June 2003 posts
A random thought on AtS s5
& Spike ;-(does that mean no one will look at this?) -- deeva,
11:04:38 06/19/03 Thu
I'm sure that someone has already posted about this but I'm much
too lazy to check and see for myself and I've been away for 10
whole days. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
So while I was in LA for work, in the boredom that overtook me
at times, a thought occured to me about Spike. Perhaps, whoever
the prophecy makers/PTB's are, what if they bring Spike back as
like another Whistler? He would probably hate that for a bit.
And that would allow for the chafing of characters between Spike
and Angel. Can you imagine Spike as the representative for the
PTB's. It intrigues me while cracking me up at the same time.
Sadly, this is my mental contribution to the board. *sigh* When
I grow up I wanna be just like:
a.) d'H
b.) Rah
c.) Masq
d.) Rufus
e.) some other lovely board luminaries of big braindom!
f.) all of the above!
[> Re: A random thought
on AtS s5 & Spike<-(does that mean no one will look at this?)
-- s'kat, 11:35:52 06/19/03 Thu
No, it hasn't really been broached, but it did occur to me as
I began re-watching Angel Season 1 episodes and after reading
some of the stuff I've read about next season's Angel.
According to Whedon - they plan on going back to a more episodic/serial
combo format - much like the format they started with in Season
1's earlier episodes. Except the B plot stories will come from
within W&H itself, the law firm they are now controlling, as
opposed to visions. This is actually much better - since the source
of conflict is also the source of outside stories. The PTB visions
wasn't really that helpful - since they didn't really provide
a broad enough focus for B plots or provide a means of letting
characters outside of just Angel pursue those plots.
Also the conflict had be generated more internally amongst the
characters. ie. Love Triangles, etc. Now that we have W&H being
the workplace - the possibilities are far less limiting.
So where does this leave Spike? Well, it's a little silly to have
Wes, Fred, Gunn, Lorn, and Angel constantly discussing "how
can we work for W&H" or "second-guessing themselves".
Just as in Season 1 - it would have been a little silly to have
Angel constantly talking to himself or Cordelia about how he has
to get out more. You needed an outside force prodding him. When
Doyle died. The outside force became Cordelia. IT also helps if
the outside force is reluctantly doing so. Doyle was the reluctant
hero - doomed to help Angel. Angel is the Champion who wants to
lurk not get involved. The conflict between Doyle and Angel caused
tension - which made the show humorous and gave us a reason to
wonder about Angel at times. Now Cordelia can no longer play reluctant
hero - she did that for a few seasons.
And Wes can't do it. So you need to introduce someone new - someone
with a history with Angel, but he will in a sense be the cattle
prod. When Angel goes down this alley?
We need someone to yank him and say? Whatcha doing that for?
We need a couter-weight to Lilah. Previously that was Doyle and
Cordy. Now it's probably going to be Spike. (Can't be Cordy she
turned evil and well CC wants to move on and do other things).
At any rate, that's my theory. Be interesting to see how it plays
off.
[> [> Re: A random thought
on AtS s5 & Spike<-(does that mean no one will look at this?)
-- deeva, 13:04:13 06/19/03 Thu
hmmm...Spike is the cattle prod. Scary as it sounds, and perhaps
just as revealing about me, it sounds like something I've read
in a Spangel slash fic.
Aside from my naughty thoughts, I am thinking along the lines
that you are, s'kat. I think that that is what Spike will be.
And gathering from what very little there is to go on at this
point, he will not come back human but he will most certainly
be there. So a rep. of the PTB's sounds like the way to go in
my mind.
And another thing, JM has just said in a Q&A at a convention that
he will be filming in September. When does production for "Angel"
start? Just wondering about the scheduling.
[> [> [> From what
I've heard, "Angel" starts shooting on July 28 --
afterlife, 13:55:44 06/19/03 Thu
I'm not 100% on that, but I do know that shooting for last season
started in late July, so I'm reasonably certain that the date
is accurate.
[> [> [> Re: A random
thought on AtS s5 & Spike<-(does that mean no one will look
at this?) -- s'kat, 13:59:20 06/19/03 Thu
According to fanforum and some other things I've read, Angel is
going to start filming in July instead of August this year and
they go on hiatus in September. Then start filming again late
October - just like they did in Btvs last year. Which means our
first Angel episode will premiere much earlier this year than
it did last year - probably around mid September as opposed to
October. (YES!!)
Last year Angel started filming in August, because of Firefly
and Btvs and the change in producers/head writers.
This year - since it's the only show ME has outside of the potential
Firefly movie - filming is starting sooner. So, no JM's filming
of the movie in September shouldn't affect his appearences on
Ats at all.
I'm hoping he doesn't show up human at this stage - just because
I'm not sure they need another human in the group.
Although that would probably be the easiest and most convient
way to bring him back, since half the audience expects it any
way. But I'm sick of the whole Shanshue thing - so sick I'm starting
to root for HArmony to be the one who shanshues. Why? Because
I'm evil. ;-) My one hope? Don't make him a ghost. Please no ghosts!!
[> [> [> [> LOL!
I hereby call to order the 1st meeting of HARM ("Harmony
Achieves Redemption" Militia)! -- cjl, 14:12:48 06/19/03
Thu
Harmony drags Angel and Spike on a shopping spree along Rodeo
Drive, where she finally finds the Prada bag that matches her
lilac pumps. Having achieved her lifelong goal as a souled vamp,
she immediately shanshus....
"BLOODY HELL!"
We at HARM (a subsidiary of MOLOJ) dedicate ourselves to the redemption
of Harmony Kendall and to the idea that Mutant Enemy and the viewing
audience should stop taking this "shanshu" stuff so
seriously and just enjoy the show.
Anybody wanna join?
[> [> [> [> [>
Sign me up, baby! Shanshu, schmanshu! So over that. --
deeva, not crazy about beating a dead horsie, 15:06:56 06/19/03
Thu
[> [> [> [> [>
Count me in! -- Alison, 16:00:00 06/19/03 Thu
[> [> [> [> [>
I'm there! -- d'Herblay, 17:27:29 06/19/03 Thu
Though I don't really care that much about redemption; I just
wanted an excuse to link to the video ("Her
Platinum Baby") that made me a Spike/Harmony 'shipper.
[> [> [> [> [>
Yep a member too...also on S/H -- s'kat, 21:03:56 06/19/03
Thu
At this point in time - I'm beginning to really want a Spike/Harmony
ship. Maybe even have a parody of the whole
S/B and B/A thing but with Harmony? I wonder if ME would dare
do that. Naw...can't envision it. Cowards. Bet you guys glad I'm
not writing these shows. ;-)
[> [> [> [> [>
I was born ready to join HARM! -- Rob, 22:00:45 06/19/03
Thu
[> ooh! -- ponygirl,
13:01:14 06/19/03 Thu
I actually had an incredibly weird thought the other week while
rewatching Becoming. As a series ender for AtS some sort of time-travelin'/shape-shifting/accent-changing
mojo is performed on Spike and he actually becomes Whistler. All
of Whistler's lines are cryptic enough that they can be assumed
to have layers of hidden meaning underneath. And coupled with
my weird idea of Spike as the one to set in motion these major
events in Angel's life? Hello to poignancy and irony!
I said it was strange, but I just had to share :)
[> depends how spoilery
it is (how spoilery is it?) -- anom, who pressed "end"
as soon as the post appeared, 13:23:24 06/19/03 Thu
[> [> Just has well know
casting spoiler for A5 -- s'kat, 14:02:15 06/19/03 Thu
All we know is Spike will be on Angel next year. That's it.
Everything else is spec.
Not that spoilery. There haven't been any definite spoilers released
on this topic yet. Just lots of random rumors.
[> Mostly spec-alicious,
not particularly spoilery, except casting-wise. -- Rob, 13:35:43
06/19/03 Thu
I'm awash
in a sea of transfusion -- Valheru, 14:51:02 06/19/03 Thu
Honestly, I'm not trying to argue with you about this. I feel
like everyone else "got" it and I'm left behind saying,
"Huh?" I guess I'm just trying to explain how I viewed
things, hoping that someone will come along and explain where
I screwed up.
Handling rejection is Spike's biggest fault, I agree totally.
But it's Anne's specific rejection that doesn't seem to fit for
me. I feel like it further complicated William's transformation
into Spike where it was already complex, and it muddied an explanation
that was clear to me before.
Again, the first problem I have is probably due to a false assumption
I made from FFL. I assumed that, given how much Spike seemed to
hate William, he would have had a very negative reaction to William's
life--that he would either abandon it completely or destroy it.
So the idea that he went home to retrieve his mother, to embrace
the most important figure in William's life, runs completely contradictory
to what I expected.
Secondly, I think VampWilliam's decision to "save" his
mother is entirely non-vampiric. We have been shown before (from
Angelus, Darla, the Wishverse VampScoobies, even Harmony) that
vampires are fundamentally twisted, evil versions of the humans
they were. They aren't just humans without souls, they are soulless
demon/human hybrids. For instance, Faith had a vampire's "want,
take, have" sense of freedom, but she acted out of the mindset
that what she was doing was right. Vampires act out of the mindset
that what they are doing is evil. They aren't simply freed of
moral compunction, to sometimes do evil out of selfishness, but
instead they are inclined to always do evil out of instinct. It's
the old "demonic influence." So vampires should always
(or at least, usually) do the wrong thing. Their desires should
always be evil, not just un-good.
But LMPTM shows us a VampWilliam who doesn't act very much like
a vampire. Dru sires him, he rises, comes home to eat the help--everything
seems fine at first. But it's the fact that he wants to save his
mother that befuddles me. In this instance, his desire is good,
not evil, even though the result is evil. Sure, he wants to save
Anne for himself, it's a selfish want, but he goes about it totally
altrustically. He wants her to be with himself as much as he wants
himself to be with her.
How is this different from his relationship with Dru? After all,
as we know from the Judge, Spike does retain his humanity. But
that's the thing, y'see...romance was set up as Spike's only retention
of humanity. In all other things, he's just like any other vampire.
Wasn't that the whole crux of S6? That all of Spike's "good"
actions were in pursuit of Buffy and everything else he did was
evil?
VampWilliam, to me, acted like an unsouled human, not a vampire.
He seemed to retain a butt-load of his humanity, compared to what
we see of him as Spike. It's like he didn't have a demon in him
to skew his every want to be extreme.
That leads me into the creation of Spike. After all his rejections
as a human (that we see in FFL), VampWilliam's greatest desire?
His mother. Huh? "William of London, you've just been given
immortality, complete moral freedom, and cool powers! What do
you want to do with all this?" "I want my mommy."
That doesn't seem at all the sort of direction FFL was heading
in. But still, assume that that is what they had in mind for William
all along. When does VampWilliam become Spike? After his mother's
rejection.
So VampWilliam naturally decides to become Spike, Torturer of
Mothers, right? He goes out, finding every mother he can, impales
them with railroad spikes, and yells, "How dare you not love
your children! You bitch!" No. VampWilliam becomes Spike,
the avenger of all the wrongs he endured in FFL. He attacks the
upper-class that ridiculed him and he preys on women who scorned
him. Where is the exaggerrated vampire revenge against his mother?
After all, if it's specifically maternal rejection that drives
him to become Spike, shouldn't that be Spike's primary focus?
Again, I say that LMPTM works very well in a lot of places, but
there are too many places where it seems off-kilter. It doesn't
take much to fix, either. Have VampWilliam go to save his mother
after he takes his revenge against Cecily and the partygoers.
Show that his transformation into Spike began before his mother's
rejection. But as the placement is now, it makes everything in
William's human life secondary and it water's-down the meaning
of Spike's demon/humanity struggle in S5/6.
Or maybe I'm just very very dense. =)
[> Err...that was a reply
to Rook's LMPTM post. Stupid Voynak -- Valheru (and the transfusion
keeps on comin'), 14:53:00 06/19/03 Thu
[> Re: I'm awash in a sea
of transfusion -- Rook, 16:23:22 06/19/03 Thu
>>So the idea that he went home to retrieve his mother,
to
>>embrace the most important figure in William's life, runs
>>completely contradictory to what I expected.
Well, most of what I assume about vamps comes from Angel,but's
exactly what I would have expected from seeing other vamps. Take
Angel: He's fighting with his father, not having a very good relationship
at all. So his first instinct is to destroy him and the family
he's so concerned about.
And take Angelus' obsession with Buffy. As disgusted as he is
by the Angel/Buffy relationship, he doesn't just want to kill
her outright, he wants to torture her. The thing is, that this
mental torture isn't just cruelty, it's Angelus' version of courting,
as we can see from what he did to Dru. Even though he's lost his
soul, he's continuing his version of a romantic relationship with
Buffy, as twisted as it may be.
Another example is Vamp Willow/Vamp Xander. Now, we don't see
them get vamped, but we can see that they have a twisted version
of their former relationship. Willow in particular mirrors a lot
of the disgust for her former self that Spike does, maybe even
more, but she still wants a relationship with Vamp Xander.
So Spike seeking to continue a relationship with his mother isn't
surprising to me at all, it's what I'd expect based on other vamps
that we've gotten to see as both human and vamp. But Spike has
very specific problems with rejection, so...
>> After all, if it's specifically maternal rejection that
>>drives him to become Spike, shouldn't that be Spike's
>>primary focus?
That's the thing. The Spike persona is NOT a vehicle for revenge.
It's a vehicle for seeking acceptance. It's camoflague, a defense
rather than an offense. Spike is the persona William adopts so
that he will be accepted...he's like the nerdy kid that gets a
new haircut, a leather jacket and a hot rod. He's not doing it
to hurt the cool kids that rejected him...he's doing it to be
one of them, thereby avoiding their rejection.
[> Re: I'm awash in a sea
of transfusion -- sdev, 02:08:44 06/20/03 Fri
"I assumed that, given how much Spike seemed to hate William,
he would have had a very negative reaction to William's life--that
he would either abandon it completely or destroy it."
In FFL I see Spike rebel against William's repressed personality.
He is not looking for acceptance anymore. He wants to live by
his own rules, now, in the experiential moment, with everything
on the line.
Now he enjoys fights-fists and fangs. William didn't even want
to hear about disturbing news of disappearances. He makes fun
of the "frilly cuffs and collar crowd," his former peers.
Where he used to be the artist, a poet, he scoffs at Angelus'
kill as artistry. He adopts a lower class cockney speech in contrast
to his former polished poetic phrases.
On the other hand he still retains his profound ability to love
which somehow survives his transition to vampire. In fact this
emotion is also freed from the repressed state it was in with
Cecily, and he now is free to elevate his feelings of love to
a raison d'etre. He proudly becomes Love's Bitch with a swagger.
Unlike Angel who killed his family, Spike, because he still retains
his feelings for his mother, reacts in the opposite way. Love
dictates much of who he is whether it is sexual love or love of
a son for his mother.
I don't see inconsistency here it in fact leads back to the humanity
the Judge sensed in Season Two with Dru and forward to his feelings
for Buffy in Seasons 5&6, and is perfectly consistent with
his persona in LMPTM.
Season 8
-- Brian ( I can see it now), 15:39:43 06/19/03 Thu
A bedroom in a castle, somewhere in England. (Later, we find out
that it belongs to Giles)
Buffy enters through the large windows. She has her slayer gear
on. She looks as if she has been in a hell of a fight.
Tea aside, those English vamps must be tough. As Buffy prepares
for bed, we hear a distant scream. Suddenly Willow rushes into
the room:
Willow
Buffy, I think I just saw a ghost! In my room. And I think it
looked like Tara.
Just as she says "Tara" Xander rushes into the room
carrying sword.
Xander
What? Who? What! Tara!?
Buffy
(Trying to be compassionate and understanding) Are you sure you
weren't dreaming?
[> The Core Four in a Haunted
English Castle? This stuff writes itself. -- cjl, 21:13:18
06/19/03 Thu
[Wyndham Castle. Breakfast. Xander and Giles are sitting at a
small corner of the main dining table. A servant approaches with
trepidation. Xander practically rubs his hands in gleeful anticipation.]
XANDER: Ah, Bentley.
BENTLEY: Yes, Mr. Harris?
XANDER: Tea. Earl Grey. Hot.
BENTLEY: Yes, sir.
XANDER: Twist of lemon, two sugars.
BENTLEY: Your usual Milky Way bar, sir?
XANDER: You read my mind, Bentley. Good man. [Raps table twice
for emphasis. Giles rolls his eyes.]
BENTLEY: And you, Master Giles?
[Giles is intently studying an ancient, leatherbacked tome.]
GILES: Nothing, Bentley, thank you.
[Bentley exits, giving Xander the fish eye as he goes. He passes
Buffy and Willow as they approach the table. Xander's light mood
instantly disappears; Giles almost instinctively rises from his
seat, concerned.]
GILES: Willow, are you all right?
WILLOW (trying to smile): Yeah. I guess. Kinda shook up, but I
think I'm OK.
XANDER: Did you find....I-I mean, did you see...I mean--
BUFFY: Nothing. Did a full perimeter sweep of the castle.
XANDER: No offense, Buff, but I don't think ghosts are impressed
by full perimeter sweeps. [Off Buffy's look] Hey, not that your
sweeps aren't impressive...
WILLOW: I-I don't know. I'm not even sure it WAS Tara. I couldn't
see anything clearly. Maybe it's just sleeping in a new place,
and I had a bad dream, and--
BUFFY: Will, that's not what you told me.
GILES: Willow?
WILLOW: It felt right. It felt like Tara.
BUFFY: That's good enough for me.
GILES: Agreed. [Drawing the others' attention to the book] I-I've
been researching the history of Wyndham castle. Apparently, when
Wesley's great-great-great-grandfather sold it in 1874, there
were rumors that he was unloading it AND the title associated
with the land because it was haunted.
XANDER: The castle or the title?
GILES: Both. Pay attention, Xander.
[Bentley approaches with Xander's tea. Giles flips to sections
he's bookmarked.]
GILES: According to local records, the first sign of an active
poltergeist was in 1897, when the castle owner was found dead
in the gaming room, virtually bisected by an antique pool table.
BUFFY: A world of ew.
BENTLEY (to Xander): Your tea, sir. [Exits.]
[Two shot: Xander is listening intently to Giles' exposition,
and he doesn't see Anya sitting on the chair next to him.]
ANYA: Xander, you know the doctor said you should cut down on
the sugar.
XANDER: Ahn, will you let it go?
[The conversation in the room freezes. Xander realizes what he
just said. He looks over to where he heard the voice--the chair
is empty. He's stunned, to say the least.]
BUFFY: Xander, what did you say?!
XANDER: Anya.
GILES: Xander, are you sure?
XANDER: It was her. It was her voice. Oh god. [Trembles]
BUFFY: Giles, what are we dealing with here?
GILES: I'm not sure. But something in this castle is aware of
us. Knows us. And I think this is all just beginning...
[> [> Brilliant! And
yet... -- dub ;o), 21:52:19 06/19/03 Thu
Can ya kinda 'splain how somebody gets bisected by a pool table?
A pool cue, now that I could see...
;o)
[> [> [> Ahem...
-- KdS, 03:29:34 06/20/03 Fri
As those of us who have ever seen I Bought a Vampire Motorcycle
know, it is quite possible to bisect a person with a fairly blunt
object (like a table) if they're trapped against a wall and you
push hard enough.
[> [> [> [> Re:
Ahem... -- Cactus Watcher, 06:29:15 06/20/03 Fri
Dub's, right. The amount of force would be horrendous, easily
enough to blow the victim un-bisected through the wall with the
table following. Unless the wall were heavy armor plate not even
a metal wall would be rigid enough to work. A titanium wall a
few inches thick would work, if you've got millions of dollars
to spent on the wall, first. The moral? Not a good idea to use
horror movies for physics lessons. If you want bisection think
thin 'weapons,' very thin.
[> [> [> "From
beside you, it devours...." -- LadyStarlight, 08:32:27
06/20/03 Fri
Okay, now I have this picture in my head of a pool table, with
a mouth full of teeth, chasing some poor schlub around the billiards
room....
Must recaffinate myself now. Screen all icky. (also watched Beer
Bad last night)
[> [> Never said it was
a "clean" cut -- cjl, 07:32:57 06/20/03 Fri
Giles said "virtually" bisected. He wasn't actually
cut in two, but close enough to conjure a truly gruesome image.
(It did conjure up a gruesome image, didn't it?)
The 1897 report from the local constabulary probably read as follows:
"Victim was found pinned against the wall of gaming room
by pool table. Table was somehow propelled by tremendous force,
crushing the victim against at the waist, and causing severe damage
to the wall itself. Evidence indicates an individual with great
physical strength. No leads at the moment."
I can't believe this. I'm fanwanking my own story.
Is this pathetic or what?
Hurray for
"Him"'s first half! -- shambleau, 15:42:43 06/19/03
Thu
Since even those who like "Him" generally pan the first
half, I thought I'd post a defense. Although BtVS is nominally
about despised outsiders, we are actually presented with the coolest
kids in school. The scoobs are occasionally taunted by the other
kids, but we never see the emotional devastation or the humiliation
that outsiders in high school regularly go through. Yes, we've
got Cordy's "softer side of Sears" comment for Willow,for
example, but we don't see it affecting Willow in any significant
way.
In fact, I'd argue that one of the weaknesses of the Dark Willow
arc came about because we never saw Willow actually harmed by
being an outsider. There were few indication that she felt bad
about her situation in the earlier seasons. She seemed to accept
that she was a nerd and low on the totem pole without being damaged
by it.
Contrast that with Dawn's experience, both in "Lessons"
and "Him". After her cheer try-out fiasco, she's holed
up in her room and devastated in a completely believable way.
Now, THAT'S high school. This is BtVS in Freaks and Geeks territory.
Humiliation, thy name is adolescence. This is the one area growing
up that BtVS had neglected and I applaud them for going to a place
that was so painful that many viewers couldn't take it.
I'm not a fan of scenes of humiliation usually, but I think that
it was not only necessary, but takes its place with the other
button-pushing scenes that cause such a fuss among the fans and
that showcase how daring a show this was.
[> Re: Hurray for "Him"'s
first half! -- Rook, 15:57:09 06/19/03 Thu
I agree. Dawn was always a much more credible teenager than any
of the original scoobies...not just because she really was one,
but because she was allowed to behave like a real teenager, faults
and all.
Re: the UPN/Drowned
Spike subthread which literally got archived... -- OnM, 17:09:54
06/19/03 Thu
... just as I was responding to it! Sheesh!!
Anyway, Finn Mac Cool posted about UPN putting the kibosh on dunking
Spike in a pool of holy water. This sounds perfectly reasonable
to me, but then how do you explain the following from the shooting
script?
***
WE ARE UNDER WATER
We see SPIKE STRUGGLING AS A HAND HOLDS HIM UNDER. The water is
green, murky, and he fights
and fights... But loses. His body goes still. Silent. Almost peaceful.
NOW WE'RE ABOVE GROUND
And we see that THE UBERVAMP: is holding SPIKE beneath the surface
of a filthy pool of water that bubbles
at the surface of the cavern. He tosses Spike's body from the
water, and it hits the floor with a sick wet SPLAT.
Lies there.
Drusilla/First watches from a distance, pleased. Speaks to the
UBERVAMP:
Drusilla/FE: That's why our kind make such good dollies.
( Spike suddenly SPUTTERS TO LIFE. He coughs up water, then gasps
horribly - fighting to get the water out
of his lungs. )
Drusilla/FE: Hard to kill.
( Spike stares at Drusilla/First, trying to find his breath but
it won't come. )
Drusilla/FE: Tried to enlighten little Buffy, didn't you?
Spilled our secrets like seed...
( Now Dru gets close, nearly whispers. )
Drusilla/FE: But you forgot. I say what you tell, and what
you know. I say when this is over. (menacing)
And I'm not done with you yet, not nearly.
She nods to the UBERVAMP, who violently shoves Spike back in the
water - to be drowned all over again.
***
Maybe we should just go back to what I postulated in my ep review,
which was that Ubie peed in the water first.
;-)
[> Maybe that's a version
of the shooting script LATER than the one they showed UPN
-- d'Herblay, 17:14:34 06/19/03 Thu
[> My fanwank of this shooting
script goes like this... -- Scroll, 22:19:52 06/19/03 Thu
The First Evil, knowing that drowning a vampire would be a completely
ineffectual method of torture, magically makes Spike human for
the few days he was being held prisoner in those caves. As a HUMAN,
Spike of course can be drowned quite easily, and must pant and
wheeze and gasp for every breath. Thus the whole hold-his-head-under-water-till-he-can't-come-up-for-the-third
time thing actually works as torture instead of, y'know, as a
way to moisturise the cool alabaster skin of his razor-sharp cheekbones.
Spackle, spackle :)
[> [> Even easier
-- CW, 06:07:58 06/20/03 Fri
The FE just makes Spike breathe for the duration. Vamps suffer
the same kinds of pain as the living. So water in lungs equals
pain. Since Spike can't die from it, the FE can do it again and
again.
Too bad nobody at ME thought about it, before they showed it.
The script for this one and the scene in a later ep where Wood
glances at Spike in the rearview mirror, both show that script
editing wasn't at it's best last season. ME really needed some
fan who cared about the mythology to be a technical adviser. ;o)
[> [> [> How about
this idea -- OnM, 08:24:10 06/20/03 Fri
It's a given that Spike is different than most vampires. We know
he likes human food, and eats it regularly even though he doesn't
need to. He also smokes, which requires the action of breathing
even if he doesn't need that either.
Over the course of a long period of time, Spike has gotten so
used to breathing that it is now an involuntary reflex. Thus,
he can't really help himself.
Re: fan advisors-- Ya know CW, ME could have just asked us
for a solution. I think we should start charging. Masq! Business
opportunity here!
;-)
[> [> [> [> Why
stop there? -- CW, 11:47:14 06/20/03 Fri
Masq could be philosophy advisor.
You, OnM, could be advisor on background music and movies to reference.
Rob could speak for everybody who loves the show, when ME needs
cheering up.
Yabyumpan could be Wiccan senstivity advisor.
Rufus could advise on the selection of future chocolate references.
HonorH could be the executive fasion advisor.
I could be story arc structural advisor...
I'm sure there'd be plenty of room on the Angel payroll for everybody!
[> [> [> Mirrors and
Crosses -- mamcu, 09:55:35 06/20/03 Fri
The whole mirror and cross thing seemed to go the way of garlic
in the later seasons, though. Aside from Spike sizzling on the
cross in Beneath You, I don't remember much about these traditional
things being using--I thought of this when rewatching The Harvest
and Luke's flight from the cross.
Too bad esp. about mirrors. They could have done some neat shots
of reflections of fights, etc., that would have been as good as
the invisible scenes in STSP (SPST?) and Gone.
[> [> [> [> Re:
Mirrors and Crosses -- Valheru, 12:54:33 06/20/03 Fri
Is it me, or did Buffy stop wearing crosses in S7? In S1-3, I
can't even remember an instance where she wasn't wearing one (even
to the point where she wore a cross that was smaller than my pinky-nail
in The Zeppo). She wore them most of the time in S4-5,
maybe a little less in S6. The only time I can recall her with
a crucifix in S7 was CWDP.
[> [> [> Re: Even
easier -- Malandanza, 12:12:33 06/20/03 Fri
I don't want to sound too much like warren on Moonraker,
but spackle all you want -- the drowning Spike scene was inexcusable.
[> [> 'K, nice try, but
then how do you explain... -- OnM, 08:15:31 06/20/03 Fri
...this part (bold/italics mine):
Drusilla/FE: That's why our kind make such good
dollies.
( Spike suddenly SPUTTERS TO LIFE. He coughs up water, then gasps
horribly - fighting to get the water out
of his lungs. )
Drusilla/FE: Hard to kill.
[> [> [> Jumping in
with the spackle trowel loaded for bear.... -- LadyStarlight,
08:26:01 06/20/03 Fri
(finally got to watch Pangs last night)
What if the FE magicked the chip to make Spike believe
he was human?? Or even fiddled with his brain for the same result?
Vampiric stamina, but the amusing human reactions...it's all good.
[> [> [> [> Re:
Jumping in with the spackle trowel loaded for bear.... --
Abracapocus, 10:29:23
06/20/03 Fri
Personally, I never thought this one was such a bad "slip".
Is it really spackling when the scenario makes sense to you? Or
am I just kidding myself? ;-)
1) The First knows that Spike can't drown, as does Ubie (assuming
the Turok-Han have that much intellectual awareness). Spike knows
he can't drown. This actually makes the torture *more* effective:
you can't die. There is no release from this. We're just toying
with you, and there's nothing you can do to stop it.
As others have pointed out, breath is required for smoking and
for speaking (air over the vocal cords), and Spike is in the habit
of doing plenty of both. It's not that vampires *can't* breathe,
just that they don't need oxygen to continue their unlives. [Angel's
"I have no breath" line in "Prophecy Girl"
is not entirely accurate, and is especially amusing since his
chest is heaving with distress just before and just after he says
it. Maybe he just doesn't exchange oxygen for CO2 when he "breathes"?
spacklespacklespackle]
It's still no fun to be beaten up and have your head forced into
that nasty pool (not as nasty on-screen as in the script, but
then they needed visibility while filming), esp. when you're already
weakened by previous pummeling and mockery.
2) Spike, much though I love him, is not the brightest bulb. If
he had had his wits about him during the torture session, he would
simply have stopped his breathing "reflex" as soon as
his head hit the water. It could have been a welcome break, even--refreshin'
(altho being bent sharply over the rough rock surface like that
couldn't have been comfortable either, esp. given the likely broken
ribs, etc.).
I'm with the people who assume that Spike inadvertently "drew
breath" while underwater, which is how the water got in his
lungs--making the torture that much more agonizing. Again, not
going to kill him, but painful and demoralizing--reinforcing the
First's argument that he is helpless in this situation and might
as well give in. Torture is just as much about inducing despair--breaking
the psyche--as it is about causing pain. ::shudder::
3) Drusilla/The First says "our kind" because The First
is in character. I for one really enjoyed the glimpses we had
of this aspect of The First in season 7: it seems to really get
into being the person it's impersonating. To an extent, it *is*
Warren (groovin' on the Star Wars references), it *is* Drusilla
(groovin' on the visionary madness and sadism), even as it pursues
its own agenda.
I now feel an essay coming on about The First--which I will save
for another post (if I ever get around to it).
Your very own,
Ab
[> [> [> [> [>
I'd very much like to read your First essay, if you get around
to writing it! -- Rob, 10:43:09 06/20/03 Fri
Angel Season
5 speculation (Well Known Casting and Writer Interview Spoilers)
-- Finn Mac Cool, 22:15:17 06/19/03 Thu
Here are the things I expect we will see:
1: Spike will come back in the same sort of way that Lilah did.
The self-sacrafice sort of brought him to the attention of the
PTB, so they select him to be their spokesman in convincing Angel
and Co. to leave Wolfram & Hart. This would be both believable
(if it can work for Lilah, it can work for Spike) and create some
good conflict (Spike arguing with Angel to rejoin the good guys
when he both a) doesn't like the poof, and b) isn't too fond of
being under the PTB's authority in the first place).
2: We'll see more gadgetry. Tim Minear has said "Home"
was designed to work as a Season 5 pilot, so I think there's significance
in Wesley's use of that grappling hook device. I think we'll se
more things like that, and some more advanced ones (we've got
Fred in the high-tech science department, after all). One device
I predict is a solar radiation generator for killing vampires.
