March 2003 posts


Previous March 2003  

More March 2003

Buffy in S6 - a rebuttal of Marti Noxon -- Caroline, 08:45:57 03/11/03 Tue

I really shouldn't take time out to do this because I have so much work that needs to be done (this situation in Iraq should be condemned just on the basis of the extra work it has meant for me!!) but there was a bomb scare at my metro stop this morning and while I was waiting there for over 30 mins in the snow (yay!) while the police did their thing, I decided that life was too short and I was going to post something that has been playing at the back of my mind. Okay, that was a really long setup but now I'll get to the (hopefully) good bit.

I read most of lunasea's series of posts on S6 and all of the responses as well and I was doing a lot of disagreeing all over the place - esp. about Buffy, Dawn and Spike. But I decided that instead of doing something negative like saying that I disagree about this laundry list of things, I'd do something more positive and post my views on Buffy's development in late S5 and S6.

1. Marti Noxon's 'dark night of the soul' vs. Campbellian return

From lunasea's posts I gathered that MN referred to Buffy in S6 as experiencing the dark night of the soul. I hate the disagree with a writer but I must. MN is using her terms quite loosely here. I don't think that Buffy has experienced a 'dark night of the soul'. The closest she has come to it was at the end of S5, where she couldn't figure out how to save Dawn. A dark night of the soul is a complete absence of hope in one's life. The old values/ego/world and the new ones hold no attraction, no sway. One feels incredibly alone. This describes more accurately Buffy's state of mind at the end of S5. She's caught in a dilemma. The old values, the ones that Giles is trying to make her follow, would dictate that she sacrifice Dawn as she did with Angel in S2. But she can't do that. She's also cannot stand the thought of what would happen to the world if Dawn is used as the key. It's no wonder that this irreconcilable position led her to regress to a safe place.

In S6, after the resurrection, Buffy experienced a return and it's consequences, not a dark night of the soul. If it was a 'dark night' experience, she not only would have lost all hope but the old values would hold no sway for her. Here the old values were here experience in heaven. She desperately wanted to be back there and she was fighting being brought back, thus the cause of the despair and depression but not every period of despair or depression is a dark night of the soul. The return is the part of the hero's journey where they have undergone a series of trials, passed them, died and received some kind of paradisiacal reward. Buffy was happy in paradise. She wanted to get back there but now that she has been returned to the plane of duality, she must learn to live in it again. She has lost something beautiful and powerful but she must learn to let go of that attachment. In many religions and spiritual disciplines, the seeker must even transcend the pleasurable experiences as well as the painful ones.

2. The sojourn in paradise and the resurrection.

While Buffy was in heaven, she was in a place that transcended oppositions. There was no light/dark, hot/cold, good/evil etc. She describes a state of undifferentiated bliss. On her return to earth, she once again is thrust into a world of duality and it is harsh and painful for her after the bliss that she has know. Her resurrection remind me of the journeys of many of the mythological goddesses who live in the world above and then are dragged down in some way to the world below - whether voluntarily like Inanna or involuntarily like Ereshkigal (who was banished to the Great Below) or Kore/Persephone (kidnapped by Hades after picking his flower). Like Inanna and Kore who travel to the underworld but learn important lessons that radically change their lives and outlook, Buffy returns to earth and wonders if it is hell.

Buffy has difficult time adjusting - her friends have brought her back and think they did a good thing and saved her. Giles is happy to see her but accuses Willow of being a 'rank amateur' and not respecting the power or profundity of the magicks she called upon. The presence of Buffy's sister makes its own demands on her - she must be a mother before she has even been a wife. The return also means the responsibility of her slaying. Yet all she wants is the sylvan retirement of paradise. Like Ereshkigal, she if comforted by a mourners - in the form of Spike. From the beginning, he makes no demands, is there for her and makes no demands that she changes anything - even her depression. Like Enki's mourners who completely validate Ereshkigal's labour pains and feeling of loss after the death of her husband, Spike completely validates Buffy's depression about the loss of paradise and her return.

3. Duality - Anger/Depression and the metaphor of light/fire

But Buffy is not just depressed, she is angry. She is angry at her friends for bringing her back, she's angry that she must put on a front for them to make them believe that she is happy when she is miserable. She is angry that she has the responsibility of slaying again when she knew that she was complete. Now, she has been dragged away from 'completeness' into the world of light. It's no wonder that she sings about 'going through the motions' and being 'frozen by the fire'. In paradise, there is no duality, therefore no light/dark. It is only in the creation of the world, in the creation of light that we have its opposite - darkness. The first experience Buffy experiences on her return (or her 'creation' if you will) is found/lost. She had something beautiful, she was found, complete. Now, back on earth, she can construct her experience in a dual way - she has lost that paradise and completion and is now lost and fragmented. The next duality she experiences is depression/anger. She is depressed about her loss and then angry that she has lost it. Her inability to express her anger turns it inwards and merely feeds her depression (a common view in psychology is that depression is anger turned inwards).

Since the only person who validates her feelings is Spike, it is natural that she turns to him. But when Spike is no longer willing to play Enki's mourner to her Ereshkigal, and when they both discover that he can hurt her, another duality is introduced. He was the mourner - her ally, a part of her - but now he becomes an object, a threat to her Self, an 'other'. He has his own needs. He is angry at himself because he has all these feelings for her and has become her lapdog. When he pulls away from her in OMWF and tells her some home truths about why she seeks him out, she cuts of the blissful union that she has with him and spits him out as a projection of her own 'other'. All the anger that she has experienced since her return comes flowing out at him. Here Buffy becomes every vengeful earth goddess there is. She lets go all of the innocence of Kore and becomes Peresphone, the 'bringer of destruction'. She gets in touch with the fire alright - the fire that brings creation and destruction. She is Kali, the slayer of demons, she is Inanna/Ereshkigal, dispensing justice as she sees fit. She discovers her own fierce feminine power, her sexuality, and the full promise of her womanhood and slayerhood - sex, blood, menstruation. I know that Buffy has had sexual relationships before - brief physical encounters with Angel and Parker and a longer relationship with Riley. With Angel, she was very young and idealistically in love and was 'betrayed' by the loss of Angel's soul - how could something so beautiful as their love cause that? That incompatibility highlighted that Angel needed to go his own path and fulfill a mission that was separate from Buffy's. Love could not bridge that gap. She was betrayed in a more mundane manner with the sensitive musings of Parker. By the time she got to Riley, she felt less able to open up and give. Even if she had, I doubt it would have made a difference because Riley had the same problem as Angel - he wanted to be the mission, not the mission's girlfriend.

4. Mythical rape

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.

5. Returning to a sense of Self in the material world

Buffy and Spike have their explosion - the duality that each feel about their relationship cannot be contained. Buffy accommodates this by separating herself from Spike physically but maintaining some emotional connection with him, even after the rape attempt. We see in S7 that Buffy has come to rely on Spike in a very deep way. I think that she has to come to a better accommodation with Spike than this - there are still issues to be resolved between the two.

Buffy also learns to live again with her slayer responsibilities. In a sense, this is the easiest responsibility for her to accommodate - it expresses the fire, anger and vengefulness quite well. She can be Black Demeter, the Gorgon, Ereshkigal, Kali in a socially acceptable way. Buffy also makes an accommodation with her role as mother. She comes to understand what her neglect of Dawn has done, how being involved in her own misery has damaged her sister and that he must reclaim the maternal feminine within her, as well as the mature, erotic feminine that she has expressed with Spike. Buffy has negotiated the return and learnt to live in the material world again.


I stated above that I also disagreed about the views expressed on Dawn and Spike but that will have to wait for another time. I will mention that I don't think that Dawn is whiny. She was a neglected, troubled teenager experiencing very inconsistent parenting and it was no wonder that she was crying out for attention in the only way she knew. As for Spike, I think he's more than just a plot device, but I really wanted to focus on Buffy here and I'm a bit tired of defending Spike - I follow the maxim on the board above - Spike and Angel do not negate each other. I will, however, make one digression about Spike - unlike Wood, I don't think that he is suffering from an Oedipal conflict. I suspect (but don't have entirely enough proof yet) that Spike is stuck in a pre-oedipal stage where he has not even separated from his mother - I'm thinking of a Kleinian attachment here. Spike has a mother but a father is never mentioned, he seems to be a bit of a mummy's boy and never had a serious rival to mother's affections. Since there was no oedipal enemy, I think that Spike never had to fight for mother's affections, they were always his. I think this explains the devotion we see for his mother in FFL as well as the devotion we saw to Drusilla and now to Buffy. Each of the women he loved were wounded in some way - his mother was an invalid, Drusilla was mad and Buffy is the slayer who feels that she cannot love. Hopefully I'll get the chance to explore this more fully at a later date.
[> Wonderful post. Cutprint. -- s'kat, 09:15:48 03/11/03 Tue

Thank you. I agree with your take on this I think. And look forward to seeing you post more on the subject.

Have to print off to read more closely, before responding in greater depth.

SK
[> [> Damn! Just when I thought I'd had a bellyful of Joseph Campbell... -- Thomas the Skeptic, 13:08:07 03/11/03 Tue

... you go and write an amazingly on-target analysis of Buffy in S6 using his ideas as the paradigm. I had pretty much stopped posting here because my own taste in philosophy tends to run to pragmatism, positivism, and language games (with a seriously contrary passion for Nietzsche and Walter Kaufmann, go figure!) and the preponderance of posts here have a definite Campbellian and Jungian tilt, so I obviously have little to add. But, this is not to say that sometimes Campbell's use of comparative world mythologies is not perfectly appropriate heuristically and this is one of those times. I frankly cannot find anything to disagree with in any of the analogies you used. Outstanding insight! Disclaimer 1. Before any posters here assume there was veiled criticism in any of the above, please be aware that I feel a strong attraction to romanticism, mysticism and the baroque or I would'nt be watching BTVS in the first place. Its just that the hard-headed rationalist in me won't allow me to believe in such on the basis of the current evidence. I still enjoy reading the opinions of people who have reached different conclusions, however...
[> [> [> I'm so happy I didn't bore you or piss you off.... -- Caroline, 13:51:35 03/11/03 Tue

but I would have thought that you would feel right at home with all the other hard-headed pragmatists with a bent for mysticism who participate daily on this board!
[> [> [> [> Ok, I came across as a snooty bastard, but... -- Thomas the Skeptic, 11:07:10 03/12/03 Wed

... please, please believe me that it was not my intent to sound arrogant or condescending. As a matter of fact, I had to re-read my post several times to see what was so offensive. Whatever it seemed, all I really meant to say was that usually mythology doesn't have that much resonance with me but you made it pop this time. My wish was to be complementary but its not the first time I've garbled the message. In future, I think I will restrict myself to comments or questions and keep my opinion of posts to myself. Again, my apologies...
[> [> [> [> [> No, no, no, you misunderstood or I communicated badly. -- Caroline, 11:26:09 03/12/03 Wed

I was delighted by your post and didn't mean anything satirical or snide at all in response! I was so chuffed to reach someone who doesn't normally find this stuff interesting! You paid me a compliment and I'm happy that I found a way to communicate something that is important to me to you, especially since we seem to come from rather different perspectives.

Now that I read my post again, I do see your interpretation - that you sounded condescending. But please believe me that was not intended and I'm really sorry it came across that way. If I thought you were being condescending, I would have asked if that was your meaning. I try to be so careful in my written communication but sometimes things don't come across as planned. My apologies - how about we agree to keep posting until we get it right?
[> [> [> [> [> [> I'm so relieved because... -- Thomas the Skeptic, 13:18:42 03/12/03 Wed

... I live in dread of praising someone and having that praise perceived as an insult. I was afraid that was what I had done and I'm glad you took my words in the spirit intended. And, you've got a deal on the other thing too!
[> Re: Buffy in S6 - a rebuttal of Marti Noxon -- maddog, 09:41:18 03/11/03 Tue

It's kinda hard to disagree with what the writer means when you'r debating the writer. A lot of people ran into that issue last season with whether Spike wanted his soul back. No one agreed with Joss but a few of us and I said the same thing then. How can you disagree with what he told you what he, as the writer of that part, meant.

You can disgaree with how it came out, but not really the inentions. If Marti says she meant it to be dark night of soul then that's what she meant by what she did. There's no ambiguity there.

After saying that I agree with Marty. Buffy spent the first half of that season...maybe even more...thinking life wasn't worth living. She was mad at every one and every thing that was goin on. And to top it off she got into what turns out to be a dangerous relaionship with Spike. How much more rock bottom would you like her to get?
[> [> Re: Buffy in S6 - a rebuttal of Marti Noxon -- CW, 10:18:09 03/11/03 Tue

It's kinda hard to disagree with what the writer means when you'r debating the writer. A lot of people ran into that issue last season with whether Spike wanted his soul back. No one agreed with Joss but a few of us and I said the same thing then. How can you disagree with what he told you what he, as the writer of that part, meant.

Actually it's more complicated than that. What the writer means is one thing, how it plays out on paper or on the screen is often quite another. And yes, the reader or viewer has every right to argue about that. Joss meant Spike to want his soul back, but that's not how it played out for the majority of the audience at the end of last season. Whether it was a lapse in acting, direction or just an overzealous attempt to shock the audience, most people who saw it, thought Spike was shocked by the turn of events. Like it or not when the writer stops writing and shows what she's/he's done to someone else, her/his vote is no more important than anyone else's. That's an extremely important part of understanding literature, that even professional scholarly critics of literature sometimes fail to remember. If the author has to tell everyone, outside the work, what happened in the work to make them understand what she/he meant, she/he didn't write it correctly in the first place. Joss had the luxury of continuing the story and making it clear what he meant in context. Most writers don't have that luxury. In that case, the writer's intentions are truly meaningless. It's what's in print or on the screen that matters.
[> [> [> Re: Buffy in S6 - a rebuttal of Marti Noxon -- luna, 11:35:57 03/11/03 Tue

What the writer means is one thing, how it plays out on paper or on the screen is often quite another. And yes, the reader or viewer has every right to argue about that.

I agree. If readers were always responsible for comprehending exactly and only what writers intend, the world would be a lot easier for writers!

And furthermore, I don't think Caroline was saying that Marti was wrong about what was happening with Buffy, but that she was misusing, perhaps misunderstanding, the term "dark night of the soul."
[> [> [> Well, she agreed -- lunasea, 15:38:30 03/11/03 Tue

I am a viewer and if the writer's intent matches what I see, I don't see how that is irrelevant. I tend to look at shooting scripts to see more of that intent and to see if it was conveyed or if the actors/directors contribution changed things. Most times on BtVS the writers' intent is what I see. The few times I disagree are rather minor, and as I have said, what they continue to produce is based on that intent rather than what I see. Their intent is more important than my interpretation because my interpretation of what I see now is built on what they did earlier.

