hey, being dizzy is kind of fun. Never mind. Continue. . .
[> [> [> [> [> The Ultimate Egoist and Martian Time-Slip -- cjl, 07:58:44 06/21/02 Fri
Off-kilter, don't worry about it. You're merely experiencing what everybody on this earth experiences at one time or another. What is reality? Am I the only one on earth who feels like this? What the hell is WRONG with everybody?
Don't push it away. Roll with the feeling, and explore where it takes you. It might knock you out of some locked-on patterns in your life--or it could send you over the edge. (Hey, either way...)
Read anything by Philip K. Dick ("Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep," "Martian Time-Slip," for a full-on body slam approach on the "What is Reality?" question. But if you need a light-hearted approach to the topic, read a classic short story the late, great Theodore Sturgeon called "The Ultimate Egoist" (it's the title story of Part I in a multi-volume collection of Sturgeon's stories). An insufferably self-absorbed man starts to wonder about the "conditional" state of the universe, and the very thought completely un-moors his world. As soon he begins to doubt the reality of any aspect of his life, it immediately disappears. Soon, his girlfriend, his job, the local park, the city, and eventually the entire world surrounding him disappears, and he's drifting in the ether, apparently existing only as a set of words on the page. Then, he begins to doubt his own reality, and h
[> [> [> [> [> [> Doubting yourself, are we? -- Off-kilter, wondering what happened, 22:10:35 06/22/02 Sat
Really interested in what you were saying when you disappeared. Where'd ya go? Did you really exist? Did I make you up? Well, shadowkat verifies your existance, but what if I made her up too?
Making me cross-eyed!
[> [> [> [> [> Lol ! I had exactly the same kind of fantasies as a child. Reassuring :) -- Ete, 08:57:41 06/22/02 Sat
[> [> [> [> [> [> Me too! eventually I just said "well, who cares if they are? I'm just gonna live how I want to live! -- yuri, 14:38:14 06/22/02 Sat
[> [> [> WOW! -- Drizzt, 20:15:24 06/20/02 Thu
Posts like the above are one of the reasons this is my favorite internet site:)
Very impressive Shadowcat and Exegy!
There are more references to the morality of interactions with artificial entities in the show than I knew about; thanks to you two I am better informed.
There is a metaphorical relivance between this thread, the ep I Was Made To Love You, and Buffy's parting words to Dawn in The Gift; this thread is something that really touches me.
Masq
My last post WAS what I considered very good news, however I suppose it was innapropriate. Anyone reading that post without the proper context probably went "What the ***?!?" I think it is entirely appropriate that you deleted that post; it was another instance of why I am now a troll here;(
[> [> [> [> Thanks to everyone for the wonderful responses! -- Exegy, 11:59:15 06/21/02 Fri
And thanks to shadowkat for the inspiration!
[> [> SO GLAD this is back on the board!!!!! -- redcat, 11:44:00 06/20/02 Thu
'kat, this is an AMAZING set of posts!! I can hardly wait for part three!
ps - it's Henry VIII, he had 6 wives, and he only beheaded 2 of them, I think. But the Bluebeard/Ted refs are great!)
[> [> [> Re: SO GLAD this is back on the board!!!!! -- shadowkat, 12:02:27 06/20/02 Thu
YEah me and roman numerals...can never remember how many makes eight. Let's see on King Henry's wives:
Annuled Catherine
Beheaded Anne Boylen
Beheaded the second one I think
The fourth died in childbirth?
What happened to the last two...?
Been wayyy too long since I studied this, so memory is
foggy. So I bow to the historians on the page!
[> [> [> [> Re: The Six Wives of Henry VIII -- Sulis, 14:10:02 06/20/02 Thu
Divorced,beheaded, died,
Divorced, beheaded, survived
That's the mnemonic I learned in school.
Katherine of Aragon - divorced (tried for anullment, didn't get it, broke with Catholic faith)
Anne Boleyn - beheaded (probably trumped up charges)
Jane Seymour - died after childbirth of only son
Anne of Cleves - divorced (when he met her in the flesh, didn't like her "that fat Flanders mare", she accepted the divorce and had a nice little estate and income)
Katherine Howard (beheaded - for adultery, unlike Anne probably true)
Katherine Parr - survived him.
[> [> [> [> [> I'm pretty sure that the marriage to Catherine was annuled -- Rahael, 15:56:14 06/20/02 Thu
On the grounds that Henry should never have got married to her in the first place. Henry cited Leviticus to say that a man shouldn't take for a wife the the wife of his brother.
Which is what he'd done, ironically, with a papal indulgence. Catherine argued all her life that she had never slept with Henry's older brother, Arthur. But the marriage could not be acknowledged, for it was acknowlged, it would mean that Mary was a legitimate heir.
This is also why Henry got an annulment from Anne Boleyn, right before she was executed. So actually, Henry not only said that the marriage didn't exist, he also accused her of committing adultery. Two contradictory accusations at the same time! If the marriage was accepted it meant that Elizabeth would be the legal heir. Henry's children could never be sure of their legal status!!
And the Anne of Cleves marriage was also annuled. No divorces. Henry was very worried about such matters. He would argue that black was white, as long as it appeased his rather warped conscience.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Depends on which Church you mean -- Sophist, 16:09:51 06/20/02 Thu
Pope Clement refused to annul the marriage to Catherine, mostly because of the small problem of the Spanish army camped on his doorstep. After that, the only church involved was the Anglican.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Of course you're right -- Rahael, 16:15:50 06/20/02 Thu
Yeah, if only Catherine hadn't had such powerful relatives!