3: At some point, Angel will save someone in a dark alley, as
he's wont to do. Then he will try to help her sue her attacker.
Fits in with both the W&H aspect and how this season is supposed
to be so different from the previous four.
4: The first half of the season will be much like what people
have been saying it will be: more standalone, more ensemble, and
more of a light atmosphere. However, by the second half of the
season, that will start to break down. ME's previous attempts
to become more episodic haven't panned out so well (they tried
it with the creation of "Angel" and Season 7 of "Buffy",
and both eventually became incredibly serial). Also, we have Season
7 as evidence for what happens when ME tries to go lighter.
5: Some of Lorne's celebrity clients at W&H will include either
Alyssa Milano, Holly Marie Combs, or Rose McGowan. It would just
be such a surreal moment to have one of the actresses from "Charmed"
appearing on "Angel" as themselves. Besides, it would
be odd if we never saw Lorne with at least a few celebrity clientelle,
and this sort of joke might be the sort of lighter thing ME's
gearing towards.
6: The nature of reality will be an issue. After all, in "Home"
we had the return of Lilah (who we can't be sure is truly resurrected
or just a spirit taking corporeal form), a small set of books
that can become any books you want, Lilah's self-regenerating
contract, and the rewrite of Connor's history. All of these things
really sort of bend reality a bit, and I think that'll be an important
theme or motif for Season 5.
7: Action more in the style of the 60's era "Batman"
TV show. Using "Home" as an example once again, we have
Connor rigging a bunch of people with dynamite; while he threatens
great violence, Angel is able to stop him and no lives are actually
lost. There's also Wesley's fighting in the W&H building; the
way he knocks stuffy looking, business suit clad men out just
seems far less gritty and violent than most of his previous fight
scenes. So, in summary, when I said "Batman" style,
I meant villains who pose the threat of killing lots of people,
but are almost always stopped by the good guys. And, when the
good guys fight, the violence is clean, with no blood or real
brutality.
8: This last one, I don't know where it came from. I can't back
it up with writer interviews or the use of "Home" as
a layout for the season. It's just a gut feeling: Angel will come
face to face with either the Senior Partners or the Powers That
Be (most likely through yet another mystical elevator).
Is there anything I don't have a theory on? Yes: Gunn. I have
NO clue what ME is doing with him. While my predictions may turn
out to be wrong with everything else, with Gunn I can't even predict.
No matter what they do with him, it will be a surprise to me.
Well, that's it. Any other theories for Season 5 out there?
Demon Reproduction,
a philosophical examination (but racy) -- Rochefort, 23:44:56
06/19/03 Thu
We know that vampires have wee-wee's. We've seen them in action
with Angel and we heard Spike's zipper.
But it seems that Demons do not have wee-wee's. Most demons are
naked, but are conspicuously lacking wee-wee's.
The interesting thing is that Vampire wee-wee's seem superfilous
since they reproduce through this "whole sucking thing."
(Buffy, Welcome to the Hell Mouth)
Demon wee-wee's, on the other hand, in the absense of another
form of reproduction, would seem quite necessary. So I was thinking
that this would have been a VERY odd way for evolution to treat
the demonic species.
But then this possible model occured to me. A simple question:
Where do all the demons in Sunnydale come from? Easy. The "Hell
Mouth." It occurs to me that Giles calling it a "Hell
Mouth" might have been a euphamism to protect that young-at-the-time-scoobies.
The Hell Mouth is actually a big demon womb. The demons are born
from the earth.
This explains why there are always different demons down there
every time it's opened. Depends who fertilizes it. Spike's declaration
that it's always about blood is probably another euphamism. But
one way or another, the hell mouth always needs to be fertalized
every time it is opened. Dripping blood on it, etc. This gives
new meaning, does it not, to Giles's confused explanation that
the Master had been trying to open the gates to hell when he'd
been stuck like a cork. Probably by the time it made it to t.v.,
we have blood as fertilization and the Master walking around not
stuck, but I think that probably the Master was actually quite
literally stuck like a cork in a bottle while fertalizing the
"hell mouth."
Also, in Doomed, the demons that try to open the hell mouth simply
by jumping into it were clearly some sort of large walking around
spermitizoa demons. This theory clearly has some merit.
Rochefort
[> On the evidently absent
demon wee-wees -- d'Herblay, 00:17:15 06/20/03 Fri
Most demons are naked, but are conspicuously lacking wee-wee's.
This reminds me of a conversation I had at that historic salon
of modern-day philosophes, the Vancouver meet, where someone
(whose name is withheld to protect her identity but I strongly
suspect of being either Little Bit or Lady Starlight) argued that
while Barney (the singing purple dinosaur) has a name that suggests
maleness, he is evidently naked and evidently lacking.
To this I responded with the assertion that Barney's lack of conspicuous
genitalia is the one paleontologically accurate aspect of his
presentation, as a male Tyrranosaur would, when not actively copulating,
withdraw his penises (both of them) within his body where they
could not be seen. To use a less speculative example: most snakes
are naked, but are conspicuously without wee-wees, which does
not mean they do not have less conspicuous wee-wees. In fact,
I can't think of any non-mammalian species with conspicuous male
genitalia. Many demons are, of course, reptilian in appearance.
To change, but not improve, the subject, Rah has brought to my
attention the story of a British power company, Powergen,
which has recently expanded into the Italian market. It has taken
the local name Powergen Italia, and is now the proud possessor
of the URL http://www.powergenitalia.com/.
[> [> Re: On the evidently
absent demon wee-wees -- Retread, 05:53:19 06/20/03 Fri
It's Friday morning and raining here. Again. And we've been promised
more rain for the week-end. Again. Nonetheless, I have to wipe
coffee off my screen as soon as I can stop this hysterical laughter.
Thanks, guys, for the metaphorical sunshine.
[> [> Re: On the evidently
absent demon wee-wees -- Anneth, 10:14:17 06/20/03 Fri
To change, but not improve, the subject, Rah has brought to
my attention the story of a British power company, Powergen, which
has recently expanded into the Italian market. It has taken the
local name Powergen Italia, and is now the proud possessor of
the URL www.powergenitalia.com.
I forwarded this to a friend, which got us embroiled in a conversation
about the science of naming things, and eventually culminated
in this:
"i heard an npr interview with one [a 'nameologist' - ed.]
once. he was talking about paradigm shifts in name trends. it
was interesting. a few years ago you wanted your company to sound
hi-tech or biotech, so there were a lot of digi, cy, pharm, etc.
prefixes and a lot of com, con, quest, etc. type suffixes. now
the .com bomb killed that, so the new new trend is longevity +
foresight. i would try to come up with a penis-related modern
business name, but i don't think i want to search for "penis
euphamisms" from the doj network. If it were a law firm it
would be Peter Cockran
William and Balzack, or something.
they watch, you know."
[> Re: Demon Reproduction,
a philosophical examination (but racy) -- Darby, 06:05:23
06/20/03 Fri
The other possibility, culled from the headlines (of obscure paleontological
newsletters, but anyway...), is that demons are offshoots of surviving
dinosaurs, like birds. The dinosaur-demon connection has been
made on more than one occasion, and we might suspect that Joss
has no real clue of the dinosaur-human timeline, science not being
his strong suit.
To follow up on D'Herblay's Tyrannosaur-lizard retractable penis
suggestion, I'll suggest a Tyrannosaur-bird connection. And strangely
enough, the vast majority of XX birds (they do the chromosome
thing the other way 'round) do not have penises. But they seem
to get the job done, often while plummeting from on high, kinda
like Buffy and Spike.
And to follow up on the Powergenitalia thing, yet some more corporate
sexual trivia - as I understand the culture of corporation names,
word and derivation backgrounds (but not website names, apparently)
are exhaustively researched before products are named. Avoiding
lawsuits and embarrassment and suchlike. So if you carry a Cirrus
card from American Express, every time you stick it in your wallet
or insert it into an ATM, somewhere a lowly suit is chortling.
A cirrus is, among other things, a worm penis.
Well this is an odd way to start the day...
[> [> I keep telling
my friends -- mamcu, 06:58:24 06/20/03 Fri
that they really should read this board for the high level of
intellectual discussion. Can we get on to vampire ta-tas now?
[> Consequences of Vampiric
Reproduction -- dmw, 07:01:36 06/20/03 Fri
I like your Hellwomb hypothesis, but I'll address vampiric reproduction
here. The interesting thing is that vampires, despite looking
like mammals, obviously aren't warm-blooded animals who provide
milk to their young. They're something closer to viruses, with
their asexual method of reproduction that requires a living host
of another species.
This indicates that vampires can be an apocalypic thread by themselves:
making the conservative assumption that a vampire can produce
one offspring a day, it would only require 33 days for vampires
to convert the entire human population into vampires. It's true
they'd have no humans to eat after that, but most of the vampires
presented on Buffy are stupid and inexperienced, without the forethought
to present such a disaster. Given the presence of vampires outside
of the Hellmouth, I suspect that older and smarter vampires must
handle their own birth control issues when no slayer is available.
The other implication of vampires not being mammals is that they
have no reason for love. We can love because we're mammals; we
have live young who need to be taken care of. We carry those traits
over into adulthood because we need them to join together to take
care of our young (Freud has this amusingly backwards) and to
be a social group for other reasons (we're also social mammals;
civilization probably couldn't arise from a solitary species).
We have such an instinct for this that we even take other animals
to make them our pets.
Their "young" are immediately capable of taking care
of themselves, though a short lecture on stakes and sunlight would
be helpful. They don't need our instincts for love. It's not clear
how social they are--sometimes they are solitary hunters, other
times they act as a pack under a strong leader. Perhaps by nature
they're solitary predators but something of the human social instinct
remains. It's also interesting that new vampires sometimes strike
out at their former loved ones; perhaps it's the solitary predator
instinct fighting to free itself from social bonds.
[> [> So that means their
apparatus is vestigial? -- mamcu, 09:43:42 06/20/03 Fri
Still with the unhealthy fixation on physical equipment: I guess
they retain whatever their human origins had. Curious that their
gonads would keep working when not needed, while hearts and lungs
don't. And they not only have it, they use it.
We're talking pure vamps here, not souled ones, obviously.
Round Robin:
New Moon Rising/The Yoko Factor/Primeval (with apologies for the
delay) -- Marie, 08:26:19 06/20/03 Fri
New Moon Rising/The Yoko Factor/Primeval- Marie
"Willow-" "Oz-"
"I-" "I-"
Oz held up a hand. "You first."
Willow gave a small, hesitant smile, and nodded towards the kitchen.
"Have you travelled far? Are you hungry? I could rustle up
some chips or something. Full of salty goodness. Um..."
"Not hungry. Maybe a little thirsty, though."
"Oh! Thirsty! Right! Um..." She crossed to the fridge
and, leaning inside, closed her eyes, took a breath.
"Look, Will... I didn't come back here to cause you any problems.
I just sorta thought I ought to bring Buffy the Rock of Naszturshol,
that's all. I want you to know that I'm... well, at peace, I guess,
with everything, and that includes you and Tara. I'm glad you're
happy Willow."
When Willow turned to face him, there were tears in her eyes,
but she was smiling. "Thank you. For telling me that. And
for... well, being Oz, I guess. I've missed you so much..."
Crossing to him, she pulled him into a hug, and didn't see the
pain on his face, as he wrapped his arms around her.
"Ahem.. well, um... drink.. yeah... er - here, diet Coke
okay?"
"Sure."
"Oz, about the wolf thing-"
"It's okay, Will, no new moon rising for a coupla weeks yet."
Buffy stuck her head through the door. "That's good to hear,
but can we get down to business now?" She smiled at her two
friends as she spoke, and crossed the floor to give Oz a hug of
her own. "And did I say - 'Welcome back!'?"
Oz hugged her back, but said nothing.
"Right, now how about the Nasturtium Rock thingy? Watsit
do?"
"Well, that's the thing, Buffy, I'm not altogether sure,
though I know a little about it's history and powers, I was told
that there was more to it. Some powerful magic. Only I don't know
if it's good or bad magic."
"Where did you get it? And can I see it, maybe?"
"Oh. Right." Oz lifted a small leather pouch over his
head and shook something from it to the kitchen countertop. Both
girls bent to look at it and simultaneously reared back, looks
of horror on their faces.
"Eww! That smell! What on earth!" Buffy clamped her
hand over her nose and backed away from the counter.
Oz grinned. "Sorry. Should've warned you. Got it off a Yokofa
c'Tor demon in Tibet. The Yokofa c'Tors are not exactly known
for their sweet fragrance."
Pinching her nostrils together, Willow bent over the stone. "I
was expecting to see a jewel," she said, breathing though
her mouth, "but this is just a rock. A big old grey pebbly
thing."
"That big old grey pebbly thing can apparently tap into some
pretty heavy stuff. Real primeval stuff, y'know?"
"How?"
Well, that's the thing. I had to kill him before he told me that.
Sorry. All I could find out was that something big was headed
the Slayer's way, and that without the Rock of Naszturshol, she
was going to be one very dead Slayer. So here I am."
Buffy placed a comforting hand on Willow's shoulder. "Don't
look so worried, Will. Died twice already. Not going there again."
***
The creature watched them through the kitchen window.
"Third time's the charm, Slayer... ."
____________________________________________________________
(Next: Restless/Buffy vs. Dracula/Real Me)
Out of My Mind
No Place Like Home
Family
Fool For Love
Shadow
Listening To Fear
Into The Woods
Triangle
Checkpoint
Blood Ties
Crush
I Was Made To Love You
The Body
Forever
Intervention
Tough Love
Spiral
The Weight Of The World
The Gift
[> Re: Round Robin: New
Moon Rising/The Yoko Factor/Primeval (with apologies for the delay)
-- LadyStarlight,
08:38:11 06/20/03 Fri
::applauds::
Nice! Loved "the Yoko Factor" bit, wasn't expecting
that at all!
Do you need volunteers for bits?
[> [> Thanks! And of
course! Just claim the next three if you want to join in - all
welcome! -- Marie, 09:03:12 06/20/03 Fri
[> [> [> Oh, if you
need to refresh your memories, I think the rest is on Archive
4 above. -- Marie, 09:11:20 06/20/03 Fri
[> [> [> Ok, I'm in!
-- LadyStarlight, 10:00:43 06/20/03 Fri
So that's Restless, B vs. D, and Real Me. Plus, once this
is finished up, it's going into FC, you realize! ;)
[> [> [> [> here's
what I'd like to do -- mamcu, 10:08:16 06/20/03 Fri
Yay! Another way to waste the time I don't have! Can I do Blood
Ties, Crush, I Was Made To Love You?
[> [> [> [> [>
I think that this is supposed to be written in order of titles.
-- deeva, who will jump in soon, 11:58:59 06/20/03 Fri
Tchaikovsky
talks about himself again! -- TCH, 08:34:21 06/20/03 Fri
Exciting news!!! Well, for me. The Angel Odyssey page (at http://members.fortunecity.com/tchaikovsky)
has been updated, and is now full of all my Odyssey reviews up
to and including 4.18.
Have a play about there. Get lost in nostalgia for the superior
Season{Insert favourite Angel Season Here}. Generally laugh at
the low quality of the html. Like dogs standing on two legs,
it's not that Tchaikovsky builds a web-site well, it's that he's
done it at all...
To Rob: The old thread got archived immediately after I replied
to your question, saying that the last four reviews of Season
Four should be up sometime in early July. So another week or two's
cold turkey.
TCH
[> Re: Tchaikovsky talks
about himself again! -- The Sidereal Coder, 08:40:18 06/20/03
Fri
I'll get the page updated as soon as I can get into ATPo, so's
I can see if the pages load properly.
[> Unfortunately, our brilliant
responses to your posts aren't included. -- cjl, 08:54:15
06/20/03 Fri
But then, it's all about you, isn't it?
[> [> Actually...
-- Tchaikovsky, 08:58:12 06/20/03 Fri
I could put the responses from the archives in- or at least a
link to the archive responses. They're certainly full of brilliant
ideas and explanations, as well as corrections to many of my misunderstandings-
and actually I've never been back to read the posts I couldn't
read before because they were spoilery.
However, I can't even begin to organise this until AtPo is back
online, because I only saved my posts, and so my only path to
the responses would be through the Existential Scoobies site
Thanks for the suggestion
TCH
[> [> [> Urgh!
-- Masq, 10:10:52 06/20/03 Fri
me this morning telling me the DNS problem was fixed but that
it needed to "propogate" and this might mean ATPo will
be back up at different times in different areas.
Well, I managed to bring up the site on my home computer, so I
emailed folks saying it was back up. But now I can't get the site
up on my work computer. So either I brought up a cached version
at home, or it hasn't propogated to my work place yet.
But apparently www.ivyweb.net is dosing the viagra, and we will
"get it up" eventually.
[> [> [> [> Heh
heh...but will the site be blue-tinted? ;o) -- Rob, 10:19:18
06/20/03 Fri
Blue-tinted...viagra...get it? yuk yuk ;o)
[> Congrats TCH! --
ponygirl, 09:04:18 06/20/03 Fri
[> Okay, I guess I can deal
with the wait for new Odysseys...just barely. ;o) -- Rob,
09:11:18 06/20/03 Fri
Taking a cue
from fresne... -- Rob, 10:40:02 06/20/03 Fri
...thought maybe we could organize an "Anya in Season 7"
fic to satisfy those of us who desperately needed more Anya this
year. Theoretically, I don't think we should change the continuity
of the show, but write around it, focusing on Anya. I thought
that perhaps the trip she went on for info in "Dead Girls"
could be a good place to focus on. Maybe it was a journey of self-discovery
as well...leading to her revelations to Andrew in "End of
Days"? What do you guys think?
Should I even ask if fresne or cjl would be on board? ;o)
Rob
[> Possible plotlines for
"Anya's Journey" -- cjl, 10:58:07 06/20/03 Fri
Just off the top of my head:
1. Walkabout in the Nevada desert (guest starring: Oz)
2. "Self-improvement" seminar in San Francisco (guest
starring: Harmony)
3. The Devil and Miss Jenkins (a duel of wits against D'Hoffryn)
[> [> I love all three!
Aargh...what to do? -- Rob, 11:19:20 06/20/03 Fri
[> [> [> Uh, Rob--how
about one each for you, me and another person? -- cjl, 11:25:09
06/20/03 Fri
[> [> [> [> Good
idea! -- Rob, 11:45:50 06/20/03 Fri
For all three "chapters," we should discuss about an
overall arc, so her self-discovery isn't resolved in one of the
stories before another. A "discussion" with D'Hoffryn
at the end would be a nice endcap to lead into Anya telling Andrew
what she's learned about humanity. Or, or, perhaps her meeting
with D'Hoffryn could be posthumous. He could be all gloaty about
her having died, and she can explain to him what she's learned
over the past year and why her death did not mean that her decision
to give up her Vengeance Demon status was a failure, but a reaffirmation
of her own humanity and mortality.
Oz is a great idea, too, because we can do a nice trick of developing
Anya's seasonal arc and giving a good resolution to Oz's
character at the same time.
Logistical question, though...how should we have her going to
these places in the time alotted in the story? We might have to
alter the continuity a little.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [>
How long (Sunnydale time) was Anya off during research?
-- cjl, 11:55:36 06/20/03 Fri
And between which episodes?
Hate to say this, but there were times I was so bored with Anya's
S7 arc that I didn't pay attention.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: How long (Sunnydale time) was Anya off during research?
-- Rob, 12:20:21 06/20/03 Fri
If we pretty much assume that the realverse time is similar to
Buffyverse time...
We saw her early on in LMPTM for a few moments, when she had her
silly one-liner about Buffy forgiving Spike for everthing he's
done, and scared us all with that evil chicken-head shaped hat
and not-matching outfit. Then Dirty Girls didn't air for three
weeks. And she wasn't in that one. The next one she was in, Empty
Places, didn't air until 2 weeks after Dirty Girls. So we actually
do have about 5 weeks to play with...actually more, if we say
that she left during the timespan of LMPTM. So that's almost 6
weeks. Should be enough time, I think.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Except Willow left for LA in LMPTM -- Finn
Mac Cool, 16:21:46 06/20/03 Fri
Factoring time to get there, time to do her voodoo, and time to
get back to Sunnydale with Faith, there could only have been a
few days between "Lies My Parents Told Me" and "Dirty
Girls". Now, the length of time between "Dirty Girls"
and "Empty Places" is a bit more stretchable. All we
can really be certain of is that it was enough time for Xander
to be released from the hospital. Anyone out there know how long
it takes for someone to be released after severe eye trauma?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> That is true. Darn season 7's time-wonkiness!
-- Rob, 17:47:19 06/20/03 Fri
I guess Anya could have left earlier in the day that Willow was
returning with Faith, or the day before. And that gives us only
2 weeks of leeway. And of course we'll have to squeeze in her
getting the info on the Turok-Han into that chapter, and not just
the main story. So either fresne or I will have to fit that into
the story, or perhaps at the end of the story.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Not too much of a problem -- fresne, 21:11:25
06/20/03 Fri
Well, what I?m thinking would take up about 3-4 days. Since in
my phase, Anya is still focusing on externals to define the internal,
I?d like to have a sense of as little progress as possible, with
humor and a necropolis. However, if she?s going to go straight
from S.F. to the desert, there are probably more contacts at a
city than in the desert. Or maybe not, if it?s a mystic desert.
With paint and stuff. Although, it?d be really funny if she found
out through Harmony?s contacts.
"Harmony has contacts?"
The real question is what would inspire Anya to head out into
the desert. Would you prefer to have that explained in that section,
or have it seeded in the previous section?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Response to fresne and another
question for cjl -- Rob, 22:26:48 06/20/03 Fri
Fresne--I think the best thing would be for you to either drop
a hint perhaps near the end of your chapter, or maybe have one
of the characters suggest she try that. Something like that. Oh,
and since my chapter is following yours, I think I'd prefer to
either read your chapter before starting mine, so I know what
has happened to her before getting to the desert, or I'd at least
like to know what you're planning on doing with Anya and where
she will be, psychologically by the end of your piece.
cjl--So that my story can flow as smoothly as possible into the
start of yours, do you think Anya should "find" herself
in the desert and then have the D'Hoffryn piece be Anya arguing
with him based on what she's learned in the previous two chapters,
or do you think she shouldn't really have everything click together
until the end? I guess it depends on whether the scene takes pre-
or post-death. Before her death, the conversation could have Anya
have the moment of true self-discovery before coming to her "yay!
humanity" speech in "End of Days" and her sacrifice
in "Chosen." If it takes place afterwards, I assume
it would be after everything's clicked and she argues her point,
why she did what she did, what she learned in her travels, etc.
Of course, that's for you to suss out since it's your chapter.
Just as soon as you know what you want to do for sure, it would
really help me just figure out where best to maneuver her in the
story. Of course, I hope that in the end she ends up maneuvering
me more than the other way around. Anya on a vision quest in the
desert, running into Oz practically writes itself.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> To Rob and Fresne, re:
"The Devil and Miss Jenkins" -- cjl, 08:25:12
06/21/03 Sat
I think I've already decided that the Anya/D'Hoffryn confrontation
will take place post-S7. The story will sum up what Anya learned
during the journey, include her final epiphany, and then--if I
do it right--kick it to another level. Still haven't worked out
all the details, but you don't have to worry about stepping on
my toes. I'll be able to work with whatever is in the previous
two chapters.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Response to Rob --
fresne, 11:09:55
06/21/03 Sat
Okay, I can do that. Ie, drop a hint. Mad Englishmen and ex-demons
in the desert.
As to plot, where she'll be at the end. Mainly, I want her to
have her own cookie dough moment and have a thoroughly frustrating
visit to the conference in S.F. in which the sun does not shine
once. I'd give more plot, but other than knowing that she will
go to Colma, we have a necropolis and I'm going to use it, I'm
not quite sure what she'll do there yet. Perhaps picnic by a faux
pyramid with a giant flashy jewel symbol or a scythe symbol or
perhaps an angel.
I should have something "drafted" by tonight or tomorrow
morning. Where should I send/post it. Here? Email?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> You can e-mail it
to me if you want... -- Rob,
12:20:32 06/21/03 Sat
...so we can make all the details a surprise for the board when
we post the whole thing. My e-mail is robwill@optonline.net. I
don't know cjl's.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Good idea! -- fresne, 12:15:42 06/20/03 Fri
Oh, I'm so on board with getting some Anya-age.
You wouldn't necessarily have to mess with the time line. Provided
that you space these sort of events from Selfless forward. The
desert is only a short drive away. S.F. probably about four hours.
(If she drives like a Californian, hops over to I-5 and Sunny-D
is Santa Barbara.) Hmm...Self Help seminar in S.F. "Achieving
Synergy. Actualizing the Real You." That could be pretty
funny.
Although, I'm not sure how useful I would be for collaborative
writing. My style is ummm...distinct. However, if we break things
up a bit, I might be up for some mad cap fun in the city (here
that means S.F.). Perhaps culminating in a trip to Colma.
However, I'd like to encourage, in a general sort of way, that
we (and I mean the collective board - I'm looking at you) not
just think about Anya, much as she needs representation.
A skeleton tree of the season on which we hang whatever the fancy
strikes.
On down, Abracapocus mentioned writing an essay about the FE.
I'd actually be interested in some scenes with the First. After
all, I can spackle away why the FE's plan makes no sense. It is
old. It is chaos. It changes form and personality like corporeals
change clothes. Its plans should be fragmented and frustrated.
It is fragmented and frustrated. It is fragmentation and frustration.
Or, one of the Potentials. Ronia - who I can't like. Please, someone
make me. Or some poor unnamed Potential.
Giles, but you know, where he interacts with the characters. Talking
with Buffy about the emergency kit. Dreaming about mud. I don't
know.
The Guardian. Waiting. Waiting. Actually, this would be fun to
play anywhere in the series.
The imagination spins dizzily.
[> OK, let's set up the
boundaries here.... -- cjl, 13:47:36 06/20/03 Fri
Prologue - Anya and Xander discuss what didn't happen at the wedding.
(Post-Selfless but before NLM). Takers?
Chapter 1 - "Walkabout" by Rob
While researching a mystical object that might shed light on the
mystery of the First, Anya does the Carlos Castaneda mystic quest
thing in the Nevada desert, and bumps into the coolest person
in the universe.
Chapter 2 - "The Real You" by Fresne
Anya attends a self-help seminar in San Francisco and runs into
an old friend. (Sort of.)
Chapter 3 - "The Devil and Miss Jenkins" by cjl
Anya vs. D'Hoffryn in a battle of wits--and why the Lord of Arashmaharr,
after 5000 years around working women, still doesn't understand
humanity.
Chapter 1 - Any time after NLM and before Showtime
Chapter 2 - Any time between Showtime and LMPTM
Chapter 3 - Between Dirty Girls and Empty Places OR post-s7
Feel free to make modifications....
[> [> Excellent...my
head is abuzz with ideas already! -- Rob, 15:34:13 06/20/03
Fri
I have been on desert walks in Arizona, but not in Nevada, so
I would appreciate any tips from people who are more familiar
with the Nevada area so I don't make any major flubs.
But Anya and Oz...quite the meeting of the minds. And so many
levels to play on. Oz's quest for discovering his own humanity
by dealing with his inner beast helps with Anya's search of her
own humanity and rejection of her past-demonness. Oooh oooh, I'm
imagining a vision quest where Anya's spirit guide ends up being
a big floppy, hoppy bunny. And oh, how fun the dialogue will be!
Just so we know who's doing what the three or four of us should
probably do quick story sketches, just to keep the flow good,
so Anya is at the place she needs to be in each narrative in order
to move on to the next.
Thinking about it, cjl, I think that the trip to San Francisco
may be better as the first part. Because the way I see it, Anya
can start off trying a more lightweight type of self-discovery,
this seminar, and then decide she needs something a bit more personal
and spiritually meaningful. Of course she could learn stuff at
the seminar too that help her along the way. Then she tries the
walk in the desert...finally her affirmation of her humanity is
perfectly crystallized with her conversation with D'Hoffryn (which
I personally think would work better after death. There has to
be some flabotanum that would explain how Anya's spirit, after
death could be confronted by D'Hoffryn).
So I would suggest we do...
Prologue
Chapter 1--San Francisco--between BotN and Showtime (this would
work because there was a month gap in the story there)
Chapter 2--Vision Quest in Nevada Desert--between LMPTM and Empty
Places
Chapter 3--D'Hoffryn and Anya--post S7
If you really like the way you had the chapters planned out better,
though, I won't argue. The base ideas, after all, really are yours.
Rob
[> [> [> Looks good
to me. Some further points. -- cjl, 21:11:25 06/20/03 Fri
1. Whoever does the prologue must consider Xander's "Heart
of Darkness" speech to Andrew in NLM. I was always puzzled
by the pure despair of that speech, and Xander's contention that
it was Anya who "ripped out [his] heart and replaced it with
darkness," and not vice versa. If X and A did have a serious
conversation about the wedding between Selfless and NLM, it must
have been a doozy.
2. Format is not an issue and I will not demand a foolish consistency
(which is the hobgoblin of little minds). If you want to do your
chapter as a short story, screenplay, musical, interpretive dance...no
problem.
3. I'll try to explain in the conclusion why D'Hoffryn tried to
kill Anya after he let her go in Selfless. But if Rob, Fresne
or our unknown fourth want to drop hints, fine.
4. And finally, a suggestion: don't want to go all Dogma95 on
everyone, but if possible, let's keep these scenarios within the
boundaries of a credible TV budget. I want to believe that if
ME had the time, they could have put something like "Anya's
Journey" on the screen and not bankrupted UPN. This is not
a demand, just a suggestion.
[> [> [> [> Maybe
D'Hoffryn got in trouble with the wife -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:25:22
06/20/03 Fri
Mrs. D'Hoffryn realizes that her husband is harboring a secret
attraction for a certain vengeance demon when, after Anya turns
her back on her calling, he lets her live. So D'Hoffryn's wife
pressures him into killing Anya. But D'Hoffryn, unwilling to kill
his favorite vengeance demon, decides to send incompetent demon
assassins after her instead, and only when she's around a powerful
warrior like Spike or Buffy. Explains a lot, don't you think?
[> Re: Taking a cue from
fresne... -- O'Cailleagh, 19:13:27 06/20/03 Fri
Just a few days ago, I was thinking to myself 'wouldn't it be
nice if they did a S8 set at the same time as S7, but focusing
on everyone who wasn't Buffy or Spike. (Plus theoretically, ME
could do this as it wouldn't really require any appearances by
SMG and JM)
We'd get to see an alternative CwDP, with Jesse visiting Xander,
and Giles seeing Jenny and Kendra.
Or how about an ep set in 'heaven' with Tara, Joyce and other
assorted dead Sunnydale ex-residents trying to stop the First
from the other side.
Or even Oz helping a young Potential (whom he meets while playing
at a Dingoes gig) avoid the Bringers.
Yes. An alternate S7 would make a great S8...but an even better
game here!