Chances are when a viewer disagrees with a writer it is a case of projection or not having the required experiences. Should I go with my baggage and ignorance rather than the story itself? That will enrich me how? I can discover my baggage and ignorance by discovering what caused my interpretation to vary from their intent.
[> [> [> [> Reader Response Theory -- Scroll, 15:50:40 03/11/03 Tue

Their intent is more important than my interpretation because my interpretation of what I see now is built on what they did earlier.

It's been a couple of years since I studied Reader Response theory, but I think the general intent of this theory is that the audience/reader approaches the text to figure out what the author meant at the time they were writing it. The reader doesn't read and interpret based on the text itself, but on what the author intended for the reader to see. You examine historical context, intertextuality, etc. (BTW, if I've got this wrong, somebody please correct me. I'm not sure Reader Response is the correct name of this analytical theory.)

Anyway, this is one type of analytical theory. There are many others. Some say you examine the text only, see how agent interacts with object, theme, setting. What is the agency? How is the narrative constructed? What are the archetypes? But there are many ways to read a text. Not one is more "valid" than another, IMHO.

An abstract painting is not about authorial intent. The viewer is supposed to examine the abstract as something in-and-of-itself. You get an impression of shapes, lines, colours. You interpret what it might mean based on your own experiences. Personally, I don't like abstract art. I prefer someting with a little more structure. I enjoy reading author interviews because it's nice to see the creative process.

But I also believe that art should be able to stand on its own. We're never going to know what exactly those cave painters in France were thinking. We can only interpret based on the art itself, perhaps placing it in historical context, but still not having the author's intent spelled out for us. And I don't always have to agree with the author. Also, Joss sometimes lies : )
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Reader Response Theory -- Miss Edith, 16:44:43 03/11/03 Tue

Trust the story, not the teller. Joss quote.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Though there's some irony -- Rahael, 19:01:15 03/11/03 Tue

on referring to Joss as an authority telling us not to listen to him ;)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOL -- Miss Edith, 19:14:19 03/11/03 Tue

Irony's kind of ironic that way.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Question -- Shiraz, 10:38:22 03/12/03 Wed

Do you know if he said this before or after the whole "Dead Lesbian" controversy last season?

Either way, irony is now being served by the gallon.

-Shiraz
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Question -- Miss Edith., 01:26:38 03/13/03 Thu

Before I think. I remember when Tara was killed off a lot of viewers were telling the angry people that Joss should be expected to lie, and it was foolish to trust him. I can't remember the first time he said it though.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Reader Response Theory -- lunasea, 16:54:55 03/11/03 Tue

Also, Joss sometimes lies : )

Sometimes? They all admit they are evil liars (though none quite as good at it as Steven DeKnight is). People actually expect them to answer "will Tara die" truthfully?

But when talking about past seasons, motivations or what they were attempting to do, I have seen no reason why they would lie. Do they just like screwing with us? Lying about these things also screws with their work. Say Spike did intend to get the chip out. When Joss says that wasn't his intent, those who said it was then abandonned that position.

I analyze the show to see how it is constructed. For my purposes, the writers' intent is paramount. I am tired of hearing that this isn't a valid way of interpreting the show. I am interested in the story that Joss is trying to tell. In order to evaluate whether that story is conveyed, I need to know what his intent was. Since they do give amazing interviews and commentary on the DVDs, I can find out what that intent was. I am also more interested in that story than my own projection. I have analyzed myself to death and undeath. The Buffyverse was supposed to be my break from that (really succeeded there, didn't I). Others may go from a different angle. That doesn't invalidate this one.

My Dark Night thread, which this was a rebuttal of sorts to was about how that intent was conveyed and whether I thought they were successful and putting my own experience on top of it. I went episode by episode and showed how various lines and actions conveyed Buffy's Dark Night. It was about the feelings behind it, or the lack of feelings. It was about a numbness that Buffy felt.

I think they did do a great job. I also think that Marti was right that this wasn't something most were interested in to such a degree. Those people find something else that interests them, that may not be put there intentionally by the writers. I do not see how what others see invalidates what the writers intended.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Cause, y'know, writers should always provide a commentary. -- Solitude1056, 21:58:35 03/11/03 Tue

I am interested in the story that Joss is trying to tell. In order to evaluate whether that story is conveyed, I need to know what his intent was. Since they do give amazing interviews and commentary on the DVDs, I can find out what that intent was. I am also more interested in that story than my own projection.

I'm not familiar with "reader response," but in theology/philosophy we called this the Fallacy of Intentionality. What if Machiavelli's Prince was intended as one big joke, a satire? Would we really find ourselves quoting Machiavelli in management seminars?What if Jonathan Swift beat two of his children to death and honestly thought the world would be better off with less children? Would we really find A Modest Proposal quite so amusing?

And then, of course, there's also the issue of When Words Aren't The Same Anymore. Shakespeare, Chaucer, and outdated translations by Richard Burton all contain excellent examples of archaic terms that have different meanings now (think of medieval 'mistress' as head-of-household, versus modern 'mistress' as expensive one-person prostitute). What was once a line referring to an honorable person, becomes a chance for the audience to snigger.

Let's see, here's one of my favorite examples: the fact that 90% of all theater-goers think Hamlet's solioquoy demonstrates unquestionably Hamlet's suicidal tendencies. This, even though Hamlet states, "The undiscover'd country from whose bourn / No traveller returns". That is to say, he clearly states that dead people don't come back, even though he'd seen his own father's ghost only an act before. Please. Do we really need Shakespeare to sit down and do a voiceover commentary on the latest Hamlet remake to help us understand what's already in the bleedin' play? It's right there, in the words themselves, everything you needed. If we, as the audience, got so wrapped up in Hamlet's suicidal act (that he enacts while knowing the King and Polonius are eavesdropping), then it's just kudos to the actor for convincing us as thoroughly as the rest of the characters - but this doesn't mean the story requires even a single footnote or addendum.

Point is, if an author requires the commentaries, or the extra interviews, or other noise, to explain what s/he meant, then the author's work failed. This is one reason I avoid Marti Noxon's interviews, because I can't shake the gut sense she wasn't the most secure in her S6 producer/headmistress role, hence the endless explanatory interviews where she seemed to invariably make things worse. What was that comment, Marti? Spike was based on bad boyfriends you had after college? Riley was based on your husband? Hunh? How does this make the story work better, now that I know you had relationship issues? Oh, right. It doesn't.

At best, I can ignore it; at worst, it snaps me out of the suspension of disbelief, because I hear mention of Riley and I think, "oh, Marti's husband. Yeech." When I run the world, authors will have to shut up and let their story do their talking - Joss reminding us not to listen to him is one way, I think, he's also explaining why he's not talking. In the end, if the story doesn't explain everything, in and of itself, the story didn't work.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Self contained texts -- Rahael, 00:48:30 03/12/03 Wed

I certainly agree - when you come to a subtle and complex playwright like Shakespeare, looking at the play itself can provide all the answers you need.

Buffy itself contains far more subtlety than any one person can describe, even Joss. It is written by more than one person. The dictates of narrative provide for resonances, meanings and metaphors not initially intended.

However, when the self contained text is taken to its extreme, I get a bit turned off. (i.e, to need some kind of contextualisation means the story is a failure) A lot of wonderful poetry becomes meaningless if you can't consider the context that it was produced in. We might not understand a concept in the same way as the contemporary society in which the work of art was produced. A play is not an isolated text. It is meant to be performed, to a specific audience. Shakespeare intended to entertain a contemporary audience - he didn't keep a master copy of his plays. Everything we have, we have from a transcriber in the audience writing it down (let's hear it for transcribers!!).

It's enlightening to realise that Bolingbroke saying that the tudors were going to bring fair cheeked peace and plenty was performed during a period of famine, uncertainty of succession and looming war presided over an unpopular tudor queen. Irony is added that is not immediately obvious. Shakespeare becomes harder to consider as a straightforward conservative cheerleader for monarchy.

In the future, I imagine that the pop culture savvy Buffy might lose some meaning without some kind of societal context. Of course, it might mean that having good historical general knowledge might become a requirement for all discerning viewers and readers ;)

I don't mind reading commentaries and interviews - Buffy can work well enough for me. And I find that the ME writers are generally very open to other interpretations. I watch soem commentaries (Joss, Tim) and start loving the Buffyverse again. It's just a demonstration of a quality of mind and intelligence that I enjoy.

Also, to my mind, to say that the meaning is immediately obvious if you only seach for it might suggest that there is only one meaning - I think there are many interpretations, many meanings. I don't think you are suggesting that, I'm just enlargening on my thoughts.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Self contained texts -- s'kat, 07:27:25 03/12/03 Wed

Interesting discussion Sol1056 and Rah, I agree with both of you.

Like Sol, I was avoiding MN's interviews for a while, for the same reasons Sol mentions so clearly above. MN seemed to be insecure in her executive producer role and as a result overly defensive in her interviews, often bringing out stuff about her own life to defend her work to the interviewers and critics, instead of just brushing them off as Whedon often does and stating let my work stand for itself. I did however find her episode by episode commentary (see the archives for my post on it) revealing. It showed just how insecure she truly was in her role as co-executive producer, how involved Joss Whedon had been in some of the better episodes, and how she had difficulty keeping the troops in line and staying ahead on production issues. The episode by episode commentary also demonstrated something I've always suspected -- how incredibly hard it is to churn out a collaborative product week after week without screwing up. The reason I often read interviews and commentary on tv shows -- is to see how they describe their collaborative process and the inherent pitfalls within that process. What I'm not overly interested in is the intent behind the story arcs, although there are times that can be equally fascinating.

Joss Whedon's commentary on The Body for instance is quite revealing in that he is so incredibly taken aback by the audience's positive response to the episode. He'd intended to take an unrelenting, raw, non-hopeful look at the physicality of death - and expected it turn people off, horrify them -- instead he got letters telling him how moved people were by the broadcast and thanking him for helping them deal with their loss. This touched him deeply yet shocked him at the same time. (See Archives for Rah's post on this commentary)

From my own experiences creating art, both writing and other types of mediums - I've discovered that often people will respond to or interact with it in ways I never imagined or intended. Ways that oddly enough enrich the art and make it better. I'm sure Joss Whedon experienced a little of that thrill when he learned about the Blood, Text and Tears Conference in England or when he comes online and reads some of our essays. And I can't help but wonder if Shakespeare and his players aren't grinning in their graves over our continued analysis and production of their plays. For me - it's how others interact with and interpret what I create that is most interesting, not what I may or may not have intended. It can be frustrating of course when someone sees the complete opposite of your intent, but it is also educational. Sometimes the audience's reaction to the work is far more interesting than the work itself or anything the creator has to say about it. This certainly seems to be the case with Btvs and Ats - at least in my humble opinion.

Hope this adds something. Enjoyed reading both of your posts.

SK
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Self contained texts -- fresne, 11:20:17 03/12/03 Wed

Thanks oh, everyone. You've said a number of things about interpretation that I wanted to, but didn't. Heck, I really should be typing up an agenda right now.

The agenda. The intention of the meeting. How the audience receives the agenda. Interprets the words Green Field Architecture or Universal Desktop, well, that remains to be seen. Do I even know what I mean by Universal Desktop?

ME's canon, BtVS and AtS, and poor, poor FF, are remarkable complex. The result of a myriad of visions melding to a cohesion through the lens of Joss, who in artful turns is opaque and transparent. Minion guiding of his vision as time allows.

Historical context, background, subconscious drives that we can only guess at, driving the text. The writers tell us what they meant. They lie. They agree. They disagree. And in the places between, we think. ME. We. All important for driving our unique view of this that we discuss.

I'm suddenly reminded of the hammer and the sickle in Anne. According to Joss it was coincidence, but was it? Could it have been a subconscious choice on the part of the prop designer. (yes, I've watched the props bit of the S3 DVD) Then again, I didn't notice said hammer and sickle until someone pointed it out. I was too caught up that Buffy was holding a Hunga Munga throwing dagger that my entire freshman college hall coveted from Atlanta Cutlery. I just love saying it. Hunga Munga. Hammer and sickle, damn bourgeois grinding the workers down, um, oh, look it's a Hunga Munga. Squee...

When I said in the Meet the Poster's thread that I'm a narcissist, I meant for you my readers to understand that what I view through my stylish yet affordable glasses is all about me. I being the one person that I cannot escape. In my interpretive dance, I privileging my steps as I follow the ME tap. This isn't the right way. It's just a way.

I think of this that we do here as the challenge dance from Top Hat. Fred taps out some steps. Ginger responds. Embroiders. Sends it back. He taps. She taps. There's a dance. And in the end, the smile of satisfaction and they shake hands. At least, until the tragic and silly misunderstanding. Or, perhaps it's one of those vast production numbers from 1930's musicals. With Brownian chaos at play. Or better yet, Mulan Rouge with opposing motion fighting for attention.

Now I really do have to go off and write my agenda.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> There's a difference between 'intent' and 'context' -- Solitude1056, 08:11:28 03/12/03 Wed

What you're talking about is context, and you're right, contextual information is sometimes crucial. If you weren't familiar with Apocalypse Now, you'd be completely lost during much of Xander's segment in Restless. However, do you really need to know that the person who wrote such-and-such an episode originally intended that the bit character represent his parents' love of bowling?

However, when the self contained text is taken to its extreme, I get a bit turned off. (i.e, to need some kind of contextualisation means the story is a failure)

I certainly hope it doesn't sound like this is what I was saying, although I'd agree that "to need some kind of 'external explanation' means the story is a failure."
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: There's a difference between 'intent' and 'context' -- lunasea, 08:27:44 03/12/03 Wed

However, do you really need to know that the person who wrote such-and-such an episode originally intended that the bit character represent his parents' love of bowling?

Why not? It is a show written by humans. I like to know about humans. How is that any different than the get-to-know you threads on the board?

I like knowing that the mausoleum in this episode or that one was named after this writer's niece or that one's sister. It makes the show more than just a show.

Is it absolutely necessary? Not really, but what in life is absolutely necessary. Certainly not talking on the net. I do a lot that isn't absolutely necessary that enriches my life.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Right, that clarifies it for me -- Rahael, 09:13:53 03/12/03 Wed

A great work of art has to be able to work on many levels, and at its basic, as a narrative that entertains, it must succeed. If it fails, no amount of explanation can fix that failure. If it succeeds, perhaps I may suggest that opinions and intpretations cannot diminish. Otherwise, why are we all here?