The course of English history would be so different.
I was taking the Anglocentric view, as always lol.
[> The creation of robots and Stepford-izing loved ones... -- cjl, 19:03:07 06/19/02 Wed
...have one thing in common: the need for CONTROL.
In a way, this goes back to the conversation about chaos and order that was on the board a few days ago. For some of the residents of Sunnydale, it's a natural response to a wildly chaotic life to want to impose a bit of order. None of us on this board have the cash or the ability to build a perfect robot boy/girlfriend, or zap our significant others to bend them to our will. But in the wild and wooly world of Sunnydale--where robotics is at 22nd century level, and even the most magic-impaired individual can light a book on fire by reciting a Latin phrase--all this is possible and more. If we had access to all this magic and technological wizardry, could we avoid the temptation to make the world line up the way we want it to?
No? We're upstanding citizens, and we're too good for that?
Are you sure?
Most of our fine, upstanding cast did it at one time or another. Buffy made Spike into her bouncy bleached blond sex toy. Willow mind-wiped Tara. Xander attempted it by trying to put a love whammy on Cordelia. (And don't get me started on our supporting players...) My god, if you think about the resources available to these people, the lure of staggering results with little effort, and it's a wonder more "trios" don't spring up all over Sunnydale.
Fortunately, even the wild and wooly world of Sunnydale has rules, and one of them is very familiar: you can't get something for nothing. (Anya would point this out in a second.) Every time a cast member tries to impose his or her will on the universe, the universe bites back. The Aprilbot stalking Warren; Jonathan's demonic shadow in "Superstar"; Xander's love spell gone horribly wrong in BB&B, and a million others. The universe does not take shortcuts. (Actually, Andrew's speech about the physical impossibility of wormholes in "Flooded" works quite nicely in this case.)
The artificial imposition of Order in the Buffyverse always and I do mean always results in chaos. Rather than impose our will on our loved ones and diminish their humanity, we should learn to appreciate them and the beauty within their souls. It's tempting to grab the Cerebral Dampener, but we're a lot better off without it.
[> [> On issue of control... -- shadowkat, 10:08:18 06/20/02 Thu
First - thanks for the response!
What I find interesting is that we say holds true for real life too not just the mytical world of Sunnydale.
We think we have control over our world and then whammo
we find out we don't. Someone knocks down our buildings.
Fires us. Kidnaps a family member. Or stupid voy software archives a post you worked two days on in a matter of minutes - AUGH!!! Again thanking Masq for bringing it
back!
When we try to inflict control on our universe by building roads, tearing down trees, we end up with sink holes...and wonder why? When we try to force our control or will on someone else - they reject us. What we haven't figured out yet and the denizens of Sunnydale are slowly getting is that old adage:
Change the things you can, Accept the things you can't
and have the wisdom to know the difference. (And yes, I
never can remember the exact wording - you should see me with lyrics...but for some reason Buffy quotes seem to
be sticking more and more in my head?)
All we have control over is ourselves and even that is limiting. And I think that was partly the theme of this year and they did it more literally then usual.
If you read the transcripts of the Emmy Interview - Joss Whedon says something I found quite fascinating,
he says that when we grow up, we have to move beyond comfortable metaphors and deal with the world more literally. Deal with the harsh realities and how in most cases we have no control over them. Your friend is killed by a stray bullet, not mystical energy enabling you to bring them back from the dead. It's painful. You can't
control it...but it's also life.
[> [> [> Re: On issue of control... -- Jane's Addiction, 11:14:55 06/20/02 Thu
Just wanted to do my part to keep the Voy gods from eating this thread alive again. Great point on the corollary to our real world control issues.
As to the Joss comment about S6 moving beyond metaphors to deal with the harsh realities of adult life in a more literal way, wasn't that also why the writers wanted to destroy the Magic Box in the finale? You have to put aside the magical mysteries of childhood to move into the hard, bright world of adulthood.
Also seemed appropriate to have everyone's favorite witch destroy the place as a result of her own inability to cope with the cruel realities of the adult world. Perhaps a rite of passage she had to go through before acceptance could begin?
[> [> [> Re: On issue of control... -- Jane's Addiction, 11:16:15 06/20/02 Thu
Just wanted to do my part to keep the Voy gods from eating this thread alive again. Great point on the corollary to our real world control issues.
As to the Joss comment about S6 moving beyond metaphors to deal with the harsh realities of adult life in a more literal way, wasn't that also why the writers wanted to destroy the Magic Box in the finale? You have to put aside the magical mysteries of childhood to move into the hard, bright world of adulthood.
Also seemed appropriate to have everyone's favorite witch destroy the place as a result of her own inability to cope with the cruel realities of the adult world. Perhaps a rite of passage she had to go through before acceptance could begin?
[> [> [> [> The day the Magic Box died... -- Just George, 14:54:13 06/20/02 Thu
Actually, the Magic Box has always been a hand grenade waiting to go off. Mirroring Shadowcat's recent posts about respect, Giles never gave proper respect to the power of the objects he sold in the Magic Box. It is surprising that people in Sunnydale didn't do scary things more often. In "Checkpoint" Giles is selling a potent book to someone:
Giles: Well, if you're serious about these matters, all right, but. . . you need to be very careful. Measure precisely, and, and, please don't step ahead.
Travers OS: No, he's quite right.
Travers: You wouldn't want to do anything dangerous. Turn the wrong person into a badger.
The Watchers find even more "dangerous items" for sale at the 'Box. When the dangers are pointed out, Giles dismisses them.