O'Cailleagh
[> [> And then I saw
Corwin's post in S'kats S7 thread... -- O'Cailleagh (hoping
no-one notices his foolishness....), 19:32:27 06/20/03 Fri
Season 8 Episode
Titles -- Brian (flogging the concept to the point of no return),
14:27:32 06/20/03 Fri
1 Haunting Tara
2 Castles in the Air
3 Things that go Bump in the Night
4 My Favorite Werewolf
5 We are not Alone
6 My Mother, the Ghost
7 Vengeance is Mine
8 Spook Sonata
9 Kittens
10 Blood Bath
11 Tarnished Angel
12 Councilor At Law
13 House of Dracula
14 Moonlight and Champagne
15 Ask not for Whom the Bell Tolls
16 Group Dynamic
17 Love Bites
18 Ribbons
19 Slaymaster
20 Hellmouth Central
21 Hour of the Wolf
22 Dawn
[> Re: Season 8 episode
plot lines -- Brian (because I'm out of control thinking about
Cleveland), 15:14:12 06/20/03 Fri
1 Haunting Tara - All the Scoobies see ghosts of past lovers and
friends
2 Castles in the Air - The Scoobies are thrusted into a ghostly
dimension
3 Things that go Bump in the Night - The Big Evil takes an ectoplasmic
bow while Faith and Robin realize their vacation is over
4 My Favorite Werewolf - Oz returns and things get hairy
5 We are not Alone - Red Herring episode - Is it really aliens
not ghosts?
6 My Mother, The Ghost - Buffy gets some valuable life-in-death
lessons from Mom
7 Vengeance is Mine - New friends become quite ghostly
8 Spook Sonata - More ghosts per room than any movie ever made
anywhere
9 Kittens - Comic relief episode - The return of Clem
10 Blood Bath - Who knew ghosts could be so handy with sharp,
pointy objects?
11 Tarnished Angel - The one and only shows up to help. Things
get much worse.
12 Councilor At Law - The entire crew of Wolfram & Hart (including
Spike)show up for fun and games. Lilah is snarky as usual. Buffy
is confused. Very confused
13 House of Dracula - The supreme bloodsucker shows up from another
round. This time Buffy vows to take no prisoners.
14 Moonlight and Champagne - Buffy, Angel, Spike - A three way?
15 Ask not for Whom the Bell Tolls - Ghostly things happen worldwide
16 Group Dynamic - Scoobies shift into high gear to stop the Big
Bad
17 Love Ballads - Spike and Dru work out their differences
18 Ribbons - An episode in red, lots of red
19 Slaymaster - A new slayer is born
20 Hellmouth Central - the battle royal with the Big Evil - a
budget buster!
21 Hour of the Wolf - The Scoobies et al confront their demons
and find some peace.
22 Dawn - Every single plot hole, odd happening, character reversal,
and inexplicable event in the last 7 seasons is explained and
corrected. Buffy gets more baked and Dawn finds true love.
HEY! GOD!
(Spoilers to Peace Out) -- KdS, 11:56:23 06/20/03 Fri
Peace Out struck me once again with how good AtS has been
this year. I particularly noticed how Gunn gets a chance to shine
despite the fact that he, Fre, Wes and Lorne spend virtually the
entire episode locked in a cage. The fact that, after however
many hours, Gunn finally manages to kick the door of the cage
open has to be a statement of the capacity of human beings to
win out against the odds which Jasmine would have abolished.
Really though, this was Connor's episode. His sheer exhaustion
is the most memorable part of his soliloquy to Cordelia, along
with his desperate clutching for something to hold onto. The fact
that he clung to Jasmine despite knowing her to be a false messiah
sums up how much his whole life has been marked by manipulation,
right back to Holtz. The casual speed and astonishing violence
with which he kills Jasmine is shocking, but once again we have
parallels being drawn between father and son. Connor's silence
and lack of emotion is reminiscent of Angel after a similar sequence
of manipulation and betrayal in Redefinition, although
Connor's muderous activities were directed at a total innocent.
One has to wonder if Connor's killing of Jasmine is a fulfillment
of "the father shall kill the son". Did Wes take a generic
masculine gender as a specific one?
Jasmine's determination to destroy a world that rejected her is
repellant, sad and totally believable. She would have abolished
pain, sickness and war, but also everything positive in humanity.
The contempt with which she speaks of her former worshippers helps
to prove that, like Glory, she is an atheist's parody of divinity,
claiming love for her followers but in reality merely parasitic
on their worship. One does wonder why the High Priest and Keeper
of the Name had normal humanoid body plans. Did the CGI budget
for the season run out?
I was spoiled for Lilah's reappearance, although I wish they could
have kept Stephanie Romanov's name out of the credits. I can only
imagine how much of a shock it must have been for those who didn't
notice. I have resonances with the sudden reappearance of Elizabeth
Sheridan in the penultimate episode of Babylon 5's third
season, and wonder if there will be more resonances next week.
PS: yab has supplied me with a tape of the first five eps of Firefly.
Some thoughts on the first episode Serenity will be appearing
on the voy FF board in a few minutes. Thanks yab! By the way,
I got Dochawk safely to his hotel.
[> I found Angel's olive
branch to Jasmine in Act IV.... -- cjl, 13:56:11 06/20/03
Fri
....one of the most gracious and noble gestures I've ever seen
from our hero. He wasn't looking for payback; he was perfectly
willing to let slide everything she'd done to that point if she
would have joined the team.
Not human? He's "working on it." Act IV gave you hope
that he'll make it someday.
Of course, the more cynical among us could say that Angel only
made the offer because he knew she would turn it down--and he
was just rubbing it in. But that's too cyncial even for me.
[> [> I liked that too
-- KdS, 14:14:14 06/20/03 Fri
A reviewer on one of the biggest AtS sites on the 'net criticised
that as amoral and not punishing her as she deserved. What series
had he been watching all these years?
[> [> I thought his offer
was sincere -- Scroll, 17:47:30 06/20/03 Fri
You'd have to be really cynical, I think, to interpret
Angel's olive branch to Jasmine as "rubbing it in"!
It's definitely an interpretation I hadn't considered until you
mentioned it, cjl. I think Angel saw Jasmine as mostly misguided,
wanting to make things good and happy, but not truly understanding
that things like free will and self-determination and not eating
people were too essential to give up.
His offer to let her join him in his quest to help the helpless,
IMO, was very sincere -- though perhaps a little naive. Even if
he didn't truly think his pep-talk would make her see his POV
and have hope, I think Angel would have made the offer/extended
empathy anyway. Cuz he understood her and he thought she could
still help, still do good.
[> [> [> Agree.
-- Arethusa, 16:56:10 06/21/03 Sat
By encouraging Jasmine to change, Angel is showing he sincerely
believes anyone can change, and that he will help them do so.
The Harvest-Are Vampires stupid? -- sdev,
11:56:39 06/20/03 Fri
Buffy kills Luke in The Harvest by tricking him into thinking
he is about to get fried by the sunlight thus providing the moments
distraction she needs. "Sunrise, it's in about nine hours,
moron," she says as she stakes him.
Are vampires dumber than people? And if so, why? Repeatedly in
the Buffyverse vampires are shown as stupid, beginning with Luke
in The Harvest.
Is this why Angel and Spike rose to the top because they had more
smarts than their vampire peers?
I apologize if this topic has already been discussed. I am new
to this board.
[> Re: The Harvest-Are Vampires
stupid? -- CW, 12:05:30 06/20/03 Fri
Actually it's a fairly interesting topic. We have discussed before
that vampires usually have the same kinds of personal problems
and weaknesses as the human had before being killed. For instance,
it would certainly be fair to say that Vamp Harmony was stupid
because Cordette Harmony was. It could be argued that only people
with seriously problems seem to get picked by the vamps for siring.
A weak-minded human probably would translate to an easily controlable
minion. So there may, indeed, be a reason a lot of the vamps don't
seem very bright.
[> [> Minion-y dimness
+ animal bloodlust + vampiric overconfidence = stupid. --
cjl, 12:18:36 06/20/03 Fri
[> [> [> Re: Minion-y
dimness + animal bloodlust + vampiric overconfidence = stupid.
-- sdev, 12:31:24 06/20/03 Fri
I was wondering if people's stupidity contributes to them getting
vamped. There are theories that say that the prison population
constitutes a lower IQ than the general population. The hypothesis
is not that more criminals have a lower IQ, but that more people
with a lower IQ get caught and put in prison.
The other possibility is that becoming a vampire makes you dumber.
Maybe you are no longer thinking but relying on instincts (per
the cjl formula above).
I don't understand the "Minion-y dimness" part?
[> [> [> [> How
the formula breaks down: -- cjl, 12:38:13 06/20/03 Fri
Minion-y dimness: Sometimes, vampire overlords pick a strong but
essentially brainless individual to be a minion. The overlord
gets a minion with vampire strength, but without the intelligence
necessary to challenge the overlord's power.
Animal bloodlust: Natural intelligence can also be overwhelmed
by the vampire's hunger for blood.
Vampiric overconfidence: Inhuman strength and those nifty demonic
reflexes might make you think you're invincible. Dangerous assumption,
especially if you're a vampire in Sunnydale.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: If I had a minion... -- sdev, 13:24:59 06/20/03
Fri
I'd want a smart one. What's the point of a dumb one? I wouldn't
want a dumb employee.
I remember Spike in Suprise telling Dru to spare the life of the
only smart minion they had and give him a chance to fix his mistake.
Which he did. ME had him wear glasses to show his superior intellect.
Of course in the next couple of scenes they killed him anyway.
That was dumb.
Wouldn't your gang be more successful with smarter vampires? Is
blind obedience the only quality.
Who is the other "Chosen" to be vamped that is? Brawn
and beauty over intellect?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Well, the only real use for minions is for fighting
-- Finn Mac Cool, 16:27:23 06/20/03 Fri
We see vampire minions being used as little else besides easily
expendable soldiers for fighting the Slayer. You wouldn't want
a dumb employee, sure, but most jobs require a certain level of
mental capacity. Fighting, not so much.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Selection of the dumbest -- mamcu, 18:09:33
06/20/03 Fri
In so many ways the demon world is the opposite of the human,
so it makes perfect sense that those who are susceptible to vamping
would be the weakest humans. Happens in many a Buffy episode (start
with Jesse, for clueless), but also in Bram Stoker--it's never
the fearless vampire hunter, even one with no super powers, who
is dumb enough to get vamped.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Well, the only real use for minions is for
fighting-Uh uh -- sdev, 18:10:08 06/20/03 Fri
Not so. The Master used Luke to further his strategy to free himself.
A smarter vampire might have pulled it off. Spike used a vampire
to help him locate the Gem of Amara. Angel needed Giles to figure
out how to open Acathala.
The dumb minion strategy sounds antithetical to Darwinism. Survival
does not go to the dumbest.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Uh-oh! Darwin! -- Darby, 18:23:03
06/20/03 Fri
You make the flawed assumption that a smart vamp is going to be
a more successful vamp. But what we see is that the smart vamps
tend to be more high-profile, which is often not a good thing.
Those who bite and run away do better than those who rant til
day.
And in general, if intelligence were such a great adaptation,
it'd be a helluva lot more common. Our own smarts have gotten
- and will continue to get - us into scrapes that threaten our
future. I sometimes think that if intelligent creatures similar
to humans had evolved before here, their sojourns might have been
so brief that we'd have no clue they existed.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: Uh-oh! Darwin! -- sdev, 10:22:45
06/21/03 Sat
Are you saying that people are commonly stupid? Just kidding.
Ok. I agree that cockroaches will probably survive us. I fear
that the awesome intelligence that harnessed nuclear power will
ultimately be our undoing as a species. But within, intraspecies,
intelligence is an advantage both longevity-wise and, not to be
underestimated, for quality of life. Would you want to be a minion?
And wouldn't you agree that intelligence was often a key to fighting
evil and defeating vampires and demons in the Buffyverse?
How about my other question- were Angel and Spike smarter than
their peers?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Here's a thought: -- Finn
Mac Cool, 11:15:39 06/21/03 Sat
Maybe we see so many stupid vampires because only the very stupid
or the very cocky would stay in a town guarded by a Vampire Slayer.
All of the smart vamps probably skedaddled long ago.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: Uh-oh! Darwin! -- Malandanza,
10:48:53 06/21/03 Sat
"You make the flawed assumption that a smart vamp is going
to be a more successful vamp. But what we see is that the smart
vamps tend to be more high-profile, which is often not a good
thing. Those who bite and run away do better than those who rant
til day."
I don't know that a really smart vampire would be high profile
-- it seems to me that low profile would be a sign of intelligence.
Like Sunday, from season four -- she was a smart vampire. The
disappearing students vanished with a reason -- young college
students who couldn't handle the transition from High School life
to University life.
But maybe you mean high profile in the vampire world -- and a
master vampire might well kill off a minion who, by virtue of
his intelligence, appeared to be a potential threat. However,
it seems that strength is more respected among vampires than intelligence
(hence Spike taking over the Master's clan with much of a protest)
so a smart vampire, like Dalton, would be seen as less of a threat
than physically powerful vampires, like Luke or the Three.
But the real threat to the vampire master is not mere brute strength
or intelligence -- it is a willingness to question authority and
act independently. Mort (Harmony's minion) best typifies this
sort of minion (so does Spike as the Annointed One's minion).
It is independent thinking that ought to be selected against by
master vampires interested in protecting themselves from ambitious
rivals. So the physical strength of Luke or the intelligence of
Dalton were not at all threatening because they both had the minion
mentality. Perhaps cultivating the slave mentality among their
minions does eventually lead to trouble down the road from enemies
who can think circles around the unimaginative minions, but it
does help protect the vampire from his own minions. The Master's
minions were loyal enough to stick around during his entombment
and try to effect his release, and try to resurrect him after
his dusting. Spike's minions (inherited from the Master/Annoited
one) were loyal enough to keep following him even after all his
blunders and defeats.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Agree -- sdev, 12:14:37
06/21/03 Sat
"The Master's minions were loyal enough to stick around during
his entombment and try to effect his release, and try to resurrect
him after his dusting."
True about questioning authority. Darla was a minion?? of the
Master, and she was not dumb. She was also his favorite.
??I am not sure how the term minion is being used. Was Darla a
minion? When are you a minion and when are you part of a gang?
I think you can be part of a gang and not be the leader and still
not be a minion.
I always had this picture of Spike as not particuliarly one of
physical prowess but of mental superiority- not necessarily intelligence
but what I would call "street smarts." The Master himself
did not seem physically powerful. In fact he was physically incapacitated
because he was confined. So what was the source of his domination?
Angel always seemed to have superior physical strength. From BtVS,
leaving out AtS, was he also smarter? Not so much as far as I
can see.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: If I had a minion...keeping this thread up while
i work on something -- anom, 19:43:34 06/23/03 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: If I had a minion...c'mon, none of you have this
playing in your head? -- anom...humming, 20:34:47 06/23/03
Mon
I had to hurry before the thread was gone, so it's only 1 verse--anyone
else want to add your own?
If I had a minion, daitle deetle daitle,
I would want a minion who was dumb!
All day long he'd biddy biddy bum,
I'd keep him under my thumb!
I wouldn't have to work hard
'Cause my minion would do all the work while I would make the
plans
If I had a minion who was dumb
I could leave the scutwork in his hands.
If he were dumb he'd never question my orders
Or try to overthrow me (or succeed!)
He'd dismember victims at my behest.
He'd never think for himself & I could relax
When I sent him out to do my dirty deeds!
That would be the part I'd like the best!
Ahhh....
If I had a minion, daitle deetle daitle,
Better that my minion should be dumb!
He would have all my foes on the run
Slaughtering would be so much more fun
I could rule the world before I'm done
IIIF...I had a dummmb...minIOOONNN!
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: If I had a hammer, er I mean minion --
sdev, 22:31:53 06/23/03 Mon
I have my own version-
If I had a minion,
He'd minion in the evening,
He'd minion all nighttime, all over Sunnydale.
He'd work his fangs off,
Kill for my pleasure.
He's just the dumbest thing
So stupid he could fail. All over Sunnydale.
I'd have to replace him
With a vamp of his kind.
Should I go for brains, or choose another moron?
A Hellmouth special,
Cause smart ones can rebel.
And could I ever find
Such loyalty, he's like a son? All over Sunnydale.
That's the choice that's left me,
If I want to wreak havoc,
And build my gang of minions all over Sunnydale.
To take out the Slayer,
Her friends run for cover,
And set the world amok.
Smarts will yield me this most unholy Grail. All over Sunnydale.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: If I had a hammer, er I mean minion
-- sdev-Apologies to Pete Seeger, 22:35:50 06/23/03 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
[> To be fair... -- Rob, 11:44:07 06/24/03 Tue
I remember Spike in Suprise telling Dru to spare the life of
the only smart minion they had and give him a chance to fix his
mistake. Which he did. ME had him wear glasses to show his superior
intellect. Of course in the next couple of scenes they killed
him anyway. That was dumb.
...Spike and Dru didn't kill Dalton. The Judge did.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: To be fair... -- sdev, 12:07:56 06/24/03
Tue
But Dru gleefully cheered him on. She just could'nt help herself.
She was so excited by the Judge. Spike really knows how to give
a gift.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Hee hee. I love my whacky demented lil' Dru!
:oD -- Rob, 12:21:19 06/24/03 Tue
[> Re: The Harvest-Are Vampires
stupid? -- Spikejones,
07:11:57 06/23/03 Mon
I've often thought they're so dumb because they're so young. The
vamp tendency to sire young and beautiful trophy vamps doesn't
even seem to include 'brainiac' as a criterion.
Yes, this is a self-serving theory (I was young in 1066), but
apart from Luke, I can't think of many post-30 vamps or any other
post-30 vamps who were idjits. (the Master, Kakistos, the guy
in S1 ep 1 AtS, Trip... all smarty-pants).
Some of the young and beautiful happen to be smart, but not more
so than the regular population. And, my theory being that people
don't really mature till after they hit 25, (users of this site
excepted, of course) many vamps never had a chance.
Jonesie
HARRY POTTER
DAY!!! -- JDP, 12:24:27 06/20/03 Fri
So who is going to go get "Order of the Phoenix" at
midnight? I am so excited about this book, and all the media surrounding
it has made me positively buzzed!
Depending on the way you look at it I am fortunately/unfortunately
going to go to the local Barnes and Noble's midnight release(the
last release was something else, with all these yuppies' kids
and their annoying, pushy, habits).
But Yah! Nonetheless!!!
[> Re: HARRY POTTER DAY!!!
-- pr10n, 13:01:16 06/20/03 Fri
Big day at our house, too, but we're not going to midnight events.
Too much hoopla, too late for my littles, I'm allergic to owls.
(I made up the last bit.) We are going to lunch tomorrow and then
hunting down a copy. Should be fun.
A few years ago I bonded with a neighbor girl over Book 3. She
came by last week to say she had ordered her copy through Amazon
and was just tickled and stoked to receive it.
Her sister plays with one of my daughters. These girls call themselves
"The Radcliffes" and run around screaming about how
they will marry Daniel Radcliffe one day. (Mr. Radcliffe plays
Harry in the movies).
My son signed up for the local library waiting list. He was number
1011 in line for Book 5. Rather than disappointed he claimed "#1011"
as a badge of honor and vowed to wait until his number comes up.
Sure, buddy -- you won't read it for three months. Ri-i-i-ght.
What an amazing phenom this Potter thing is. Oh, Ms. Rowling,
please be strong! Take off lots of time between now and Book 6
-- we can handle it. Get another degree! Learn a foreign language,
how to paint, fencing in all three weapons, the bass guitar! Love
your little babies, act like a normal soccer mom (football mom?
CRICKET MOM?) Run for political office. Anything you need to keep
your brain in fine fettle.
[> [> Mine is coming
tomorrow via Amazon. -- Rob, 13:22:32 06/20/03 Fri
[> Re: HARRY POTTER DAY!!!
-- O'Cailleagh, 18:19:32 06/20/03 Fri
Its the craziest thing. There I was, walking through Cardiff (
a nearby city) on my way home from the Rocky Horror Show with
some friends, when all of a sudden we happened upon the biggest
group of 8yr olds in sleeping bags I have ever seen just sitting
around outside a bookshop. With their parents/guardians obviously.
It took us a while to realise why they were there, and then it
hit us that it was for the new HP book.
Why are these infernal books just so damn popular anyway? I've
not read them, never had the urge to, but judging by the movies,
which I hear are pretty faithful, they seem kinda formulaic and
old hat. Obviously, its foolish to judge a book by the movie based
on it, but still....
could someone please explain..why all the fuss?
BTW, I'll bet their parents are being kept busy with questions
like "Mummy? Why is that man dressed like that?"
I wanted to sing 'I Put A Spell On You' to them...but my friends
wouldn't let me...<:-(
O'Cailleagh
[> [> A faithful movie
doesn't necessarily give a good representation of the book
-- Finn Mac Cool, 21:04:51 06/20/03 Fri
Take "The Godfather" for example. The movie was very
faithful to the book. That doesn't change the fact that the book
rocked while the movie is, IMO, the most overrated film of all
time. I'd say that, sometimes, there is such a thing as being
too faithful to your source material.
[> [> [> Re: A faithful
movie doesn't necessarily give a good representation of the book
-- tom, 22:51:01 06/20/03 Fri
Personally, I agree that making a movie be to much like the book
can be a bad thing because you end up not taking advantage of
the medium that you are using. However, in the case of the Godfather,
I think the film is an incredible work of many talented individuals
at the peak of their abilities and also I would argue is not exceptionally
faithful to the novel in that it cuts large chunks and has a significantly
different ending.
I think the problem with the Harry Potter movies is that J.K.
Rowling structures the her books very tightly. Because of this
fact, the director and writers are afraid to cut material because
it could be important to a later book and also Rowling likes to
make everything that goes on in the books tie in to the climax,
which makes it difficult to cut material with changing major chunks
of the story. This problem only gets bigger with the tightly plotted
book three scheduled to hit theaters next year.
[> [> Re: HARRY POTTER
DAY!!! -- Rob, 00:40:34 06/21/03 Sat
Why are these infernal books just so damn popular anyway? I've
not read them, never had the urge to, but judging by the movies,
which I hear are pretty faithful, they seem kinda formulaic and
old hat. Obviously, its foolish to judge a book by the movie based
on it, but still....could someone please explain..why all the
fuss?
Simply put, they're very well-written and very engaging. Great
characters and characterization, and very densely plotted. Things
come together in unexpected ways in the end of each book, and
surprises appear in later books often that twist around things
we learned in earlier books, and yet make perfect sense when you
re-read the earlier books. She's basically had the whole series
planned out since she finished the first one, so she places lots
of clues about later events throughout the books. And while a
lot of her fantasy elements may seem derivative, these books just
speak to a certain need that obviously a great many people had,
like Joseph Campbell wrote about. Need proof? How about the fact
that over half of the "Potter" readers are adults. My
cousin, who HATES all sci-fi and fantasy absolutely adores Harry
Potter. All fantasy is made up of cliche. It's just how the elements
are juggled that makes the story special. IMO, all of the various
elements are used very well with Rowling. She also has a very
good sense of humor, and balances well light, silly humor with
genuine darkness and thriller-paced plotting. Is it the best writing
ever? No. But it definitely is not just hype. It has become so
popular because to a large extent it deserves it.
Rob
[> [> [> Re: HARRY
POTTER DAY!!! -- O'Cailleagh, 04:58:58 06/21/03 Sat
Then I shall give them a whirl, you've convinced me!
Although my favourite scool for Witches will always be Cackle's
Academy, from the Worst Witch books!
O'Cailleagh
[> [> [> [> Wow,
cool! Having written that at about 3 in the morning, I'm surprised
I was so convincing! lol -- Rob, 10:43:39 06/21/03 Sat
[> [> [> Speaking
of clues... (spoilery spec for Potter series up to #4) --
dub ;o), 15:43:32 06/21/03 Sat
Anybody else think that Ron is going to end up madly in love with
Hermione?
;o)
[> [> [> [> I do,
I do! (spoilery spec) -- Rob, 16:27:21 06/21/03 Sat
I wonder whether jealousy will spark between Harry and Ron. Hmmm...
Rob
[> [> [> [> [>
Oh, me too. -- Arethusa, 16:46:00 06/21/03 Sat
Ron was so jealous when she went to the big dance with someone
else.
[> [> [> [> [>
Oh, but...(more spoiler spec) -- dub ;o), 17:04:12 06/21/03
Sat
Just give Ginny Weasley a few years to mature and Harry won't
be able to take his eyes off her!
;o)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Oh, but...(more spoiler spec) -- Rob, 17:24:04
06/21/03 Sat
Are we forecasting a double wedding in the final book? ;o)
Rob
[> Mine has just arrived
by Xpress Post -- dub ;o), 11:51:33 06/21/03 Sat
Now, how am I gonna fit this in with all the melee books, I ask
ya?
Not to worry--this is the sort of problem I love having, too much
good stuff to read!
;o)
[> [> Got mine 3 hours
ago from FedEx! :o) -- Rob, 12:18:07 06/21/03 Sat
[> Re: HARRY POTTER DAY!!!
No Spoilers!! -- JDP, 08:05:14 06/22/03 Sun
I finished Harry Potter V last night around 11pm, 23 hours of
mad reading, but it was worth it. What a wonderful book, everyone
go get it!!!!!! AMAZING!!
[> [> And I thought reading
200 pages in the first night was impressive! -- Rob, 09:13:46
06/22/03 Sun
[> [> Agreed -- Tchaikovsky,
13:09:49 06/22/03 Sun
I run in 90 minutes behind you, (although if you're American not
British, then I finished before you in real terms!!) finishing
just after midnight after 24 hours of reading interrupted by one
hour sleep, some washing and the necessity of waving goodbye to
my Austrian flatmate.
And it is a very good book.
TCH
[> So what does everyone
think of it? -- s'kat, 11:07:52 06/22/03 Sun
It's been getting some horrible reviews on other boards.
People are saying it's very dark and the characters aren't as
likable.
Curious to see what you guys think?
sk (whose patiently waiting for it to come out in paperback)
[> [> My 12 year old
loved it -- curious, 11:34:13 06/22/03 Sun
My 12 year old finished it yesterday and liked it more than I
expected he would. (He prefers
Phillip Pullman and Tolkien these days. He felt he had "outgrown"
HP but couldn't resist reading it to the end yesterday.) He liked
the darker, more grown up feel of the characters. He says a lot
of things that seemed unnecessary in the 4th book (not a favorite
of mine) paid off in this book.
I am going to have to read it when my 9 year old is finished -
or gives up on it. I have the feeling it is a little dark for
her. She is a "lighter" kind of kid. We read the others
to her when she was younger but she has re-read them all on her
own lately.
[> [> It's darker. But
they're wrong. It's the best bar Number Three -- Tchaikovsky-
making a host of unjustified claims, 13:07:33 06/22/03 Sun
[> [> [> Not close
to finished, but I'm loving it so far. Kind of like the "season
6" of HP books. ;o) -- Rob, 20:03:09 06/22/03 Sun
[> [> Re: So what does
everyone think of it? (spoilers Harry Potter and the Order of
Pheonix) -- Alison, 21:04:06 06/22/03 Sun
I absolutely loved it- admittedly, the plot felt a little more
muddled, but emotionally...wrenching. I may have been overly emotional
when I read it, but I cried at regular intervals while reading,
and sobbed through the last 100ish pages. It wasn't as light a
read- the HP world is getting greyier, and as is to be expected
in a battle against evil, the characters, Harry especially, are
losing their innocence. Really wonderful book...as gripping as
the first four, but far darker- if you don't like dark, it won't
be as enjoyable a read, but since I seem to want misery from my
choices of entertainment, it lived up to my every expectation.
[> [> Great -- Tom,
22:18:33 06/22/03 Sun
"It's been getting some horrible reviews on other boards.
People are saying it's very dark and the characters aren't as
likable."
I think this is a result of the fact that the characters are actually
growing and changing. Many characters are given new and interesting
depths.
Additional, Rowling has written all of her Potter books from the
perspective of Harry at the age he was when the events happened.
In Book One, Harry is the timid eleven year-old thrown into a
world that he was unaware existed and told that he is not only
a part of it but that he is famous inside of this world. By the
time Book Five rolls around Harry is a fifteen year-old who is
used to being among most famous wizard around, with experiences
beyond his peers, and facing a world that has changed drastically
in the aftermath of the events of Book Four. Since, Harry and
the world that Harry inhabits has changed the books are different
as well. This change is welcome and necessary to me and many other
people, however; those who view Potter as comfortable and safe
will tend to object to it.
In other words, its darker and the characters are less purely
likeable, but it makes sense in the context of the story and works
both on a thematic level and on a purely entertaining level.
Tom
[> [> [> Re: Great
-- Wizard,
22:54:41 06/22/03 Sun
I loved Book 5.
I can't go into more detail without giving MAJOR spoilers, but
I feel safe saying this: Rowling has created one of the most perfectly
horrid characters I have ever encountered in any medium. The worst
part about it is that this character is completely believeable.
Those who have read the book or who are reading the book know
who I'm talking about.
I enjoy the fact that the books are maturing. A lesser writer
might have been tempted to keep the books simple, but Rowling
has (wisely, IMO) matured her tone and content to match Harry's
growth. Book 5 is even darker than Book 4, with more shades of
grey. Disliked characters are given reasons for their actions.
Admired characters are shown to have feet of clay. And our heroes,
especially Harry, are losing their innocence. And the ending!
One of Rowling's strengths are her endings. I keep re-reading
the last 100 or so pages of Book 4, but the ending of Book 5-
wow. Just... wow.
But don't worry- it is a Harry Potter book, and that means no
matter how dark it gets, there is lightness and humour. Old characters
surprise and delight. Ditto for new characters. Seemingly throw-away
passages from previous books take on new significance (as has
been the case since Book 2). Fred and George are still up to no
good, and one of the very best passages in the book is devoted
to them. People who have read it know what I'm taking about.
I cannot recommend this book enough. My only regret is that I'm
starting the series in the middle of the writing process. I cannot
imagine what it would be like to just start with Book 1 and be
able to read straight through to Book 7. Was three years too long
for this? I don't know. On the one hand, I want to read Book 6
very soon, but on the other, the quality of each book has risen
(and was damn high to begin with), and I don't want the quality
to decline now when things are getting especially good.
I cannot recommend this book, or this series, enough.
[> [> [> [> I personally
can't wait for all 7 books to be out, so... -- Rob, 23:17:00
06/22/03 Sun
...I can reread them all in one marathon run, notice all the intricacies,
and fully appreciate the dense plotting of the whole series. It
must be quite interesting to experience the series with knowledge
of what is to come, where clues are being placed, etc. I've resisted
the urge to read the last 4 books again before this came out because
I want my first reread of them to be in their final form. Quite
remarkable indeed how she keeps the continuity up. I also appreciate
how Rowling cleverly places reminders of past events into the
story itself, tiny recaps throughout the text help the reader
recall what was going on in the story much more organically than
a synopsis at the start would have. I haven't read "Goblet
of Fire" since the week it originally came out, but it's
all coming back to me in a rush. The 4th had been my favorite.
Now the 5th is looking very likely to be my favorite. I'm enjoying
the seeds of discontent between the characters. Their growth seems
to be mirroring the evolution of the Scoobies. Very interesting
stuff.
I actually probably would have finished the book by now, but I
have a tendency to speed through a book, then feel bad that it's
over. Since it seems like it will be quite a while till the next
is out, I'm spacing this one out and savoring it, and limiting
myself to only 100 pages a day.