Rahael, taking a quick break from thinking and writing about Buffy. Hmm. Writing a proper post takes more effort than my usual scribbles.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Authorial intent -- Sophist, 09:21:35 03/12/03 Wed

I'm with you on this Sol. But let me pose a hard question that makes the papers whenever it comes up in my profession.

Suppose a woman comes to a party dressed "provocatively". A man decides she really wants him and won't take "no" for an answer when they leave the party. Was the woman "asking for it"? Whose intent controls?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Big difference, and explosive example. -- Solitude1056, 10:09:07 03/12/03 Wed

Since legally, it don't make no difference what the audience's interpretation is, one's dress or demeanor does not automatically indicate a willingness to have sex. However, as a literary analogy, this one doesn't quite work, or works only to a certain extent.

If, let's say, a poet does a reading at bookstore and delivers a line, "I was pleased," with heapings of dry sarcasm, this is authorial intent becoming a part of the audience's perception of a medium that otherwise normally has little input from the author once it's written down. If later, someone else reads the poem aloud, to an english class, and says, "I was pleased," with a smug, content tone, this could conceivably change the second audience's interpretation. When the author is reading/enacting the piece (similar to when a person is dressed), the author is occupying that space the audience would normally occupy. The person, similarly, is occupying the space of "this is how you are to see me" that overlays the audience's objectification of the person, such as would happen if the audience were simply looking at a photograph. Ah, in this photograph, she's wearing red. Yup, she's a hooker. But if it's a real person and she uses fifteen SAT words in the first sentence of saying hello, this changes your perception by virtue of the object's action. Similar to the way the author, while reading/enacting hir piece, can change the cadence or emphasis as fits the audience.

Which points up that Joss et al is effectively enacting/reading the piece, but is disadvantaged by our delayed audience reaction. This creates some of the issues, I think, between what I'm saying and your counterpoint. At what point does the delay in author-creation and audience-reaction mean the piece is pretty much a "do it and throw it out there" like a movie or a book? How close together do authorial creation and audience response need to be for it to be considered a feedback loop like in a stage play?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hard cases make bad law -- Sophist, 11:11:30 03/12/03 Wed

Or so they say. Not sure if that's true or not.

Since legally, it don't make no difference what the audience's interpretation is, one's dress or demeanor does not automatically indicate a willingness to have sex.

I probably could construct an argument in which it was relevant. My real point, however, was to raise the issue of communicative intent in a more general form.

Let's suppose Shakespeare acted the part of Hamlet at The Globe. By your example, his intonation of lines would provide us with an important clue about their meaning. That clue does not and cannot appear in the transcriptions available to us. But now suppose Shakespeare said, sometime later in his life, "I intended for Hamlet to express X in this scene, and this is how I would have delivered the lines." I'm finding it very difficult to articulate the difference between these 2 cases. And if in the first case we should consider authorial intent, why not the second?

My preliminary thought is that the issues of intent and control are closely related. That is, in your example of the poet, the poet controls the expression. When the poet writes down the words for someone else to read, s/he loses that control; now the expression can change to suit the taste of the individual reader. The problem is, why can't the poet attempt to control the reader by providing a guide to intonation along with the poem? Or, upon hearing the reader, offer a correction?

This, it seems to me, is what is happening in my original example. Clothing choice is (or can be seen to be) a form of communication. The viewer can interpret, but the author can correct the interpretation. If communication is intended to lead to understanding, shouldn't the author be permitted to clarify meaning in order to facilitate understanding?

Sorry about all the questions. I hate rhetorical questions and these aren't meant to be. Like Mark Twain, if I had more time, I'd tighten this up (maybe even remove the dangling preposition).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hard cases make bad law -- Solitude1056, 11:51:46 03/12/03 Wed

But you've just underlined what I was saying, although I suppose this means I didn't articulate the line between them. In a 'live' piece where audience response is part of the art (onstage, in person, poetry reading, etc), the author's intent very much matters, if only the authors intent at that precise moment. (Rewriting history as a means of authorial expression does not, in my book, warrant any attention or credibility. I've seen enough folks do that with the Deep South and the debate of Why We Weren't Really Fighting About Slavery.) But anyway...

In a piece where the author's presentation/creation is divided from the audience by time or medium (books, movies, dead authors), then yes, the author's intent can't be part of it anymore because the author isn't there to interact in a live medium. In the situation of a woman in red, she's theoretically there, in the dress, so she'd fall into the former category of "interacting and reacting to audience interpretation of her presentation."

I think what trips Joss up sometimes is that he's treating his story like an onstage play but he's got delayed audience reaction. He'd like to lend creedence to our responses beyond the usual TV mogul; the problem is that there's sometimes a gap of several months between "this is my brilliant episode concept" and "here's the reviews from the fans."
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Art as dialogue -- Sophist, 13:27:53 03/12/03 Wed

I had the chance to think about this some more at lunch. I started on your side and now I'm talking myself onto the other side. Save me from myself.

Let's start with the proposition, stated in my last post, that the purpose of communication is understanding. If that is the goal, then I don't see how we can avoid authorial intent.

Take the posts here as an example. In fact, there's a good example a little ways up in the exchange between Caroline and Thomas the Skeptic. TtS posted, Caroline responded; TtS interpreted her response one way, Caroline rushed to assure him that she didn't mean it that way (but saw how he could have reached that conclusion).

If authorial intent were irrelevant, TtS had no reason to continue. He read Caroline's post and understood what she meant (he thought). He could have walked away with that impression. Instead, further discussion clarified the misunderstanding.

Now let's switch to BtVS. Certainly one way to see the show is as JW's communication to us. If we want to understand what JW meant, his own clarifications or explanations seem essential to that process. In the same way, we share our interpretations here and refine them for our fellow posters in order to communicate our understanding of scenes and themes ("scenes and themes" -- great book title offered free).

We may well say, in response to a clarification, "well, if you had said so in the first place...". That may affect our judgment of the quality of the show or of a post. But it doesn't dispense with the need for clarification in order to achieve understanding. Given the inherent ambiguity of language, I doubt that understanding can ever be achieved without dialogue (etymology important).

And dialogue is what's really at issue. JW gets the first word in. It's his show. We react, here or elsewhere. I don't think we can just dismiss his opportunity to respond (again, with the caveat that his response may affect our judgment of his original effort). Neither should we expect that our first post on a subject ends our participation in a conversation on the Board.

I don't see this as privileging the author. Words may be ambiguous, but they do constrain the universe of possible meanings. I can dismiss as disingenuous an author who attempts to explain that he said black but meant white. But I don't think I can refuse him a hearing.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Question: difference btw a dialogue and a presentation? -- shadowkat, 14:05:46 03/12/03 Wed

Sorry for butting in, but I've been enjoying the discussion and wondered about something:

Take the posts here as an example. In fact, there's a good example a little ways up in the exchange between Caroline and Thomas the Skeptic. TtS posted, Caroline responded; TtS interpreted her response one way, Caroline rushed to assure him that she didn't mean it that way (but saw how he could have reached that conclusion).

If authorial intent were irrelevant, TtS had no reason to continue. He read Caroline's post and understood what she meant (he thought). He could have walked away with that impression. Instead, further discussion clarified the misunderstanding.

Now let's switch to BtVS. Certainly one way to see the show is as JW's communication to us. If we want to understand what JW meant, his own clarifications or explanations seem essential to that process. In the same way, we share our interpretations here and refine them for our fellow posters in order to communicate our understanding of scenes and themes ("scenes and themes" -- great book title offered free).

We may well say, in response to a clarification, "well, if you had said so in the first place...". That may affect our judgment of the quality of the show or of a post. But it doesn't dispense with the need for clarification in order to achieve understanding. Given the inherent ambiguity of language, I doubt that understanding can ever be achieved without dialogue (etymology important).

And dialogue is what's really at issue. JW gets the first word in. It's his show. We react, here or elsewhere. I don't think we can just dismiss his opportunity to respond (again, with the caveat that his response may affect our judgment of his original effort). Neither should we expect that our first post on a subject ends our participation in a conversation on the Board.

What hits me, is that there may be a difference between authorial intent when you are discussing something (or in the midst of a debate) and it is important to make your point clear and when you have published a fictional work like a novel or made a movie or tv show - that once presented cannot be altered or necessarily clarified.

Aren't the two processes somewhat different?

For example:

When I post an essay to a posting board - I expect discussion on it and if I engage in dialogue on it, like I did below with Scroll further down on this thread - I do want to make sure my points are clear. As did Thomas and Caroline above. But if say I published a book of essays, would I have the same responsibilities to clarify? Would I be expected to engage in dialogue over them? Possibly, if I were to present those essays at a conference or post them to a forum.

What about a movie or film? Or better yet a piece of artwork hanging in a museum. Should the artist clarify h/er
intent? Or should they stand back and let the audience interpret as they wish? What I wonder would Salavador Dali or Jackson Pollack have to tell us about their controversial works? Some artists do engage in dialogues about their works, while others refuse to.

This week I debated going to a reading of Susan Orelean and Michael Cunningham - where they discussed in a public forum
the adaptation of their respective novels into films. (I had other plans so had to back off) Is this an example of the author's providing us with a clarification of a) their intent vs. b)the filmmakers - when only the author is present? Can such a dialogue even be entered into? We only really get one side of the issue, after all?

Also how does the writer or artist's clarification of their intent after their film or work is presented to us, change our perception of it? Assuming of course it does. And if it does change our perception - which perception is the valid one, the one prior to the clarification?

This brings up another issue - the reason I stopped reading spoilers and left spoiler boards and no longer read wildfeeds prior to the airing of an episode - I discovered that all these items alterred my perception of the presentation. To this day, I wonder how I would have responded to As You Were, Hell's Bells, and Seeing Red if I had not already heard someone elses opinion on the episode before I viewed it myself. Which makes me wonder how movie and book reviews affect our reading of a work and the authorial intent.

Okay I know I'm sort of rambling off topic here ;-), but
what would happen if Joss or Marti were to come onto the screen a la Russel Banks of Masterpiece Theater and introduce the episode, explaining their intent, then after it was over come back for an brief afterward clarifying it?
I've seen authors do this with afterwards and forwards in books. Would this change how we viewed the episode? And if so, why have they chosen not to do so?

SK
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Question: difference btw a dialogue and a presentation? -- ponygirl, 14:32:05 03/12/03 Wed

And is it possible that the artist's intent could change as well? That their opinion of their work could be altered by the reactions of others, or by their own changing perceptions? I think this is why artists are often hesitant to state exactly what they mean, because in many cases they may not know themselves. So often they are operating on intuition, or drawing inspiration from murkier parts of their brains.

A few years back I was doing research on film history and came across an interview with actor Norman Lloyd talking about his friendship with director Jean Renoir. Apparently towards the end of his life Renoir had taken to screening his own films, after one session he told Lloyd that he had had a realization. His whole life he thought he had been trying to get away from his father, the Impressionist painter Pierre-Auguste Renoir, but really he had been trying to understand him and be like him.

The work itself is static/complete but perception of it is always changing. Even for the author. I think that's what makes a work of art live and breathe.

Not sure if I'm just rambling here, it's been a long day!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Made sense to me. Totally agree. -- s'kat, 14:45:36 03/12/03 Wed

I know that I've changed my views on Buffy episodes over time. First viewing thought one thing. Two years later?
Something completely different. I also know that looking back over my own written work - I often change my mind on what I'd intended.

In reading the commentary on Btvs and Ats - I've found that it is interesting how the writers contradict earlier interviews on the topic. They'll say one thing prior to the episode airing, something different immediately after it airs, and then something completely different two years later reflecting back on it. Television more than anything else is an art-form that is continuously in process, not static, until well the series ends. And the scripts? Those like the plays of Shakespeare, because of the very fact they can be performed and read in numerous different ways and by numerous different acts will always be open to numerous interpretations. After all - in Shakespear's time all the actors were male. How does having female actors play the roles change the interpretation.

SK
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Show and tell -- Sophist, 15:25:14 03/12/03 Wed

I think you hit the key issues. I don't want this post to get too long, so I'm going to quote just one of your points but try to respond to them all. The crucial point seems to be this:

What hits me, is that there may be a difference between authorial intent when you are discussing something (or in the midst of a debate) and it is important to make your point clear and when you have published a fictional work like a novel or made a movie or tv show - that once presented cannot be altered or necessarily clarified.

I'm inclined to say that published works are no less intended as dialogue than any other form of communication. One reason for saying this is that I can't imagine the concept of "artist" as separate and distinct from the concept of "viewer". I doubt there would be art if no one viewed it. However, I'm not absolutely certain that this is correct, and I hedged my Art as dialogue post by describing that as "one way" to see art.

I suspect we sometimes see a work of art as fixed because for us it is. Shakespeare wrote 400 years ago; we can no longer question him about his intent. We can treat authorial intent as irrelevant simply because it's not available.

With current artists, however, can respond directly to them and seek their response back. This lack of symmetry may change the interpretive rules we accept.

The issue is especially acute when it comes to a continuing series. Let's take the example of Spike's soul. I, and many others, believed that Spike had no intent to get a soul. JW assured us that Spike did have that intent (in other words, he engaged in dialogue with us). Had BtVS ended with S6, we could adopt either interpretation. But S7 adds new information and our understanding of S7 may be radically different depending on which interpretation we adopt.

I would also suggest that the repeated metanarrations in BtVS strongly suggest that JW believes he is carrying on a dialgue with the viewers. I would even suggest that Shakespeare's prologues and narrative conclusions suggest that he also understood his plays as, in part, dialogues with the audience.

One last point. It may be that we are construing the term "art" too narrowly. Perhaps we should think of it as not just the picture in the frame, but as the picture plus context (as Rah correctly pointed out) plus dialogue.

Again, I don't want to carry this point so far as to give the author the only word. That would eliminate dialogue no less than if we ignore the author altogether. I'm just saying we should accept not only what they show us, but also what they tell us.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> authorial intent doesn't work here because... -- manwitch, 19:41:02 03/12/03 Wed

The problem with authorial intent in this context is there is no "the author."

Take Julie Taymor's Titus, which has been mentioned before on this board. Who is the author? Its not a simple question. And whatever answer someone comes up with, it can be convincingly refuted.

Same with Buffy. Marti Noxon is not "the author." Nor is Joss. There are many authors to Buffy, not simply in terms of the writing credit that goes to each episode, but throughout the entire creative process that takes it from an idea to something realized on the screen that we are free to interpret. By the time it reaches our home, it would be, I think, an incredible insult to the creative team, including the performers, to suggest that Joss or Marti or anyone was the author.