Watcher2: There are some very potent elements here. . . focusing crystals, runic artifacts, an amulet of Cauldis. . . Also this statue. Its removal from Burma is a criminal offense. . . and when triggered, it has the power to melt human eyeballs.
Giles: In that case, I severely underpriced it.
Ultimately, the dangerous items available at the Magic Box do come back to bite the SG. In "Shadow" Giles himself sells Glory the supplies she needs to conjure a snake demon that can find the "key". Interestingly, it is Anya that does respect the power of the things for sale at the 'Box. She's the one who raises the red flag:
Anya: HEY!!
Giles: Anya, your heys are startling the customers.
Xander: And-and pretty much the state.
Anya: You sold someone a Khul's amulet and a Sobekian bloodstone.
Giles: Yes, I believe I did. takes receipt and examines it
Anya: Are you stupid or something?
Giles: Allow me to answer that question with a firing.
Xander: She's kidding! An, we talked about the employee-employer vocabulary no-nos. That was number five.
Anya: You never sell these things together, ever! Bad news! Don't you know about the Sobekites?
Willow: Oh! I do. It was an ancient Egyptian cult, heavy into dark magic.
Tara: And the Khul's amulet, wasn't that a transmogrification conduit?
Anya: Damn straight!
Giles Be that as it may, I still see no reason for concern. I mean, the Sobekian transmogrification spells were lost thousands of years ago. And besides, the young woman to whom I sold them would have to have had enormous power.
Willow quietly: Young woman?
Giles: Oh, dear lord.
Anya saw the results of the misuses magic for a thousand years. She is cognoscente of the dangers, to herself and SG, if to no one else. One wonders how Giles would feel if an enemy turned one of the gang into a badger with a book her sold them!
But even Anya is not foresighted enough to protect all the dangerous magic items that are available at the shop. The Magic Box is the source of Willow's first "power boost" in "Villains." The keepers of the Magic Box (Giles who set the standards and Anya who maintained then) provide the means for Willow to transition into "Dark Willow." They are punished for their carelessness when the very magic they sell destroys the shop they have spent years building.
Another example of karma in Season 6. Payback has been a bitch.
[> [> [> [> [> Excellent pts...for awhile now I've been stating Giles culpability -- shadowkat, 17:56:06 06/20/02 Thu
Yes - I entirely agree. For a while now I've been stating how culpable Giles is for Willow.
Even Spike has told Giles to be careful with Magic, ironically in Something Blue, where Willow turns Giles blind.
Giles is upset b/c he asked Willow to hunt down and do a truth spell for him on Spike. Willow is to upset about OZ leaving to be much help. Giles scolds her. Willow says he's blind to her pain. He as a result begins to go blind.
And instead of waiting for Willow or figuring out why his vision is going wonky, he attempts to do the spell on Spike himself.
Spike states: Hey, I'm not too keen on this magic thing, has a tendency to go wonky. You could turn me into a stink beetle.
Later in Afterlife.
Spike: The problem with magic is there's consequences. Always.
Angelus was clearly into rituals and magic as was Dru. Methinks, like Anya, Spike knew what he was talking about.
So should Giles. Giles after all had to deal with Catherine Madison. And had dealt with Egyhorn and Ethan Rayne.
So why did he leave those dark magic books out? Why did Anya?
I agree - they got their payback. Not only did they lose the shop, but it came tumbling down with them in it. And both of them were victims of DarkWillow. Giles got sucked by as did Anya. I hope both learned something from it.
[> [> Re: The creation of robots and Stepford-izing loved ones... -- Just George, 14:57:35 06/20/02 Thu
"It's tempting to grab the Cerebral Dampener, but we're a lot better off without it."
That line sums it all up for me. It is a wonderful turn of phrase.
[> [> [> LMAO!! Agreed. who said it? jonathan? or Andrew? -- shadowkat, 17:57:39 06/20/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> Actually, 'kat, it was me. Jonathan and Andrew didn't have that level of common sense. -- cjl, 20:43:04 06/20/02 Thu
See my answer to your original post above.
[> [> [> [> [> Ah yes...he stated like a show quote. seniality setting in and I'm so young -- shadowkat, 07:15:26 06/21/02 Fri
I did read your above post - even printed it off, but
forgot where that excellent quote came from. Mucho apologies. ;-)
[> Keeping the thread alive : ) -- Masq, 08:51:06 06/20/02 Thu
[> [> Agh, urgh! *&^%$ voy! Moving this back... again -- Masq, 09:56:18 06/20/02 Thu
[> [> [> Voy is the devil!!! -- VR, 10:20:59 06/20/02 Thu
[> [> [> After many lost posts ... I AGREE!!!! -- Exegy, 10:40:33 06/20/02 Thu
[> [> Thank you Masq, was beginning to feel ... -- shadowkat, 09:57:43 06/20/02 Thu
unwanted...that's for bringing it back up! ;-)
[> [> [> Don't feel bad. It keeps happening to me. -- VR, 10:27:14 06/20/02 Thu
[> You didnt mention Ghost in the Shell and therefore I am hurt. -- neaux, 10:56:19 06/20/02 Thu
I'm going to sulk in a corner and make a neauxbot.
[> [> Thanx for reminding me - she fits better in the next piece -- shadowkat, 11:24:25 06/20/02 Thu
Actually she fits better in my third segment: Perfect Solider. Thanks for reminding me, forgot about Ghost
in The Shell. For those who don't know it - very good
Anime Sci-Fi with a humanoid robot cop. Actually Robot
Cop fits here too. Hmmm...
[> [> [> and GUNNM (Battle Angel Alita) !! -- Ete, 12:52:00 06/20/02 Thu
just 'cause that's my favorite manga, I mean GITS is a gorgious animated movie, but I like reading more.