Rob
[> [> [> [> Hem
hem -- Tchaikovsky, 01:50:41 06/23/03 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
Yes, Dolores? :) -- Wizard,
02:05:59 06/23/03 Mon
[> [> And they say that
like its a bad thing?? -- Rahael, 06:49:02 06/23/03 Mon
[> [> I just started
reading. I LOVE it. (no plot spoilers for Phoenix other than the
mood of the book) -- Rahael, 19:53:13 06/23/03 Mon
Am also reading new Diana Wynne Jones in tandem. Both are really
excellent and I feel totally spoilt.
But honestly, I have a new and dawning respect for Rowling. I
feel really inspired by Phoenix, emotionally speaking, and am
now ready to get into the Potter fandom in a way that I would
never have contemplated before.
Apparently there is some criticism that people don't want to go
to HP for bleakness. they want escapism. And I'm like, what was
the mirror of erysond (?) about, the diary of Tom Riddle about
than the danger of getting lost in seductive escapism and comforting
lies?
This woman is taking risks. Bravo, JK!
[> [> [> Interesting
responses all, thanks. -- s'kat, 21:06:49 06/23/03 Mon
Interesting.
The responses on Atpo board for the newest Potter and Matrix Reloaded
before it and the responses on Angel's Soul, B C&S and elsewhere
are really really fascinating contrast.
BC&S/Angel's Soul - the consensus so far seems to be that
Book 5 is way too dark, Harry has become snotty, Hermoine is priggish
with no redeeming qualities, Ron isn't that interesting and in
the background, and James/Dumbledore are no longer likable.
They said Matrix Reloaded was dull and just dialogue/action/dialogue.
Now this board on the other hand...seems to like the dark underpinings,
finds Book 5 far more gripping and more interesting than the others,
and that the characters actually seem more real and have more
depth.
The consensus on this board was similarily positive for Matrix
- again on the depth end. (I actually liked Matrix Reloaded..btw
- even if it was like being in a video game with Jean-PAul Sartre)
Also I've found Atpo overall to be more complimentary of S6 and
S7 of Btvs.
This leads me to believe, I'll probably like Phoenix.
The USA Today review, my mother read to me over the phone, says
that Rowling needs an editor, uses long adverbs, overwrites, and
there's a meaness in the books that wasn't apparent before.
I find it fascinating how different people respond to the same
work of art. And oddly enough very inspiring. It gives me hope
for my own writing. Thank you.
May have to grab the book at the library, at $52 on amazon it's
a bit steep for my current bank account. ;-)
(Oh think about this for a sec - sold two million in two days
- at 52$ a copy....uhm that's over 50 million, we can thank Harry
Potter for other books that Scholastic publishes.)
[> [> [> [> Re:
Interesting responses all, thanks. -- Masq, 09:21:14 06/24/03
Tue
I actually liked Matrix Reloaded..btw - even if it was like
being in a video game with Jean-PAul Sartre
OK, you sold me. I'll have to go see it!
[> [> [> [> [>
Masq, you will have hours and hours... -- Rob, 10:39:39
06/24/03 Tue
...of philosophy-zy goodness to wrap your head around in "Reloaded"!
I had to watch it 3 times...first time for "oohs" and
"aahs," and the other 2 times, to analyze what I was
seeing. At some points, I really wished I could have a pause and
rewind button!
Rob
[> [> [> [> [>
[> My review of "The Matrix" Part I -- Masq,
13:35:40 06/24/03 Tue
With a comparison to Normal Again, here.
The philosopher isn't easy to impress with philosophy-zy goodness
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Oooh oooh! -- Ro, 13:38:49 06/24/03 Tue
Certain things, such as the metaphysics of the Oracle are explained
in the second film. Actually, a great deal of things we learned
in the first are turned on their heads in the second. Seeing the
first after viewing the second is like seeing a completely different
movie.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Oooh oooh! -- Ro=Rob typing too quickly
;o), 13:41:16 06/24/03 Tue
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Agreed -- matching mole, 11:02:50 06/25/03
Wed
I disliked the Matrix enough when I saw it during its original
release that I have never even contemplated watching the sequel.
My own brief review would go something like this.
First (approximate) third of the film - I liked this part. It's
not quite clear what is going on and the world is clearly not
what it seems. Appeals to the noirish, Phillip K. Dick, and surrealist
enthusiasms within me.
Second (again approximate) third. Lots of exposition and pseudo-mystical
goings on. As Masq says the core idea isn't really original enough
to rise above this but I would be willing to forgive that if we
were encouraged to connect more with the characters. It is here
that 'Normal Again' (IMHO) soars miles and miles above the Matrix.
Third (you know, approximately) third. As I have a relatively
limited aesthetic interest in violence, especially special effects
laden violence I would probably have enjoyed half an hour of watching
paint dry more if it was filmed by a really good cinematographer.
However I might watch Matrix II at some point if someone could
convince me that it is better than Matrix I.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Agreed -- Rob, 11:17:51 06/25/03
Wed
The thing is Matrix 2 takes the stuff that might seem hokey spiritualism
in the first film and explains it so that it actually fits into
the cyberpunk milieu of the film. I can't say much more without
giving it all away, but any thing that didn't seem to fit metaphysically
in the first film is explained in this one, and it make sense.
Including the Oracle, and what the One actually is. Not saying
that this will definitely change your opinion, but I know at least
the book, "The Matrix and Philosophy" became almost
completely irrelevant when the revelations of the second film
came out. Because the rules of the universe are turned on their
heads. But it's not retcon. When you rewatch the first film, it
works perfectly.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Agreed -- s'kat, 12:13:06 06/25/03
Wed
It depends on what you like.
Matrix II really is like being caught in a violent video game
with Keanu Reeves, JEan Paul Satre and a bunch of
Greek myths. The metaphors and the philosophical mind
games are sort of fun or really dull depending on your pov.
And the stunts take way too long....
I suggest you rent it - mole and not spend money on it.
Since you did not like the first one.
I liked it, but then I also liked the first one. I didn't consider
it as deep as most people did though. I think the second one actually
and oddly enough has more depth, but
it's confusingly shown, broken up by lots of action scenes and
a weird rave/music video scene that makes little sense.
[> [> [> [> Re:
BtVS S6 & 7, and Harry Potter -- Rob, 10:44:25 06/24/03
Tue
Interestingly, throughout the book, I keep thinking of the last
2 seasons of "Buffy."
Characters drifting apart, as they each start pursuing different
goals? Check!
A main character who starts to feel both superior and inferior
to his/her friends because of his/her "specialness"?
Check!
Magic that at times gets downright disturbing? Check!
Death? Check!
A world that gets increasingly gray as the dark side of things
you once depended on are revealed? Check!
Not done with the book yet, but even only 400 pages into it, yes,
so far, it's my favorite.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [>
Oh, and s'kat, about the price... -- Rob, 10:57:03 06/24/03
Tue
Are you sure you read that price right? Because I got mine from
Amazon for $17.99 and last time I checked the price was the same.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/043935806X/qid=1056476495/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/104-6352905-7535168
Rob
[> [> [> [> [>
[> I must have misread it.. -- s'kat, 13:56:39 06/24/03
Tue
I have to admit I though 52$ was a bit steep. Guess I hit the
wrong one and just misread it.
Can't afford 17 $ either at this point...but at least that price
makes more sense. ;-)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: I must have misread it.. -- Tom, 21:08:18
06/24/03 Tue
S'kat,
There is a deluxe edition that has $50 price tag, but the regular
hardback is available for under $20. I guessing you saw the more
expensive edition.
Tom
"The
Harvest" Revisited -- Darby, 13:52:46 06/20/03 Fri
The Harvest is the second part of the pilot episode - the
part with the backstory and action. It's easy to see why it hasn't
pulled a lot of discussion during this end-of-mourning period.
But here are a few stream-of-consciousness tidbits...
Buffy racing to rescue to Potential Scoobies. Somewhere along
the way (after this), SMG must have worked on not "running
like a girl."
"This world is older than any of you know..." Is this
supposed to reference the young Fundamentalist world or the ancient
geological world, or some specific Sunnydale perception?
"The way was made for mortal animals...for Man..." So
there were no animals, just demons, once, or is "animal"
just a synonym for "human" here? What sort of timeline
is this? Sounds fairly Lovecraftian.
Interesting that Giles, relating what "the books" say,
describes vampires as "humans infected with the demon's soul."
Maybe the idea that the human was no longer in there became
something that the Slayers (and maybe Watchers) had to be told
to make the Slaying easier.
Daddy's home! It seems from WttH that the Master has been incommunicado
for quite a while - "3 score years." Perhaps that explains
Darla's extreme deference to him - how long since she had seen
her sire? And how long had she been essentially on her own? What
happened to the Fanged Four after Angel's departure?
We see the first evidence that Willow is more interested in flexing
her hacker muscles than trivial legalities about official records.
She's all about the Power...and we hear her called "naughty"
for the first time...
...And Xander says, "We saddle up!"
We see a fence around the school that ceases to exist after this
episode.
I tried a search on "rain of toads." It was kinda interesting,
especially the horoscope with its forecast for the weekend.
So Angel has been waiting in a fairly well-lit crypt for Buffy
to come by so he can be snarky to her? And show off perhaps the
worst acting DB ever did on the series? And did Xander walk past
Angel to follow Buffy but not know he was there? Seems like if
he was following her, he'd have to lurk through their conversation
and just walk through. (Deleted scene: XANDER: Hey, Man. ANGEL:
Don't go down there... the birth of slash!)
And why "Angel"? Were they originally planning a Hispanic
vampire, with a history tied to the Spanish colonial era? Can
you see Jimmy Smits as Angel?
Angel gives Buffy directions to the Master that involve heading
"toward the school." Nice foreshadowing!
Xander and Buffy in the tunnels is a great way to load us up on
the Buffyverse workings with a bit of characterization thrown
in.
With Jesse, we get the first hint that there's a lot of
the original human in there, With a slight shift in priorities.
And later, part of Xander's reasoning that the Harvest would happen
at the Bronze is because he knew Jesse would go there. Giles supports
the Party Line later, though, so we have early dichotomies. It's
a shame they couldn't work Eric Balfour into Season 7 with the
First.
We get the first taste of a Buffy Big Bad, as the Master is given
a chance to have a personality while being creepy and evil.
When the Master was originally trapped, an earthquake "swallowed
half the town." And yet the Hellmouth persisted. What, it
could only be sealed by swallowing the entire town? Or
maybe we just think it's sealed.
JOYCE: "If you don't go out it'll be the End of the World.
Everything is Life or Death when you're a sixteen-year-old girl!"
Kind of a way to slip in the Metaphor Mission Statement for those
not paying attention.
Above Buffy's weapons: a small trophy. Alarm clock. Diving mask.
Conch shell. Among the weapons: lots of Communion Wafers. Think
of the weird throwing stars they would make! But we never see
them again.
Jesse and Cordy at the Bronze says something about nerds and assertiveness
by way of verbal abuse, but I'm not quite sure what.
The close-up of the Darla crew leading into the break looks like
a blown-up piece-of-frame added awkwardly in post-production.
The doorman sees Luke's face at the door - this makes his "What's
wrong with your face?" reading wrong later, when it sounds
like he's seeing it for the first time.
What's up with the guy in the tiara thingy in the Bronze crowd?
In the original demo reel, application of Holy Water to Darla
kills her. In this episode, it's a painful annoyance - like the
other overtly religious symbols. Hmmmm....
Angel emerges at the end in front of a very clear "Watch
Your Step" sign. A warning to Buffy, or the coming 'shippers?
A very important part of the mythology pops up at the end - folks
in Sunnydale pay little attention.
"The Earth is doomed." Hey, what's not to like?
[> Following up the sound
thrashing I've previously given this same dead equine... --
Sophist, 18:36:08 06/20/03 Fri
Sarcasm warning. Plotholes in The Harvest:
Luke tries to bite Buffy, but burns himself on the
cross hanging around her neck and jerks back.
Ever notice how flexible the impact of the cross is, depending
on the needs of the plot? Stay tuned.
She climbs out of it and races outside.
Which she could have done at any previous point in the fight with
Luke.
Xander: Well, there's an electrical tunnel that runs under
the whole town.
Of course, we all keep track of such things. Even Xander.
Willow has the city plans on the computer monitor.
JW admits on the S1 commentary that this is merely a plot device.
IRL, such plans are not available online.
Buffy is making strides for a side gate.
As Darby pointed out, we never see any such gate again.
Mr. Flutie is there and stops her.
Every high school principal I know hangs out by the side gate.
here at Sunnydale nobody leaves campus while school's in session.
Every CA high school that I know of allows students to leave campus.
There may be some sort of permit system, but there is never a
flat prohibition.
Angel appears behind her.
It's broad daylight. How did Angel get there? How did he know
he'd find Buffy there?
When she reaches an intersection, Xander surprises her from
behind.
How did Xander catch up to her? Wasn't Principal Flutie waiting
at the gate for him?
(turns on a flashlight)
Buffy: Turn that off!
Why? Vamps can see in the dark, Xander can't. If he uses the light
it may blind the vamps who are unaccustomed to it. Stay tuned.
Harmony: Are we going to the Bronze tonight?
Cordelia: No, we're going to the other cool place in Sunnydale.
Anyone see Harmony at the Bronze that night?
Xander turns on his flashlight and spots Jesse on the ground.
See my previous comment.
Buffy: Do you know another way out?
She's kidding, right? He was dragged down the tunnels in terror
after being woozy from Darla's "snack". It's dark in
the tunnels and he has no idea of the maze.
Jesse knocks Xander's arm to the side, making him hit the wall.
Guess the cross doesn't bother Jesse as much as Luke.
He uses his flashlight to look around
Ahem.
Every soul he takes will feed me.
Except that Angel says in Angel that the demon "doesn't
get your soul."
Xander violently kicks a waste basket.
Cuz that's how we mourn the death of our best friend.
Giles, Willow and Xander break in.
How? And if they could, why didn't Buffy?
The vampires run past Angel standing behind some crates
There must have been a tasteful announcement in the paper about
the location of the Harvest.
No more. I promise.
[> [> Re: Following up
the sound thrashing I've previously given this same dead equine...
-- LadyStarlight, 19:38:15 06/20/03 Fri
Xander violently kicks a waste basket.
Cuz that's how we mourn the death of our best friend.
I'm taking that as much the same as the wall-punching in The
Body, exacerbated by the teenage male 'must not cry in front
of anyone' thing. (apologies to all the males out there, but it
is TV, after all.)
[> [> But are these really
plotholes? -- Malandanza, 06:47:31 06/21/03 Sat
"Sarcasm warning. Plotholes in The Harvest:"
I'm not sure most of your quibbles with The Harvest rise
to the level of "plotholes." I see a plot hole as a
serious inconsistency, and most of these are minor and readily
explainable. Now, had ME started off by making a big deal about
the harvest and forgotten entirely about it halfway through the
episode, that would have been a problem.
"Luke tries to bite Buffy, but burns himself on the cross
hanging around her neck and jerks back...
"Jesse knocks Xander's arm to the side, making him hit the
wall.
Proximity seems to be the factor in how effective a cross is.
Luke was closer to Buffy's cross than Jesse was to Xander's. Perhaps
some sort of inverse square law is involved.
She climbs out of it and races outside.
Which she could have done at any previous point in the fight with
Luke.
Okay... but she came there to rescue Willow and kill the vamps.
She began the fight brimming with confidence, casually slaying
the first vampire (without even looking at him) and having her
way with Darla, all while maintaining her trademark, Spidermanesque
banter. She had no reason (or inclination) to run away until Luke
showed up and got the upper hand. It was only after she was thrown
into the coffin and had her near vamping experience that she realized
she might lose.
Xander: Well, there's an electrical tunnel that runs under
the whole town.
Of course, we all keep track of such things. Even Xander.
Xander's turn for exposition. A plot device, not a plot hole.
Something to let the viewers know what was going on. (And I don't
know about electrical tunnels, but I do know that storm sewers
run the ength of the town).
"Buffy is making strides for a side gate.
As Darby pointed out, we never see any such gate again."
But this isn't a problem for The Harvest, it's a failure
of continuity for some other episode (like Dead Man's Party)
Mr. Flutie is there and stops her.
Every high school principal I know hangs out by the side gate.
here at Sunnydale nobody leaves campus while school's in session.
Every CA high school that I know of allows students to leave campus.
There may be some sort of permit system, but there is never a
flat prohibition.
Principal Flutie wasn't "hang[ing] out by the side gate"
--- he saw Buffy from across campus and hurried after her. He
had reason to watch her -- she'd burned down her previous school's
gym and been expelled. This was her second day and she was trying
to leave campus. Also, I do know at least one public high school
did close its campus entirely -- after a sophomore died in a car
accident during lunch hour (sophomores were not supposed to leave
campus, but he snuck out with his upperclassmen friends) -- lawyers
got involved and the campus closed. Nobody leaves while school
is in session (and by nobody, I allow exception, as I'm sure does
Principal Flutie: medical emergencies, scholl fieldtrips and the
like). All the campuses I know of have security guards watching
the means of egress -- the students cannot just come and go as
they please. Furthermore, we saw in Season Seven that only Seniors
are permitted to leave the campus. As Buffy was not a senior,
I don't see what the problem is or how the Principal stopping
a student can possibly be seen as a plothole.
Angel appears behind her.
It's broad daylight. How did Angel get there? How did he know
he'd find Buffy there?
Maybe he ran around Sunnydale with a blanket over his head.
When she reaches an intersection, Xander surprises her from
behind.
How did Xander catch up to her? Wasn't Principal Flutie waiting
at the gate for him?
Is there only one gate? Well, there's only one Principal Flutie
and he can't catch every delinquent student.
(turns on a flashlight)
Buffy: Turn that off!
Why? Vamps can see in the dark, Xander can't. If he uses the light
it may blind the vamps who are unaccustomed to it. Stay tuned.
How about -- the flashlight helps Xander see things 20 feet away
but lets everything in the tunnel know they're coming. The flashlight
should be reserved for when they need it (as the other two times
you mention).
Harmony: Are we going to the Bronze tonight?
Cordelia: No, we're going to the other cool place in Sunnydale.
Anyone see Harmony at the Bronze that night?
Of course they showed us every single person who was at the Bronze,
even those who left early or showed up late.
Buffy: Do you know another way out?
She's kidding, right? He was dragged down the tunnels in terror
after being woozy from Darla's "snack". It's dark in
the tunnels and he has no idea of the maze.
Not bright, but hardly a plot hole.
Every soul he takes will feed me.
Except that Angel says in Angel that the demon "doesn't get
your soul."
Vampire metaphor. They're very poetic creatures.
The vampires run past Angel standing behind some crates
There must have been a tasteful announcement in the paper about
the location of the Harvest.
Or, since the vampires have made the Bronze their feeding grounds,
he figured they would head there.
No more. I promise.
Why do I doubt this?
"The
Reality of Spuffy" (Spoilers S6, Sexual Content) -- monsieurxander, 15:05:35
06/20/03 Fri
Many of the complaints I've heard about Season Six stem from the
idea that the metaphors were too literal: Magic(k)=addiction,
Demon=woman scorned, Spike="bad boyfriend".
There's an angle to "Spuffy" that I really haven't heard
discussed, with more depth than Spike being the bad boyfriend
(I apologize if someone beat me to this idea last year... at that
point I was still mainly exploring Masq's overwhelmingly addictive
site and had yet to become the discussion board lurker that I
am today).To me, Spike represents much more than that. He represents
every mysterious man in the night that we let take us home. Buffy's
experience, in typical Joss fashion, is blown to epic proportions
("I think I was in heaven...."), while in all actuality
her feelings are not uncommon. Those who have lost a close loved
one, those who have had a particularly bad relationship experience,
gay youth living in oppressive communities, etc.... anyone who
is made to feel isolated, confused, scared sh*tless... They can
often turn to unhealthy and misguided attempts at catharsis...
at the top of the list: sex.
Buffy is hurting. Badly. She often feels numb. She turns to Spike...
like the misguided EveryPerson turns to random promiscuous sex...
to FEEL. This goes beyond being used by Parker. She's fully participating
in the mutual using.... Treating the other party like crap, while
letting him/them take her over completely. And it's killing her.
It's a complex web of lies she's telling herself, a routine she
falls into. Pick up the groceries. Sex. Take a break at work.
Sex. Call Grandma in Springfield. Sex.
Buffy: "I came back wrong."
EveryPerson: "There's something wrong with me."
The Misguided EveryPerson often feels that something is wrong
with them... sometimes something solid, sometimes something intangible
yet still somehow there, evading explanation. And when something
is inside you: sick, cold, painful... you'll be surprised at what
you'll do for a chance at making it stop, however fleeting the
emotional vacation may be.
Buffy rejects Spike and puts him down after their first sexual
encounter, but soon, she accepts this new mode of sexual high...
all the while feeling shame before and after, feeling dirty...
She, of course, can't tell her friends. She looks upon them in
the infamous Bronze balcony scene, knowing they won't understand,
knowing that she has to keep her distance, her secret... all the
while being cradled by the darkness, the one (or one of many,
depending on how you look at it) who is fueling her own inner
darkness.
She's taking a big risk with this behavior. Spike's chip is more
or less defunct, so he can bite her, beat her, whatever he wants;
he dangerous... just as not wearing a condom is dangerous to the
EveryPerson who engages in such activities. [afterthought: "Ha
ha! Spike has a condom in his head!!"]
He loved her, in his own twisted, soulless way... so it's been
said. Just as the man in the booth of the porno movie house who
reeks of poppers loves the EveryPerson as the EP squints and tries
to think of someone more attractive ("It'll all be over soon,
it'll all be over soon, it'll all be over soon...."). Just
as the man from the club that she takes home with her, who slurs
his speech and can't remember her name, as she tries frantically
in her head to remember the basics of the rhythm method.... Just
as they love him/her. The love is completely out of self-interest,
how their lovers make them feel... The love that is twisted
and soulless and over all too quickly.
It makes complete sense that Tara is the one she tells first,
both storywise and metaphor-wise. She, of course, has gone through
something very similar. She confided to the Scoobies in Season
Five that after the death of her mother, she had done things,
things that made her feel like she was losing it, or that she
was some kind of horrible person. I don't think that she had gone
so far as taking up an unhealthy sex life, given that she refers
to Buffy as a "loon" when she mistakenly thinks that
the Buffybot that Spike is having sex with is Buffy herself (like
one who steals compulsively regards one who has sex compulsively
as more screwed up than he/she is). Rather (later), there is a
mutual understanding... between the EveryPerson who is destructive
sexually, and the EveryOtherPerson who is destructive otherwise.
Tara got her kicks elsewhere... Drugs? Shoplifting? Possibly even
dating a man ("God is punishing me because I'm gay... maybe
if I try to be straight, things will be better...."). The
point is, one of the things that points the way to positive mental
health for the EveryPerson is someone who understands. Who alleviates
the feelings of being alone. Tara also tells her that through
her research she has found that Buffy has not come back wrong
at all.... In effect, "There's nothing wrong with you. You
don't need this." She broke through an elaborate self-deluding
fantasy created by Buffy/EveryPerson, causing pain in tearing
it down, but Buffy/EveryPerson is better for it in the end.
This, the positive reinforcement, points the way... but what makes
her finally stop? Negative reinforcement.... Being found out.
Riley, possibly the person she fears finding out most, discovers
them in bed together, and openly displays his disgust. Just as
having the EveryPerson's nocturnal activites come into public
knowledge, causing him/her to be labeled a "slut" and
a myriad of other colorful terms. Through the support of Tara
and the disdain of Riley... she comes into her own, steps up and
takes charge. I don't need this. I can never love you. This is
a lie. I'm using you... and it's killing me.
As for the sensitive subject of the Attempted Rape Scene... I
interpret this to be the consequences of the EveryPerson's actions
coming back to bite her on the ass [afterthought: "Really
gross, if taken literally."].
DISCLAIMER: At this point I am only speaking on a non-literal,
completely metaphorical and symbolic level. I am in no way suggesting
that women bring about their own rapes.
Anyways, I think the scene setting is significant... She's taking
a shower, trying to wash away her "sins". She's injured...
but it will heal. The consequences show up and they ain't pretty.
Whether it is a one night stand lover who is more than he seems,
or simply relating to the reactions of friends and loved ones
upon hearing about it, or having deep rooted, not-likely-to-be-healed-anytime-soon
pain, shame, and guilt... There are always consequences. The consequences...
A soulless dead creature with no restraints trying to force his
will upon an injured woman... force Buffy to say a resounding
"NO!" once and for all. "Ask me again why I can
never love you." Never again will she go to that dark level...
She knows what lies on that path, the pain, the danger...and she's
not going for it. She's got more important things to be doing,
among them the annual saving of the world, and she can't waste
her time. She sees the light at the end of the tunnel, and she's
getting up, walking, and soon... The darkness will be far behind
her.
[> Eep! I know it looks
like a fic, but it's an essay. I promise. (NT) -- m'xander,
15:44:00 06/20/03 Fri
[> [> Only on this board
would that be a welcome promise! -- Masq, 16:10:18 06/20/03
Fri
[> Great Essay...good points
-- LeeAnn, 04:48:08 06/21/03 Sat
[> Very interesting!
-- Rob, 10:16:55 06/21/03 Sat
[> Re: "The Reality
of Spuffy" (Spoilers S6, Sexual Content) -- Deacon, 18:08:48
06/21/03 Sat
Great essay, I agree with your points. One thing that I would
like to elaborate on is the Spike as a bad boyfriend Metaphore.
As for the attemted rape scene I don't know how to coment about
that, It is such a sensitive topic. I will say that he should
have been dusted for it.
I think that he was not able to have a healthy relationship, he
was a souless vampire, although he did have a lot of humanity
in him. Season 2 showed his love and compassion for Dru and his
alliance with Buffy to save the world. And if you compare souless
Spike to souless Angel. In "I only have eye's for you"
when Angel and Buffy were possesed with the restless spirits acting
out there love and how it tragically ended. Angel was disguisted
at the feeling of love for buffy and said that he had to have
a vile kill to get it out of him. Spike was taken over with him
love for buffy, he rejected dru for it. But is was a sick obsessive
vampire type love, and example is the shrine to buffy that he
had in S5.
A telling statment about a vampir's love is spikes line in S3
Lovers's walk
"If I want Dru back I know what I have to do, I have to be
the man I was, the man she loved, first I will find her where
ever she is, kidnapp her, torture her, untill she likes me again."
and if S5 when spike has Dru and Buffy tied up and he tells buffy
if she admits that there is something between them and he will
stake Dru and if she doesn't he untie Dru and let her kill Buffy.
Buffy say's "you're a vampire you don't have a soul, you
not capable of love" then Dru say's
"we can lve quite will actually"
[> Excellent! -- Rahael,
21:31:02 06/21/03 Sat
MS, I loved this post! It was beautifully written (I noticed especially
cos I was reading it aloud to someone else) and had some excellent
insights and moments of LOL.
Also certain arresting mental images that won't be leaving me
for some time.
[> It was almost like...
-- LeeAnn, 00:54:31 06/22/03 Sun
It as almost like Buffy was doing the "Looking for Mr. Goodbar"
thing, good during the day, bad during the night, and putting
herself in a situation with Spike where she might get killed,
and half wanting that.
[> The Insufficient Unreality
of Spuffy (S7 spoilers, *very* controversial content) -- KdS,
03:02:22 06/22/03 Sun
Been sitting on my hands for quite a while, but personal meetings
and postings on other boards have convinced me that other people
here do agree with me and are keeping silent out of a desire not
to offend the Spuffy fans. Hence I'm playing Sweet here.
MonsieurXander's essay above hammers home, again, the psychological
reality of the S6 Spuffy disaster and the lack of metaphor. Given
the strength and potentially explosive nature of the storyline,
I simply can't adjust to the way the metaphor was simply dropped
back in during S7. During summer 2002, a lot of people on this
board were remembering the controversy over a General Hospital
plotline which had a woman falling in love with and marrying a
guy who had raped her out of erotic obsession. The feeling at
that point was that ME would have to be extremely careful with
how Buffy and Spike's relationship was handled the following year
to avoid creating seriously unfortunate messages.
I had no problem with S7 Spuffy up to and including Showtime.
I saw Buffy's treatment of Spike as being caused by a mixture
of compassion for his madness and genuine guilt, admiration for
the fact that he got his soul voluntarily, feelings of responsibility
for him because it was their relationship that led him to get
a soul, and guilt over the times in S6 when she treated him appallingly.
I approved of it because it seemed that Buffy had finally learned
a lesson from Angel about helping former enemies when they wanted
to change.
The problem came in the second half of S7 when not only did it
become clear that Buffy did have remaining romantic feelings for
Spike, but he became her only confidant, reawakened her self-belief,
and had a perfect night of intimacy with her before sacrificing
his life. I use that phrase quite carefully, because I think that
ME believed that they could defuse the rape problem by going back
to the soul metaphor as they did with Angel, and making sure that
Buffy and Spike never actually had genital sex. I think that ME
intended us to feel that, by the final episodes of S7, Spike was
sufficiently redeemed for us to see his unsouled crimes as sufficiently
the work of a different entity to be comfortable with all this.
Unfortunately, because of the writing choices they made, I simply
don't see his treatment of, attitude to, and lack of any genuine
relationship with any characters other than Buffy as showing us
this, and I'm still undecided about whether they convinced me
that his death in Chosen wasn't All About Buffy.
I think ME had a very difficult job in handling Spike this season,
because they were trying to keep incompatible factions of fans
happy. They had those who were never interested in Spuffy to begin
with or who were into it but totally horrified by the attempted
rape, and really wanted Buffy to either stake him on sight or
give him the non-fatal ass-kicking of his life and never physically
touch him again. They also had the hardcore Spike fans, who wanted
Spike to stay the romantic bad boy they loved but also wanted
him to get the girl. Unfortunately, for me, Spike's behaviour,
trajectory, and crimes in S6 had been presented as so unsoftened
by metaphor and so human in nature, culminating in the decision
to show him try to rape Buffy entirely in human face, which in
the light of S7 strikes me as a really bad misstep, that I just
can't accept it when in S7 they try to return to the safe old
metaphor that worked with Angel(us) and say "It's all OK,
because he's got a soul now and he's all sorry and different!".
I just see a woman who's still attached to, and love with, a guy
who tried to rape her, and is more deeply conencted to him, and
lets him get closer to her, than anyone else all year. The fact
that Buffy and Spike didn't actually "have sex" in Touched
doesn't matter for me, because I saw them as "having intimacy"
to such an extent that it really didn't matter what they actually,
anatomically, did. When I watched Never Leave Me, I thought
that Spike's analysis of Buffy and her response to it were meant
to be a final dismissal of his dark view of her as twisted by
demonic PoV and self-projection. The subsequent developments,
however, do leave me with a view of Buffy as unhealthily and masochistically
attracted to men who hurt her, and not in any marginally healthy
BDSM type of way.
I know this will probably offend some people on the board, but
I know there are people here who will agree with me and I hope
they come out of the closet. For me, the relationship between
Buffy and Spike in the second half of S7 appallingly subverted
the season's core message of female empowerment, and deserved
far more vocal criticism than the unintentional pathologising
of lesbianism in S6, the death of Tara, or not having enough black
characters.