Beyond that, the author, to the degree that such a thing exists, is not always consciously aware of what it is that they are creating. To the degree that they make themselves conscious of the creative process, their proclamation of intent is also an interpretation. Read what authors say about their writing. It is very common to hear about characters who, once developed, write their own story. And in many other creative endeavors, the creative process is not an entirely conscious one. At least not in these terms. Did you see Robin Williams on Inside the Actors Studio? That isn't conscious. If he tells you what he was doing after, he is interpreting the experience after the fact. Is that interesting? Sure. Might it have relevance for us in musing about what he did? Absolutely. Does it limit the experience to his interpretation of it? Of course not. But don't let's get stuck on this example. The parallel holds with the jazz improvisor, the athlete, or the centipede trying to walk. Creative experise is beyond consciousness. It simply couldn't happen if it was in the check of consciousness the whole time.

And, getting away from that example, it is quite possible that someone outside the creation of the text will have a better vision of what it "means" than those involved in creating it. We don't always know why symbols, situations, or images affect us when we explore them in creative work. Frequently we are exploring them for precisely that reason. But it is very possible that someone else viewing from outside can make sense of it. That's part of the wonder of the creative interaction between author and audience. They are both involved in the creative act.

What authors say is interesting, because it reveals the perspective of the creative on the creative process. I think it can be very relevant to hear an author speak about their intent because it allows you to evaluate the creative process in terms of intent, what can be intended creatively, and the greater or lesser degrees to which a particular author achieves that intent, or even the degree to which it is possible to achieve that intent.

But, as has been said before, what the author says is not relevant to the interpretation of the work by the audience. Which is not the same as saying the author is wrong or that any interpretation is valid. But its what is in the text that matters, not what someone claims to have meant after. And in this case, Marti doesn't have the sole claim to authorial intent anyway.

Anyways, that Caroline is something. I'm sorry I missed this whole thing.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Read Sperber and Wilson's Relevance, or at least Grice -- luna, 18:31:44 03/12/03 Wed

Tried to summarize, but can't do them justice. They unsnarl a lot of this. There's a lot in what you're all saying, but there's a lot more, too.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Can't you give me the Cliff Notes version? :) -- Sophist, 18:42:15 03/12/03 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Inadequate attempt! -- luna, 19:59:25 03/12/03 Wed

Though actually, Sophist, I wasn't aiming that at your post specifically, though I really found your points interesting and persuasive. It was really the whole discussion.

Both theories are related, and are basically outgrowths of Speech Act theory, one approach to linguistic pragmatics.

Both postulate principles for how hearers/readers recover meaning.

Both assume that this recovery is based on the speaker's knowledge of the context of communication as well as the communication itself

And that speakers/writers must manipulate the context to convey not only meaning, but the INTENTION to communicate a particular kind of meaning.

For example, a wife wants to leave a party; she looks at her husband and glances meaningfully at the door.

How does he know how to interpret this? Based on his knowledge of her, her desire to leave usually before him, her unwillingness to say anything in front of people, their past history, etc.

But if she does this same act to someone who doesn't know her, it might make them think she wants them to notice someone who is coming in, or to close the door, etc.

Extended to literature, this means that the creator either must assume and care only for some "perfect" reader, a perfectly-tuned "husband," or accept a variety of responses. Since the real world means that we each have a different context for what we read, that means that each reader must have a slightly different interpretation.

But that completely oversimplifies the theories, so let me expand....in time to beat the Voymonster's evil archiving in resposne to a horde of Angel comments...nah, you can ask me later if you really can see any point in it!

Sorry for muddying that very clear water...
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> It's just a matter of preference -- lunasea, 08:20:03 03/12/03 Wed

Some of us like to hear the commentary and like seeing the show from different perspectives. I think the writers are funny with great personalities and enjoy just listen to them talk. It makes the show more personal for me. I like finding out about the perspective the writers are coming from. It is this perspective that generates the story.

That Marti's husband is like Riley makes sense. I married my own Riley (though he has Xander's sense of humor). We have similar senses of humor and both love/have a certain type of twisted sexuality. We tend to write from a very similar place. My husband heard her commentary on S2 and said she reminded him of me, even the way she talked. He actually started laughing and said "No wonder you like her stuff so much. She is you or you are her or however that works." Episodes of hers that people hate, I love. I can't decide what I am more excited about 21 BtVS because she is writing it or 22 AtS because Tim is. I look forward to her pilot next season. Marti without demons. It is just to delicious for words.

I hear Joss speak and I agree with a lot of it, too. I absolutely love the liner notes to OMWF. Again, my husband had to laugh when he read them. When Joss does talk about BtVS or AtS, he talks about things I have already seen. just maybe in a bit more depth or how he came up with something. I like to quote the writers to back me up and because they say things better than I do. I do the same thing when I quote the sutras. These things have been said before, so why should I say them in a less clear and concise manner?

I like the commentaries. Some of them I have watched so many times, I have them memorized. I devour interviews. I like finding out about the people behind the show.

What perspective someone takes is a matter of their preference. It is no more accurate to say that the text should stand completely on its own than it is to say that everyone should read every interview that comes out. From my POV I get the most out of the show by seeing what the writers' intent was.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> BtVS is just a TV show -- lunasea, 07:22:58 03/12/03 Wed

Machiavelli's wrote The Prince because he was in hot water with the ruling family. I don't remember the specifics, but it was a big suck up piece. He didn't actually believe what he wrote.

There is a big difference between the written word and a TV show. In your standard book, there is one author. It may get cleaned up by the editor, but there really is only one vision. With BtVS we are looking at how many writers, directors, actors, editors? Each of these people have their own visions and intents.

Typically writer's intent is brought up when people disagree about what they saw. If one person saw what the writer intended and one didn't is that the fault of the writer or the audience? The responsibility for understanding cannot rest 100% on the writer. As Joss says "Some people just don't get it."

Also, some things are fairly important, like why Spike went to Africa. If Joss feels it necessary to clear this up, I see no reason to stick with my interpretation. It is a TV show. Sometimes things work and sometimes they don't. I think Marti talks so much is because S6 was so far outside the realm of people's experiences that they didn't get it.

Sometimes things don't come across as intended. I see nothing wrong with the writers saying this. Then it is up to the audience which story they prefer, the one the writers wanted to write or the one they thought they saw. The one they continue to write is based on the one they wanted to write.

This position is as valid as any other. I like commentary. I like seeing tomorrow's episode based on what the writers were trying to show yesterday rather than what may or may not have come across. I have only disagreed with them a few times. Usually when I find out I went to deep (like with Spike), it makes me laugh my ass off and even learn a bit about myself. Mostly the interviews just confirm what I already thought. If I disagreed with them strongly, I probably wouldn't watch the show.
[> [> [> [> [> New Critics, not reader response -- Scroll, 01:03:01 03/12/03 Wed

Unless I'm way off base again, I think the analytical theory I'm actually thinking of is New Criticism. Which tries to figure out authorial intent. Somebody let me know if I'm wrong, please! I just don't know where I left my notes from that class... I'm losing my long-term memory at such a tender age *sigh* ;)
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: New Critics, not reader response -- luna, 19:04:21 03/12/03 Wed

Reader response, and other critical theories later, put the reader's experience as central. I too thought authorial intent went along with New Criticism and its 1950's and earlier cronies.

Personally, I think authorial intent is one part of the reader's context for interpretation--but not the main part. It's up to the author to figure out where the reader is, not vice versa (and a passle of thinkers along that line include Grice, Sperber & Wilson, and I believe the FE himself, Derrida).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: the FE himself, Derrida -- zantique, 00:38:34 03/13/03 Thu

haha - I've just been re-reading the D-man this week and that line just cracked me up entirely

thank you! I needed that
[> [> [> [> [> I think you might have the wrong theory? (OT mostly) -- skyMatrix, 01:05:26 03/12/03 Wed

Just last quarter I had my second class in literary theory, this one lower-division, and it doesn't sound like reader response is what you remember it to be. (I'm almost done with my BA in English, btw) To be certain myself, I consulted The Critical Tradition, ed. David H. Richter, the theory anthology we used in my upper-division class.

It says here that reader-response critics "all have in common the conviction that that the audience plays a vitally important role in shaping the literary experience." So reader-response criticism seems to be the opposite of what you remember, placing the audience's reaction above the author's intention and the critic's interpretation... sorta (it gets messy of course).

I'm not totally certain, then, which critical theory you meant to refer to. There is biographical criticism, in which you address what elements in the author's life led him or her to create what was created. Marti Noxon's interview quote, provided by ponygirl, in which she compares Buffy's experience to Joss Whedon's life, would probably be biographical criticism. This isn't one of the most popular theoretical approaches (I'm not even sure it is one, I'm going by memory here) because it's obviously limited.

Formalism, or New Criticism (it's kinda old actually) holds that every text is a unified whole that must be interpreted without any baggage of the reader's, the critic's, or even the writer's. If you even consider what the writer says he or she was trying to express, you are committing the "intentional fallacy," which is only gramatically different from what Solitude1056 described as a philosophical concept. Meanwhile, the "affective fallacy" refers to the reader interpreting things on an overly personal level (I think). Both concepts are put forth by W.K. Wimsatt and Monroe C. Beardsley. In general, formalism is now percieved as being too rigid.

Hmm, still not sure which approach can be said to place the writer's intentions paramount. New Historicism (looking at the text in all kinds of context) values the writer's intention but doesn't priviledge it too much. And psychoanalysis and deconstruction don't seem to fit the bill. Alas, sometimes I confuse myself. :P

(Apologies if this is beyond the patience or interest of the board posters, I'm still new here as far as posting goes!)
[> [> [> [> [> [> Our patience is long -- Scroll, 01:17:56 03/12/03 Wed

Thanks for the info, it helps! Now, as for which theory I really meant, I think new historicism is actually the closest. Funny, I'm about to graduate from English too (BA) but I cannot remember *anything* from my Brit Lit class three years ago. My memory sucks, and I don't have my notes. Worse, I studied all those things you listed: New Historicism, New Criticism, deconstruction, reader response, etc. Wonder why I paid tuition all these years if I can't remember... Also, I'm too lazy to look stuff up. But thank you for your timely intervention. : )
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Also, welcome to the board! -- Scroll :o), 01:19:01 03/12/03 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> [> Ooh, validation and the fallacy of intentionality -- Solitude1056, 10:41:26 03/12/03 Wed

If you even consider what the writer says he or she was trying to express, you are committing the "intentional fallacy," which is only gramatically different from what Solitude1056 described as a philosophical concept.

Actually, I ran across it the most as a rebuttal to theological arguments that such-and-such writing shouldn't be considered because "we don't know what the author intended." Big reason for not counting Book of Revelations. (But I, in my infinite evil wisdom, know already that the author of the Book of Revelations was a Jewish scholar who hallucinated billions of people running around hollering, "any day now!" while spending a rainy Thursday afternoon getting high on ancient goodies.)

Anyway, the fallacy of intentionality (or vice versa) is often at play in the theological world, when people say, "oh, if only we knew what Paul was thinking when he said women should cover their heads in church!" This argument (more of an excuse, actually) seems to get pulled out most often when the issue is a difficult one, and the secret message, revealed by my theological training decoder ring, is this:

We can't agree on what it means. And we don't have the author telling us what s/he meant when writing it, so we should probably just set it aside because we'll never really understand it until we can find out what the author meant.
This is a bit of a problem, since neither seances nor time machines have proven to be effective yet. Of course, what we haven't mentioned yet is that the intentionality fallacy assumes there must be an underlying truth buried somewhere. That if the author could just tell us what s/he did, thought, rewrote, and generally meant, then we'd be enlightened and move another step closer to Buffy Buddhahood. However, as I mentioned in another post (see a few lines above), the author creates the piece but when it goes through enactment/interpretation by others (director, actors, editors, audience), the original meaning may move several steps to one side or another, if not be flipped completely. So to really know the intentionality (and thus the mythical 'underlying truth,') we'd need to interview all of the intermediates as well, and somehow divine how much impact each had on the process. We couldn't go with just the author, because they're no longer the only cook in the kitchen.

And btw, welcome to the board. Keep talking!
[> [> [> [> [> [> great post. Welcome to the board! -- s'kat, 14:32:29 03/12/03 Wed

I tend to agree with Sol's take on this, but your post above was very informative. Been a long time since I've read up on reader response theory - it can get confusing.

My general attitude towards it - is while the author's intent and background can be informative to a piece, it should not in any way overtake the reader's or audience's view or equally valid interpretations and perceptions of it. When critiquing or analyzing a work - I often find it helps to get a range of views on it, partly to get past each of the fallacies you mention.

I want to know how much of what I see or read is a reflection of my own experience and issues, how much was clearly intended by the creator or creators, and how much is seen by others who have experiences different or common to my own. When I was an English major eons ago - I remember reading biographical data on the writers, reading other critics analyses of the work, discussing the work with other students who had recently read of similar and diverigent backgrounds from my own, and taking my interpretation into account. I do the same thing when I watch Buffy. In fact I think you may have touched on the reason that I came online in the first place - an urgent need to see how much of what I saw on the show was separate from my own experience and also the need to see which if any layers I had missed.

Thanks again for your post. And welcome.

SK
[> [> [> [> [> [> Well, sort of... -- Random, 14:51:05 03/12/03 Wed

The problem with reader-response (ironically, I mentioned one of its foremost proponents, Stanley Fish, in chat yesterday) is that it is more a social doctrine than a literary one in practice. That is to say, the literary doctrine is sound in theory, but its proponents have used it as a basis for self-promotion. Therefore, in practice, it generally boils down to the modern audience attempting, by hook or crook, to co-opt the Text, and doing so by invalidating the author's intent. Luckily, r-r crit's heyday has passed and people have settled down and are now arguing that nothing matters, it's all just a blip in the cosmos and that the only thing for it is to drink strong coffee and spend hours discussing how it really matters that nothing matters. We call it post-post-modernism with post-post-structuralism thrown in to keep it interesting. Oh god, now I'm depressed.

BTW, excellent post. Welcome to the board.

~Random, who finished his M.A. in English mostly unscarred by critical theory. Just a few wounds here and there to remind him to never start caring about anything.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Well, sort of... -- Random, 14:51:06 03/12/03 Wed

The problem with reader-response (ironically, I mentioned one of its foremost proponents, Stanley Fish, in chat yesterday) is that it is more a social doctrine than a literary one in practice. That is to say, the literary doctrine is sound in theory, but its proponents have used it as a basis for self-promotion. Therefore, in practice, it generally boils down to the modern audience attempting, by hook or crook, to co-opt the Text, and doing so by invalidating the author's intent. Luckily, r-r crit's heyday has passed and people have settled down and are now arguing that nothing matters, it's all just a blip in the cosmos and that the only thing for it is to drink strong coffee and spend hours discussing how it really matters that nothing matters. We call it post-post-modernism with post-post-structuralism thrown in to keep it interesting. Oh god, now I'm depressed.