[> [> [> [> oh... and really grandiose essay, 'kat, waiting for the third part with impatience -- Ete, 12:59:45 06/20/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> Re: oh... waiting on third part with patience (not my gift) great work! -- aliera, 14:53:18 06/20/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> yes..yes...hopefully tomorrow. slight writers block ;-) -- shadowkat, 17:46:23 06/20/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: silly! take your time (from one who can't write) -- aliera, 18:21:02 06/20/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> What? Can't write? I've read your posts. You write beautifully! -- shadowkat, 18:39:58 06/20/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: What? OT -- aliera, 18:55:20 06/20/02 Thu
nah! but thanks. Oriental myth arrived today and (my reward after plowing through Occidental) and it's calling ever more insistently to me from the other room and so leaving the boards ... now!
But wait no first ...printed this off and some other posts to savor. This place has been especially rich lately; finally got the mods all set and now have nearly six full days off...bliss I can finally all the wonderful posts!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Reading JC's Masks of God? Great stuff! -- Exegy, 14:30:33 06/21/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Reading JC's Masks of God? Great stuff! -- aliera, 14:18:54 06/22/02 Sat
oh yes...read 1,3 &4 already and the Bill Moyers interviews in Power of Myth. Oriental is my reward for plowing through #4 (not bashing campbell I'm sure it's me.) Campbell died some time ago...any ideas for someone more recent to read? I ask because Campbell often mentions "recent" archeological discoveries so i thought there might be somebody else caring on more recently? And Willowlike I want to keep going.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I haven't read any more recent (comprehensive) studies ... -- Exegy, 15:14:06 06/22/02 Sat
... but I'd like to check on that as well! Still, I think JC will always be the standard by which all analyses of myth should be judged (although I, too, found Creative Mythology to be a more "difficult" read....).
You know, there's so many great older studies ... you almost don't have time to check what's recent. Too few hours in the day, sigh.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Not just you, sorry -- Rahael, 16:34:47 06/22/02 Sat
Tried Campbell. Not my cup of tea. More like my cup of hemlock.
I apologise to the myriad Campbellists on the board!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Not just you, me too -- Off-kilter, 18:54:27 06/22/02 Sat
I've got Hero of 1000 Faces at home right now, bookmarked mid-first chapter. I can't seem to make myself pick it up again even though so many here have sung his praises.
Not quite hemlock, more like work. Vastly lazy.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well...working on it. -- shadowkat, 06:43:21 06/24/02 Mon
Have Oriental and Primitive Myths as well as Hero
all at home waiting to be read. Started Primitive.
But there's only so much time, btw writing posts,
replying, my own writing, work...reading posts...yes,
so haven't gotten around to it yet. Nice to know
I'm not alone.
I think I did read some of this stuff fifteen years
ago, though, does that count? ;-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Reading JC's Masks of God? Great stuff! -- Sofdog, 11:17:20 06/24/02 Mon
I really like Miller (The Epic Hero) and Leeming (World of Myth, Mythology: The Voyage of the Hero).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Sofdog...thanks! -- aliera, 11:26:12 06/24/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks. I'll try to check those out! -- Exegy, 18:11:57 06/24/02 Mon
[> Feeling Sorry for Willow -- Just George, 15:34:59 06/20/02 Thu
Shadowcat, you make me feel sorrier and sorrier for Willow. She seems to have made the least progress toward adulthood of anyone in the Scoobie Gang. You hit the nail on the head several times:
"And the audience notes that Willow has a serious problem - she needs someone to take an interest in her - to feel special, to be important."
"Willow oddly enough appreciates Ted's abilities and sympathizes with him. Stating the sad part is he was such a genius. Willow would like to control love as well."
"This reminds me quite a bit of Willow who believes she's more interesting with magic."
"Both Ted and Willow believe that the fault lies with them. If they can be different - they can control love. They deserve love, they just don't know how to get it."
"Yes, I know you can argue that Spike or Warren really created the Bot, but Willow brought her back to life, Willow changed her programming, and Willow imprinted the information to seek her whenever she got hurt. Willow became the bot's mother... And just as Willow neglects the bot, allowing the bot to be destroyed to go after her own ends, she attempts to discard Buffy in an open grave fighting demons Willow has created. Like Warren, Willow wanted the perfect creation, but doesn't know what to do with it when it wants more than she can give. "
The sad part may be that fans sometimes see things the way Willow does. I know I have fallen into that trap. It is easy to get caught up in the ways that Willow can help move the plot line along: by being an ever more capable computer genius or an ever more powerful witch. These are both useful talents when battling evil, but have little to do with whether or not Willow is growing as a person.
Interestingly, neither talent impressed Oz. He was her equal in intelligence and was concerned about her witchcraft. He fell in love with her heart.
Tara was also concerned (even frightened) by Willow's witchcraft. She was impressed by Willow's intelligence ("Willow's the brainy type") But what really seemed to draw her in was Willow's confidence, born of her worldly experience in the SG ("cool monster fighter".)
Last night my wife and I watched "Hush." She commented that previous to that episode, if you had told fans that Willow was going to be the aggressor in a relationship, they would have been hard pressed to come up with someone meek enough to be Willow's significant other. Tara was that person. However, by bathing in Tara's adoration, Willow could arrest her personal development.
It wasn't until Tara had grown, through her own worldly experience with the SG ("Nice axing. My first!") that she could show the backbone to standup for herself. When Tara left in "Tabla Rasa," Willow began to face the crises of her own arrested development. She felt like nothing without Tara's adoration. The end of Season 6 was when she hit bottom in that crisis. Hopefully Season 7 will be about Willow growing up and resolving it.