[> [> Re: The Insufficient
Unreality of Spuffy (S7 spoilers, *very* controversial content)
-- O'Cailleagh, 18:37:44 06/22/03 Sun
Without trying to detract from the very valid point you are making,
isn't it possible that the fact that Buffy was able to forgive
Spike adds to the female empowerment theme? After all, I think
it was Giles who once said that forgiveness isn't something we
give because a person deserves it, we give it because they *need*
it. That Buffy had the strength to forgive Spike is indeed empowering,
it tells us that even after what had happened between them, she
was able to see his need to be forgiven, in order for him to forgive
himself, it tells us that she was strong enough to do this for
him, even with everything else that was going on.
O'Cailleagh
[> [> Re: The Insufficient
Unreality of Spuffy (S7 spoilers, *very* controversial content)
-- Miss Edith, 19:27:00 06/22/03 Sun
You raise some interesting points, and I can certaintly understand
why there are viewers objecting to Buffy being with her attempted
rapist. I was a B/S supporter at one time, but they were never
really the same for me after SR. But I can't say I object to Buffy
sharing intimacy with Spike. You say you got the message form
the latter half of season 7 that Spike was right in saying Buffy
was attracted to men who hurt her. I don't see that. It was only
after Spike got the soul, and began treating Buffy decently that
she was able to feel something for him. In season 6 he was just
a thing that was providing Buffy with fantastic sex. I don't remember
Buffy ever giving the impression that she was attracted to Angelus
for instance. Indeed she dismissed Spike in SR because of how
important trust was to her.
I actually found the message hopeful. Buffy wouldn't let herself
be defined as a victim, she found the strenth to forgive Spike
and form a new relationship. In late season 6 don't forgot that
Anya wished unspeakable torture on Xander, yet the two had sex
in season 7 again without protests being raised. I definately
agree that the lack of metaphor with the AR made me feel uncomfortable.
But Buffy was not shown to desire Spike sexually after the attack,
their bond was more about emotion. Buffy took strenth from Spike
and saw the man inside him that he had struggled to become, I
found that empowering personally.
[> [> [> Arrgh please
forgive the typos! -- Miss Edith, 19:30:00 06/22/03 Sun
In fact I should probably start typing that at the end of every
single one of my posts lol.
[> [> [> Re: The Insufficient
Unreality of Spuffy (S7 spoilers, *very* controversial content)
-- LeeAnn, 21:33:04 06/22/03 Sun
Buffy was not shown to desire Spike sexually after the attack,
their bond was more about emotion.
I don't think Spike showed any desire for Buffy after the AR either.
(I don't think Gellar ever showed Buffy desiring Spike except
in the Tabula Rasa kiss. I was surprised every episode that they
were still having sex.) No more longing looks. No more reaching
out. Nothing. At their closest he settled into the eunuch role
that Angel used to fill. What is with Joss that he thinks a woman
would be fulfilled by chaste cuddling. Angel and Spike, eunuch
friends to Buffy. Cuddling but no sex. I was repelled by it with
Angel and again with Spike. With Angel I got a gross child-snuggling-with-father
vibe. It was more brother/sister with Spike. What is it, get your
soul and lose your balls. We assume there was no curse attached
to Spike's soul but we have no evidence to the contrary. Buffy
and Spike became comrades in a fight. Not lovers. Not truly intimate.
Just soldiers, chastely sharing a bed and even an embrace. Like
they had a relgious mission. The only way that would have worked
for me was if one of them was gay.
[> [> [> [> Re:
The Insufficient Unreality of Spuffy-Eureka! -- sdev, 22:35:23
06/22/03 Sun
"What is with Joss that he thinks a woman would be fulfilled
by chaste cuddling. Angel and Spike, eunuch friends to Buffy.
Cuddling but no sex. I was repelled by it with Angel and again
with Spike."
And where in hell is the female empowerment here? It harkens back
to the repression of Victorian times. Women can slay but not have
sex. Something wrong with that message.
[> [> [> [> [>
Exactly... -- LeeAnn, 22:53:38 06/22/03 Sun
Exactly. I was very Victorian to me. If they had related that
to William/Spike being a Victorian and reverting to his original
cultural conditioning once he had a soul I could see it, but they
didn't.
[> [> [> [> [>
Absolutely! That's another problem with it -- KdS, 00:27:31
06/23/03 Mon
[> [> [> [> Missionary
position with Riley was seen as acceptable -- Miss Edith,
10:56:13 06/23/03 Mon
But there definately was something almost sleazy about B/S as
if we were supposed to disaprove of such brazen sexuality.
Again with Wesley/Lilah we see Wesley becoming corrupted through
the sex with the bad girl who enjoys phone sex and being on top.
Of course he was more interested in the more sexually pure Fred.
I wonder what message ME were trying to convey?
[> [> [> [> Well...Spike
*was* very close to his mother... ;-) -- O'Cailleagh, 11:14:22
06/23/03 Mon
[> [> [> [> Re:
The Insufficient Unreality of Spuffy (S7 spoilers, *very* controversial
content) -- leslie, 14:50:07 06/23/03 Mon
"What is with Joss that he thinks a woman would be fulfilled
by chaste cuddling. Angel and Spike, eunuch friends to Buffy.
Cuddling but no sex. I was repelled by it with Angel and again
with Spike."
I have to agree here, but also, I wish it weren't always represented
as an either/or thing. But the point I wish to make is that, for
all the incessant harping on Buffy "using" sex with
Spike to "make her feel" and to overcome the depression
she felt after being yanked out of heaven...
well, it worked, didn't it?
Maybe not in the pure and epiphanic way that society might approve,
but would Buffy really have been able to find her way again without
something strong and emotional to react either to or against?
Would she have been able to question her whole response to/expectations
of men without the experience of Spike? Xander points out to her
that she shut down emotionally as a result of the whole Angel
experience, and maybe at that point she did need a "safe"
guy like Riley, but did Riley help her break out of that numbness
at all? All he did was pout that she wasn't "letting him
in" and be jealous of Mr. Broody. Then, he pushed her to
deal with her issues in one fell swoop: I'm leaving tonight unless
you change immediately. Spike may have been the "bad boyfriend,"
but he was always pushing Buffy to deal with issues she wanted
to avoid, whether he was doing it deliberately (as in Normal Again)
or simply by being there and her being drawn to him. Maybe he
was wrong that she belonged "in the dark with him,"
but he's the only one who made her even consider the question,
the only one who brought it out in the open (ironically, brought
it to light), and isn't that the question that ultimately underlies
her uncertainty about what it is to be a Slayer? Everyone else,
whenever she wonders whether to be a Slayer is just to be a killer,
says "Oh, no, Buffy, you're so good and noble and strong
and brave," and that is precisely what makes her feel overwhelmed--she
has to live up to that. Spike says, "yeah, maybe you are
a killer," and then she has to figure it out, and she does
it, in many ways, by testing herself against him. Is she just
like Spike? What she eventually seems to conclude is that, while
there are some points of congruence, she is not like unsouled
Spike, and what happens in the process of it is that she actually
makes Spike realize that he wants to be more like her, and inspires
him to get a soul.
Now, if only they could be having great, violent sex and
having souls.
[> [> Season 6 - Metaphor
and Myth -- Caroline, 21:24:06 06/22/03 Sun
From what I can understand from this and some of your previous
posts on S6, one of your main problems with the S/B relationship
is that it is not 'metaphorical', that it's played out very human-y
and literally and therefore the behaviour of both Buffy and Spike
is then subject to human notions of ethics, morality etc. Which
is why you feel differently about Angelus/Angel and Buffy than
S/B. So, because the show went literal and had a literal, human
AR in Seeing Red, this then managed to subvert the message of
female empowerment when the rapist and victim became romantically
involved. (If this is not a fair summary of your argument, please
correct me.)
I have problems with your argument on several levels. I'll take
each in turn.
Metaphor and Myth in S6 .
I agree with you that season 6/7 downplayed the metaphor. We no
longer had 'boyfriend goes evil after sex' depicted by Angel's
loss of soul. We no longer had demons who depicted gluttony, greed,
sexual desire and all sorts of other pitfalls of teenage life.
(The metaphors became far more abstract and symbolic, things like
light, fire, hands etc.) But what we got was a different kind
of depiction and while it appeared to be more literal and less
metaphorical, I think that it went far beyond the literal and
transcended into the mythical. S6 went far beyond previous seasons
in consistently carrying through important allusions and references
to mythology and archetypes. S6, more than any other season before,
was an in-depth psychological exploration and instead of giving
us metaphor, ME gave us archetypes, defined as common symbols
or forms that exist in the collective unconscious and are common
to all societies from earliest times. ME had given us clues prior
to that - the Primitive, the First Evil etc, but no season fully
given to exploring archetypes in a mythological way. I've already
posted numerous essays previously that can be found in the archives
so I won't go into the specifics of characters and events, but
since you bring up the B/S relationship, I'll quote from a previous
post:
Back to the sexcapades. One of the outcomes of the rather messy
relationship with Spike is that they use each other. Spike does
love her in his own way and Buffy does have feelings for him that
she will not acknowledge but she does realize that she is using
him. That recognition of his victimhood in this (I'm referring
here to her dream in Dead Things where Spike/Katrina are paralleled)
despite all her crying about his victimization of her ('why do
I let him do these things to me?') is a wake up call to Buffy.
They are mutually victimizing or raping each other. I'd like to
note here that I see the rapes of S6 in a mythical sense - Buffy
is strong enough to repel any attack from Spike and the betrayal
she feels when he does take not take no for an answer is on an
emotional level - I don't think that physically she was compromised.
To do Spike credit, he realized he'd gone too far and resolved
never to be the kind of man to do that again). Their relationship
is built on the yes/no duality, the want to/ought not duality.
We are shown this time and time again - the scene in the Bronze
where Spike appears from behind Buffy as she is watching her friends.
The scene in Spike's crypt where Buffy is invisible. Why did this
occur? I think that the reason the rapes occurred is that for
both Spike and Buffy, the experience of being with each other
was profoundly challenging and confronting. I think that Buffy
felt as though she was being invaded by feelings, desires, etc
she did not want and it felt like a violation to her, to the person
she thought she was. But she is really 'raping herself' - she
is the one who feels a certain way yet she is also the one who
wants to deny these feelings, these parts of herself. Yet,
as with all repressed and unconscious drives, they will somehow
find expression and work their way to the surface. The greater
the repression, the more compelling the projection and the bigger
the explosion when it finds its way to the surface.
(http://www.atpobtvs.com/existentialscoobies/archives/mar03_p15.html#3)
The bits that I highlighted in bold seem to me to be the relevant
bits here. ME was on a deep psychological exploration. It was
risky, it was somewhere they really hadn't gone before. They were
willing to make popular characters really unpopular to explore
depression, anger, self-hatred, confusion, boundaries (or lack
of them), acting-out, repressed desire, self-discovery, etc. I
will state my personal view that I believe ME were entirely successful
doing this in S6 in the S/B relationship. It may have been more
literal somehow to show the attempted rape ocurring in human rather
than vamp face but there are 2 things here I'd like to note -
not only has Spike not been human for a long time, in S6 both
he and Buffy represented archeyptal characters. Do we apply the
same sorts of ethical and moral judgements to mythical situations
as we do to metaphorical situations? And isn't it okay for ME
to make that switch from metaphor to myth if they wish to? In
my view, these situtations require our understanding, not our
judgement. Buffy had to forgive Spike because he represented a
part of herself that she rejected and needed to integrate.
Female empowerment
I kinda agree that ME is trying to give a female empowerment message.
But I think that they are trying to give it to everyone. I think
they are saying something about the value of feminine values and
behaviours in everyone, male or female (which is why Xander got
to save the world in S6). And I think that there are many instances
where ME has shown us that the person who really needs female
empowerment is Buffy. I've written essays before on how Buffy,
in her role as slayer, can be seen as typifing a very masculine
role - instead of the guy kicking ass it's the girl kicking ass
- which is really just a substitution of genitalia. I don't believe
that is all that ME is trying to say. Buffy desperately needs
some female empowerment, which is why we had the exploration of
the different feminine archetypes, which began towards to end
of S5 - after Joyce died. ME started exploring the archetypes
of the warrior, the erotic, the maternal. It reached its height
in S6 and S7. Buffy is so into a very narrow conception of her
role as a slayer and how she related to that as a woman that she
is uncomfortable and unaccomodating with so much of her feminine
energy. (see essay cited above as well as Mothers Milk is Red
today http://www.atpobtvs.com/existentialscoobies/archives/mar03_p19.html#34).
I think that the events of the end of S7 show that Buffy has reached
a comfortable accomodation with those energies within her, thus
allowing the destruction of Sunnydale, the physical representation
of her old psyche, a psyche that has been transformed.
The whole Spuffy/Spike issue and fandom
Needless to say, I disagree with many of your views on Spike.
That does not mean that I take offense at your views. The show
is work of art that I find myself indentifying with in certain
ways and certainly enjoy analyzing! But I don't need to judge
the behaviour of the characters, merely to understand them and
the show. Others feel differently and I respect that. I also don't
wish to judge my fellow posters, or their views. I respect everyone's
right to be wrong! My only concern with raising the same issue
continually is that repitition is boring. People hold rather entrenched
views on this issue, we've explored them ad nauseum, and I doubt
that anyone really has anything new to say.
Also, I don't see you being kept noticably silent - ever since
LMPTM aired in the UK, you have made many posts on this issue.
I can think of at least half a dozen posters off the top of my
head who agree with you wholeheartedly! I have not seen one example
on this board of anyone trying to censor posters who hold your
views and if anyone is in the closet, it is by their own choice.
Their is nothing in the culture or norms of this board that promotes
censorship or closeting, and I hope that you will clarify those
statements because they can be seen as offensive.
[> [> [> Re: clarification
-- KdS, 00:34:25 06/23/03 Mon
Thanks for the argument about the switch from metaphor to myth.
On the final question, I've spoken on more private web settings
and IRL to posters on this board who do agree with me, but who
weren't posting not so much because they felt censored, as because
they saw opinions on the issue as so fixed that they didn't want
to get into the argument that would result (and thank you for
responding so calmly and clearly). I just wanted to have one clear
and unambiguous statement of the issue on the board, and that
will be my last post on the issue unless I come up with something
genuinely new.
[> [> [> [> Re:
clarification -- Caroline, 09:01:30 06/23/03 Mon
Thanks very much for your clarification. I think that this issue
is so fraught with emotion, that it can be very difficult for
those of us with opposing views to have a calm and respectful
debate. I, too, have not become involved in several threads, precisely
because sometimes I don't want to get into it either! In fact,
I was lucky enough to be in chat with Masq after the meet and
I was begging her (only half-jokingly) to make the S/B insanity
end by archiving certain threads!!!!!! Of course, she did not
do this and I am not a proponent of censorship, it just spoke
to my frustration about having all spike all the time! (And I
don't really care if the views are pro or con, it just got a bit
much!)
But I also know that there are several posters here with whom
I almost always disagree but find myself looking forward to what
they will say, precisely because their views differ to mine and
they can put forward their views in an entertaining and disinterested
manner. It may be too much to ask that we will get to 'disinterested'
soon about the whole S/B issue, but here's hoping!
[> [> [> Spuffy and
Censoring -- Dochawk, 01:52:58 06/23/03 Mon
OK - I'm on vacation in England and really shouldn't be reading
the board let alone responding, but I couldn't restrain myself
when I read someone who says I never saw any censoring going on
regarding Spuffy. That's because except for KDS and occaisionally
Maladanza, none of us will post anymore. We've already been "censored"
out (by posters certainly not by the board mistress, who has her
own opinions on the subject and has never censored anything that
I know of). Do you see Earl Allison's wonderful rebuttals? Or
anyone? A very few posters are still willing to put up the good
arguement, but the rest of us have no further desire to be at
the receiving end of a whip. We've been silenced.
[> [> [> [> Completely
(but politely) disagree on censorship -- Caroline, 08:19:21
06/23/03 Mon
You, Mal and Earl Allison were precisely some of the posters I
was referring to. I have seen your (plural) posts in the past
few weeks. I still disagree. But since when did the fact that
we all (for the most part) politely disagree become you being
censored by your fellow posters? Just because people disagree
with you does not mean they are censoring you. Should we stop
all disagreement so that no-one feels censored? I'm really sorry
that you feel this way but perhaps if you could point me to particular
posts that you felt have censored you, I could more fully understand
your views. I have certainly missed the evidence supporting the
view that fellow posters have censored you. I would rather put
forward the hypothesis that perhaps you are self-censoring because
you find a great deal of disagreement. For example - Earl Allison
made a post not long ago where he put forward his views and ended
the post with saying that he will not post anymore because he
may have caused offence. There was nothing in his post that did
so and 4-5 posters who disagreed with him asked him to keep posting!
How is that censorship?
[> [> [> [> [>
Spike and Censorship -- Dochawk, 01:48:36 06/24/03 Tue
Yup I post lots, but (almost) NEVER on Spike. Its easy to say
there is no censorship when you are in the majority. You should
see the emails I get when we have a Spike discussion in private.
And you should have seen the number of emails I've gotten from
people who feel they can't post what they want for similar reasons.
And since your not the one being censored, who feels like they
are a small illegitimate mole when they post certain things, you
wouldn't notice it. I do every time I say, I would like to respond
to that post, but I won't because it is just too much trouble.
Twice I have been driven away from the board for short periods
because of the painful responses to posts I have made (and in
both cases about Spike). Other posters have been driven away because
of posts for other reasons. I admit there isn't alot of flaming
here, but there is some, but mostly it comes from people who quite
innocently insult your right to have an opinion (that the opinion
itself is so "stupid" that therefore you must be). And
believe me it happens much more frequently than you think and
from posters who would never believe that they are doing it.
Polite disagreements are wonderful. I have changed my mind about
some things because of the wonderful viewpoints other posters
have made. And emotional arguements are usually fascinating (certainly
more fascinating than other boards where everyone is in tremedous
agreement on everything), but some people cross the line and connect
the view with the holder... and then its not worth it anymore.
And no, I won't publicly point out posters or posts (unless they
are so blatant as to be publicly offensive). Sometimes when I
am not involved I'll email the author and usually they don't realize
how what they say causes pain to others. but [ublicly doing it
just adds to the circle of disrespect.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Giving and Taking -- mamcu, 19:29:28 06/24/03
Tue
One of my early posts here was related to the AR, and I did receive
some very negative responses--and indeed, they made me think twice
about posting again. However, my views were the opposite of the
ones you express--so the negative repsonses go both ways. I think
it's human nature to see the bad that we disagree with, and not
the bad that's on our side.
But, you know, I have not seen the truly rude flaming here that
you are describing and that I have seen in some other places.
Also, I haven't been here as long as many of you, and I don't
read every post, not even responding to me, but I do know that
I pretty quickly know who is likely to say what. And I just don't
read some people's posts because I can make a good guess about
what they will say on certain subjects.
Lovely thing, threaded discussion. You can keep your fingers in
your ears and still hear the voices you want to hear.
I think what's meant by "having the courage of our convictions"
is being willing to hear disagreement, and to speak out at the
time if someone is out of bounds in their response. I HAVE seen
the board respond negatively to rudeness.
But I'm sorry we've missed your thoughts.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Completely (but politely) disagree on censorship --
Malandanza, 09:00:45 06/26/03 Thu
"You, Mal and Earl Allison were precisely some of the
posters I was referring to. I have seen your (plural) posts in
the past few weeks. I still disagree. But since when did the fact
that we all (for the most part) politely disagree become you being
censored by your fellow posters? Just because people disagree
with you does not mean they are censoring you...I would rather
put forward the hypothesis that perhaps you are self-censoring
because you find a great deal of disagreement."
I don't think there's anything wrong with "polite disagreement"
(or even just regular disagreement) but that's not what dochawk
is talking about. I think that there have been attempts
to censor views that do not wholeheartedly embrace Spike-as-a-Courtly
Lover/Gothic Hero, but that the failure has been largely a result
of our (somewhat contentious) personalities rather than a lack
of willingness to stifle debate. All too often a rebuttal is answered
with "well, we all know he hates Spike" or "Please,
no character bashing! We're trying to have a civil discussion
of what a bitch General Buffy is!" or cries of "Troll!"
Because of the tone of my posts, I expect a certain level of belligerence
in the responses (as I'm sure does Earl Allison), but there are
posters who have been attacked just for expressing their opinions
(I recall some early B/A posts from Lunasea where she was attacked
for daring to suggest that Angel was better for Buffy than Spike,
and Q has taken his share of abuse for siding with Buffy).
Also, part of the reason for diminishing anti-Spike posts is probably
due to the soul -- he's not the same vampire anymore just as Angel
is not Angelus -- although that issue is somewhat clouded since
ME decided to make New Spike exactly like Old Spike, and leave
him unrepentant and defiant about Old Spike's past while claiming
it as his own (as he dons the coat of the dead slayer). And some
of the people who were most pro-Spike last season have altered
their opinions as well (after the AR it was harder to see Spike
as the victim).
But I do agree with your assessment that most of refraining from
posting anti-Spike remarks is from self-censorship. Whatever their
own opinions to the contrary, no one on this board (except noted
free speech advocate, Masquerade) has the power to censor posts.
When I feel as though someone is tying to muzzle me, my response
is typically to show them that they can't, and to do so forcefully
enough that they will think twice before telling me what my opinion
ought to be. For other posters, I think the best thing to do when
you see them attacked unfairly and illogically is to offer a post
of support.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Thanks for mentioning me -- lunasea, 10:33:05
06/26/03 Thu
This was actually one thing I thought about while on vacation.
Someone wrote that she hoped that people could be disinterested
when they discuss hot topics. Hell no. I have a lot of interest
in the show. I wouldn't write about it if I didn't. I thought
about whether I wanted to take out fan girl's irrational passion
when I post. Then I realized that I had to leave it in. I don't
compartmentalize myself like that. If I did, I wouldn't have my,
um, interesting perspective.
The writers over a TWoP gave an interview as the series came to
a close. They mentioned that becoming critics made them more critical
of the show and they actually enjoy it less because of this. To
remove irrational fan girl does the same. It also takes away all
motivation to write. Shadowcat said that it was Spike that has
caused her to write every post that she has written, so if someone
likes her posts, s/he should be glad that Spike is on the show.
I'm sure my tone is strange and off-putting to many, for various
reasons. When I show solidarity for people who aren't in the "Spike
is god and Buffy an ungrateful bitch who should be grateful that
he even deems her worthy to talk to" camp and try to commiserate
and even explain the situation, I'm sure it feels like an attack
on that camp. In the words of Angelus "This wasn't about
you. This was never about you."
I, too, get emails from lurkers looking for that solidarity. I
wish that these lurkers felt more comfortable to post because
what they have shared with me in privacy has been amazing and
I would love to see this sort of heart shine on the board. People
who often think they have nothing to share have the most beautiful
things that should be shared.
If I had one wish, it would be that I could perform a Scythe spell
and give all these people the courage to post even in the face
of criticism. Since I can't do that, I will continue to fight
the good fight and give their position a rather loud voice. I
will continue to do this in my own particular voice and style.
I agree with the idea of a post of support. If we do that enough,
it will drown out the posts of attack. Let everyone know that
they can say whatever they want however they want. Tell the control
freaks that want to control the "tone" of the board
that there is no "tone." That is the tone.
Then again, does that make me a control freak? Never can figure
out just where that line is. How about a friendly suggestion to
the board given on my jewel encrusted soap box?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Completely (but politely) disagree on censorship
-- Miss Edith, 11:29:22 06/26/03 Thu
I'm a fairly pro Spike person and I think we've all felt outnumbered
at times, no matter what our position. In the past after making
a point I've felt ganged up on when the only response is people
lining up to disagree with me. Even when people are polite it
still sting sometimes.
But actually I do agree with your point about lunasea. In the
past she (I think she?) made no attempts to hide her support for
B/A and there were a few posters complaining that she related
too much to B/A. I'm thinking of a critique she did of season
6 I think it was? And I thought at the time her views were perfectly
valid, and the people crititising were seeing something that I
wasn't, and being oversensitive. (And I'm talking as someone who
does not support B/A at all).
The only time I feel the need to speak up is if fan groups are
being singled out. Any takes on the show are IMO valid (well within
reason lol). But again I think it goes both ways. Like I said
as a Spike fan I have felt somewhat intimidated in the past and
the board comes across as very unsympathatic to my views on occasion.
I mean generally I'm happy for people to disagree, it offers the
opportunity to engage in interesting debates. But certaintly I
can relate to feeling slightly taken aback and wishing you hadn't
spoken up when everybody seems to disagree and find your post
perpostorous.
But that's all part of being on a discussion board, I really don't
think there's a problem, that I can see anyway. People may be
perceiving more censership from others than there actually is?
But then again if I am being oblivious to what's going on and
if people are feeling uncomfortable with the remarks you suggest
(i.e you say people posting "please no character bashing
of Spike" when someone is trying to get across an unsympathetic
view) perhaps it would be an idea for people to speak up after
a post struck them as unnecessery so that we can all get an idea
of what is causing the problem? Gosh that was a long sentence
lol. Anyway just a thought.
[> [> [> Caroline
- you've nailed my discomfort of S7 -- Rahael, 06:29:01
06/23/03 Mon
Yes, yes, yes, to your comments about Buffy being shown as needing
female empowerment. I really hope that this is a message that
has been confined to s7 in its most blatant expression, because
I find it so disturbing.
I find disconnection and aggression and destruction to be wholly
part of being a woman. I find that forgiveness is not a gendered
quality, neither is wholesomeness or nurturing or saving the world
with Love. I think however, that Joss is indeed trying in S7 to
equate the loneliness, disconnection, unemotional aspects of being
a slayer with masculinity. Watch how the black stuff in Get it
done swirls around Buffy, and in the next shot swirls around Spike
to become Nikki's black coat.
How did Spike get his 'rocks' back? by getting Nikki's coat. Isn't
there a way that Nikki could be seen like Buffy, as needing feminine
empowerment? She couldn't mother her son, love him, as she needed
to.
That's what started disturbing me midway S7 and nothing about
the end of S7 has banished this suspicion from my mind.
Also, I have decided that we are indeed meant to regard War Buffy
as not a good thing, mainly because prior to S7, the Initiative,
was coded in a very masculine way. Maggie Walsh was a woman (which
encouraged me re the gender in S4, but I now think we were meant
to regard her as needing female empowerment too).
Anom posted in a thread below that we still need feminism, and
I think she may misinterpreted my argument at least as being in
any way antifeminist. Absolutely not. I can't speak for myself,
but I find myself imprisoned by notions of femininity or feminine
empowerment that says nothing to me about my real life or real
dilemmas. As far as I'm concerned, I'm happy to regard pre S7
Buffy in all her masculinity as a role model. Indeed, she spoke
to me as no other woman on tv has done. And if Joss is somehow
saying that Buffy has to learn to become a true woman (say, like
Tara), can people understand why I have become so alienated?
[> [> [> [> Re:
Caroline - you've nailed my discomfort of S7 -- Rob, 09:10:28
06/23/03 Mon
As far as I'm concerned, I'm happy to regard pre S7 Buffy in
all her masculinity as a role model. Indeed, she spoke to me as
no other woman on tv has done. And if Joss is somehow saying that
Buffy has to learn to become a true woman (say, like Tara), can
people understand why I have become so alienated?
Here's what I think keeps the final message of S7 being that Buffy
has to learn how to be a normal girl or a true woman: Buffy does
not give up her Slayer powers at the end, as I personally feared
she would. She spread her power and knowledge and truth and strength
to others, but still retained it in herself. I think that struck
the perfect balance of remaining special at the end, but not alienating
herself from her friends and the rest of the world.
Rob
[> [> [> [> Re:
Caroline - you've nailed my discomfort of S7 -- Caroline,
13:25:10 06/23/03 Mon
Rah, thanks for your post. I'm still not sure I entirely understand
the source of your discomfort but I'll try to relate something
of my (still evolving) understanding of what is going on archetypally
(my spell-checker is telling me that is not a word!). I've hesitated
to do a follow-up post on my views about the use of archetypes
in S7 because it usually takes me a while to process and absorb
the layers of meaning and complexity that are going on. Not only
that, but I'll post something and then know that even a month
later, my views will have changed and grown (in part because of
the insight of so many wonderful posters here). But despite all
this, I'll make a preliminary attempt and see where this goes.
Empowerment
The central conceit of the show is Buffy's empowerment. But despite
the fact that Buffy kicks ass in a rather satisfying way, Buffy
has never really been fully 'empowered'. She's not finished. She's
in a process of identity formation that allows her to become gradually
more empowered, but she's not finished by any means. If she was,
would the show be interesting? In S1, she tries to deny her destiny
to Giles when he shows her the 'Vampyr' book in WttH. We see her
try to come to terms with her slayer power and how she accommodates
that with her teenage years in S2-4. We see how she isolates herself
after experiences of hurt and pain, which are very human decisions.
We see her trying to get in touch with the love that she has turned
away from in S5 when she goes on her vision quest. Buffy is going
on the same journey in every season, but every time, that journey
is layered with new meaning, new depths, new answers, new questions.
As we journey with Buffy into later seasons, I would argue that
the issues she faces concerning identity become much more complex.
Her relationships with Angel and Parker are rather black and white
(Angel good, Angelus bad, Parker just bad!), whereas in S6, her
relationship with Spike is really about her own psyche, delving
into that darkness within discovering things about herself. Spike
himself is ambiguous, both good and bad as is Buffy after her
return - or at least that is the way she feels about herself.
The dualities become less metaphoric, more grand and mythic.
Archetypes
Archetypes are funny things. Sometimes I'm not even sure I understand
them and sometimes I feel that my knowledge of them is growing
every day. They are symbols that appear to be common among many
different languages and cultures and myth is a wonderful way to
explore their function and use in our lives. In a way, archetypes
are clichés, a common set of symbols that we each carry
around inside us. Mythical gods and goddesses contain may each
be symbolic of several archetypes. Kali is the mother, the warrior,
the lover, the protector, the creator, the destroyer. Persephone
is the maiden and the wise woman. I think that Joss was exploring
those archetypes in Buffy - most particularly Buffy as a warrior,
a mother and a sexually aware woman. They were being explored
in Spike also - how to become a man, to put childhood and become
you, not a construct, not a persona you had built previously.
However, while dramatically it may be convenient and even necessary
to have males representing the masculine archetypes and females
representing feminine ones, I think it is a mistake to say that
feminine values belong only to women etc. We each contain masculine
and feminine qualities in all of us, they are not gendered. Our
own archetypes spring from our shadows and what we are uncomfortable
with. Buffy has been uncomfortable with the feminine aspects of
the warrior for years. Each season, we see her come to an accommodation
of herself as a warrior. In S6 and 7, we see far more explicitly
how she tries to come to an accommodation of herself as mother
and lover.
We see some exploration of this in S3 with the introduction of
Faith - who subsequently revels in irrational, destructive power.
Spike, in the construction of his rather masculine persona, rejects
the femininity of William, yet that is something that continues
to inform who he is - his tender treatment of Dru, his penchant
for love and devotion, his attachment to the Summers women etc.