BTW, excellent post. Welcome to the board.

~Random, who finished his M.A. in English mostly unscarred by critical theory. Just a few wounds here and there to remind him to never start caring about anything.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Sorry about double post. Dunno how that happened. Evil Voy hates me especially<looking paranoid> -- Random, 14:54:07 03/12/03 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> [> Critical methods -- Zus, 16:27:06 03/12/03 Wed

Wow, something I know about. As an English professor, I work with critical approaches to literature daily. From what I've seen on this board, the most often used forms pf critique are Reader-response, which SkyMatrix has carefully defined, and Formalist criticism, which is the idea that a literary work is best understood by reference to its literary elements--focusing on style, tone, genre, symbolism, figurative language, etc. This focusing is called close reading, or in this case, close watching I guess. Formalists believe that a careful close reading of a text will help the reader understand how the elements work together to make meaning. This interdependence is what makes the text (show) literary. This form would include explication in the case of poetry.
Biographical criticism believes that the circumstances of an author's life necessarily influence the meaning of the text. Sometimes knowing an important fact about an author can greatly enhance our understanding. The distinction between Biographical and Historical criticism is small but important--Historical criticism believes that social, political, cultural factors which are in play when the work is produced are important. It is important to understand how the work effected its original audience and how the meaning has changed over time. I tend to apply all of these in my teaching of different works. There are many others--Gender, Mythological, Sociological, Deconstructionist,Marxist, Green (something to do with ecology, not too clear on this one) but, I really know of none that favor what the author intended over what the audience perceives. Whew. Heading back to lurkdom now.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Uh-oh, English prof in our midst! -- Scroll, 16:49:18 03/12/03 Wed

Welcome to the board, Zus. Thanks for outlining those forms of criticism above. It's certainly making me wish I had paid more attention in class! Or at least had a better memory for literary criticism.

One thing I've learned from this Board is that there can never be too many ways of analysing Buffy and Angel. Each approach lends something new and interesting to our understanding. I'm sure I speak for the group when I say we'd love to add your voice to the group. Welcome!
[> [> [> [> Re: Well, she agreed -- CW, 16:26:24 03/11/03 Tue

I am a viewer and if the writer's intent matches what I see, I don't see how that is irrelevant.

Maddog was saying that the author's view on what they have written is irrefutable. If that were true I'd never have to correct my typos. The point is if the work and the author's intentions agree why bother worrying about what the author says later. You're just hearing the same thing again. If they don't agree why bother with what the author says later. You won't learn any cogent to the work . It's always irrelevant to the work. What the author says later proves nothing one way or another about the work. Should we give up on Shakespeare because we don't have copious notes about what the author was thinking? Would it make any difference to understanding of the plays, if we had those notes? If you can say yes to that question you're mixing the author and the literature in one pot, and you're bound see things in the literature that aren't really there. (Not at all necessarily the case in this instance!)

However on the other hand if what you're interested in is the writing process rather than the work itself then what the author says can be very important. Caroline is asking the question did MN do what she said she wanted to. That's a question about the writing process. If you think they matched, your discussion should be with Caroline.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Well, she agreed -- Rahael, 04:24:40 03/12/03 Wed

I'm interested, are we saying we don't need to know about the author's opinion on his/her work, and that we need not know anything about the background to the play?

For example, Thomas Wyatt's 'translation' of Petrarch's sonnet about Laura certainly stands on its own without any need to read Petrarch's in Italian. But, reading the original sonnet shows significant divergences from the original sonnet. Significant enough for us to see that the difference was meant .

Petrarch's original talks about the beautiful Laura, who has died, and is now in the hands of a greater king. She is untouchable, holy, ungraspable. He chases after her, but fails. It's simultaneously a poem about love, and a poem about God and his church.

In Wyatt's poem, the emotions become a little cruder. The Deer in his poem seems a little less holy. The jewels graven about her neck have a different significance to the jewels around Laura's neck. There's a cynical tone. He says he knows where you can hunt for a hind, if you were so inclined. While others are eagre, he trails behind. She seems wild and untamed, but in fact she is a possession. There is no mystical experience in Wyatt's poem. No awe.

Does it add depth to the reader's understanding of the poem if we know that Wyatt was a courtier? That he was a member of Henry VIII's court? That Henry VIII, formerly Defender of the Faith, had given up the church for the love of a 'possessed' and bought woman of his court?

Does this transform this poem into a daring criticism of the King right under his nose? Subtle, requiring knowledge of the original, undermining Henry's claims to holiness and greatness, while demurely, and ostensibly just carrying out a translation of a sonnet?

Knowing who Wyatt was, knowing that he was imprisoned after Henry got tired of Anne Boleyn, and that he could see his friends being beheaded from his prison cell, does this illume and add to his work? Does it help the reader to tease out where Wyatt the person is speaking, and where Wyatt the poet is expressing sentiments that are not his own?

It does for me. Good thing that even if it's not fashionable, I can keep on making those connections, looking for the communication between me and the text, and the author, and adding incredible meaning, resonance and subtlety to my appreciation.

At the end of the day, I think it's pretty much up to the individual to decide how they wish to approach a text, what they want from it, and how it resonates with them. I don't think there is a 'right' way, though I think conclusions should be up for debate. Just cos it's interesting.

I sometimes change my position depending on the text I'm looking at. When I did a wonderful term of literature and politics, I read virtually no commentaries on the text. I was just too busy, there was too much work - imagine reading all of Shakespeare's and Marlowe's history plays in one afternoon! No time for anything else. But I only did this because I had already spent two years studying virtually nothing else except the period these artists wrote in. I felt I had enough of an understanding of the complexity of their world, and the world visions they might have had, to appreciate it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Well, she agreed -- CW, 07:10:16 03/12/03 Wed

Poetry is often a different matter, I'll agree. There have only been a few periods in the history of western prose movements that symbolism has been as important as it frequently is in poetry. The problem with thick symbolism is that if your not in on the 'joke' you're not going to appreciate it fully. It's kind of a way for a poet to make his own snobby clique; i.e. only people who know the things he knows will appreaciate his poem, but nobody else is worthy of it anyway. That discription is very harsh I realize, but it's true. I think such writing is acceptable for poetry, because if the reader does have the proper background the shared experience between the reader and writer can be greater. Poetry is often so cryptic that knowing something about the author can be very important toward the enjoyment as you've pointed out. I'm a firm believer that prose be self contained; that the individual work or set of works (as in BtVS or a trilogy, for example) be mostly understandable and enjoyable without knowing anything about the author or even anything else he or she has written.


But, I still have to say that's not the same thing as the poet saying at some later date, "I meant in this in this line." That is a strong indication that either the poet no longer thinks his metaphor and symbolism were adequate or that he realizes his original audience (the ones who would understand) was too narrow.

Learning about a prose author can be equally enjoyable, but I put that under enjoyment of biography. Mixing prose literature and biography is frequently done, but as I said in my last post that can be a mine field. Dostoevsky is a prime example of an author whose interesting life obviously affected his work. He was actually led out to be executed, before his sentence for being part of a 'subversive' group was commuted. His writing before and after his arrest is worlds apart. Critics of Russian literature will go on endlessly about his world view. But, the point is that even if you know absolutely nothing about him, his work is still worth reading, because it's always internally complete.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Here is an example where intent helps (spoiler=Showtime) -- lunasea, 08:45:37 03/12/03 Wed

Drowning a vampire. The boards lit up with how stupid it was to drown a vampire. The symbolism seemed pretty obvious to me. Probably to most of this board. Still a lot of fans went on and on about how a vampire doesn't breath. That is one of those places where intent could have cleared up a lot.

For me, most of the lesbian things went right over my head. Not with Willow/Tara, but with Faith/Buffy. Knowing this was one layer they were writing on, gave me another whole layer to those episodes. The commentary isn't because the work isn't complete. It just adds layers.

Sometimes the audience doesn't get it. It is wrong (IMNSHO) to assume that the author has failed if the audience doesn't see something. Sometimes the audience can't see things unless they are pointed out to them. Why deprive the audience of this added layer because the audience's experience didn't make it obvious?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Here is an example where intent helps (spoiler=Showtime) -- CW, 11:14:46 03/12/03 Wed

Actually it's not a good example for your case. You can interpret it as "The writer must know what she/he is doing, so therefore I missed something," or "The writer stretched the symbolism in context beyond the reasonable, so therefore it was a bad piece of writing." If so many people are griping so much, then perhaps it's time for the author to reexamine how he/she expresses what he/she means. Again that's a writing process question. As everyone who's ever taught knows, you can't get through to everyone. A writer can't be expected to make everyone understand. It's just impossible. But, if you've established a certain set of rules in a story, and then violate them without explanation in context, you are asking for big trouble as a writer. If all the layers aren't in the story, then the story isn't finished.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Here is an example where intent helps (spoiler=Showtime) -- lunasea, 12:43:26 03/12/03 Wed

If Spike died, I can see your point. He didn't. He got held under water. It messed up his hair. It splashed on his cuts. I bet he didn't like that.

Bullets can't kill a vampire. Neither can stabbing. Can hurt like hell though. Why can't "drowning" be an unpleasant, torturous experience? Does it really matter that much? It was great to watch.

At this point (after 6 1/2 + 3 1/2 seasons), I would say that ME knows what they are doing and therefore I have missed something (or it really isn't important enough to worry about, like retconing "Angel" and "Darla"). I didn't miss this particular one. I actually liked the symbolism and it was fun for the whole family to watch Spike tortured. Forget the symbolism. It was just damn entertaining.

Seemed pretty obvious to me, but EVERY time I thought the characters were acting out of character, that was deliberate. Whenever little warning bells go off in me that something doesn't feel right, that is something that drives the arc. It is that word EVERY that has led me to put my faith in Joss. It has also led me to see what tends to drive the arcs.

Some people get caught up in the warning bells and miss their explanation episodes later.

I think the lesbian thing illustrated the point rather well.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yup, yup, that's what I meant. -- Solitude1056, 08:58:16 03/12/03 Wed

But, I still have to say that's not the same thing as the poet saying at some later date, "I meant in this in this line." That is a strong indication that either the poet no longer thinks his metaphor and symbolism were adequate or that he realizes his original audience (the ones who would understand) was too narrow.

I quoted it again so you'd know what I meant when I say, "exactly!"

Bwahahaha.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> A drive by posting -- Rahael, 14:46:07 03/12/03 Wed

Hmm, that's an interesting point about prose and poetry. I'll have to think more about it. But I just wanted to add something else. I think poetry at its heart be even more accessible for those who cannot understand it than any other. Because even if the metaphors and concepts aren't working for you, you have the beauty, the sound and the rhythm of verse. Great prose will have that too.

I love reading out Dante in Italian though i barely understand it. And some poetry, with its cadences and incredible structure is designed to affect you in ways that rise above the words and ideas. So perhaps not so cliquey maybe?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A drive by posting -- Arethusa, 15:00:46 03/12/03 Wed

Like Poe-I first read his peotry when very young, and didn't even know what half the words meant. But I loved the sound of the words, the use of repetition and alliteration. I use the same techniques in my posts sometimes for the effect.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A drive by posting -- CW, 17:26:52 03/12/03 Wed

I think that sound aspect of poetry is very important, as well. How many people really understand every word in Shakespeare's plays any more without some help? I've noticed that at the begining of a good (British naturally) performance of Shakespeare, it's hard to understand anything. Then the rhythym kicks in and words I can't define are perfectly understandable in context. Like different tastes in music, though, some people care for poetry a lot more than others do. (I used to think of rap as bad poetry to a good beat. These days to me, it's just bad poetry.)

Italian does have a certain sound appeal, doesn't it? I've never studied it either, but I've memorized Avogadro's Law (important in chemistry) in Italian because it sounds great. (Talk about geeky!) I'm not a big opera fan, but a lot of people tell me they enjoy Italian opera better when they don't understand what's being said.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh yes -- Rahael, 03:40:18 03/13/03 Thu

For some reason I find it hard to listen to Italian operas where the words have been translated into English!! Not just Italian, I guess I prefer listening to the familiar words.

I, after all, learnt to read English before I could understand it. I learnt it by reading aloud to my mother every night (I was in England for 2 years when I was 6), even if I didn't understand what was happening. By 6 months, I found that things started slipping into place. (I can remember having trouble figuring out how to pronounce 'laugh')

But, the world of English literature is always a little removed, even my beloved poetry. There's nothing like the sound of my mother tongue to evoke emotions in me that I didn't realise I had. Works of art written in English just inherently seems more formal to me. For a long time it wasn't the langauage of every day. I wrote essays, and was taught in a totally different medium, spoke to people in every day circumstances in my first language. English I reserved for the world of books and stories. It's a club I got to join by accident! Oh, and I was inspired to learn Italian too, because of Dante. I did it with a dictionary and a English and Italian side by side version. In the end I got too impatient, and just read the English version all the way through, enjoying the sounds of the Italian verse without trying to understand it.

And, if on rare occasions now I have to use my other language, the world around me seems to change a little. An imperceptible shifting.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Now you're bringing tears to my eyes. Who needs poetry when we have you around? o) -- CW, 05:38:54 03/13/03 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Awwwww!! -- Rahael, 05:44:13 03/13/03 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Would you mind? -- luna, 08:27:04 03/13/03 Thu

..telling us what your mother tongue is? I'm just curious because I'm a linguist by training and partly an ESL teacher by trade. But since even insensitive moi can see that if you wanted to tell us, you probably would have by now, so feel free to ignore this request.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> In the way of a driveby -- fresne, 18:08:18 03/12/03 Wed

"I love reading out Dante in Italian though i barely understand it."

Funny. Just last night my housemate was suggesting that we learn Italian so we could read Dante in the original. Since, we were driving on a freeway at about my 70+ mph, my only response was "Guh!" and some Buffy-esk eye rolls of terror. Foreign languages not being my strong point. Oh, the horror.

On the other hand, something other than a note to look on the left hand side because Dante's using harsh sounding words to indicate the harshness of the environment, might be nice.

Also, you're right the allusion isn't always necessary to enjoyment of poetry. It was years before I learned that Hotel California is about Odysseus's little hijack with Circe. Yet, quite an enjoyable song/selection of words without that added layer.

The best things in life are flaky. Like tiramisu. Because you know, then there's the chocolate layer.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yum, tiramisu! -- Scroll, 18:18:20 03/12/03 Wed

Know exactly what you mean about Dante, fresne.

I love reading the DVD commentaries Rahael, s'kat, and others have posted, but I think you're right in that we can still derive enjoyment from the text even without knowing the background behind it. Er, not that I know anything about "Hotel California" or Odysseus and Circe.