[> [> Yes, alas poor Willow, my own heart breaks for her -- shadowkat, 18:37:43 06/20/02 Thu
Yes, I agree with everything you said, Just George. Willow breaks my heart. I identify so closely with her.
You're right it's ironic that the people who love her, could care less about her magic or her genius. As Buffy once says - fall for Willow and you stay fallen. Buffy fell for Willow way back in Welcome to the Hellmouth, as did we all. But Willow doesn't get that. If only we could see ourselves through others eyes. The eyes that love us.
Instead of seeing our own insecurities reflected back at us.
Maybe the reason I write so much about Willow - is I feel her pain so keenly. No matter how often you tell someone who is drowning that they are great, they'll never hear you, if inside their own head is a voice screaming that they aren't. Willow has had too many years of those voices telling her she is wrong. First her parents. Then those horrible kids at school, HArmony, Cordelia, Percy...
It took its toll.
When she tells Buffy that Tara didn't know that ordinary girl and doesn't really love her. Buffy says yes, Tara does, but Willow can't believe her. Why? Because in Willow's head, Buffy can't possibly understand, everyone loves Buffy, Buffy is the hero. And that envy and jealousy is bottled up inside Willow as well. It is the reason, that in the end only Xander could have reached her. There's too much animosity built up towards Buffy and Giles.
It's funny how the animosity and pain builds up over time.
How we attempt to mask it with a smile or cheery grin. Pretend those old pains are gone. But they aren't not really. They mark us. Each experience, good or bad, marks us, leaves behind a welt or a scar or a bump. Not visible to the naked eye, but if you push just hard enough, they are there all the same. I think that's what happened with Willow. She got pushed. And to deal with the pain...she did what many people do, she resorted to something that made her feel good, about herself, feel powerful until that something become an addiction and got out of control. It wasn't just Tara's death that kicked poor Willow over the edge, it was all that pain...inside. The pain Tara soothed whenever it threatened to burst. Because Tara unlike Buffy - was also a geek, she understood Willow on that very deep level. And so does Xander - you see that understanding way back in Season One. Not sure OZ ever quite did, OZ had never been the outcaste or tormented in quite the same way - he had his band.
I really hope they find a way of redeeming her, salvaging her, without copping out. Just as I hope the other characters realize...how she got that way. I think next season is also one about forgiveness. I've forgiven Willow already...maybe because Willow isn't all that far away from the high school girl I once was.
Thanks for the reply - was beautiful.
[> [> [> Re: Yes, alas poor Willow, my own heart breaks for her -- Jane's Addiction, 19:42:19 06/20/02 Thu
Wow, guys. This is sadder than the "crayon breaky Willow" scene. Seriously - beautiful character insights.
I really do expect to see Willow redeemed. But, as others have stated more eloquently that I could, the hardest journey for her will be finding a way to forgive herself. But I don't see how Willow can truly heal unless the writers let her (and all the other SG characters) take a good long look at how she got to this point.
For some reason, this whole story arc keeps making me think of this old Oscar Wilde quote I used to love -
"Misfortunes one can endure - they come from outside, they are accidents. But to suffer for one's own faults - Ah! There's the sting of life."
For me, this is exactly what makes Willow such a complex, interesting and ultimately, heartbreaking character. She embodies so many of the best aspects of humanity and so many of the most common faults in humanity. Dealt with upfront, none of these faults would've been a terribly big deal. It's just that they were allowed to pile up and fester until they became crippling. All because the people who loved her couldn't seem to see them, and she couldn't bear to face them.
[> [> [> I've also already forgiven Willow... -- Rob, 20:32:18 06/20/02 Thu
...I just hope that she'll ever be able to forgive herself. I really feel sorry for her.
Rob
[> Thanks everyone for posts, feedback, etc!!! -- shadowkat, 12:16:17 06/21/02 Fri
Appreciate it more than you know.
Working on Part III...still. sigh.
List of links to the reports and news from last nights Behind the Scenes with BTVS Emmy event -- Rufus, 17:56:15 06/19/02 Wed
Report from Linda at Tabula Rasa
here
Ain't It Cool News article from Emmy event
here
Slipstream report part one and two
part 1-4 here
part 5-7 here
Sci-fi.com article on Emmy event
here
Kitten board report on Emmy Event by Hellcat
here
From Laurie at BAPS Behind the Scenes at BTVS
here
There are some season seven spoilers, but nothing earth shattering. Just a warning to those who want to remain totally pure..;)
[> Forgot to add thanks to... -- Rufus, 18:00:09 06/19/02 Wed
Deeva and Akita for finding some of the information and links.
[> One more Link -- Rufus, 18:18:15 06/19/02 Wed
A Second Report from the Emmy event from The Kitten Board
here
[> Rufus - thanks for this! -- shadowkat, 19:25:23 06/19/02 Wed
Anyone who reads the links - go to the slipstream they are the most complete and the second one states pretty explicitly exactly what Joss Whedon intended to convey regarding B/S relationship. It was insightful for me.
And reminded me of ponygirl's statement: even though they didn't go the direction I had in my head - it was an interesting one and worth watching.
Also - clearly a movement away from metaphor to literal.
Interesting.
OT to Sophist -- redcat, 18:16:43 06/19/02 Wed
Your post on Clem and cultural relativism got archived before I could respond to your last post, but I'd already written the response below and am posting it anyway. Hope you don't mind.