Now here is where how I have a problem with your argument. I think
that disconnection and aggression and destruction to be part of
the experience of both men and women, not just women. I agree
with you that forgiveness and nurturing etc belong to both men
and women. I don't think that Joss is trying to equate disconnection
with masculinity. Buffy feels comfortable in the masculine, rule
and rationality-based aspects of her role as a slayer. She fears
the darkness within (see Faith in S3) or the feminine, destructive
aspects of her role as the slayer. Her disconnection and loneliness
was self-imposed, but that came from how her psyche reacted with
her slayer role, and how she chose to close herself off after
feeling pain. I don't see that as either masculine or feminine,
it's just a defence mechanism. The same can be said for Spike.
He rejected the femininity of William and constructed a 'masculine',
aggressive persona. But see how even the masculine persona Spike
tried to create took on tinges of feminine rather than masculine
destructive qualities. While Angelus was very rational and detached,
Spike was spontaneous and impulsive, not caring about the costs
even to his own undead existence. That sounds much more Kali than
Shiva. What we are informs what we become.
As for Spike and getting his 'rocks' back after his trip to the
funny farm early in S7, he got it in one way - Buffy's request.
She told him what she wanted and he gave it to her. She wanted
the aggression of the man who could kill her, but she knew that
would be balanced by the soul, meaning that he would not kill
her. She wanted him to direct his aggression using the kind of
rules and rationales that she used and was comfortable with. The
retaking of Nikki's coat by Spike was symbolic of getting part
of his persona back. I'm not really uncomfortable with that -
we've known since FFL the origin of the coat and how it played
into the construction of the persona. But Spike still has further
to go because something is still wrong. He has the coat and his
'rocks' back but he's still not his own man. He has to overcome
the trigger, which is really just symbolic of the ties to his
mother and how the issues surrounding his mother have prevented
him from growing into himself, rather than just the mask that
he has created since being sired. I believe that is what occurred
in LMPTM.
Now for Nikki. If we agree that the process of being empowered
in a psychological sense is something that is on-going, as part
of the process of 'Who am I?' that lasts a lifetime, then Nikki
does need to be empowered, just like Buffy. You write about this
as if it is pejorative, but I see it as a very positive process.
Nikki did mother her son and did love her son - at least that
is my interpretation of her brief scenes in LMPTM. She was prevented
from continuing the struggle to bring up her child by being murdered.
I don't think ME was trying to make a negative statement about
Nikki. They were trying to make a statement about Robin Wood's
pain about the loss of his mother. And in a way, Robin felt that
he lost a part of his mother even before she died. She chose to
continue slaying, continue doing her duty (she chose to follow
her destiny) even when he wanted her to stop. ME are showing something
very universal here - the experience of a child who wanted everything
from a parent but a parent but cannot get it. Because no child
can ever get it. No parent can ever be enough. So Robin is left
with with the anger at his mother's murderer, his anger at his
mother for continuing to fulfill her destiny, and his anger at
himself, perhaps, for not being enough for mother? This is so
much to contain. Meanwhile, Nikki is still in the center of the
maelstrom, elusive, unreachable and unknowable. Sometimes, life
truly sucks.
I couldn't find the posts you refer to on feminism by anom and
yourself, so I'm not sure what that issue is. But I'll tell you
what I think Joss was saying - that Buffy needed to really be
able to see herself and accept herself without judgement. I think
that Buffy reached that in her cookie dough speech in Chosen.
She realizes that she's come a long way but still has some distance
to go and she's going to give herself that time. She's no longer
going to be closed to life as she was before, she was going to
move ahead and consider all her possibilities and opportunities.
Her journey, her empowerment, her self-discovery are on-going.
The woman she becomes is simoultaneously the women she must be
and the woman she wants to be. That is something that really speaks
to me, as a woman, a feminist and a human being.
[> [> [> [> [>
Archetypes???? -- s'kat, 14:50:58 06/23/03 Mon
Caroline, if it's not too much trouble and assuming you aren't
sick of the topic yet ;-), I was wondering if you'd
be interested in exploring the archetype point in more depth?
Here's an essay I found on male archetypes in Romance Fiction.
The writer believes a new archetype has been introduced known
as Gamma - as opposed to typical Alpha(Angel), and Beta(Xander)
models.
http://musings.kbruce.rcthost.net/issue4/gamma.html
"First an explanation of the terms Alpha, Beta and Gamma
Males: Romance writers coined these terms in the mid 90's to describe
the type of male protagonist in a particular novel. An Alpha is
domineering and arrogant, a loner, broad chested with a muscular
physique. (In earlier mass-market romances, when men tended to
control the publishing houses, the Alpha also tended to be at
least 10 years the female lead's age).
Betas, who emerged in women's literature in the 1970's, are sweetly
seductive, kind, gentle, have a good sense of humor, tend to be
of average to slender build. Betas can be a few years younger
than the female lead, and tend to be the "heart" of
a family or group.
The Gamma falls in between these two poles- he, like the Beta
tends to be more of average build, although more likely to be
an athletic type. He has a sense of humor, although usually it's
a sarcastic one. Similar to the Alpha he's likely to be a fighter
of some sort. He is more dominant than the Beta- but only in a
seductive sense. Otherwise, like the Beta, he appreciates female
strength and tends to be a loyal partner to a woman, and respects
all strong women. " Brief excerpt from it.
According to the writer - Spike falls within the Gamma
model or archetype.
Now you're exploration of archetypes seems somewhat different
than this, less categorical, a little more mythic(??)
"Archetypes are funny things. Sometimes I'm not even sure
I understand them and sometimes I feel that my knowledge of them
is growing every day. They are symbols that appear to be common
among many different languages and cultures and myth is a wonderful
way to explore their function and use in our lives. In a way,
archetypes are clichés, a common set of symbols that we
each carry around inside us. Mythical gods and goddesses contain
may each be symbolic of several archetypes. Kali is the mother,
the warrior, the lover, the protector, the creator, the destroyer.
Persephone is the maiden and the wise woman. I think that Joss
was exploring those archetypes in Buffy - most particularly Buffy
as a warrior, a mother and a sexually aware woman. They were being
explored in Spike also - how to become a man, to put childhood
and become you, not a construct, not a persona you had built previously.
"
What archetypal roles do the characters play exactly?
And how far does Joss really take it?
Or they specific roles or broader? Is this even worth going too
far into depth on? I must admit I'm a bit out of my depth here,
but it was something that seemed new in the discussion.
Hope some of that made sense.
Gotta Run.
SK
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Great link! Thanks -- curious, 18:54:53 06/23/03
Mon
I think it's really important to remember that these are fictional
characters that people respond to differently - not real people
we would want our daughters or friends to date. I wonder if some
of the debate on this thread and the endless debate about SPIKE
is the cultural uneasiness some people have with the Gamma archetype.
i.e. people who read and enjoy romance novels, etc. and are more
comfortable with the Gamma type. I don't have any trouble understanding
why Buffy was attracted to and repulsed by Spike. That sexual
tension is what made the relationship interesting - to her and
to some of the audience. Not healthy - but interesting.
From the article S'Kat sites, other well known examples of Gamma
males are:
John Lennon (not fictional but a pop icon. The perception of his
relationship with Yoko Ono was viewed very differently by various
people.)
"Hawkeye" Pierce from M.A.S.H.
Han Solo from Star Wars
the vampire Jean-Claude from the Anita Blake series
And some Japanese Manga (graphic novels) characters I am not familiar
with. (I found the article very intriguing, in part, because my
son has recently gotten addicted to Japanese Manga. I think I'll
have to look at them more closely.)
Maybe some of these characters are less problematic to people
who have problems with Spike. Or maybe they are just as problematic
for people who have trouble with B/S.
The article also says that ME was a little confused about how
to handle relationships with Gammas - leading to viewer dissatisfation.
I would agree with that - at least on the literal level. I think
B/S worked better on the mythic level Caroline wrote so eloquently
about but not so well on the literal level.
The writers more in tune with the characters developments over
the years attempt to draw the couple together, only to be subtly
subverted by other writers in following episodes, leaving viewers
dissatisfied.
hmmm....
Very interesting passage here:
Women writers in the West seem to have a better understanding
of writing the Gamma hero romance, probably because they have
a fair amount of exposure to this by the reading of romances.
Men in the West tend to have little exposure growing up to the
stylistics of modern romance writing, and often are still taught
to disparage it merely because it is fiction written by women
for women. In Japan, in contrast, men and women both are readers
of romances, the romances in boys manga having only a few notable
stylistic differences to those read by girls. When romantic manga
written for boys or men are translated into English they are often
viewed by westerners as comic stories for females, especially
by those only vaguely familiar with manga. Perhaps due to the
substantial growth in popularity of manga among those under 40
in the past decade, both genders in the next generation of writers
in the West will have equal levels of understanding of the journey
in the romantic heroes storyline, in particular that of the newer
Gamma types.
I hear Spike is pretty popular in Japan.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Romantic archetypes! -- Caroline, 09:33:27 06/24/03
Tue
Thanks for this shadowkat! It struck me as being very amusing
and it's made me realize that I was married to a gamma male! As
for being sick of discussing archetypes - never!
I use archetypes more or less in the Jungian sense - motifs that
are common across different cultures, myth systems etc as well
as individual archetypes that manifest within a certain culture,
myth system or individual. They arise and exist in the unconscious
and can be accessed through dreams, analysis etc. Looking at the
archetypes of men that women carry around, it does seem apparent
from manifestations such as charcacters in romance novels that
many women carry around rather similar archetypes of men around
in our minds. But archetypes are not definite images or motifs
- definite images or motifs are the conscious representations
of unconscious motifs. So, the alpha, beta or gamma males are
actually forms that manifest from the unconscious archetype of
erotic male.
I'm not really sure that I could say what Joss has in mind or
whether he is aware of using these concepts (or should I say conscious
representations of archetypes!). From what Joss says and from
what I interpret, there is certainly a few writers at ME that
know their psychology. And since I have a prediliction for viewing
human behaviour through a psychological lens, then I'm quite happy
interpreting seasons 6 and 7 in this way using the jargon I like.
Perhaps if you give me your email address, we can continue off-line
and not bore everyone else with this?!?!
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Romantic archetypes! -- shadowkat,
10:14:18 06/24/03 Tue
Thanks!(I included it above).
A little something regarding Whedon, who does btw have the background
that you've intuitively picked up on. Actually I think you may
come closest to what Whedon was attempting.
Here's a slice of a recent interview of Whedon's I found on the
Spoiler Trollops board (which isn't that dangerous to visit at
the moment, since there are no "true" spoilers out yet.)
"IGNFF: Do you think, to some extent, those are the kind
of filmmakers that the Hollywood executive tends to like - because
they're malleable?
WHEDON: Yeah. Well, you want somebody who can make it pretty and
make it work and give the executive what the executive thinks
they want, and bring something to the party. Not just translate
the words. If you're the writer, what you're looking for is somebody
who can convey the actual meaning of the script... and quite frankly,
people who are just schooled in production don't really have that.
There's a lot of people out there who make a pretty frame, that
has nothing to do with what is said.
IGNFF: Form over function.
WHEDON: But you know, there's advantages to both - don't get me
wrong. There's a lot of people teaching theory who are filling
people's heads with completely idiotic agendas and not really
getting down to the basics of "This is exactly what he was
doing, exactly what you think, what you feel." It hasn't
been accomplished. You need to be looking at that stuff.
IGNFF: What kind of agenda irritates you the most?
WHEDON: Any agenda. Any agenda beyond what the film itself is
trying to say. My biggest concentration was gender studies
and feminism. That was sort of my unofficial minor. That was what
all my film work was about, but at the same time, somebody bringing
the knee-jerk feminist agenda to a text can be the most aggravating
thing in the world. Especially if you're a feminist, because you're
like, "You're the person that everybody makes fun of. You're
the reason why we've got no cred."
IGNFF: Planting subtext for subtext's sake...
WHEDON: Yeah, planting subtext based on everybody brings their
own experience to a film - that's why films are popular, and that's
fine. As long as they're working from the film outwards, towards
themselves. What people with an agenda do - whether it be, like,
Cartesian physics or some thing I can't begin to understand, or
feminism, or anything - they try and shove it in. "Look at
this this way." Okay, let's look at the film as it exists,
what it is, what it's trying to do. We can judge it. But you're
talking to somebody who was raised to be a radical feminist, who
thought that liberals were wishy-washy and who loves Seven Brides
for Seven Brothers. So you know, this conflicts around always.
Take the film at its own value, and then go to the other place.
IGNFF: Was that part of your motivation for taking gender studies
for a minor?
WHEDON: It's not that I took it for a minor, it's just like I
pursued it in everything I did. It's always what interested me.
But, when you're dealing with feminism you're dealing with
a lot of people who understand feminism better than they understand
film, and again you pose something and that doesn't just go ...
the point is, you can have an agenda as long as you let the film
come to you and take that out of you. I know a guy who could
not get through a paper without talking through Freudian theories
of infantile sexuality. And his lecture on The Wild Bunch, in
terms of Freudian theories of infantile sexuality, was actually
fascinating. Because he loved The Wild Bunch, he understood the
movie, and then he let it speak to him. He didn't try and like
shove in a theory."
So I think with Whedon's background he did deliberately dip into
some of this. Not sure how much his other writers did though.
But the archetypal influences interest me, b/c I think Btvs may
have hit some of mine. The gamma certainly may be one. And I also
wonder if archetypal influences may not explain why fans react
the way they do to certain characters on screen - in either an
incredibly positive or negative way. For instance, I have a friend
who can't watch Angel The Series, b/c she cannot stand David Boreanze
and Angel - she does not understand how anyone can find him attractive
or like him and she did not get into Btvs until he left the show.
I've asked her why and she can't really say, except that she just
despised him and found his relationship with Buffy incredibly
Oedipal or Electra or Freudian in some way. (Now I loved Angel
in S1-3 Btvs and actually really like the character, but he squicks
her.) OTOH, she adores Spike, Spike turned her on.
(I also loved Spike.) Take the reverse - there are fans completely
squicked by Spike - for the life of them they can't understand
why anyone would like him, yet they adore Angel - they literally
worship the ground Angel walks on.
Or there are fans squicked by both and love Xander and don't understand
why Xander isn't the romantic lead. But none of these fans really
get why they feel this way. Oh they throw out past deeds of the
characters etc...but is it possible some of it is just a subconscious
response to something on the screen? I don't know. But it does
fascinate me why we respond to certain stimulus the way we do
and why we do it so differently.
And is that subconscious response why we might go buy movie tickets
to see say Tom Cruise over Robert Deniro? I have no idea...but
it's interesting to contemplate. Particularly when I see some
of the emotional and at times irrational debates between fans
over fictional characters/relationships. This board really hasn't
gone there, but other's have.
Anyways I included my email address above if you want to discuss
off-board. Not real knowledgable in all of this, just intriqued
by it.
SK
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Romantic archetypes! -- fresne, 12:29:18
06/24/03 Tue
Hey, no discuss here. This is interesting. And the board that
discussed the philosophy of soap scum can surely discuss this.
Course, I don't have any idea what I'm talking about, but why
should that stop anyone.
"Oh they throw out past deeds of the characters etc...but
is it possible some of it is just a subconscious response to something
on the screen? I don't know. But it does fascinate me why we respond
to certain stimulus the way we do and why we do it so differently."
It's also something that I've been thinking about recently, which
are the characters (lets' not talk real people for the moment)
that I'm attracted to in fiction. Is there a type?
I remember reading a review of the X2 movie recently, where someone
was talking about how Cyclops is their favorite character? To
which my response is, huh? Or my friend who thinks that Captain
Picard was a boring coward and not a real captain. Now Kirk, there
was captain. And here my only response is I heart Darmok and Gilaad.
Gilgamesh and Enkidu, by firelight.
My mind touches on Blake 7 (an early obsession) and my fav character,
Avon. Gotta love a guy that smiles at disaster and constantly
tells everyone that they are idiots. Well, I do. And I consider
the episode Harvest of Kairos, which is all over the Alpha, minion,
Gamma male thing. Avon spend the entire episode examining a rock
while the visiting errr...male villain of the week and Tarrant,
one of the crew, posture and posture some more. And we also have
Servalan, think Lilah only with bigger/badder clothes, sharper
than a serpent's tooth, allowing this week's alpha to dominate
her. Why, because she really is the big bad, so why not.
What does reading all 24 Tarzan books as a prepubescent do to
your fictional wiring? Well, other than increase your vocabulary?
The whole idea of the coding going on in Western Romance writing.
The structure. Not just the brooding, yet sensitive Alpha/Beta/Zeta
male, but the plucky yet resourceful female. The inevitable misunderstanding.
The trope of the grovel moment at the end. Must go home and reread
Dangerous Men and Women , which is
a book of criticism of the romance genre, by romance writers.
Wish I could remember the title.
The evolution through time. The difference between say the romantic
lead in Evelina (wish I could remember his name) versus Mr. Rochester
versus Cooper's Hawkeye versus MASH Hawkeye versus...
The coding of Romance novels as books for women by women in Western
culture. Curious' comment about manga.
Hmmm...brain spinning wildly.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: Romantic archetypes! -- s'kat,
14:13:33 06/24/03 Tue
Okay..I'll continue my thoughts here.
"Oh they throw out past deeds of the characters etc...but
is it possible some of it is just a subconscious response to something
on the screen? I don't know. But it does fascinate me why we respond
to certain stimulus the way we do and why we do it so differently."
It's also something that I've been thinking about recently, which
are the characters (lets' not talk real people for the moment)
that I'm attracted to in fiction. Is there a type?
It is interesting. Isn't it? And I have to take off to see The
Hulk, dang it.
Okay quickly on Cyclops - X2. People who loved Cyclops, actually
liked him in the comics. If you want to know what the character
is like? Think Angel. Cyclops is a lot like Angel in the books.
Brooding. LEader. Often making decisions for other characters.
With a timeless love.
Some comic book fans get into really nasty debates over which
is the better character Cyclops or Wolverine and which character
should be with JEan Grey, beloved of both.
She's currently married to Cyclops, but oh so attracted to Wolverine.
This battle has been going on since roughly 1985.
Wolverine is more the Gamma type, a lone wolf, but also very romantic
at times, this character started out more Alpha and overtime became
more Gamma.
Me? I'm a weird one - I've liked male characters all over the
place. And if this is still up, I'll go into it. Have to take
off or I'm going to be late..
Quick list:
Apollo (Battlestar Galatica)
Han Solo
Hawkeye
Rochester
Mr. Darcy
Spike
Angel
Wesely
Giles
Michael - La Femme Nikita
Dr. Bashir (DS9)
back later...
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Romantic archetypes!
-- fresne, 17:27:19 06/24/03 Tue
So, what did you think of the Hulk?
And by way of comparision:
Apollo (Battlestar Galatica), - Nah, I'm a Starbuck gal
Han Solo - Oh, yeah
Hawkeye - I like him, but we're just friends
Rochester - Is this my pale little elf, is this my mustard seed.
Umm... yeah. Can't stand Heathcliff though.
Mr. Darcy - His own fault for not practicing conversation, but
he's spent his time well, so I'll forgive him.
Spike - Yes
Angel - Not so much
Wesely - As long as I can view S3 BtVS Wes through an AtS lens
Giles - He can clean my glasses if he wants
Michael - La Femme Nikita - My current example of look he has
0 expression and yet he's in agony. How does he do that
Dr. Bashir (DS9) - Cute, but I prefer the actor in the movie A
Dangerous Man. With Rafe Finnes as Lawrence of Arabia.
Okay let's see, who else
Swampthing - Okay, he's a giant plant, but he's got, well actually
no heart. But his almost destroyed the world arc is just, wow.
Jack Skellington - My God those hands, they're immense, you just
know he'd be a great dance lead. And since he is dead, he can
take off his head to recite Shakespearian quotation.
Tarzan, in particular in book 2 - Okay, he's completely un-pc,
but come on, he drinks too much absinthe, smokes too many cigarettes
and wanders the bad parts of Paris looking for a fight. And one
of these days I will finish my Belle Epoque Tarzan is an immortal
in Paris story. I just need to find my Mata Hari notes.
Miles Vorkosigan - He's insane. He's a genius. He occasionally
reaches competence at apogee. And yet, there are those who prefer
his equally insane more broody .
Zeta from the Zeta Project and in the same vein Data from
Hmmm...yeah, all over the board, with a certain consistency with
those types. Naif. Rogue. Now I must to the airport, lest I make
my housemate wait and wait and...
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Okay I'm Back...and regarding
the Hulk -- s'kat, 21:56:27 06/24/03 Tue
To finish up on this...and give explanations.
First on the Hulk - uhm, well, how to put this, until seeing the
Hulk, I didn't know it was possible to do reproduce the comic
book medium on a big screen. I mean literally. Ang Lee literally
attempted to recreat the visual experience of looking at a comic
book in live action. We had panels and split screens - just like
in the comics. They split the screen for quiet moments and action
moments. We saw the Hulk jump from panel to panel - I felt like
I was watching a moving holographic comic book.
Did it work? Not really. The consensus was it was really hard
to follow, very campy and didn't make a lot of sense, and after
a while just showing off.
OTOH - it did do a nifty job of exploring Bruce Banner's Daddy
Issues, Repressed Angry and Emotional Constipation.
Made it bit more complicated than absolutely necessary, but hey
that's Ang Lee for you.
In the middle of it, I had this odd realization - Angel reminds
me of the Hulk. And Cordelia is Betty Ross or Buffy is. When Angel
isn't Angelus - he's broody and somewhat stoic, when he is Angelus,
he's all emotional and angry and nasty. Angelus comes out when
he loses his humanity. The Hulk comes out when Bruce gives into
the rage and loses his humanity. The whole Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde
complex in a nutshell.
Speaking of which - isn't that an archetype in of itself?
Do people get turned on by Angel b/c of the Dr. Jekyll and Mr.
Hyde thing? Is it a subconscious view of addiction as well? In
the Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde - Hyde comes out due
to a potion - the potion he gets addicted to, the power is like
a drug. Banner tells Betty in the movie, he is worried about how
much he enjoys the power of the Hulk. Are our cliches - really
just cliches, because we are drawn to them and feel the need to
keep using the same ones, over and over again? Honestly this was
going through my mind during the movie. I wondered what it was
that both repulsed me and attracted me to characters that start
out nice and metamorphosize into monsters. I was terrified of
them as a youngster, still am, yet oddly drawn at the same time
- as if there's something about the metamphorsis or
the whole idea of the monster coming out that just fascinates
me on a subsconsicous level.
Here's a couple of examples:
Swamp Thing - scared and attracted at the same time
Spike and Angel
(I got really interested in Angel when he turned into a vampire
in Angel S1 and when he became Angelus in Innocence.)
Xander in the Pack
Spike - William dichotmy
Willow becoming DarkWillow
Bruce Banner and the Hulk
Logan and Wolverine
Cyclops dealing with becoming Apocalpyse
JEan Grey dealing with becoming Dark Phoenix
The idea of having that inner dark monster - ready to spring forth
at any moment and change you into something else is terryfying
yet also very interesting at the same time.
In Cordelia's Honor what I found most interesting about Sgt.
Bothari (sp?) was that he was both a monster yet also a good man
at the same time.
(It's not that I'm attracted to this in real life. Believe me
I'm not. Not in the least. I tend to run in the other direction
from people like this. And I've met a few. Scary.
No interest. I like nice men. If I were to meet an Angel or a
Spike in reality - I'd take off in the opposite direction as I'd
hope we all would. Actually if I were to meet Buffy in real life
- I'd run in the opposite direction. )
But I am attracted to it in stories. I found the character of
Lestate in Anne Rice's stories really fascinating, so did Ann
Rice apparently, since she kept writing about him.
But what attracted me was the dichotmy, underneath the cold-blooded
killer with a sense of fun, lay the vulnerable soul who ached
for love and meaning. The fact that both can and do exist side
by side in our nature often not so clearly delinated fascinates
me.
So maybe my archetype is partly dependant on that?
The weird thing is I can split myself off on the male romantic
types time wise.
In my teens and early-late twenties? I was into Apollo, Luke (well
only briefly), Cyclopes, Angel, Rochester,
Darcy, Louis (Interview with A Vampire), the dark emotionally
distant brooding types or stalwart heros.
Then in my late twenties/thirties - something happened.
I started preferring the Starbuck character, Han Solo,
Spike, Wolverine and Gambit, Lestate.
Yes, there were skirmishes. I preferred Starbuck after in my twenties,
I have no idea what I saw in Apollo. But I loved him as a kid.
I also loved Kimba and Robin Hood (the Disney Fox not Errol Flynn
, as a kid), now I love Lupin in Monkey Punch and Castle Calistoga.
I adore Han, don't know what I saw in Luke. I adore Wolverine,
can't remember why I had a thing for Cyclops. It goes on.
So somewhere along the way I must have undergone some sort of
psychological change in archetypes. Because I went from liking
the brooding, alpha male to preferring the devil-may-care, emotional
gamma. I look at the people who still seem to be into the Alpha
and think, okay, that used to be me.
Why did I change types? OR did I? Did I just meld them together?
Is it really that clearly delinated in my skull?
Is it for anyone? Can we truly categorize each other in this way?
Okay now I'm confusing myself.
Kudos to anyone who understood this.
Good post fresne - it made more sense than mine.;-) Should comment
on it more directly...so here goes:
Wesely - As long as I can view S3 BtVS Wes through an AtS lens
Giles - He can clean my glasses if he wants
Michael - La Femme Nikita - My current example of look he has
0 expression and yet he's in agony. How does he do that
Dr. Bashir (DS9) - Cute, but I prefer the actor in the movie A
Dangerous Man. With Rafe Finnes as Lawrence of Arabia.
Yep agree completely on all of the above. Didn't have enough time
to make that clearer.
Wes - Ats S3-S4 only. Prior to that, I just felt embarrassed for
him. (Physical comedy and shadowkat are unmixy things in most
cases.)
Rafe Fiennnes...yum. But loved Peter O'Toole as Lawerence of Arabia
- and believe me you haven't seen it until you've seen it on the
big screen.
Clark Gable - Gone with the Wind (Best thing in it)
Dr. Bashir - don't believe I've seen A Dangerous Man - or are
you referring to the DS9 episode?
Jack Skellington - My God those hands, they're immense, you
just know he'd be a great dance lead. And since he is dead, he
can take off his head to recite Shakespearian quotation.
Yep. Was renting this so many times one year, I gave up finally
and bought it. Jake Skellington and Lupin (from the Japanese Anime
videos) are my two all time favorite animation heros. I adore
them both. I want them both.
Yes, weird I know, but I like lean, intelligent, snarky/witty
fictional men.
Can't say too much about Tarzan, never read the books, did see
the Christopher Lambert movie called Greystoke and he was quite
yummy in it. Also like Lambert in Highlander, although Adrian
Paul may have beat him there.
Okay hope that part at least made sense. sk
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Transformers - More
than meets the Eye -- fresne, 23:44:03 06/24/03 Tue
Good question about the transformation thing. Although, I found
the character less attractive than I would have expected. But,
I quite liked Hulk, but then I really liked the over the top stylistic
choices. The repetition of the moss and the bare wood. The inner
world as the external. External as the internal. Water and sand.
Green. Oh, who am I kidding? Oh, look it's something needlessly
baroque and stylistic. I love it.
"until seeing the Hulk, I didn't know it was possible to
do reproduce the comic book medium on a big screen. I mean literally."
Umm...yeah. I've seen it flirted with before, but that was a comic
book in motion.
Yes, Jean into Dark Phoenix, best X-arc ever.
So, what is it about the transformation. The freedom that comes
of being Hyde. And conversely the restrictions. Dr. Jekyll after
all dies to himself. The attractiveness of absolute freedom. The
ability to do anything and not care. And implicitly that not only
will you be free, but really, really cool. Pack Xander is practically
Jim Morrison in motion. Willow sloughs terror and discovers the
air restricting power of leather. Course, it'll end in sadness
and tears, tears I say.
Or speaking as someone with her very Sally costume, as part of
my on-going transformation habit, maybe not.
Dangerous Man: Lawrence After Arabia - ah, yes there was a DS9
episode with a similar title wasn't there. And I should perhaps
qualify that once Bashir retro-fited his genes into the plot,
everything he did took on new texture. A man with secrets. However,
I'm refering to his role as Prince Faisil, which almost got him
cast as Sisco, until they found out his age. Rafe as Lawrence,
is quite typically tortured and pained.
Hmm...Peter O'Toole - Aurens. The maelstrom in those eyes. Once
again, the possibility of transformation. I've never seen it on
a large screen, but it must be something with the all those shots
of the searing simplicity of nothing. Although, having read The
Seven Pillar's of Wisdom and The Mint, I'm incredibly fascinated
by the original man as well. Talk about an unreliable and yet
transparent narrative. Densely transparent.
Tarzan is a bit of a trip to read now as an adult. The first several
books are quite gripping as page turners. Greystoke is one of
the better movie versions since it manages to communicate Tarzan's
intelligence and sheer hunger to know. Although, how shall I say
this, Tarzan's a bit more like Angelus in Book 1 than you could
ever pull off in a movie. Well, Angelus crossed with Gowain. All
noble gestures and killing for fun. There the transformation is
a bit in reverse. He pulls on layers of civilization, which he
later attempts to shed to uncertain degrees of success. Once you
know, you cannot unknown.
Re: Highlander on one hand Adrian Paul, very attractive and yet,
again with the snarky weasel love. Methos, he shows up, he drinks
your beer, he has a really dark past, but hey it was the Bronze
Age. Everything was darker back then. Even the sun was a lower
wattage. And possibly in black and white.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Transformation
-- lunasea, 11:00:34 06/25/03 Wed
Freedom is but one part of the transformation story. This freedom
is always shown to be a bad thing and the character is soon in
over their head. That to me is what makes the story compelling.
It is taking some character, giving them what they want and showing
that this is too much for him/her to handle. Be careful what you
wish for because you just might get it.
The vamping of the three major vampires: Angel, Spike and Darla
all give them something they supposedly wanted. What Willow wants
is set up both in "Dopplegangerland" and Season 6. Before
Xander becomes HyenaBoy, he is goofing off on the field trip.
He also wants to be able to handle things physically. Cave Buffy
gives Buffy a lot of what she thinks she wants. Jonathan in "Superstar"
learns things come with a price. Poor Giles is feeling so passed
by in "A New Man." The conjoining spell took on a new
layer when "Restless" showed how over their heads our
heroes were when they did it.
Oz and Drusilla are in a different category. They had their transformations
forced on them with no remote desire for them. With Oz, the transformation
removes all his personality and reduces him to an animal. It is
also temporary. It isn't the transformation, so much as Willow
and he having to deal with it that is the story. With Drusilla,
it isn't how she changed that is the story. The transformation
isn't really about her. It is part of Angel/us' story and shows
how truly evil he was.
There is yet another category. When Faith transforms into Buffy
by stealing her body, she learns a bit about life. Same thing
with Xander when he is split in "The Replacement." When
Willow becomes Warren in "The Killer in Me" same thing.
Walking a mile in someone else's shoes shows our characters a
lot.
That to me is what makes the story compelling and why it is revisited
so much. It ties to addiction. The addict doesn't start out wanting
to be addicted. The addiction slowly or quickly takes over the
addict. The addict is in over their head.