The best things in life are flaky. Like tiramisu. Because you know, then there's the chocolate layer.

Now you've made me want dessert... Mmm, tiramisu. Mmm, chocolate : )
[> [> Here's Marti's own words -- lunasea, 14:55:46 03/11/03 Tue

I wrote that entire thing before I even saw this. It was my interpretation of S6 based on my own experiences. The purpose of that thread was to possibly help people understand what Buffy was feeling (or not feeling) by using my own experiences to elaborate. By the time I finished, I figured I had gotten too deep or way just projecting as usual. Then my husband found this for me (don't know how I missed an interview, especially one by Marti).

I think everybody thought the show got perhaps a little too dark and intense last year, especially for younger viewers. It went to a real sexual place with Buffy and Spike, and Buffy was really going through a dark night of the soul -- which I think people found interesting, but only to a point. I think that one of the things we had already been striving to do, and one thing UPN really wants us to do, is to see that it doesn't get as dark this season.

link: http://www.prevuemagazine.com/Articles/Thevault/589

Somehow I would think that someone associated with/heading a show that uses such mythic themes would know what that term means. It is a profound absense of light and hope. A good link is: http://www.themystic.org/dark-night/index.htm

(sorry that I don't feel like making them clickable. Dinner is almost ready)

Different people see different things. If a writer, especially Joss or Marti, says something is what a character was going through, that is what happened in the Buffyverse. People can argue about whether their intent was realized, but that is why I tried to elaborate on what Buffy was feeling/not-feeling. I'm not sure how well it came across to the audience as a whole.

It came across to me. Maybe I will be able to watch it better in a few years.

I didn't think that Spike went to Africa to actually get his soul. I thought the demon read his heart's desire and gave hm what he really wanted, rather than what he thought he did. Joss said differently and I have accepted that. Still like my interpretation better :-) but the show is built on HIS idea. If I continue to interpret the show from *my* idea, I will be way off. These things snowball quickly.
[> [> Re: Buffy in S6 - a rebuttal of Marti Noxon -- Alison, 15:37:10 03/11/03 Tue

As someone who writes frequently, I have to disagree with you.
1) I often find that when writing, the story gets away from me, in a way. I simply become a tool to tell certain character's stories, and I don't have much control.
2) I think the beauty of writing is that everyone interperts a story differently..the purpose of a story is two fold: to express the feelings of the author, and to allow the reader to veiw it through their own spectrum of experience and gain something from it. So everyone's interpertation is valid, as are their emotions.

Not sure that made much sense,and its just my opinion...
[> [> Yes and no. -- Solitude1056, 21:34:18 03/11/03 Tue

You can disgaree with how it came out, but not really the inentions. If Marti says she meant it to be dark night of soul then that's what she meant by what she did. There's no ambiguity there.

Sure there's plenty of ambiguity. Not because Marti is in doubt about her plan or her methods, but because she's misused a term. "Dark night of the soul" seems to be used, in a wider colloquial sense, to mean, "when I'm really depressed and hating life." As Caroline so succinctly pointed out, this isn't entirely accurate. There's more to the phrase. IOW, you may say that you want an Internet Portal, but your demonstration model is just a single web page with a bunch of links. There may be folks out there who also think a page o' links is a Portal, but those of us with the technical training are aware there's more to it than that. Reading some of the other responses, I find it mildly amusing that people can get irked, as though it's my fault (or Caroline's, actually) for misunderstanding their misuse of an otherwise well-defined psychological-cum-philosophical phrase.

Marti is a writer, and a fine one, but she's used a term in a misleading manner. The first step in good communication is making sure we're using our terms in an accurate, precise and socially-clear manner. As philosophers and quasi-philosophers, this is one place I would've expected folks to know colloquial vs. technical understandings of a phrase.
[> [> [> LOL! You can't say that! -- Celebaelin, 03:52:42 03/12/03 Wed

I'm posting a bit early on this as I have yet to check out the exact portion of Mesopotamian-Sumarian myth Caroline's referring to, I'm going to butt in anyway though. This comment also has relevance as regards the retcon. thread but I think it's best placed here, it's a point about ambiguity.

What is to say that writers cannot deliberately script their work so as to allow multiple interpretations? This allows the predominant preoccupation of the individual audience member to be satisfied whilst still progressing the plot. Much of what some people will regard as disappointing about the outcome of a piece (including certain Buffy stand-alones, mentioning no names) is that the events do not seem fair or true to life to them or that the characters behaviour seems inconsistent. Either the internal logic of the piece or the characterisation is compromised. With Buffy we have the luxury of lots of additional information about the characters, the Buffyverse in general and even the path to completion of the presentation so the chances of producing a definitive appraisal of the work are greatly increased. Take Shakespeare's Henry V though, one simple line of relatively little consequence but one with which most people will be familiar. Oh, hang on, in the film Renaissance Man the de Vito characters says that you can't see this play in the USA, they have to go to Canada, is that true? Anyway, as I said, this is the first line only of a speech which serves to establish King Henry as a leader of men in battle.

Conventionally this is written as

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more,

(Attack the hole in the wall again)

Not much to go on as concerns interpretation you might think but 'once' can be heard as 'wants' in either or both uses

Wants more, unto the breach dear friends, wants more,

Wants in this context could mean needs, it could also mean desires.

Henry might be motivating his troops to 'stick it up their ass (again, possibly)' in order to exploit the breach in the wall. Militarily, if the wall was breached it would be unlikely that multiple assaults would be required so the second use is probably a re-iteration. The line refers to the historical siege and capture of the port of Harfleur incidentally.

After having said all that however the question of interpretation still remains, what would your portrayal of the recently crowned Prince Hal be likely to say to his men-at-arms and is one performance objectively any better than another on the basis of delivery or interpretation. The play is in fact a more interesting work because of its' ambiguities and I don't see the necessity to definitively nail down the precise meaning. With BtVS, where further information confining previous events, or rather the interpretation of those events, is forthcoming it seems to occur either as a plot development or as a solution to a current problem. What it is never been is an irrelevance intended to clarify a previous point. Why confine yourself or the viewers unnecessarily to one interpretation? As I write I am looking forward to my first viewing of NA tomorrow and wondering what I will make of it.

The retconning (ah, retroactive continuity) aspects of certain eps. I have found to detract from the willing suspension of disbelief required in viewing any dramatic work. The troll hammer reveal I found very weak "So you couldn't have mentioned this earlier? 'Cos like then we could have just pounded Glory into a greasy spot before she started making with the hostageness (and perhaps even getting all apocalypsy)". There was a fair point made about Anya staying in with the demon community but I think letting Glory go about opening an apocalyptic gate to a hell dimension would probably have spoit everyone's' day. It wasn't even found in research, just blurted out in response to a moment's criticism, poorly done in my opinion.

I'll post on the true Mesopotamia ring later if I can research it in time. That itself probably requires some explanation. Mesopotamia - from the Greek, the land between the rivers (Tigris and Euphrates) ie Iraq. the true Mesopotamia ring is a term for something that sounds fascinating, intriguing and pleasing but is in fact beyond comprehension. Apparently, so the story runs, a lady told her pastor that she "...found great support in that blessed word "Mesopotamia'."
[> Brilliant! -- luna, 09:45:38 03/11/03 Tue

This is really excellent--exactly true on the psychology of S6 and the Buffy/Spike relationship. I'm really intrigued by your start on Spike's women. I had noticed how he fell so completely in love, but hadn't seen this issue of the missing father and the wounded women. This absolutely fits with what I see of his psychology, that he's pre-Oedipal. That's why he's willing to go to such enormous lengths to gain Buffy's acceptance. I wonder, though, IRL, is a good relationship with a woman possible for a man with his background? Won't he always want too much from her, smother her rather than challenge her, as he seemed to with Dru? Or is it that the woman has to learn to accept this kind of love, and is that a task for her?

However, with Spike, I think there's also a moral issue. Unlike Angel, who as Liam, pre-vamp, was not a particularly good person, Spike as William was good. He says to Cecily, "I may be a bad poet, but I'm a good man." Before he re-gains his soul, he chooses in S5 to sacrifice himself to Glory to save Dawn. Perhaps this is an aspect of his total devotion to Buffy, but it also sets the stage for his choice in S6 to regain his soul. So I would say that the story of Spike is a story of the survival of more than a spark of original human goodness, even when bound in demon form. That's in addition to, not instead of, the psychological point you make so well (and that I'd really like to read more of!). Thanks.
[> [> Can a 'bad boyfriend' be a good partner? -- Arethusa, 10:25:20 03/11/03 Tue

I wonder, though, IRL, is a good relationship with a woman possible for a man with his background? Won't he always want too much from her, smother her rather than challenge her, as he seemed to with Dru? Or is it that the woman has to learn to accept this kind of love, and is that a task for her?

I believe it is possible for two people to deal with such issues successfully. Yes, he will always want too much, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he won't challenge her. Spike frequently challenged Buffy's refusal to cope with reality and her emotions. A strong woman (the only kind Spike seems to really be interested in) would be able to resist being smothered. Absolute devotion would be easy to accept, as long as it's tempered with the ability to address the issues arising from neediness and insecurity.

And I second your request-more on Spike (and Dawn), please!
[> [> Re: Brilliant! -- Caroline, 13:58:22 03/11/03 Tue

Perhaps Spike can be a 'good enough' boyfriend. Are any of us so adjusted that we can say that we are healthy or sane enough to be a good partner? I think that that Arethusa's point is a really good one - it's how well he can accomodate and discipline the inner yearnings, how conscious he can become of how they affect his relationships. I also agree that the good man that Spike once was means that the demon he became was more pragmatic and less driven by pure evil. To use Joss' terms, his moral compass was over towards the evil side of the spectrum but perhaps less so than other demons. That's why he loves Dru, that's why he helps Buffy in S2, that's why he understands slayer psychology in FFL, that's why the chip can modify his behaviour so easily, and that's why his devotion to Buffy is apparent. Okay, I'm really going to have to write this Spike post soon.
[> Fantastic post -- Tchaikovsky, 09:57:35 03/11/03 Tue

Have no time to write anything the length this post deserves in reply- but loved a lot of your parallels, and agree on your summation of Buffy- as well as what you do say on Dawn and Spike. Hoping this thread becomes abundant so I can add more later.

TCH
[> Excellent post. -- Arethusa, 10:35:47 03/11/03 Tue

A wonderfully comprehensive and enlightening examination of Buffy's journey in season 6. Thanks very much for taking the time to do this. I hope you can get to Spike soon!
[> S6 - the thing with feathers -- Anneth, 11:29:13 03/11/03 Tue

Imagine chasing a little bird, maybe a finch, through a woodsy grove. Every time you get within a few feet of it, it flutters off to a new perch, maybe twenty feet away. You never completely lose sight of it, but you never get quite close enough to touch it, either. And yet, you feel compelled to chase it. It's no wonder Emily Dickenson said "hope is the thing with feathers."

The fascinating thing about S6 to me was the fact that every few episodes, ME would give us a smidgen of hope that things were about to improve a little for Buffy; that things couldn't possibly get much worse for her. And then they'd cruelly dash our hopes by making something else go horribly wrong with her life. For every Older and Far Away, which ended on a somewhat positive note, we'd get a DoubleMeat Palace, which ended with Buffy humbling herself to ask for her dead-end job back. For every Normal Again, which ended with Buffy pulling herself together at the end, and not consigning her friends and sister to death, we'd get Entropy, which ended with a devastating one-two punch of Spike-betrayal (sleeping with Anya; making clear to Xander that he had previously been sleeping with Buffy.)


You have to admire ME - they took a beloved character and dropped a load of bricks on her, and then an anvil, and then a dead horse, and then they kicked her in the shins. It takes a lot of guts to put your main character through the garbage disposal of life for an entire *season.* S6 didn't really have a happy ending, or even the trademark ME bitter-sweet ending: yes, Willow didn't destroy the world, but she and every other character was left to deal with the consequences of their season of severe human failings. THey didn't cheer, or even grin - they survived.

Anyway, the point is that I agree with your post, Caroline - Buffy's Dark Night came at the end of S5, when she actually went catatonic with despair. S6 was the beginning of her journey towards fully-realized adulthood. The funny thing about despair - it's a stepping-stone to maturity. To complete my sorta lame metaphore, Buffy never stopped chasing the finch of hope (omigawd, that's the cheesiest thing I've *ever written ever!*) in S6; the closest she came to giving up was in Normal Again. She had no S6 experience on par with Spiral/Weight of the World, no utter despair, no complete absense of hope. As ME would give the viewer smidgens of hope every so often, so would it give Buffy hope; a little bit here, a little bit there. As bad as things got for Buffy and everyone else, she could still end the season laughing about it.
[> [> Agree completely! -- Caroline, 14:04:16 03/11/03 Tue

I had the same sense of S6 - although I did not come up with your cute and whimsical bird/feather thingy! I remember being here during S6 and we would all happily post about some great progress that Buffy had made and then despair over the two steps back taken in the next ep. The few complaints I have about S6 had nothing to do with Buffy's slow return to the world - I was just amazed that Joss and the other writers could put something so psychologically real for so long - it was a brave decision and it certainly paid off for me.

;) I'm still addicted to you anneth!
[> [> Love the bird metaphor -- Tchaikovsky, 03:09:28 03/13/03 Thu

Very good point about Season Six- you keep wondering whether Buffy is about to get her old life back- but she doesn't, and it's only in 'Grave' that she finally learns how to love the beauty of the world again
[> Illuminating! Also: comforted by mourners... -- Just George, 11:42:34 03/11/03 Tue

Thank you. This was very illuminating. I enjoyed it a lot and hope to read your take on Dawn and Spike in Season 6. One comment:


Caroline: "The presence of Buffy's sister makes its own demands on her - she must be a mother before she has even been a wife. The return also means the responsibility of her slaying. Yet all she wants is the sylvan retirement of paradise. Like Ereshkigal, she if comforted by a mourners - in the form of Spike. From the beginning, he makes no demands, is there for her and makes no demands that she changes anything - even her depression."


At one point my wife Donji and I talked about how the Scoobies should have handled Buffy's return in S6. We postulated a real world model of a woman who went into a coma for several months. During the coma, friends took over her responsibilities. When the sleeper awoke she was disoriented, physically and emotionally off balance, and perhaps even depressed. She had symptoms that resembled Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. How should the sleeper be handled?