Ahhhh, dear Sophist, I did grok that your post was primarily an exercise in wit. I actually
began my post responding in the same spirit. But somewhere along the way (maybe it was the
kitty-centric example that got to me), I guess my claws slid out. Sorry to have disappointed
you so. Your post was very, very funny and I can see that I'm quite alone in wanting to
respond to anything in it but its clever humor.
Although it might have been interesting if you had decided to address the issue raised in my
response post... (erythro-kitty sighs and licks her fur..looks around for someone else to
torture...not seeing anyone, she pads into the kitchen to see if there are any treats...)
And thanks for the tip on Israel's new book. Although if his primary argument is that "an attack
on popular beliefs regarding witches formed what might be called the spearhead of the
Enlightenment," I'd have to say he's about 20 years late. Historians of witchcraft (and in
particular feminist historians of the subject) have been making such arguments, and sustaining
them with careful analyses of the literature, since the late 1970s, and this has been a *central*
theme in witchcraft studies in England and America since the mid-1980s. I hope he's giving
credit where credit is due, but at least he got the argument straight.
However, if he also argues that most or even many of the "authors of such tracts were
outlawed and persecuted by the Church," then I would like to check his sources and see how
widely he documents evidence to that effect. European witchcraft is an extremely complicated
historical subject. I'm not as familiar with the Netherlands cases (which I'm assuming form a
central basis for Israel's interpretation on this point) as I am with primary sources from the rest
of Europe, but such persecution was not sustained evenly across the continent, even under
the most strict Catholic monarchs and bishops. It is true, never-the-less, that many of the
tracts that were eventually the most influential in the secular courts, if not the ecclesiastical
ones, were originally written by Protestant intellectuals. Bodin's text, for example, was written
as a refutation of an earlier work by a Dutch physician at the court of the Protestant Duke
William V of Cleves, Johann Weyer. Weyer had been trained at the (very Catholic) University
of Paris, although his personal mentor was Erasmus by way of Agrippa. His most famous text,
_De Praestigiis Daemonium_, published in 1563, was itself a refutation of the _Malleus
Maleficarum_ of 1487. Weyer argued that witches are really just old, confused women who
suffer from mental illness, that pacts with the devil are legal fictions, that bewitchment and
possession symptoms are caused by natural or mental illness, and that most deaths attributed
to witchcraft were caused by poisoning, a very human capital crime, but not by black magic.
Weyer's text had a profound impact on French Catholic demonology, precisely because he
supported his arguments with evidence from both theological authority and Biblical references.
His most ardent supporters, within 50 years of his death, were Catholic clerics arguing against
the reinstatement of mandatory torture in witchcraft cases, in both Germany and France.
Actual persecution, by either Catholic or Protestant secular or ecclesiastical courts, of those
arguing for Weyer against Bodin is extremely poorly documented, although one sees such
persecution repeated as "fact" quite often with little or no evidence, especially in texts in which
the history of the witch trials is used as an example in support of some other argument by
someone who is not actually an historian of witchcraft. And Weyer's most important
contribution may have been his influence on Freud...but that's a completely different story.
Oh, dear, I got serious again, didn't I? Well, I've already typed it all up and although I may well
be the only one who wants to read it, it costs little to post and nothing for anyone else to skip,
so what the hey, eh? And actually, now that I think about it, this is all your fault anyway,
Sophist, since my question to you about the limits of cultural relativism was initiated by your
own off-hand comment in some fabulous thread down below. So if you're bored now, too,
well, perhaps we should just send each other some cyber-chocolate in sympathy and forget
the whole thing. I'm game. And thanks again for the laughs in your original post. I really do
have a sense of humor..I do..honest, I DO.....
[> Re: OT to Sophist -- Sophist, 19:20:55 06/19/02 Wed
Sounds like Israel fits right in with the studies you mention. He is very precise in his documentation. However, "persecution" is a general term that often includes little more than ineffective censorship and denunciation by church authorities. By this standard, it's fair to say most of the authors were "persecuted", though this may not seem like much to the women of, say, Salem.
[> [> Re: OT to Sophist: Cyber-chocolate is on its way, should be arriving any minute.. -- rc, 19:27:02 06/19/02 Wed
[> [> [> Appreciated but hardly necessary. -- Sophist, 09:13:41 06/20/02 Thu
My post was intended to be challenging (maybe provocative is a better word) in several ways. Didn't generate much of a response, though, so I guess it didn't work.
[> [> [> [> Got archived way too soon, Sophist......... -- Rahael, 09:20:55 06/20/02 Thu
that's all.
[> [> [> [> Still waiting for treats on this end (chocolate or analysis accepted with equal gratitude) -- redcat, 10:53:09 06/20/02 Thu
Ah, so you DID intend something more complex than just a (VERY) witty joke! Then maybe
you'd be willing to answer the questions asked (poorly, I admit) in my original response to your
original post. You posed four conditions or, as you termed them, "core values fundamental to
human (and demon) integrity," that should limit our acceptance of absolute cultural relativism.
The first of these is based on the notion of law, to wit: "The right to equal treatment and equal
protection of the laws. This means no discrimination on the basis of race, creed, color,
ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexual orientation." My questions remain: Whose laws?
Whose definition of discrimination? And most importantly, whose definition of which "races"
(do you mean species? or perhaps races within hominid-like species?) will determine who or
what gets protected under these laws?
[> [> [> [> [> Catnip ok? -- Sophist, 12:42:22 06/20/02 Thu
I thought I did answer, at least in part (it got archived right after that; maybe you didn't see it). Not sure exactly what you want.