The show actually does revisit Jekyll/Hyde, but the spin they
put on it makes the character unappealing. Typically it is a basically
good character that loses himself. In this case, Marti explored
men who hate women and the screwed up women who love them. This
spin makes me not really care about what happens to Pete and Debbie
much. If I don't care about the good incarnations, I don't care
about what was lost due to the transformation. That is why Angel
to Angelus is more striking than Liam to Angelus. It is also why
Darla's second vamping is much more powerful than her first.
Freedom is great, but for me the story is that freedom isn't great.
It is some character that I love getting in over his/her head.
Characters, like villians, that just experience freedom are missing
this component and tend to just be fun, not quite as compelling.
Just me
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Transformers
- More than meets the Eye -- s'kat, 12:04:44 06/25/03 Wed
Although, I found the character less attractive than I would
have expected. But, I quite liked Hulk, but then I really liked
the over the top stylistic choices. The repetition of the moss
and the bare wood. The inner world as the external. External as
the internal. Water and sand. Green. Oh, who am I kidding? Oh,
look it's something needlessly baroque and stylistic. I love it.
Would agree...Banner in the movie wasn't as attractive as I expected
either. I think I like him better in the comics and in the Bill
Bixby series. On the other hand, I did like some of the film techniques
- the moss, the close-ups of desert creatures - showing how the
Hulk reall did develop from the desert itself. How the desert
can both be a life giving force and a force of destruction - shown
with the jagged rocks, also shown through the end sequence with
the main battle.
Also the idea of Bruce's Father wanting his power/his rage and
Bruces throwing it back at his father full force. Take it.
The freedom that comes of being Hyde. And conversely the restrictions.
Dr. Jekyll after all dies to himself. The attractiveness of absolute
freedom. The ability to do anything and not care. And implicitly
that not only will you be free, but really, really cool. Pack
Xander is practically Jim Morrison in motion. Willow sloughs terror
and discovers the air restricting power of leather. Course, it'll
end in sadness and tears, tears I say.
Freedom's such a weird thing, isn't it? The freedom to unleash
raw emotion. In the Hulk comics - it's Banner's exposure to the
radiation from an atomic bomb that unleashes the Hulk inside him.
The bomb is a metaphor for what happens when we unleash it. The
bomb of rage. Having the freedom to unleash emotions in increments
works better, as in Andrew's tears for his friend, or Angel's
scream when he sees Connor and Cordy making love or Spike's hitting
the punching bag after catching that kiss. Yet - unleashing it
the way Spike does in AR, or Angel does in Forgiving, or
Connor does in Home -that is when freedom crosses the line.
And you lose yourself in the emotion. The emotion becomes your
cage.
There's a great moment in The Hulk - where Banner dreams of looking
in a fogged mirror at The Hulk behind the glass. The Hulk smashes
through, grabs him and basically absorbs him - Banner's greatest
nightmare. The emotion saying "puny human!" When that
happens, you have no freedom, the tranformation the emotion takes
on - overtakes you.
Angelus believes without a soul - he's freer. But actually he's
more caged than he ever was. He has no choice - he is at the whim
of the emotions racing through him, he's pure id. Same with Spike
- without the chip or the soul - Spike is at the mercy of his
blood, the demonic emotions racing through him. That's not freedom.
Same with Dr. Jekyll - Hyde possesses him, controls him - raw
emotion/id, but he's not free. Same with Pack Xander - who becomes
possessed by his emotions, negative ones, that control him. The
id. i want Buffy? I take buffy.
We run into danger - I think - when we think giving into the emotion
is freeing - it gives us a rush, but it's our choices that are
freeing. And if we give into the emotion - the choice becomes
it's bitch, the emotion rules. Or rather as the psychologist in
Beauty and Beasts states - when you let an emotion such as love
take control - then it becomes your master and you its slave.
Which I guess can happen when you meet and fall for your archetype
- lust takes over, there is no rational thought.
Dangerous Man: Lawrence After Arabia - ah, yes there was a
DS9 episode with a similar title wasn't there. And I should perhaps
qualify that once Bashir retro-fited his genes into the plot,
everything he did took on new texture. A man with secrets. However,
I'm refering to his role as Prince Faisil, which almost got him
cast as Sisco, until they found out his age. Rafe as Lawrence,
is quite typically tortured and pained.
Ugh I missed that movie. Dang it. Is it available on video?
Tarzan is a bit of a trip to read now as an adult. The first
several books are quite gripping as page turners. Greystoke is
one of the better movie versions since it manages to communicate
Tarzan's intelligence and sheer hunger to know. Although, how
shall I say this, Tarzan's a bit more like Angelus in Book 1 than
you could ever pull off in a movie. Well, Angelus crossed with
Gowain. All noble gestures and killing for fun. There the transformation
is a bit in reverse. He pulls on layers of civilization, which
he later attempts to shed to uncertain degrees of success. Once
you know, you cannot unknown.
Now you're making me want to read Tarzan. ugh. And I still need
to finish The Lovely Bones by Sebold and Stars my Destination.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> LMAO!
-- Carolined, 15:35:19 06/25/03 Wed
fresne and shadowkat, thanks for the entertainment! I've been
laughing along happily to all your posts. And also thanks for
the Whedon interview - I definitely share many of the views he
expressed about feminism as well as intepretation of text. Many
of the males in film and literature that you've mentioned push
my buttons also - fresne and I have already had deep, extensive,
and drunken discussions re: Mr. Darcy. I'd divide them into three
types - athletic, but sweet, sensitive and kinda philosophical
(Luke Skywalker, Wesley in Princess Bride - first half of movie),
rugged, manly, trying to hide the sweet and sensitive (Han, Mr.
Darcy, Wesley in Princess Bride - after he became the Dread Pirate
Roberts) and then the geeky, goofy, funny, sweet and sensitive
(the sidekick in every 80s teen movie, usually starring Molly
Ringwald, okay, Wesley does not fit here, I just like geeky goofy
guys). Yeah, I mentioned Wesley from Princess Bride 3 times -
can I help it that he bears an uncanny resemblance to my late
husband? I'm not sure how my three types fit into the 3 archetypes
mentioned by romantic novelists - maybe I'll have to go read some
Harlequin romances - any recommendations?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
LMAO! -- s'kat, 16:35:34 06/25/03 Wed
Actually the bodice rippers are more enjoyable than the Harelquin's.
OR the gothic novels, where the guy is all dark and mysterious.
Let's see there's Laurie McBain(I think it's McBain)
The Devil's Desire.
Kathleen Woodwise - The Wolf and The Dove - which deals with the
Normans invading the Saxons.
Mary Stewart - she wrote a bunch of the King Arthur series
and also tons of gothics. My favorite gothic was Touch Not the
Cat - had to do with ESP.
Rosemary Rogers - The Wildest Heart - a mystery/gothic/bodice
ripper combined. With the dark suspicious alpha male lead.
Modern day? Jeri Smith-Ready's Requiem for the Devil.
Lucifer is the hero.
Can't think of any others. I stopped reading romance novels six
years ago, so it's hard to remember them. I read most of them
between the ages of 12-25.
Yep, have the same difficulty...dang it...I think I put them in
stages. For the life of me, I can't figure out why Xander in s1-3
now turns me on more than Angel, while when I was actually watching
S1-3 in 1997-1999, Angel turned me on more. Or why I found Riley
more attractive in 2000, than I do now. What is it with my libido,
anyway??
And why is it that I never found Mr. Darcy that attractive until
I saw Colin Firth in the part and watched him dive into that pound?
Colin Firth hasn't been attractive in anything else really outside
of possibly Valmont and even then, nope, sorry.
One does wonder about oneself at times...LOL! Oh and yes,
I much preferred the Dread Pirate Roberts Wesely, to the As You
wish Wesely... I like a bit of fire to my characters.
By the way, why hasn't Carey Elwes gotten more roles?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> recs
-- Anneth, 16:37:46 06/25/03 Wed
Revealing my deepest, darkest secret for you, Caro - my favoritest
ever romance novel, one of only two I've ever reread - Knight
in Shining Armor, by Jude Deveroux.
The other one, also by Deveroux, with the cringe-inducing title
Velvet Angel, I haven't reread in years, so I have no idea if
my post-college self would hold it in the same esteem as my high
school incarnation did. But I still really like the first one.
A non-romance novel you might like is the novel Animal Dreams,
by Barbara Kingsolver; there is a love-interest, named Loyd-one-el,
and he's pretty yummy.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
more LOL -- ponygirl, 19:18:47 06/25/03 Wed
My friend, whose pool this weekend was the site of some massive
sunburning on my part, had to be talked out of naming her son
Deveroux. She's a huge reader, buys romance novels by the boxful,
and swears by Johanna Lindsey's books. I've never read them, since
we have very different tastes, but they're supposedly bodice-rippers
of the highest quality.
The talk of Han vs. Luke, or the eternal bad boy vs. nice guy
debate, had my friend going too. She was bemoaning a recent romance
trend of making the men sensitive - "don't they know we like
them bad?" It's another testament to the difference between
fictional and real life tastes that her husband is a big sweetie.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Transforming
Hulkish Spoilers with Diabolical Silhouetted Harlequins --
fresne, 22:22:15 06/25/03 Wed
"There's a great moment in The Hulk - where Banner dreams
of looking in a fogged mirror at The Hulk behind the glass. The
Hulk smashes through, grabs him and basically absorbs him - Banner's
greatest nightmare. The emotion saying "puny human!"
When that happens, you have no freedom, the tranformation the
emotion takes on - overtakes you"
Yes, I loved that scene. And then the immediate submersion in
the water. That fall from a cold starlit height into a cold sparkling
depth. Repression. Bursting forth onto city streets. Disrupting.
Disturbing. Quieted by love's face.
Dangerous Man is indeed out on video, it's at least ten, fifteen
years old. Quite good though.
And as to Tarzan. Bwahahahaha. My corruptive work here is done.
But, wait Caroline mentioned Harlequin romances. As I turn speculatively
to my shelf and crack my knuckles. Since it was request for actual
Harlequins lets see...
Girl in a Golden Bed by Anne Weale - He's an artist. She's an
artist. They're in Portofino. There's a bed with a bronze mirror.
Beautifully languid.
Enchanted in Venice by Lucy Gordon/Silhouette - blah, blah, blah
romance in Venice, but before we get to Venice we have my favorite
makeover scene in a book. Hair, face, clothes, the works.
The Lonely Season by Susan Napier - The lonely season in lonely
lands, when fled/And half the birds, and mists lie low, and the
sun/Is rarely seen, nor strayeth far from his bed;/the short days
pass unwelcomed one by one. - Robert Bridges. Like that.
Foolish Deceiver by Sandra Rhoades - She's a genius, who can never
get a date. She pretends to be a bleached blond idiot with mixed
results.
Unfinished Rhapsody by Gina Caimi/Silhouette - Best backrub scene
ever.
Tainted Love by Alison Fraser - Damn. The pain. The angst. The
longing looks.
Just Good Friends by Lucy Gordon/Silhouette - If Doyle had been
a romance hero. Also, since I've just listed seven Harlequin romances,
I must redeem my cred by saying, one of the best explanations
of Benedict and Beatrice from Much Ado about Nothing that I've
ever read. Plus, it's really funny, because he's Doyle only not
a demon.
Switching to romances longer that 189 pages,
Naked in Death - Nora Roberts/J.D. Robb. - Futuristic mystery/romance.
A little unusual in that it's a series romance. The romance starts
in book one, but it takes books of building, and wall deconstructing
and adventure and murders and in my head the hero is played by
Pierce Brosnan. Good stuff.
Seconding the Requiem for the Devil recommendation. - I love,
love, love this book. I read it at least once a year. The conclusion
always hits me like a ton of bricks. The devil, he's evil, he's
in love, it sucks to be him. There's this bit at the grand canyon
that, okay, nice.
The Silver Devil by Teresa Denys. - Renaissance/romance Hard to
find, but fascinating. The most un-pc romance that I've ever read,
but for once it feels like period characters in a period book,
not modern characters plopped down. You can practically feel the
weight of the clothes, the smell of the torches, the back stabbing.
Owe! The hero is mesmerizing, kind of insane, and quite frankly
has minions do his brooding for him. In any other book, he'd be
the villain. The strangely likeable villain.
Ravished by Amanda Quick. - Regency romance. She's a proto-paleontologist.
He's a big, brooding, dark, depressed, disgraced, really wealthy,
some kind of aristocrat. It's hilarious. He doesn't get to be
jealous of other men. No, his rivals are the pile of bones that
she's always rooting around.
The Rainbow Season by Lisa Gregory - Turn of the Century US/Romance.
The hero pulls off being really damaged and really sweet. Everyone's
all damaged and needing the metaphor of the growing earth.
Uncommon Vows by Mary Joe Putney - Medieval/Romance. He's acetic
and contained and focused. She's all pluck and heedless courage.
Classic style of romance.
And now, I contemplate the romance. The idea of genre, that like
horror (it's opposite?) is intended to engender a specific emotion
in a specific audience. Admittedly, there are different types
of romances. Funny. Angsty. My housemate like the humor. I want
my heart ripped out and stomped on. However, the essential premise
is same. Formulaic. Boy meets girl. Conflict. Resolution. In Harlequins
I even know the page when things will happen. The plot is almost
beside the point. It is the form of the dance, rather than the
dance itself that pleasure lends.
Hmmm...although, like when the little blonde girl kicks the demon's
big axe wielding ass, a twist can be fun if played right within
the formula.
I also feel like I should digress into a discussion of Mr. Hyde's
lack of voice within Dr. Jeckyl/Mr Hyde. The qualitative nature
of first person narrative. The embedded nature of the text, with
secrets on secrets. But Hyde is elusive, unlike the creature at
the center of Frankenstein who like the kernel at the center does
eventually speak. Points in the narrative where Hyde is feminized
(smaller, high pitched voice, etc.). The general lack of women
in the book. Lots of old bachelors. The fact that Jeckyl is working
to divorce Hyde from himself. The way streets and doors are described
within the narrative. The curiousness of the little girl and the
well respected man wandering around the streets down town at midnight.
Just what is going on there?
However, I've spent too much time talking about romances and am
not quite in the mood to reread J/H at the moment.
Saunters off to go read some smut. Well, once I've pondered the
board. Priorities after all. Lacks closure as an exit though doesn't
it?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Stepping in briefly -- lunasea,
15:29:59 06/24/03 Tue
It isn't a type that gets me any more. When I was in high school,
I had my type. When I was in college, I had my type. Those types
were the opposite of me. They allowed me to project what I was
suppressing and deal with it through my romantic relationships
(and friends). No matter what the "type" I required
someone with a strong personality, since I have one and anyone
who wasn't as strong as I am would get smushed.
Now it is the heart behind the story and the character that gets
me. Lose the heart and the character is gone. That is one thing
that Joss does exceedingly well and he knows it. He can find and
show us the hearts of his characters. Why don't I like Spike?
Because as Jane Espenson said, the difference between the soul
and the chip is the heart behind it.
I don't think that Joss tries to write a type. I think he tries
to write a heart. Then he wraps that in whatever form would fit
the plot. Then someone else labels that a certain type. Joss is
a great story teller because his focus is emotions, the emotions
of his characters and what that generates in his audience.
Cyclops wasn't given enough material to really have much of a
heart, but my favorite moment is when Jean Gray says "Don't
make me do this." My biggest complaint about X2 was that
Jean and Cyclops' relationship wasn't built up enough so that
the ending didn't have as much impact as it should have. Wolverine
had tons of heart.
One series that I think really lacks in the heart department is
Star Wars. Wonderful story, but some of the books are much better
than the movies. Same thing with Middle Earth. I think the movie
is much better because it isn't just relating history like the
books, but really gives the characters heart.
That is just me. If the characters don't care, neither do I.
[> [> [> [> [>
Wow Caroline, I really think you've got it. -- fidhle,
15:11:28 06/23/03 Mon
Thanks for the great post, Caroline. Buffy's growth is indeed
the issue, and her development as a whole, integrated, person
is what I think we see in S7. As she herself knows, she hasn't
finished that journey - her cookie dough is still undone, but
she now has learned that which she needs to know to finish that
journey to become the person she can and should be, with both
feminine and masculine aspects, which are present in all people.
I agree completely with your analysis. Great job.
Fid
[> [> [> [> [>
Archetypes -- lunasea, 16:00:07 06/23/03 Mon
Archetypes, per Dr. Jung himself, are the psychic component to
instinct. What you are talking about is the forms that archetypes
take. Archetypes have no form any more than instinct do.
The problem with Season 6 is that myth isn't consciously written.
It just comes to us from deep within, where instinct and archetypes
reside. Anything that is an exploration of these things consciously
tends to, IMNSHO, lose a lot of its universal appeal.
Archetypes aren't cliches and their forms aren't a symbolic language
common to all. Instinct is the langugage we all speak. We all
have a drive to be nurtured and to nurture others. This comes
out in various forms. Those forms are not common to all of us.
They are not universal.
That is where much of the disagreement about things like Spuffy
comes from. Our experiences really color our own individual archetypes
and how we see things. Spike isn't some universal archetype. He
is a form the writers create. When people start to mistake him
for something universal, he loses a lot.
This is why Spuffy gets so heated. It is also why I tend to rely
on what the writers say about him. He is their creation, their
form. He isn't something that resides in us all. What generated
him does, but we rarely talk about that.
[> [> [> [> [>
Falling forward -- fresne, 16:21:43 06/23/03 Mon
"The woman she becomes is simultaneously the women she must
be and the woman she wants to be. That is something that really
speaks to me, as a woman, a feminist and a human being."
Yes, yes, and yes.
And I love the idea that Sunnydale was a sort of pupae, a microcosmic
world that simultaneously entrapped and supported Buffy. Before
she could go free of this one Starbuck town, she had to reach
an inner peace with her own lack of perfection. Not that she didn't
know that she was "wrong" before, just that imperfection
is a hard thing for a perfectionist to accept. Thus her inferiority
complex about feeling superior.
That she will never live up to her own expectations, much less
any one else's. That in the end, she can only be Buffy and that's
okay.
That she can accept that the darkness that wears her face does
not define her. The monstrous feminine is a phantasm. And I'll
just briefly note the symbolism of reiterating the action of PG.
Going into the tunnel to be reborn. This time, that tunnel's mouth
has teeth, which opens not as a child leads her, but with drops
of blood from this soon to be sisterhood on the seal. After all
our discussion of symbols of the masculine, monstrous or otherwise,
do I need to spell it out?
That she must forgive nothing. She must accept Faith, her shadow
sister, as she must accept her light striving darkness. Telling
Spike that she loves him finally admits to a Buffy that can love
herself. Giving Faith the scythe admits to a Buffy that can finally
let go. Give way. Run. Jump. Fall into the future.
Then the Hellmouth, this vast thing, turns out to be empty. Filled
with dust. Nothing.
Buffy no longer needs it, so this tiny town crumbles away. From
here Buffy will walk in the world. The road of possibility curving
to the horizon of everything.
There is no image I love so much as a road leading away. That
they end up in the desert thrills me. The liminal place between
worlds where visions and dreams dwell. Through the gates of Ivory
and Horn, Buffy can now emerge into the world and dewy fledgling
fly.
That's just so incredibly cool.
[> [> [> [> [>
Feminine and Masculine, cookies and dough -- Rahael, 19:27:52
06/23/03 Mon
Thanks for such a thoughtful and lengthy reply Caroline. I certainly
agree with a large part of what you are saying, but I'll first
comment on the parts I don't agree with.
Buffy feels comfortable in the masculine, rule and rationality-based
aspects of her role as a slayer
See, I just cannot see this as a 'masculine' quality. Maybe I
should check - are you using these qualities as something essential,
or are you using them as purely socially coded ideas (terms used
for sheer convenience)? In fact, I saw Buffy as all woman, all
the way through, (all human, in fact), whether she was displaying
her aggression, or her cleverness - both in strategy, in making
rational decisions, in intuitive judgement, in compassion. I cannot
regard one single of these characteristics as in any way gender
coded.
I agree with you that the Slayer contains both characteristics.
I guess where I differ is whether they are separate, or intertwined.
I'm afraid, that if I were told that compassion and nurturing
and forgiveness were feminine and rational and rule based was
masculine, that those qualities were psychologically separate
somehow, I'd have a pretty bolshy reaction. I'd like to be a man
please. Maybe its because I grew up in a society where women were
supposed to be compassionate and nurturing and forgiving so they
had to marry the man their families told them to, obey their husbands
in all important decisions, forgive every bit of indignity they
were fated to endure, because they are women, and are meant to
bear these things better than men!
My grandmother, when she was younger would have to let her husband
and children eat before she could help herself. She often went
hungry. (Women are sacrificial and nurturing). Women in abusive
marriages were made to go back to their temporarily penitent husbands.
They have to be forgiving. Men should be all these things to,
but it's harder for them, so we had to be tolerant. (So the husband
was a bit of a brute, well, that's the way men are. Destructive.)
Of course, all the while my grandmother went without her food,
she fumed, a backbone of resentment and anger and all sorts of
unfeminine feelings she had to repress. My grandfather, inwardly
far more artistic and sensitive than his wife had to bow to his
wife's demands over many household matters both practical and
philosophical. Their daughters, rebellious and sensitive and minds
as rational as a steel trap inherited stubbornness, determination
and the anger of a trapped woman from their mother; their sensitivity
and artistic inclinations from their father - their intelligence
from both parents. Was my grandmother a masculine woman? not in
the least. She was a 'woman'. Was my grandfather a 'feminine man'?
Again no, he was a man. They were two ill matched human beings
forced together by an arranged marriage slowly growing toward
a reluctant love and caring. She, girlish, he authoritative. Both
putty in each other's hand. They both broke the same way inside
as they grew older. One tragedy for each of their daughters.
I see such things as compassion or aggression, loneliness or pain
as emotions that seize us all, outward manifestations to all sorts
of conflicts and thoughts within us. I cannot assign archetypal
essenses to these conflicts and thoughts, nor to their emotional
expression. Society keeps telling us how they should be expressed,
but the real story is the disjuncture between prescription and
reality.
I saw BtVS reflecting my own stance on this; of course I would!
This is what I observe in life, so I project it on to the characters.
I can see how people who observe other things will read the open
ended narratives of BtVS differently. But in Season 7, I saw some
undeniable things, perhaps crystallising some earlier niggling
doubts, making them impossible to ignore. I personally find the
gendered narratives of S7 imprisoning to me, or at least, not
filled with enough ambiguity to fanwank. I'm pretty certain that
Joss has very different ideas about masculinity and femininity.
I agree that the Slayer is in a state of possibility. As are we
all. I don't generally think of myself as cookie dough, but I'd
always prefer myself to be cookie dough to a cookie. Always malleable,
ever changing, containing all these possibilities, responding
creatively to change. If I became a cookie, I'd become fixed in
shape, fragile, an object. There is no true future for my self.
No real me waiting to emerge. I am me now, I will be me later.
Who I will be, I cannot tell. I can't guarantee I'll be a finer
or worse person. I can tell you that I was a braver, more admirable
person when I was 9 than I am now.
I totally agree with you that wholeness is an important process
for all of us.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> I think you've seriously misunderstood my argument. Will
get back tomorrow -- Caroline, 21:32:29 06/23/03 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Feminine and Masculine, cookies and dough --
Caroline, 07:26:55 06/24/03 Tue
I'm rather frustrated that I appear to have communicated so poorly
to you. You appear to be responding to arguments I did not think
I made. I'll try to be more clear here.
You quote me:
Buffy feels comfortable in the masculine, rule and rationality-based
aspects of her role as a slayer
Then write:
See, I just cannot see this as a 'masculine' quality. Maybe
I should check - are you using these qualities as something essential,
or are you using them as purely socially coded ideas (terms used
for sheer convenience)? In fact, I saw Buffy as all woman, all
the way through, (all human, in fact), whether she was displaying
her aggression, or her cleverness - both in strategy, in making
rational decisions, in intuitive judgement, in compassion. I cannot
regard one single of these characteristics as in any way gender
coded.
What I am talking about here is psychological principles, with
masculinity and femininity being part of the psyches of both men
and women. I'm not saying that masculinity belongs only to men
and femininity belongs only to women. They belong to all of us.
Masculinity as a principle is action, femininity is a principle
of reception. While in discussion it is useful to talk of these
principles as though they are separate they are part of the same
psychic energy and inseparable. I'm not saying that certain behaviours
or qualities are purely socially coded ideas, I'm saying something
about how these operate in the psyche. I don't really understand
what you say when you talk about Buffy being all woman. It appears
that you and I are using different definitions and talking at
cross-purposes here. I'm talking psychology, you're talking the
battle of the sexes.
You write:
I'm afraid, that if I were told that compassion and nurturing
and forgiveness were feminine and rational and rule based was
masculine, that those qualities were psychologically separate
somehow, I'd have a pretty bolshy reaction.
It's a good thing I'm not saying that so you don't have to go
all bolshy! Once again, I'm talking psychological principles here,
not gender wars. In all our stories and myths in many cultures,
we have always associated nurturing with the feminine principle.
This does not mean that men are incapable of the same behaviours,
because their psyches also contain the feminine principle! You
wrote a wonderful essay with Ran and Bit on Kali and Shiva which,
if I remember correctly, talks about some of these issues.
You write:
I see such things as compassion or aggression, loneliness or
pain as emotions that seize us all, outward manifestations to
all sorts of conflicts and thoughts within us. I cannot assign
archetypal essenses to these conflicts and thoughts, nor to their
emotional expression. Society keeps telling us how they should
be expressed, but the real story is the disjuncture between prescription
and reality.
Once again, each and every one of us is capable of all sorts of
behaviours since we contain all these principles within us. I
used the examples of Spike and Angel deliberately - both men,
but with different ways of expressing aggression informed by their
own psyches. We carry certain archetypal images in out psyches,
both masculine and feminine (the hostile feminine, the hostile
masculine etc) and our behaviours - aggression, compassion etc
spring from these. The conflicts we have spring from the workings
of our own minds, but they are not themselves archetypal essences.
As for society, I'm not saying anything about how society says
we should express anything - I'm not really concerned here about
society and its shoulds. I'm talking about the individual and
internal conflicts.
You write:
But in Season 7, I saw some undeniable things, perhaps crystallising
some earlier niggling doubts, making them impossible to ignore.
I personally find the gendered narratives of S7 imprisoning to
me, or at least, not filled with enough ambiguity to fanwank.
I'm pretty certain that Joss has very different ideas about masculinity
and femininity.
I don't see S7 as a gendered narrative. I don't see Joss saying
that either masculine or feminine are good/evil. They just exist
in an eternal struggle within us. No, we are the struggle. But
since you haven't given your argumentation here, I can't understand
why you think there is a gendered narrative that you have found
imprisoning.
I agree with you about always wanting to be dough rather than
a cookie. When are we ever truly finished?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> No, you've misunderstood me!! -- Rahael, 11:00:36
06/24/03 Tue
I have to write this very quickly, so it's a very spare response,
but your post above illustrates exactly what I mean. Masculine
and feminine principles in the pysche? Why is masculine associated
with action and feminine with reception (well, I have a dreadful
idea why that is so actually but I hesitate to spell it out).
I do not believe that there are such principles in our psyche.
I wasn't writing about the battle of the sexes, I was writing
about such ideas of gender and sex! I know you say we contain
both in ourselves, but I'm still highly suspicous of passivity
being associated with femininity. In fact, it's something I feel
pretty strongly about. I'd say that these are socially coded ideas.
It's something I've thought very very long about, and feel quite
strongly about too.
Now I'm getting a clearer and clearer idea of why S7 and I do
not get along.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> It would be a tragedy if only there were
Greeks or Don't mess around with Medea -- fresne, 14:22:18
06/24/03 Tue
But don't forget the archetypal aspects of the monstrous feminine
that also must be integrated. The vagina with teeth that gives
birth to monsters. The angry darkness. Mother's milk is red today.
Grendel's mother lurking in her cave beneath the sea. So, is Buffy
Marduk here to the First's Tiamat? What does it mean that both
wear Buffy's face and shiny hair? That night light Joyce is so
inexplicable? Grendel slain not by watching companions die, but
by spreading the wealth?
And briefly the thought occurs that Buffy is also the prostitute
that infects Enkidu, the wild man, with language so that he will
go into the city where Gilgamesh waits. Language as venereal disease.
Thank you Snowcrash.
Then the thought flits that the monstrous feminine is a matter
of perspective. Grendel loves his mommy. Conner sees Jasmine with
a different gaze. That we still haven't met the really real Nikki,
only snapshots from suspect points of view. Viewpoint co-mingled
with memory as a frieze motif. And that in some cultures, the
sun is feminine and the moon the masculine half. The god of war
a Hummingbird. Or that a goddess of war can be a weaver too.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Power - trickling down the hierarchy,
or generated organically? -- Rahael, 14:58:23 06/24/03
Tue
I actually did do a whole bit about the monstrous woman which
I deleted, in my response to Caroline yesterday. It is as you
say, a matter of perspective. In my personal opinion, the monstrous
woman and the passive woman co-exist in a narrative that ultimately
leads to the idea that woman must be controlled/protected.
In fact in Restless, we did see this double facing image when
Tara speaks for the First Slayer. The First Slayer, all about
the action, the kill. Tara, all about words, about communicating.
Now these are things that leave me uncomfortable. I can see why
they aren't uncomfortable for others.
I love Robert Graves, but his White Goddess stuff leaves me uncomfortable,
and even as I appreciate his wonderful poetry, I have to mutter
to myself.
Nevermind. I feel like the eccentric muttering in the corner anyway.
I never really disagree with any of the positive posts about S7.
The storyline seems pretty unambiguous, and there's no room for
me to do an alternate reading that will allow me to enjoy it,
and to disagree with the other people's positive readings.
Also, maybe I'm just disabled in these discussions by the fact
that I don't have the world archetype in my vocabulary when I
discuss narratives. And the word empowerment. The power is always
there, it never needs to be taken on (why I'm uncomfortable with
GiD - why did it have to be inserted through brute force? does
the insertion say something about the nature of the power that
was inserted?)
In my opinion, power is generated as people interact in relationships.
Power doesn't trickle down. It doesn't get handed out in a decision
by the person at the top. That argues that power is a possession
of one person. But Checkpoint proved that the Watcher's Council
doesn't allocate power to the Slayer. The Slayer already has power.
I thought that the metaphor of sharing power was a very nice answer
to a lot of plot points, but I would have liked it more if we'd
been shown that the Potentials just needed to use the power they
had. Not handed it on.
There's more to power than physical strength and confidence of
spirit. There is more to power relationships. It was hinted at,
for example - the power differentials in various relationships.
Kennedy and Willow. Buffy and Spike. Buffy and Giles. Buffy and
Dawn. Buffy and Wood. Wood and Spike. The really interesting quesitons
of power within relationships were never adequately dealt with.
You know what I wanted to see in Get it Done? That the Watcher's
Council's line was that they chose a girl and gave her power.
Then Buffy goes back and finds that a girl chose the power. Chose
it willingly. Chose to be Strong. Chose to understand that darkness
is multifaceted, belonging to all of us. That the Slayer would
stand on the borders of the Night and the Day and understand both
worlds. Are you ready to be strong?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Choice and power -- lunasea,
15:46:10 06/24/03 Tue
Did Angel choose to be vamped? Did he choose to be cursed? Did
Cordelia choose the visions? Did Willow choose how magick affects
her?