I hope her friends would give the sleeper lots of time to recover. They should NOT load her with responsibilities. They dealt with problems when the sleeper was away; they can deal with problems until she is ready to get back into life full time. If the sleeper wants to spend the next couple of months in front of the TV eating cookie dough mint chip ice cream, fine, let her recover. Spend time with her. Movie night is a good idea. More bonding, fewer demands. As the sleeper recovers, she will ease herself back into life a bit at a time. As the sleeper successfully re-assumes her previous responsibilities, her friends can move their relationships back to something resembling the pre-coma state.

In Buffy's case, the Scoobies could have maintained responsibility for her finances, raising Dawn, and for patrolling. These are activities that they could handle (and had been handling all summer). If a powerful monster came on the scene (or a powerful group of monsters like the demon bikers) they could ask Buffy for help. But they probably wouldn't have to. Buffy would volunteer. Otherwise the Scoobies could have let Buffy recover her equilibrium (or mourn as you metaphorically you it).

But, this is not how the Scoobies handled Buffy upon her return. Season 6, like season 4, was about conflict within the Scoobies. To create that inner group conflict the Scoobies had to mishandle Buffy's return. To build the conflict the only person to give Buffy space to recover was Spike. Ultimately, I blame the Scoobies for Buffy's depression in S6, not for bringing her back but for how they treated her once she was back.

-JG
[> [> Re: Illuminating! Also: comforted by mourners... -- Caroline, 14:12:14 03/11/03 Tue

I think that you and wife would make excellent therapists Just George! I agree with you that the gang's treatment of Buffy was not great - they were too invested in thinking that what they did was a good thing that they couldn't hear Buffy and she didn't have the heart or nerve to tell them the truth. The lack of honesty caused far more problems than if Buffy had been honest from the start and Willow et al had been less busy with the congratulations and more concerned with Buffy's actual state. Willow compounds that again with the forgetting spell in Tabula Rasa and makes Buffy relive the realization of being ripped out of heaven.

I agree with you about the support Buffy needed. I think that Giles felt that she was becoming too dependent on the assistance of others and that she would never stand on her own two feet. I personally feel that his decision could have waited a bit longer - Buffy was in no state to be standing on her own - that's why the support should have been maintained.
[> [> [> Re: Illuminating! Also: comforted by mourners... -- Just George, 17:53:46 03/11/03 Tue

Giles leaving Buffy in Season 6 was one of those things that ME did because of external circumstances (ASH wanting to go back to England to live with his kids). I doubt under the circumstances that the character Giles would have made the same decision.

-George
[> [> [> [> Re: Illuminating! Also: comforted by mourners... -- Miss Edith, 19:38:50 03/11/03 Tue

Marti says in her SFX interview that the reasons given were a bit of a stretch.
[> [> [> [> [> You'd think they could just have Giles' mom... -- Scroll, 21:03:22 03/11/03 Tue

Just have Giles' mom or dad or Aunt Edna be sick. Giles has to go home to England to care for the family. Not that hard to drum up a reasonable excuse. Something more plausible than, "You were torn out of heaven, are now depressed and possibly suicidal. You don't want to take responsibility for your life so I'll force you by leaving the country." Something, y'know?
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: You'd think they could just have Giles' mom... -- Just George, 07:40:22 03/12/03 Wed

Agreed. Most of the time all I ask is plausible deniability.
[> Some comments and bit more on Spike and Angel -- s'kat, 12:45:09 03/11/03 Tue

This is a truly great post, Caroline. I agree with all your points and actually from reading more recent commentary of Marti's -- I don't believe you disagree with her as much as you may think, actually you appear to be on the same page. Marti just tends to misuse the term dark night of the soul -using more a (I want to say) Western? understanding of it.
Because I've seen her state quite a few of your above remarks in her own commentary on the season. (See the archives for a post I did on Marti's rundown of S6 episodes.)

But what I really want to comment on is this interesting idea, which got me thinking, as did the OnM and Sol post below:As for Spike, I think he's more than just a plot device, but I really wanted to focus on Buffy here and I'm a bit tired of defending Spike - I follow the maxim on the board above - Spike and Angel do not negate each other. I will, however, make one digression about Spike - unlike Wood, I don't think that he is suffering from an Oedipal conflict. I suspect (but don't have entirely enough proof yet) that Spike is stuck in a pre-oedipal stage where he has not even separated from his mother - I'm thinking of a Kleinian attachment here. Spike has a mother but a father is never mentioned, he seems to be a bit of a mummy's boy and never had a serious rival to mother's affections. Since there was no oedipal enemy, I think that Spike never had to fight for mother's affections, they were always his. I think this explains the devotion we see for his mother in FFL as well as the devotion we saw to Drusilla and now to Buffy. Each of the women he loved were wounded in some way - his mother was an invalid, Drusilla was mad and Buffy is the slayer who feels that she cannot love.

I think you may be on to something here. (And like you? Bloody sick of defending Spike. So I just ignore Anti-Spike and Bashing posts.)

Let's back track a bit. Imagine you are Joss Whedon, it's the end of S3, you just did this huge melodramatic slayer/vampire romance and it succeeded so well that the vampire got a spin-off. Now you want to do another vampire/slayer story, but you don't want to repeat yourself. You love vampires as characters but you don't want to follow a "banjo act with another banjo act". You also want to explore more of this interesting concept of what makes a vampire. What to do? What to do? Well, you can always invert the vampire character, maybe explore it from another angle completely, the inverse of Angel so to speak.
All you need is a good, somewhat brave actor to do it.

Joss Whedon, according to the commentary, both from actors and writers, likes to incorporate his own, his writers' and actors' personal experiences into his story. It's the old - relay what you know approach to storytelling. In numerous interviews James Marsters has commented that he was "a mummy's boy" in his youth. The child of divorced parents, he spent his childhood with Mom, and got picked on due to his size and no father figure. In his teens, around Junior High/High School he moved in with Dad for a while, learned Tae Kwon Duo and got into Theater and music and got a tad violent. Went through a violent period in his twenties, now has calmed down quite a bit and managed to return to that core personality, intergrating the two. Joss Whedon, also the child of divorced parents, and apparently having a closer relationship with his mother - who was sick and died of Cancer when he was in his 20s...probably can identify with Marsters quite a bit.

***********************************

How Spike is the inversion of Angel.

1. Angel and the Disapproving Father motif or rather Atonement with Father, Overcoming who you were.

Liam - we know from flashbacks on Ats and Btvs, was not a nice human, he was louse, and he became the most vicious depraved vampire in history as Angelus,then when he got cursed with a soul - he has spent the last 100 or so years attempting to somehow come to terms with the prodigal son he was and become the man his father would have respected. Angel's story is about overcoming the louse he was, overcoming the evil vampire, becoming someone better by overcoming one's past. His issues are well the disapproving father, the bad father, the father who leaves you. When we meet Liam - we never see his mother (not even sure she's present)he's either rebelling against, stealing from or killing his father (The Prodigal and Dear Boy S1 and 2 Ats). Also with Darla - there's emphasis on how Angelus takes Darla from the Master.(See Darla, S2 Ats) Angelus has big time Oedipal issues. Oedipus by the way wasn't so much about Mummy as it was about subplanting Daddy. Oedipal syndrum has more to do with taking Daddy's place than it really has to do with sleeping with Mum. In fact, usually the sleeping with Mum is a reaction to Dad. The son is trying to subplant or overcome the father. This is what Angelus does with the Master, by taking Darla. And later it's what he does in Btvs by torturing Giles. When Angel falls for Buffy, Buffy's father Hank is leaving her family. By the time Angel and Buffy sleep together, Hank is no longer even really mentioned. Prior to this he is - we even see him in When She Was Bad. But by the time B/A gets together - Hank leaves the picture. In Season 3 - this is revisited with Angel's struggle to make Amends to Giles and Giles' difficulty with Buffy over her reunion with the vampire who killed Giles lover and tortured Giles. Giles shows up as the disapproving father for both B/A in Season 3. And the villain in Season 3 - who is the one who tells B/A they can't really be together - is the ultimate negative father figure - founding father of the town, The Mayor - who turns into a huge snake - the father as demon. Buffy's defeat of the evil father and saving of Angel with her own blood, signals Angel's time to depart. She has in a sense come to terms with Daddy and graduated. Now Angel must come to terms with Daddy on his own show. So on Ats we get an odd return to the Oedipal syndrom with Connor/Cordelia/Angel. We also have Angel dealing with Holtz. Also Angel's worst sins appear to be killing daughters or making them his. First Drusilla, then Holtz's daughter - who Holtz must kill. Angel is constantly trying to overcome these things - to become a better person.

If Angel's story is all about overcoming the evil he's done and overcoming who he was, Spike's story is all about renewal or getting back to who he was, the good man, the man his mother could depend on, the core being.

2. Spike/William and The Sick Mother/Separation From Mother - Returning to the Good Man, A story of Renewal, Regeneration.

William, I think we can safely assume, was a good man before Dru sired him. In FFL - we see how he slowly drifts away from that core personality, putting on layers of the monster. Interestingly enough each layer that he applies is associated with mothers - the boxer rebellion slayer that he kills, her last dying words are - tell my mother I love her, and Nikki, we find out years later was a mother herself. It is unknown whether either of these slayers had fathers present outside of the Watcher figure. Also Drusilla is the crazy, somewhat sick mother that Spike is attending during first half of S2 Btvs. When Spike first arrives in SunnyD - he is attempting to cure the sick Drusilla, his sire. He's her caretaker. (School HArd through What's My Line S2 Btvs) So the sick mother imagery is brought in from the very beginning of Spike's story. (Just as the disapproving father imagery is with Angel - we first see Angel when he is giving Buffy information on the Master, his father figure). Also it's telling that the person who saves Buffy from Spike in School Hard is Joyce, Buffy's mother. When Spike realizes he's in love with Buffy - Joyce has just been to the hospital and they discover she is sick.(Out of My Mind S5 btvs)

In S5 - the sick mother theme is revisited and that's when Spike starts to fall in love with Buffy. By the time they get together - Joyce has died and Buffy has taken on the mother role with Dawn. Also while Angel takes on a sort of paternal characteristic with Buffy, Spike oddly enough appears to take on the maternal characteristic. Spike is seen almost as a nuturer in some of the episodes in S5 and S6 (Tough Love, Checkpoint, Crush, Bargaining) - heightening the whole mother idea. Also for Willow - we have Tara - the more maternal aspect in S5-6 while in S2-3, we had Oz the more paternal aspect. Have to give the writers credit for being consistent across the board with the metaphors.

**************************************

At any rate - I think the way they've made Spike and Angel's stories different here is by inverting them.

Spike, good man - becomes monster - must through getting his soul be renewed somehow, by getting back in touch with the good values instilled in him by mother, but separating from her enough to become the core man, the good man he was on his way to being - a good man who does not have to depend on his mother as a type of super-ego. Renewal.

Angel, louse - becomes monster - must through being cursed with his soul overcome the rage that informed the monster he
became and somehow atone with the father he feels despised him and become the good man his father wished him to be.
Or something like that.

I think by inverting the two - Whedon is able to explore both the disapproving father/atonement with father and the sick mother/separation from the mother journeys almost simulataneously without in any way repeating himself.
Through Angel in S1-3, Buffy find a type of peace with her father figures, through Spike in S5-7 Buffy finds a type of peace with becoming a mother herself and being separated from her own. (One quick note:We may need Angel to return in S7 at some point, for the atonement with the father aspect to be complete - since she is still struggling with the whole abandonment thing - which I believe may still be explored this season through Giles.)

Not sure this adds anything. Hope it made some sense. ;-)

Awesome post Caroline.

SK
[> [> The story of Joss -- ponygirl, 13:24:35 03/11/03 Tue

Great points, sk! And I loved Caroline's post.

Oddly enough I was thinking about another Marti interview this morning, one that ties in with your comments about personal experiences.

In her interview with the CBC Marti suggested that Buffy was drawn a great deal from Joss' experiences growing up different from other people.

MN: Well, I have a theory, and it's something I've been working on all these years, and Joss may hate me for saying this, but I think it's an exploration of being exceptional. I mean the whole idea of being a super-hero is the idea that you are unlike other people, and people are drawn to that, but at the same time, it makes you the other...someone that may have trouble relating. It's inherantly a lonely thing, and I haven't said this to Joss, but I kind of think it's his life story. Because he's exceptionally brilliant, and he has abilities other people don't have. He can take the summer off and write a musical that's every bit as good as what major composers, who've dedicated their life, can come up with. He's just an amazingly smart, over-capable person. And he lives in a world where his brain functions faster than most people's. And not that he can leap tall buildings, but the more I look at Buffy's struggle, I see it's a study of being exceptional.


I've thought that season 6 (OMWF especially) was on one level about Joss' feelings of burnout. After s5 we have him withdrawing from the day to day running of his shows, perhaps feeling that what was once an exciting creative process was now a tiring routine. But by season's end, about the time Buffy is dragging herself out of the grave, Joss has a new project getting off the ground, and a baby on the way.

Now in s7 we have a colder field marshall von Buffy, with little patience for the weakness of others, and we have quotes from Joss like this:

"I am not nearly as nice as I was," he laughs, reciting a parody of himself performed by his colleagues: "'Men, we're going to take that hill ... well, probably not, most of us will probably die, we probably won't take the hill ... we don't need the hill to win the war, I don't think morally we should win the war and, anyway, I'm afraid of hills ...'"

"Even though I love [my] writers, if they're not giving me what I need, I get all mean and scary. I won't settle. I've settled occasionally and known it, and regretted it.

"I'm probably not as pleasant to be around as I used to be ... but we're getting it done."

Is Buffy being Joss again? Is the end in sight but there's some concern about what's been lost along the way? How do you complete your life's work when you're only 22, or 40? Is there life beyond Sunnydale? Sometimes I think we're not necessarily on a mythical journey or a hero's journey, but looking at the life of one man who's managed to write the stages of his life on a huge scale.

Must take my rambly brain back to work!
[> [> [> Re: The story of Joss -- Arethusa, 13:32:59 03/11/03 Tue

Great points, ponygirl. When I read Joss's description of his speeches to the writers, I thought immediately of Buffy's speeches to troops too. And that fits in very well with jenoff's idea that Storyteller is Whedon's metanarration on writing BtVS.
[> [> Re: Some comments and bit more on Spike and Angel -- Caroline, 14:18:24 03/11/03 Tue

Thanks for the input sk. Having missed S2 and most of S3 of Angel, I don't feel qualified to fully respond to the parts of your post on Angel but I think that you have a very compelling case here on the inversion of Angel/Spike. I just wish that we had more background on Spike and his mother so that I can do full justice to his mother-issues and how they have affected his subsequent relationships. I may have to take this issue on faith and just run with it.
[> [> [> Regarding taking it on faith and running with it -- sk, 08:15:13 03/12/03 Wed

Actually from what people are saying about 7.17 - we may not have to take it on faith and run with it much longer.