"Race" means human racial categories. I realize now that using Clem may have confused things on this score when we switch to RL. Demons don't exist in the real world, but we can call Clem an honorary human for this purpose.
As for "whose laws", I'm not sure what you mean. Any law, passed by any human group, enforced against other humans qualifies.
Ah. "Discrimination." That's the real issue. Not going to define that just yet. I will just comment for now that every law discriminates. The key is, which discriminations are ok and which are not.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Got it, thanks! -- redcat, 12:58:58 06/20/02 Thu
...and I think I just got why we seemed to be talking at cross purposes. My response-head was in the JossVerse, where Clem is a great example, and yours was in the RealVerse, where he confuses things. In the RealVerse, your schema and answers all work and I accept your conditions for limiting cultural relativism, with the caveat that I'd like it acknowledged that your list of four fundamental values is distinctly modernist and western (what with it's identification of humans primarily as individuals and all, rather than, say, primarily as members of geneological lineages or clan groups, as in some non-western cultures), and especially in its assertion of bodily integrity as a condition of human rights.
Would you be willing to construct a similar set of fundamental values for the JossVerse? Or, if you feel you already have, are you claiming the primacy of human law there as well? If so, how is humans' judging of demons based on human law justified?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Why not just... -- Etrangere, 13:15:17 06/20/02 Thu
say that everyone is free to have one's own relative cultural morality as long as it respects other's relative cultural morality (for themselves).
Ok, the problem might be that currently no culture is totally respectful of other's as far as i'm aware, but let me dream my little anarchist dream, ok ? :)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> If you mean -- Sophist, 13:41:39 06/20/02 Thu
that each individual should tolerate others, I agree up to the point where it involves hurting another. In other words, I don't have to tolerate someone else who claims the right to torture another as part of "culture".
OTOH, if we reduce it all to individuals, what do we mean by "culture"? Isn't that, by definition, something that only emerges at the group level?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: If you mean -- Ete, 13:53:26 06/20/02 Thu
Apart if the tortured person wished to be tortured, this would violate the idea of tolerating each own's relative morality for themselves.
As for culture, you're right it's something that is of the collective. Yet I think everyone's morality & ethics, and how it's influences by different cultures, and personnal experiences, are different, init ?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agree on both points -- Sophist, 14:08:42 06/20/02 Thu
Probably need some limits on the torture, though. We could agree on a safe word, though. :)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Your caveat is quite right. -- Sophist, 13:54:54 06/20/02 Thu
As for the Jossverse, this has been the subject of considerable discussion on the Board. After all, from the demon perspective, Buffy herself is a murderer.
I have to go with the primacy of human law even in the Jossverse. Justifying that without resort to religion is a little tricky. In Lockean terms, demons are like humans who refuse to adopt the social contract. As such, we are in a state of nature with respect to them and they can't claim protection under our rules.
This is kind of (kind of?!) legalistic. In a larger moral sense, I guess we could say that the rules apply only to those with human souls. This also is arbitrary unless Joss is God. But since he is (it is the Jossverse, after all), no problem.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Get the Visual: Locke and Clem play poker! (What are the odds?) -- redcat, 14:58:16 06/20/02 Thu
Too true! But unfortunately, this doensn't quite explain all human-demon relations even in the JossVerse. Vampires in the Order of Aurelius simply refuse to adopt OUR social contract, although the Master's organization works on fairly Lockean principles. As such, we are in a state of war -- not nature -- with them, and members of neither side can claim protection under the other side's rules. Except, of course, for the fact that Joss is indeed God and his mythic arbitrary inconsistencies are specifically designed to drive leaglistic minds wacky, which makes it all OK.
He's really good at being God, eh?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Joss is Loki with the power of Odin -- Sophist, 15:56:13 06/20/02 Thu
And sorry for the loose use of terms. By "state of nature", I meant the Hobbesian one but failed to say so.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> That's OK, I should have remembered Calvin is always in a state of nature... -- rc, 17:12:14 06/20/02 Thu
...ye gods and goddesses, I just realized that works for both sets of Calvin and Hobbes!...
I'm off to the volcano (Kilauea) to celebrate the solstice. Am sure this thread will be archived when I return next week, but it's been... umm ...interesting... talking with you, Sophist - hope you have a great solstice!
redcat
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Demon Law and an Unanswerable Question -- Arethusa, 14:04:36 06/21/02 Fri
Demons aren't judged by human law-we at least have due process etc. They only have a teenager who is judge, jury and executioner. In Laurel Hamilton and Charlaine Harris's books vampires have rules, laws, and a system set up for judgement and punishment, complete with capital punishment for egregarious offenders. Demons don't seem to have a judicial system in the Buffyverse, just strong traditions. I would only consider a judicial system demonic if it were made by demons-self-rule, instead of a system imposed by an outside society or agent, such as the Slayer, Watcher's Council, or TPTB. So the judging of demons is totally unjustified-we don't even extend to the demons the rights we give ourselves.
OTOH, the demons seem to feel free to break human laws with impunity, which might be fitting since, as agents of chaos, they don't seem to recognize any authority except that of brute stregnth. If Might=Right, then by the demon "law" Buffy et al are perfectly justified in their actions, because they are stronger.
Then there's the whole question of why people accept the laws of a diety (or dieties) that they can't even prove exists. What do they get in return-peace of mind?less fear of death?the sense of being favored above all other humans?
Note to self: Religion, incomprehensable.
[> OT - "Witches and Neighbours" -- Rahael, 06:58:19 06/20/02 Thu
redcat, have you read Brigg's account of witchcraft and it's place in popular culture? How convincing do you find it?