For each character there comes a point where they have to choose
to accept power, but that power is always thrust upon them. Joss'
story is taking someone from ditz/nerd/scoundrel to hero. The
ditz/nerd/scoundrel doesn't just spontaneously wake up one day
and decide to change their ways. Something has to happen to catalyze
this development. In the Buffyverse that is the infusion of some
sort of power.
The Buffyverse is full of choice. It isn't about accepting power.
It is about what to do with that power. Maybe that is what you
don't like. Marti said the story was the exploration of being
exceptional. It isn't about how to attain power. Not everyone
gets it.
I got the impression that the Scythe unlocked the Potential's
potential. That is why they are called Potentials. It was still
their power. They just couldn't access it. Isn't that what keeps
us all from being extraordinary? We all have this power, but we
can't get to it. Empowerment means helping others to access this.
By doing this, we make others extraordinary and raise all of human
existance. As Willow said, we changed the world.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Or our power will grow, vaster
than empires and more slow -- fresne, 17:23:39 06/24/03
Tue
Oh, good re: Monstrous Fem. It did seem a bit strange to not be
talking about the Crone with a belt of skulls in a season where
the villain wore the hero's face.
As I've commented elsewhere, I'm in the curious position of quite
liking the season, but thinking that perhaps an exercise program
and a diet wouldn't have been amiss mid season. Or the ability
to turn green and grow. Briefly ponders the Hulk's extremely fortuitous
clothing and the differences between Hulk, the incredible, and
She Hulk. But, I digress. Hopefully not liking S7, won't stop
you from talking about it.
"In my personal opinion, the monstrous woman and the passive
woman co-exist in a narrative that ultimately leads to the idea
that woman must be controlled/protected."
Or that the passive woman is necessitated by the fear of the monstrous
woman. Or is it the other way around. Would Socrates' wife have
been so shrewish if Soc-rates had stopped hanging out with the
local youth and just gotten a job? The lazy philosophical bum.
Would she even be shrewish if she had a voice? Did the cultural
position of women in classical Athens create both the response
of Heteira (must review that link on the Firefly board) and the
fear of Medea the avenger. Secret Bachae. Philomel and her sad
song. Medusa's stony gaze. They are conquered and yet, in the
end, snip, snip, the Crone measures your fate. If there is no
passive woman, is there a monstrous one? What do we mean by passive?
What do we mean by monstrous?
"In my opinion, power is generated as people interact in
relationships.... There is more to power relationships. It was
hinted at, for example - the power differentials in various relationships.
Kennedy and Willow. Buffy and Spike. Buffy and Giles. Buffy and
Dawn. Buffy and Wood. Wood and Spike. The really interesting quesitons
of power within relationships were never adequately dealt with."
Yes, hinted and flirted and hmm...
For example, my big problem with Kennedy/Willow until Chosen,
where I finally saw another face, thank you Joss, was this sense
that this was almost entirely a power relationship. Willow has
power. Kennedy wants power. What coin relationship could be exchanged
to buy a role as instructor, be one of the inner circle at planning,
etc. It left me yearning.
The power differentials between Wood and Buffy, well interesting.
Desire. Transference. Power in one place. Follower in another.
The difficulties in negotiation. The power of mystery. Knowledge.
Symbol. I like to think that young Robin hid his mother's bag
as a memento all those years ago. Something of mystery to hold
onto.
"You know what I wanted to see in Get it Done?"
Hmm...that's kind of what I felt happened in the finale. Although,
I can see where every Potential reaching to access to her own
unique power on her own would have been an interesting alternative.
So, I'm curious, have you ever read the Sonya Blue vampire books?
If yes, what did you think of the conclusion of Fade to Black?
Or heck the second book. Crazy other.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> a green thought in a green
shade -- Rahael, 12:11:27 06/25/03 Wed
How lovely! From Marvell to Hulk, to power.
Very perceptive slants on the monstrous and the passive. Especially
your question: What is monstrous, what is passive? I think my
disatisfaction stems from the monstrous and passive simply being
accepted as such, rather than those ideas being broken down, questioned
and subverted.
Yes, I thought Chosen mitigated a lot of what happened in Season
7. I really really liked the spoiler for what Buffy decided to
do in the end. I can overlook the fact that only a select number
got the power because I can see that as a metaphor.
And as for your comments about Socrates - I keep going back to
the Wife of Bath's beautiful lines:
"Who painted first the lion, tell me who?
By God, if women had but written stories.........
I guess that's why I want the silent slayers to speak.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Rosebuds and big
green men -- fresne, 23:02:30 06/25/03 Wed
Well, you know the Hulk, he's Marvel-ish.
Or
Gather ye power while ye may, timely relevance, it is a flyin.
You know I'm not sure I actually have anything more to say.
Looks nonchalantly around. Words like to be subverted. They're
saucy that way and vaguely Edward Gorey shifty.
Power. Greek mythological reference. Pop culture, pop culture.
Mythological blah blah. Suppression. There we go. Even when Jekyll
stops taking the drink, vile and in my head looking like Chartreuse
with a night light, once Hyde has been allowed egress he cannot
be suppressed. Even if Hyde wants to. Desperately desiring to
grow large and bluff and safe Jekyll again. And Hyde's presence
is that which causes discomfort. Monstrous. And yet, what is his
unexpressed version of the story? What is the troublesome queasy
at the heart of the text?
Even when those silent Slayers speak, their words are filtered
through other's perspectives. A passing shadow's cast on the wall
with no form or substance. An evocative uneasiness in the text.
Power always intrinsically at a cost. Like vampires themselves.
Stay young and beautiful forever, just one little/big catch.
That odd thought of Angel as Angelus' cage. The less being the
more. Suppression. Repression. Cage the demon to power the man.
Perhaps, less a cage than a horse and rider, where the horse wants
nothing more than to run. Smash at the lock often enough, and
the door falls open.
Interesting curse. For want of a nail, the war was lost, which
may be apropos of nothing. After all, Angel is out of his box
and walking. While Buffy's cage is no more.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Anger and Power -- Arethusa,
09:21:31 06/26/03 Thu
It does seem like the better message to women would be that they
already have power, and it is a power they chose to have. Perhaps
ME wanted to emphesize that power itself isn't enough. It must
be used the right way-to bring women together, not isolate them.
We have to fight to get it (back), fight to keep it, fight to
use it correctly. It can't ever be taken for granted. We have
to get angry enough to make it part of ourselves, instead of letting
power be a thing loaned to us, that can be used to control us.
I'm thinking of all the women who achieved power in the 70s and
80s, yet used it only to secure their own fragile position. And
all the women who did the opposite, sharing and spreading the
power to raise us all up.
In my personal opinion, the monstrous woman and the passive
woman co-exist in a narrative that ultimately leads to the idea
that woman must be controlled/protected.
Yes. The underlying idea is that power doesn't belong to women;
they can't handle it so their power must be controlled, by men.
And what is power, anyway? Reading the Hulk posts, it occurs to
me that often power is anger. I never broke down human characteristics
into male and female catagories because since I was very young
I have been filled with anger. And men were always the ones depicted
as angry, with all the implications that implies-forcefullness,
directness, drive. Is power anger that has been channeled into
action? (In Robin McKinley's The Hero and the Crown, Harry's anger
makes her so powerful that she has learned not to look people
in the eye when angry, for fear she would hurt them.)
Maybe ME wants us to get angry about how we've been treated. It's
not enough to be powerful. We have to do something with
it, something that helps us all.
(Or maybe not, but after a day of thinking about this, it's the
best I could come up with!)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> The feminine principle is not passive!
-- Caroline, 15:57:13 06/25/03 Wed
Just wanted to make that clear. I wouldn't call Kali passive,
nor Demeter, nor Inanna. But receptive - in the sense that the
earth receives the seed and causes the seed to grow and bloom,
in the sense that a woman receives a man. Each expression is powerful
and affirming and strong and each has role in life. Just because
some silly people then take the step to say that women should
therefore be subjugated and passive does not mean that I take
that step. That's not what I'm saying and that's not what I interpret
JW as saying. (I am a hugely radical feminist - largely as a reaction
to my upbringing in a rather sexist culture - so this is a hot
button issue for me!)
I think that we can talk about the different aspects of the nature
of psychic energy and it's expression without then going to value
judgements about how people - men and women - (air quotes) should
behave (end air quotes). I also think that many of us, even those
of us who are feminists, still have problems struggling with these
different energies within us, the different parts of our psyches
and how to integrate them. I heard of, thought not yet read, a
book by Naomi Wolf (IIRC) where she chronicles the sexual fantasies
of women. Many of them involve situations where there are S&M situations,
bondage etc, with the women being in submissive positions. Many
women have particular problems with this consciously - particularly
reconciling this to their consciously states goals/roles etc as
feminists and women who wish for equality. How do we treat these
contradictions in our psyches? Repress them and say they don't
exist or understand them? Buffy was kinda in this situation in
S6/7 - experiencing exploring her contradiction. That is not a
bad thing, particularly if it leads to an understanding of the
self.
I obviously do misunderstand you and I'm sorry about that. I guess
we have different models/concepts in our heads. But I still don't
know the source of you discomfort with S7 but if you'd rather
not explain, it's not really a problem.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Cookies & compasses -- fresne, 09:08:17 06/24/03
Tue
The funny thing about the cookie dough metaphor is that it is
a little messy. Of course, we're never really finished. Always
changing. Mushing. Moulding. Transforming into the next thing.
And yet, at some point, and I can't speak for others, I found
my center and that's what I think Buffy/Joss is driving at with
the cookie dough speech. Finding that place in yourself around
which you spin. The place that helps you fall without injuring
yourself. Well, less injury at least. That helps you reach out
to connect and actually touch the things that you're reaching,
stretching, longing.
The steady foot around which Donne writes Forbidding Valediction.
Admittedly, he's speaking of an external person, but it's so much
easier to send one foot in penciled wandering, if you have one
foot on the ground. In the ground. Pulling from the earth. Allowing
the hand to pull dreams from the sky.
Sadly, now we have a cookie dough that is a centered compass and
some other mixy metaphoric thing, which is what happens when one
messes with metaphors. Or possibly, when I mess with cooking metaphors.
Sad tragic wasteland. The kitchen. It is burning. So, much for
that aspect of my feminine.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Exactly Fresne -- Rahael, 11:04:09 06/24/03
Tue
It turns out to be a muddled, incoherent metaphor that kind of
sinks soggily in the middle. Like S7!!
I too believe in the idea of a centre, that you describe. I think
other seasons described it better. In that sense, Buffy was able
to find her centre, her harbour (Getting flashes of Wyatt's "My
Galley charged with forgetfullness")more convincingly in
other seasons.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> The center -- lunasea, 15:54:43 06/24/03
Tue
Here's my metaphor. Life is a disk spinning on a pin. We stand
on that disk. If the disk is centered on the pin, it spins flat
and we have no problem standing on it. If the disk isn't centered,
it starts to wobble and it is hard to stand on it. Most of us
never really find that perfect center, but we do find several
points close to that so that the wobbling is managable. Sometimes
in our search for that perfect center, we trade a point that is
close to the center for one that is further out.
[> [> [> [> not
sure which post of mine you're referring to -- anom, 17:32:04
06/23/03 Mon
Rahael, you wrote: "Anom posted in a thread below that we
still need feminism, and I think she may misinterpreted my argument
at least as being in any way antifeminist. Absolutely not."
Was it the one w/the part that starts: "I've read some opinions
that feminism is the wrong approach to ending sexism--that we
should be dealing in terms of humanism, of equality. But how do
you get there from an unequal starting point?" Because that
was in shadowkat's S7 critique thread, & I couldn't find any post
from you in it, so I'm not sure that's what you're referring to,
or what you said that I may have misinterpreted. Let me know,
'cause I'd like to be able to respond! Or maybe it was someone
else's post?
"As far as I'm concerned, I'm happy to regard pre S7 Buffy
in all her masculinity as a role model. Indeed, she spoke to me
as no other woman on tv has done. And if Joss is somehow saying
that Buffy has to learn to become a true woman (say, like Tara),
can people understand why I have become so alienated?"
I agree about Buffy's "masculinity" not keeping her
from being a role model. Having been a tomboy growing up, & not
being particularly into conventional "femininity" as
an adult, I certainly felt she spoke to me. I never felt Buffy
was presented as not being a "true woman" or as needing
to become one; my understanding of the cookie dough speech was
that Buffy needed to become her true self, whatever that
might turn out to be, & that it had nothing to do w/what anyone
else might expect that a woman is supposed to be.
[> [> [> [> [>
That's the one -- Rahael, 19:41:31 06/23/03 Mon
I added that in because I didn't want to let you think that I
objected to any feminist message in S7 (I thought sharing the
power was a great motif, perhaps my third favourite after Selfless
and Storyteller). I thought you might be referring to any of my
earlier very veiled posts about my discomfort about gender in
S7 (I've been pretty vocal about it, but a lot of it's been in
real life so I have a mistaken impression about how vocal I have
been on the board). But I go into it more fully in my reply to
Caroline, above.
Oh, and I too was a tomboy when I was younger, though I am in
some way into conventional femininity as I grow up (well, in clothes
anyway). What I don't always say is that in the society I grew
up, showing more than an ankle was being a whore and a slut, and
I was once told at the age of 8 that I wasn't a real woman (just
like my mother!) because I was wearing a summer dress with shoulder
straps.
So hah!
(btw, the other ep I really liked in S7 was KiM. But, did anyone
notice that Willow turned into Warren before she expressed all
her violent destructive thoughts? Happily that ep was wonderfully
resonant, ambiguous and elegaic - I thought the ep was suffused
with the presence of Tara - for me to ignore/fanwank to my greater
satisfaction). Oh, and I also really really loved Potential.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> & which one is this? -- anom, 07:56:37 06/25/03
Wed
"But I go into it more fully in my reply to Caroline, above."
Would that be the "nailed my discomfort" one, the "m/f,
cookies/dough" one, or the "misunderstood me" one?
I want to get into this discussion--esp. because there's some
actual response to my post! "Great post" is nice (thanks,
Sophist!), but I was hoping we could actually talk about some
of the ideas in it--but the thread is so complex I need a map
to it! Tell me which post to reread, & I'll know what I want to
say about it.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: & which one is this? -- Rahael, 11:56:16
06/25/03 Wed
I think I try and explain my position in all the posts you name,
but to be honest, at this point I don't feel that I have presented
my position very coherently. (But when I wrote the above post
I was specifically referring to the Male/female, cookies and dough
post). I'm just getting a growing feeling that BtVS is not a show
for someone like me, with a completely different world vision.
I have been mistaken, I think, about the themes I saw in the past
- they weren't there, or if they were, I have misread them.
[> [> [> [> Power
-- Arethusa, 14:43:59 06/24/03 Tue
Let's say we don't break down Buffy's power issues into masculine
and feminine aspects. Buffy's problem is understanding and using
power, in relation to the rest of the world and herself. Through
Faith, Buffy explored the use of power in relation to the rest
of the world. She learned power is a neutral entity, which can
be used for good or evil. It spiraled out of control when Faith
used it to manipulate others or let it run unchecked. It saved
the world when Buffy used it to lead the rest of the graduating
class.
Through Spike, Buffy explored the relationship between power and
self. Spike's physical and emotional power, misunderstood and
misdirected, kept him in an endless self-destructive loop. He
could not understand the power of his emotions or the effect they
had on himself and others. By denying the power his emotions had
over him, Spike became controlled by them. Through her interactions
with Spike, Buffy's confused attempts to repress and control her
emotions in S6 finally gave way to an ability to share the power
of her feelings with others.
Season 7 showed Buffy slowly realizing that not only does she
have great reserves of power to give her strength to deal with
the world and her own issues, but so does everyone else. We all
have that potential, if we only recognize and develop it. It's
a human thing, not a male/female thing, that can empower everyone.
Does this make sense?
[> [> [> [> [>
Power -- Rahael, 15:27:09 06/24/03 Tue
Oooh! I just wrote a reply to Fresne about power and then refreshed
to find that you were replying to me about much the same way.
Firstly, I think 'power' is a hugely complex phenomenon - I try
and explain how I view it in my reply to Fresne. I would be interested
in your opinion of it.
(In Season 6 it also encompassed ideas of economic powerlessness,
which is why S6 was so interesting to me. And as KdS points out
in, his phrase, that S6 was all about random experiments in non-consensuality,
S6 also explored powerlessness in a very interesting way. Voluntary
powerlessness etc).
I wouldn't say power is always nuetral. For example, I would say
that a country which has a stockpile of nuclear weapons, which
immediately endows it with power in political terms - that is
not a neutral power. Economic power is also not a neutral power.
(I grew up in a household - my grandmothers - which had a number
of live in, domestic servants. I was under no illusion at all
that I, a little girl had a kind of power that I felt intensely
uncomfortable with. In fact, I was a little sickened by it).
I have always seen BtVS as being about the kind of power which
those who are chracterised as being without power can possess.
Xander's power against the Cordettes. Buffy's compassion to Willow
in WTTH, her embracing of her downward social mobility. Tara's
patient and determined stand against her family, which never bowed
to their prescriptions. I don't think this is a passive kind of
power. In fact, I think it is very very active. Always drawn upon,
because each day requires so much, just to keep living. The power
that Andrew finally draws upon at the end of Storyteller. The
power of tears, rather than blood. All kinds of power seem to
draw on both positive and negative things. I personally know that
a lot of the power I feel I have draws upon anger. The anger that
keeps my spine upright in the face of social indignity.
Of course, even the powerless have to be careful about the way
they may choose to express their own power - Willow in S6, who
deep in her heart believed that ordinary Willow didn't possess
any kind of power at all, and thus badly misused what she did
have.
In fact, I don't even have a certain answer. It is something that
I am still exploring. Am I aware of the power I have? Am I surrendering
some of my power willingly for reasons that I cannot yet discern
(say, humbling myself at work because I feel uncomfortable that
I'm so young and I can ask people older than me to do things?),
do I sometimes feel resentful toward those who exert economic
power over me (my boss), so on and so forth.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Oooh some good stuff here Areth and Rah, on power & the
Hulk (spoilers The Hulk) -- s'kat, 23:14:32 06/24/03 Tue
Arethusa states:
"Through Spike, Buffy explored the relationship between
power and self. Spike's physical and emotional power, misunderstood
and misdirected, kept him in an endless self-destructive loop.
He could not understand the power of his emotions or the effect
they had on himself and others. By denying the power his emotions
had over him, Spike became controlled by them. Through her interactions
with Spike, Buffy's confused attempts to repress and control her
emotions in S6 finally gave way to an ability to share the power
of her feelings with others."
Love this! Exactly what I felt when I saw it. One is unleashing
his emotions so that he is literally caught in their whirlwind,
unable to control himself and at their mercy - careening from
alcohol to suppress them (it doesn't work) to sex with Anya (also
doesn't work), to forcing himself on Buffy as a means of unleashing
them in all their negativity (which makes things worse), to finally
hunting a compass of sorts to control them. Buffy meanwhile is
all control. All repression. No expression of emotion. Complete
containment. Yet everyone around her is going nuts. And isn't
it interesting in Normal Again - asylum Buffy is sobbing while
slayer Buffy appears calm and contained? Xander is an emotional
wreck, drinking, blasting people, running. Willow is an emotional
wreck - spouting her fury in magic. Spike is an emotional wreck.
Tara who seems fine - dies. Dawn's an emotional wreck screaming
at the top of her lungs Get out! or bitching at Spike. Or stealing.
Anya is emotional wreck - becoming a vengeance demon. And all
are facets of Buffy's own internal turmoil. HEr rage. HEr eroticism.
Her grief. Her lack of control. Her fear. And all these emotions
have power...culminating in Willow's attempt to destroy the world
as a means of putting a stop to the feelings overwhelming her,
while Buffy frozen beneath the earth is trying desperately to
come to grips with hers.
And finally does - when Spike gets his compass, Xander his guts
to face and comfort Willow, willow her tears, and Anya lets go
of vengeance long enough to help Giles...Buffy cries and climbs
out of her Grave.
And Rahael:
The power of tears, rather than blood. All kinds of power seem
to draw on both positive and negative things. I personally know
that a lot of the power I feel I have draws upon anger. The anger
that keeps my spine upright in the face of social indignity.
The very cheesy movie, The Hulk, that I just saw tonight, really
touches on these themes. The Hulk is the monster counterpart of
a young scientist named Bruce Banner. In the movie Bruce is experimenting
with biotechnology, while attempting to save a colleague, he gets
zapped with gamma rays which alter his physique. As a result,
whenever Bruce gets angry - the Hulk bursts out.
His girlfriend, Betty Ross, realizes that the Hulk's trigger is
Bruce's emotions. She tells him that the physical ailment is finite
but the emotional one is infinite. It can go on and on, never
cured. Especially when dealing with repressed emotions. Bruce's
trigger is his anger. He tells Betty that what frightens him the
most is that he enjoys the power his rage gives him. He likes
it.
And when it is unleashed, he's gone, not quite there, the raw
emotions take over and he is destructive - destroying everything
in his path with little to no remorse. The anger fuels his power.
The Hulk is created by Bruce's rage.
When the Hulk cries - Bruce reappears...and the Hulk disappears.
The unleashing of the tears...the calmness, the quiet restores
the man. The tears are assuage the rage.
When I get really angry, I will often cry. That will break
it. And my anger often consumes me, makes it tough for me to think
rationally or argue rationally. YEt at the same time it can motivate
me, empower me to do things.
In Angel - the anger often is when we see the dark side of the
characters. Fred - who goes after Seidel and Jasmine.
Angel who becomes Angelus or goes after Weselely in Forgiving.
Wes who goes after Faith to capture Angelus, after Lilah dies.
Gunn - who goes after Wes...
While in Btvs - anger can be seen as both a destructive force
and a freeing one. Buffy's fury often destroys the monster. Yet
it can also be destructive - when used against the vamp trulls
in Into the Woods or her friends in When She Was Bad.
How we handle emotion...often influences our relationships and
work environment. The society we live in or at least in the US,
values controlling emotion - the stoic profile. Keeping it at
bay. Yet keeping emotion at bay - can result if we aren't careful
in an explosion - like the Hulk.
[> [> [> Great post
Caroline. -- Sophist, 09:40:32 06/23/03 Mon
The use of metaphor can lead to confusion among the viewers. Some
don't understand the metaphor; others may become locked in to
a particular metaphor and fail to adjust when it changes (e.g.,
the switch in the metaphorical meaning of magic use between S4
and S6).
I myself treat the soul metaphor differently than most seem to.
KdS has commented in previous posts that S7 undercut the soul
metaphor. I couldn't disagree more strongly. To me, S7 reinforced
what I had understood of the soul metaphor since S2. Maybe it
did evolve on AtS; I may be frozen in time because I don't watch
that show. But to my understanding, the soul metaphor operated
in S7 precisely the way it did in S2-3 -- Spike was treated exactly
like Angel (so, for that matter, was Anya).
Your last 2 paragraphs raise an interesting question, one I have
been pondering the last few days. My recent attempts to defend
S7 against a torrent of criticism have left me feeling somewhat
like KdS probably does regarding Spike. I'm frankly not sure that
either one of us is justified in our sense of being the voice
crying in the wilderness; after all, this Board represents a fairly
small sample of Buffy watchers.
My personal view is that there comes a time when those in such
a position need to stop posting on that topic for a while. You
are clearly right that this has nothing whatsoever to do with
censorship. It's the opposite -- others have heard what you have
to say and Just. Don't. Agree. I think I know when to apply this
rule to myself.
[> [> [> [> OK,
I know I said it would be my last post but clarification is required
-- KdS, 11:56:59 06/23/03 Mon
Sophist, I don't know if that was a typo or if I wasn't clear.
If I wasn't clear, I wasn't saying that S7 undercut the soul metaphor.
I was saying that Spike's humanness in S6 undercut the soul metaphor
and S7 attempted to reinstate it (unconvincingly for me, but apparently
convincingly to you)
But yeah, having made my point as clearly as I wanted to, I won't
be posting unless there are more replies here that need clarification
or directly ask questions.
[> [> [> [> [>
Thanks for clarifying. -- Sophist, 12:57:46 06/23/03
Mon
[> [> [> Really loved
this, Caroline. -- manwitch, 20:56:22 06/23/03 Mon
[> [> Buffy is cookie
dough -- lunasea, 15:21:17 06/23/03 Mon
Spuffy fans are easy to rebut. All you have to do is quote David
Fury at them {BEG}. If anything, they are a rather vocal group
because the show isn't written from the perspective they want.
Not only is Spike not the main character, but Spuffy is a bad
thing.
Just because Spike is "in my heart," doesn't mean that
deep down inside she really loves Spike, either season 6 or even
season 7. Both her conversation with Angel in "Chosen"
and when Spike finally realizes that she doesn't love him show
that she doesn't love Spike like that. Season 6, Spuffy was to
show how bad Buffy's state of mind was. I agree with Fury. I worry
about anyone that roots for this couple based on that season.
But then we get season 7. What is new Spuffy saying about Buffy?
I don't think the writers will ever subvert the feminist nature
of the show. It isn't just a message, but the mission statement.
I don't think they did that with Spuffy. The show has been about
the transformation of a ditzy Fiesta Queen to a real hero. That
transformation is still going on. She is cookie dough. Spuffy
has been part of that transformation. It doesn't how how mature
she has become, but rather how immature she still is.
Spuffy, season 7, has been a case of playing emotional doctor.
You show me yours and I'll show you mine. How quickly people forget
that Spike is newly souled and spent the beginning of the season
nuts in the school basement. His immaturity still shows as late
as LMPTM. In "Touched" he calls Buffy "the one."
Talk about rushing things.
On the other side of the equation is Miss Summers. In CwDP Joss
brilliantly lays out her issues for everyone to see. He said when
Buffy and Angel get together, the audience would be reminded why
they couldn't be together. It isn't the curse or that he is a
vampire that is brought up. These are easy things to fixate on.
It is cookie dough that Joss uses to send Angel back to LA.
Let's briefly look at Spuffy in the final 5 episodes. He is her
port in the storm and allows her to address her issues with intimacy.
Xander cannot serve this function. 1. He is the carpenter that
keeps the house/Scoobies together. He had to turn on her in order
to set up "Empty Places." 2. There is no reason that
they can't live happily ever after. It would forever close the
door on Angel. ME isn't going to do that. 3. It would have cheapened
Anya's death. There isn't another male character that could have
served this role.
Besides, Spike is damn juvenile and makes the perfect counterpart
for Buffy in this respect. In "End of Days" their exchange
before Buffy goes to the temple is like something you would see
on Dawson's Creek (if I watched it). When she gets back from seeing
Angel, again more teen crap from both of them. She snuggles with
him, both in Touched and Chosen looking for contact, companionship,
understanding whatever.
Now here to me is the important Spuffy scene. Prior to knowing
how to defeat the First, Buffy is all cuddly with Spike, though
the scene makes it clear they didn't get fleshy. After Buffy figures
out how to beat the first, their interaction isn't so clingy and
co-dependant, at least not on Buffy's part. They look at each
other from across the room. Buffy is starting to be able to stand
on her own. She doesn't need her port any more.
Some say that this scene hinted at them having sex. What purpose
would that serve? Spike is looking at the amulet contemplating
who knows what, probably what is about to. Buffy was just outside
thinking and she comes downstairs. She does not immediately just
rush over to get snuggly with Spike. Instead they just look at
each other. They are starting to be individuals.
The audience will see what they want. People always do.
For me, in retrospect, Season 7 was about how unbaked Buffy really
is. Spuffy is just one aspect of this.
[> [> [> Re: Buffy
is cookie dough -- Miss Edith, 16:02:58 06/23/03 Mon
Is there any need to generalise? Your opinion about the character
Spike is fair enough, you are certaintly entitled to it. There
are certain parts of your post that are however IMO needlessly
offensive. I quote, "Spuffy fans are easy to refute. All
you have to do is quote David Fury at them...they are a rather
vocal group because the show isn't being written from the perspective
they want. Not only is Spike not the main character, but Spuffy
is a bad thing...I worry about anyone that roots for that couple
based on that season". Why generalise about what Spuffy fans
are into? I was B/S fan during season 6, and thanks for the concern
but I don't see how my being entertained by a television couple
reflects poorly on me, or causes you to worry about my well-being.
I read enough of that sentiment on boards like TWoP, thanks all
the same.
[> [> [> [> nodding
in agreement Miss Edith -- curious, 18:57:11 06/23/03 Mon
[> [> [> My thoughts
are different on season 7 Spuffy lunasea.... -- Briar Rose,
23:38:40 06/25/03 Wed
I saw it as Buffy, Spike, Angel and even Xander finally
understanding that you can truly love someone and have no sexual
interest in them whatsoever.
That is a very emotionally mature and evolved way to begin the
path to growing up.
ME went through all the teenage sexual angst and equating love
with lust, when you can have one without the other and so many
mistake the later for the former....
In Season 7 - especially in empty places - the true meaning of
loving someone with the pure emotion of mutual respect
and truly caring about them as a person was explored for practically
the first time in BtVS history. Spike and Buffy found comfort
in giving each other support and doing so in a purely emotional
way with no compelling need to get physical. Angel and Buffy closed
out their scene in about the same way: Respect for each other's
emotional needs, while leaving the door open to share mutal support
and emotional feelings NOT based entirely on romantic love.
The only one who didn't quite get the message for what it was
worth (IMO) was Spike, when he said, "Thanks for saying that...
but you don't." BS!!! She truly did mean that she loved him.
Just not in a way that William the Bloody Awful Poet could understand
it.
Xander even got the message to some extent in the final...
Romantic love isn't half as romantic as the love of two people
who have no sexual thrust, yet love each other intensely, IMO.
But it takes a huge amount of maturity to even have that type
of relationship in your life, to let it INTO your life in the
first place.
I felt that ME gave a tremendous jump in the Scoobies maturity
levels in those final 5 eps. To allow them to find out that love
and lust are completely different things. I loved the way it played
out. Especially since Buffy realized that you can't even begin
to get that cookie dough baked until you figure out that it's
ready to be baked.*S*
[> [> [> [> A note
about love and lust -- lunasea, 09:46:31 06/26/03 Thu
Why do Buffy and Angel want each other so much? Is it just a case
of the hornies? I never got that impression. Leave it to Marti,
Queen of Twisted Sexuality, to write the defining scene about
their attraction. In "Bad Eggs," we see the lust bunnies
at it in the cemetary. Teenage hormones in action. Then they have
a talk about kids and the future and when that leads to a kiss,
it isn't the kiss of pure lust.
Arc wise, this is what leads us into "Surprise." Why
do they finally consumate their relationship? Because Buffy is
wet and half naked and in Angel's bed? Nope. They are sharing
their feelings and admit that they love each other. It isn't I
want you. It is I love you. That is what leads them to physically
express that love.
Lust will always be a component to their relationship. It is generated
because they are both hotties, but also because they love each
other. There is nothing wrong for that (except that because of
this, acting on that lust will lead to perfect happiness and Angel
losing his soul). It is actually a very beautiful thing. Spike
physically manipulating Buffy season 6 doesn't get her as worked
up as Angel kissing her out of comfort season 5.
Love and lust can be completely different things, but they don't
have to be.
Current board
| More June 2003