I really liked it a lot, but I could be biased cos he was a very entertaining tutor (led some seminars for a term).
[> [> Re: OT - "Witches and Neighbours" -- O'Cailleagh, 08:32:46 06/20/02 Thu
I haven't read it Rah, do you have a URL (or is that *an* URL?...no...a URL sounds better!) for it or something? I'm assuming its online...if not, then where can I get me a copy?
[> [> [> Re: OT - "Witches and Neighbours" -- Rahael, 08:59:52 06/20/02 Thu
I'll see if I can find it online. I doubt it though. It's a nice read, and the author is "Robin Briggs". I bought it in paper back oh, about 2/3 years ago? Get back to you later.
[> [> [> [> Re: OT - "Witches and Neighbours" -- O'Cailleagh, 09:24:35 06/20/02 Thu
Ah, didn't realise it was a whole book! Robin Briggs you say...(committing to memory now!) I don't suppose you have the ISBN number to hand do you? ;)
[> [> [> [> [> 0631233261 -- Rahael, 09:46:07 06/20/02 Thu
There you go! :)
There's a cheaper version (the one I have, £8.99) but apparently it's out of stock. This one's 14.99.
Of course, I could always mail you my copy - I trust you!!!
on an OT tangent, the absolutely worst person to lend books to are English teachers. Don't know why. Every one of them I lent a book as a school girl never gave it back to me. Okay, there was a science teacher too. He never gave me back my copy of "Selfish Gene". Grr.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: 0631233261 -- O'Cailleagh, 11:51:15 06/20/02 Thu
Thanx Rah, I'll email you my address....I promise I'm not an English teacher!!
[> [> [> [> [> [> LOL. We pick up so many... -- Arethusa, 16:53:39 06/20/02 Thu
we can never remember where they're from. I buy library discards, and every time I see one sitting around I panic, thinking I forgot to return it.
[> [> Re: OT - "Witches and Neighbours" -- redcat, 10:04:04 06/20/02 Thu
Yes, I've certainly read Briggs' _Witches and Neighbors_, as well as many of his shorter
articles. He has become a key player in the field of witchcraft studies in the last fifteen years.
His work on village communities is particularly compelling and important in the emerging sub-
field of comparative regional studies. My problem with Briggs, as with his fellow Brits Stuart
Clark and James Sharpe, and the American scholars Richard Godbeer, David Hall and
Elizabeth Reis, is that while seeming to address both the extant feminist scholarship and
explicit questions of gender raised by that scholarship, particularly in the work of Carol Karlsen,
Jane Kamensky, Elaine Breslaw, Sigrid Brauner, David Harley, and to a lesser extent John
Butler, Briggs subtly trivializes the most significant questions and findings about gender
ideologies (both masculine & feminine) and their relationships to the sexes (both female and
male) in the cultures and particular regions he studies. I find this particularly disturbing, as a
historian, in his work on the France-German border regions, which is otherwise so rich,
detailed and insightful.
His tactics of dismissal of the feminist scholarship and of feminists' arguments about the
centrality of gender to the early modern witchcraft trial phenomena (on which, btw, Briggs
draws quite heavily and sometimes without acknowledgment) seems to me part of a larger
effort within much of the field to avoid the central question feminist historians have been
asking since the mid-1970s, stated most clearly by Carol Karlsen in her _Devil in the Shape of
a Woman_. The issue for feminist scholars is not "why were women witches?", but rather,
"why were witches women?" Briggs concentrates on the relatively high level of accusations of
males in certain regions of eastern France, subverting through his analysis the documentary
evidence that across all regions of Europe from the mid-15thC to the mid-18thC, with the
specific exceptions of Iceland and Russia (which both operated under distinctly different sets
of popular AND elite culture beliefs about witchcraft and female/male power), approximately
4/5s of all accused witches were women. Briggs argues that because *some* men were
always accused, and larger numbers of them during particular regional "crazes" (especially as
those "crazes" developed over a period of months or a few years), that gender, and particularly
sexism, are not important cultural ideologies to consider when attempting to understand
witchcraft beliefs. In order to do this, Briggs must interpret his own data in quite circuitous
ways, some of which are laughably overt. While seeming to address gender, then, Briggs
really dismisses it as an historical concern.
He writes engagingly, though, and I find his work much less egregious in terms of his gender
analysis than I do Clark's or (especially!!) Sharpe's. And his analysis of tensions between
popular and elite culture is VERY good - this is where his text shines. I imagine he was a
wonderful tutor. He's sharp, bright, funny and careful. Of the major non-feminist scholars
currently working in the field, I find his work the most compelling. And I wouldn't be at all
surprised if Jonathan Israel cites him as a major source in his new book that Sophist noted
above.
Hey, you asked..... (‘ya know what they say - never ask an historian a simple question, ‘cause
there are no simple answers....)
[> [> [> Re: OT - "Witches and Neighbours" -- Rahael, 10:13:25 06/20/02 Thu
Thanks!!
That was very helpful actually. I had Briggs for religious culture stuff - we didn't do witchcraft. I agree about his work on mentalite's in France. I liked it a lot.
The person I did study witchcraft (and early modern France) was very conservative. I think he pretty much dismissed all feminist scholarship out of hand. Hence the predomination of Briggs, Clarke and Sharpe on my reading list. At that point I was still trying to 'please the tutor' - pretty much wrote what I was expected to. One year later, of course I was disagreeing with tutors/correcting them in seminars. Some took it better than others!
[> [> [> Israel only lists Clark in the bibliography -- Sophist, 16:05:58 06/20/02 Thu
Current board
| More June 2002