Rumor has it 7.17 is going to answer some of these questions. I'm not spoiled as to how, just that it does.
So I was indulging in a little pre-guessing, b/c that's half the fun. ;-)

Thanks again for your comments and that post. I'd missed your posts recently. Wonder where you'd gone. SK
[> [> Spike as a 'good man' -- Scroll, 14:23:46 03/11/03 Tue

Okay, I fully subscribe to the S not negate A thing, but I feel I need to make a point about Spike being a "good man" versus Angel being a "louse".

I think William might very well have been a good man. But I don't think we can assume that Liam was not a "good man". What we see are only snippets of these men's lives before they become vampires, and not the whole story.

Let me try to set up a parallel. In S6, we have Xander walk out on Anya in "Hell's Bells". He leaves her at the altar, checks in at a seedy motel, and proceeds to start drinking a lot. We can see up to "Seeing Red" that Xander is on intimate terms with alcohol. If Xander, drunk out of his skull, met up with a pretty lady who offered him a little comfort and proceeded to get turned into a vamp, do we say that Xander was therefore a louse? Do we say he was clearly not a good man? (BTW, I'm pretending Xander doesn't know about vampires right now.)

Now assume Liam had a major blow-out with his dad, decides once and for all that he's leaving home. He gets teary saying good-bye to his sister (and I'm going to assume the woman there is his mother though we don't hear her speak) and you can definitely see that there's love in that family, though the resentment factor is so high nobody can get around it to the underlying love.

Liam goes off, gets drunk a lot, considers stealing his father's silver to pay for more drinks, sees a pretty lady who promises to show him the world. Gets vamped. Goes and eats his family. So was Liam a louse? (Well, maybe he was. A drunkard and a loser, definitely.) But does that make him only a louse? Or perhaps was Liam a good man who was in a bad patch in his life, but got turned into a vamp before he could reconcile with his father? And therefore continues playing out Oedipus the rest of his unlife?

Also, the 17-yr-old Liam we see in "Spin the Bottle" wasn't a bad kid. He was your typical teenager: slightly rebellious, liking pretty girls, and questioning the constraints of his religion. Not a louse.

As for William, I'm not saying he wasn't a good man. But I can see how he was a lot like Andrew. He didn't see the world for what it was. He preferred to sit in a corner making up stories full of beauty and transcendence. Not saying that there's anything wrong with poetry, of course, but that William was not facing life head-on. He didn't seem to experience life, he merely commented on the aspects of life that didn't scare/disturb him. He asks Cecily to see him for who he was, a good man. But did he do the same? Did he really see Cecily for who she really was? Because it didn't look like he did.

So my take on William is that perhaps he was a good man, but he was also like Andrew, seeing the world through a rose-tinted glasses. Unlike Andrew of course, William didn't murder his best friend -- he just made the bad mistake of trusting a strange woman who seemed to really understand him. Who understood effulgence.

Anyway, that's just my defence of Angel as someone who could've very well have been a good man. We just don't know either way.
[> [> [> ugh....let's try this again -- s'kat, 15:46:08 03/11/03 Tue

Anyway, that's just my defence of Angel as someone who could've very well have been a good man. We just don't know either way.

You missed the point of my entire post. The two stories are inversions of each other - two different ways of looking at it. William was not entirely a good man any more than Angel was entirely a bad man. I used the terms to make a point, but you missed it.

So I will try again.

Maybe it will help if we remember for a minute whose pov we are in? Who remembers the flashbacks? Who is the narrator of these flashbacks? Who is relaying this information about themselves? And how is it related?

Angel sees himself as a louse. He remembers himself stealing from Daddy, brawling, seducing and dumping women. Darla also sees him as a louse, because that's how he sees himself. What we don't see is the good parts, but we get a hint of it when Angel is turned into a confused teen in Spin the Bottle - a teen who is a lot like Connor. Through Connor - you get a bird's eye view of Angel's self-hatred.
Connor hates himself and projects that hatred on to his father.

Angel is attempting in his journey to overcome that view of himself. Basically prove himself wrong. Buffy tries, but fails when she allows him to drink from her and when she fails to forgive Faith in Sancturary - Angel can't quite understand how she can love and forgive him - if she can't forgive Faith who hasn't been nearly as bad as he is. Angel responds positively to Faith, for the same reasons Faith later responds to Angel - she hates herself and sees no good in herself or the world, Angel felt the same way at one time...now through Buffy, the AI gang and his recent experiences, he's realized that maybe he is good at the core, maybe his own view of himself is not the true one.
But inside? He still partly believes it is - that's why we have evil Angelus. Disapproving father is all about believing the image Dad has projected on to you and being the Prodigal in thought and in deed. You aren't really. But you think you are.

Now obviously Whedon can't repeat Angel's story with spike, that would be boring. William's views of himself like Angel's probably come from a parent, in this case the sick mother. (Now we know a lot less on William, because William doesn't have his own show, dangit!) William's image of himself is partly from her and partly from his peers. His view of himself is really nothing like Andrew, similar in some ways maybe but not exact or as close as you wish to draw it - while a comparison can be drawn it is a limiting one and tells us very little - since as far as we know, Andrew has a family, a brother even,
and was evil of his own choice, he has a soul, he was never vamped, and he has created a fantasy world which he appears up through Storyteller to live in. There is 0 evidence that William ever created a fantasy world or lived in one. How you get that from a ten minute scene where he reads a poem and tells a girl he loves her only to be cruelly rejected, I have no idea. Maybe you've never written a bad poem and told someone you loved them and been cruelly rejected? So think that's a fantasy. Sorry, a fantasy, seeing the world through rose-colored glasses would be well having the girl tell you she loved you or never doing it at all - just fantasizing about it. William actually talks to the girl and as even the writer who wrote the episode states, bravely confesses his love for her. Andrew never does this. Andrew never told Warren how he felt about him. Andrew doesn't act unless prodded. Andrew is up until Storyteller - a mushroom.(okay stopping before I launch into rant mode...Spike/Andrew comparisons only succeed in increasing my dislike for Andrew - do you guys want me to despise Andrew? ) Back to the point: William saw himself as an artist and a good man. He despised violence. He cared for his mother. Probably didn't have a father figure. And was horrendously picked on. He didn't look at the world through rose-colored glasses, if anything he saw the pain of it, possibly as clearly as Liam did. Actually more so, since I don't believe he was as well off as Liam or had the father figure Liam had. And he certainly didn't have the women. (Hence some of the fury we see in Spike).
He may have idealized women more - that I do see. (But again we know so little). From William's pov - he seems like a young Giles (not Ripper - that's Spike) Giles like, dressed in tweed, somewhat foppish, into books, wearing spectacles, caring about the parent, somewhat stiff and stuttery. Whedon even describes William as a lot like Giles in interviews and commentary. But William became embarrassed with that image of the fop, the nancyboy, the
mummy's boy - so instead of being a good man he became a bad man as a reaction against that image. Just as Angelus becomes evil as a reaction to his father's image of him.
But this is NOT who they truly are -- it is only the costumes they've put on.

William must get back to that good man he has become embarrassed about. PEtrie in his commentary on FFL S5
DVD states that he starts out saying he's a good man and he is, (actually according to MArsters - Joss Whedon wrote the "I'm a bad writer but a good man" line so I'd say it was valid), but somehow ends up getting away from that, building up a monster. He must get past who he thinks he is and back to what he is.

Angel must somehow get back to the good man he was before he left his father's house and became the prodigal. He must somehow overcome the louse image in his own mind, a image he keeps replaying.

The story in a way is about our false impressions or perceptions. None of these characters know who they are.
They think they know, but they have gotten so far away from the core personality with bravado and costumes that they are no longer sure.

Now to something that is rapidly becoming a huge pet peeve of mine - to the extent that I have not responded to numerous posts on it: Spike/Andrew comparisons. These are worse than some of the Wes/Iago comparisons I've seen.

I think you do Spike and Andrew both a huge disservice by making too close a comparison. Saying William was or rather is what Andrew is now, is bad character analysis and undermines both. Instead it is better to state that there are aspects of William that we can see in Andrew's personality as there are aspects of Andrew's in William's. Just as there were aspects of RJ from HIM in Spike, Xander and Andrew. There are also aspects of Andrew in Buffy, Willow, Giles, Xander, and Dawn. Andrew is too interesting a character to be limited by such a comparison and the constant use of this comparison to defend Angel and tear down Spike does not show me anything new on any of the characters. A friend of mine stated it best = why do we feel the need of saying one character represents another or is a shadow of that character, when each character stands alone as it's own separate entity? We compare them to learn more about them, not limit them. In my comparison of Angel and Spike - I hope haven't fallen into this trap, of limiting one character by comparing it to another. I hope that I've merely shown some contrasts between them. Sometimes I think the contrasts are more interesting actually, as opposed to the similarities. Maybe that's what some enterprising person should do - contrast the characters of Andrew and Spike instead of constantly using Andrew as a crutch to emphasize and justify what the poster believes are Willaim's weaknesses.

I do apologize for not making my points regarding Angel clearer and for appearing to state that character is anything less than the complicated hero we've all come to enjoy.

SK

Not sure this clarified a thing. But all one can do is try.

SK
[> [> [> [> Sorry, sorry... -- Scroll, 16:07:45 03/11/03 Tue

Obviously I missed part of the reasoning behind your post.

Yeah, and I probably shouldn't have said William was/is Andrew. I perhaps meant that I knew Andrew is a shadow of Spike, and drew my conclusions from that.

Okay, so William didn't really see Cecily but that doesn't mean he was living in a fantasy world. Mea culpa.

Now I feel really bad about posting what I did... Because now I realise maybe I was going too far in trying to defend Angel... Because I do feel that a lot of times (and I'm not saying you do this, s'kat, clearly you don't) posters take Liam the drunkard and immediately say, oh look, he's nowhere as good as William was. Liam was a bad human being, which explains why Angelus is such a worse vampire...

So sorry again : (
[> [> [> [> [> Your post did clarify things... -- Scroll, 16:22:10 03/11/03 Tue

So after abjectly apologising, I will say I'm glad you posted your clarification because I really didn't know that you were talking about Liam being the louse because that's how Angel saw himself. I missed the POV aspect of it.

You missed the point of my entire post. The two stories are inversions of each other - two different ways of looking at it. William was not entirely a good man any more than Angel was entirely a bad man. I used the terms to make a point, but you missed it.

So I will try again.

Maybe it will help if we remember for a minute whose pov we are in? Who remembers the flashbacks? Who is the narrator of these flashbacks? Who is relaying this information about themselves? And how is it related?

Angel sees himself as a louse. He remembers himself stealing from Daddy, brawling, seducing and dumping women. Darla also sees him as a louse, because that's how he sees himself. What we don't see is the good parts, but we get a hint of it when Angel is turned into a confused teen in Spin the Bottle - a teen who is a lot like Connor. Through Connor - you get a bird's eye view of Angel's self-hatred.
Connor hates himself and projects that hatred on to his father.

Angel is attempting in his journey to overcome that view of himself. Basically prove himself wrong. Buffy tries, but fails when she allows him to drink from her and when she fails to forgive Faith in Sancturary - Angel can't quite understand how she can love and forgive him - if she can't forgive Faith who hasn't been nearly as bad as he is. Angel responds positively to Faith, for the same reasons Faith later responds to Angel - she hates herself and sees no good in herself or the world, Angel felt the same way at one time...now through Buffy, the AI gang and his recent experiences, he's realized that maybe he is good at the core, maybe his own view of himself is not the true one.
But inside? He still partly believes it is - that's why we have evil Angelus. Disapproving father is all about believing the image Dad has projected on to you and being the Prodigal in thought and in deed. You aren't really. But you think you are.

[...]

The story in a way is about our false impressions or perceptions. None of these characters know who they are.
They think they know, but they have gotten so far away from the core personality with bravado and costumes that they are no longer sure.

(I felt it bore repeating.) Thank you, this helped immensely. Makes sense to me now that I understand what you were doing in your analysis. Again, sorry for my hasty post before. I've just heard Liam called a lout too many times it hit a reflex button or something. Still, Spike probably didn't deserve my rose-coloured glasses thing.

So, still sorry and very embarrassed. *sigh* I think I'm getting posting burn-out. I need to take a break from the board before I make a complete a** of myself...
[> [> [> [> [> [> No! -- Caroline, 18:18:14 03/11/03 Tue

Don't you dare take a break. I was really glad that you posted what you did on Angel. Not only did you cause sk to clarify her views but you gave me some valuable insight into Angel, and once again made me regret missing 2 years of Ats. Thank you and don't go!
[> [> [> [> [> [> You have not!! -- Rahael, 18:31:46 03/11/03 Tue

Scroll, these last couple of days you have been posting stuff that I have loved reading. You've said the things I wished I could say if I were braver. In my eyes, you have not made an a*** of yourself. Quite, quite the opposite. You are a kind, thoughtful, and perceptive poster, always putting discussion and the exchange of ideas before your own pride.

So please, keep at it. I understand the feelings you express here. I know I have felt them. If it helps any, I respect you immensely.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thank you, Caroline and Rah -- Scroll, 19:14:15 03/11/03 Tue

You guys are so kind : ) I really appreciate your support, both of you. I'm glad my posts are worth something, and again apologise for any inadvertent Spike-bashing. I never meant to do any bashing. Should not have posted so hastily or defensively. I'm always glad when s'kat posts because she has so much insight, so it makes me ashamed when I read her wrong.

Since I've just finished watching the lastest Angel episode (don't worry, no spoilers! but it was amazing) I don't think I could keep away from the board even if I wanted to. It's like a disease, y'know! (Boarditis?) Or an addiction... Still, I think I should cut back for awhile. I'll still post but I'll try to make them short and sweet and more of the one-liner variety : )
[> [> [> [> [> [> More clarification and a little on posting -- s'kat, 20:51:07 03/11/03 Tue

Thank you for your response, Scroll, above and here. It was a well thought out response in both cases. You should not feel embarrassed for posting it. I also appreciate the apology even if it wasn't necessary. ;-)

Your response as Caroline so clearly stated got me to clarify my points and it also forced me to finally state in words why I can't stand a certain comparison that keeps appearing in posts. The Spike/Andrew comparison. You are by no means the first person to bring it up. Hence the reason it pushed my buttons. I despise this comparison - it adversely affects my enjoyment of the show. But have never been able to really clarify in posts why until today. Thank you for forcing me too.

Please Don't stop posting Scroll. Especially on my account. I like your posts. If I didn't, I'd never take the time to respond to them or read them for that matter. I certainly wouldn't take the time to write a clarification. (That clarification made me miss most of Forever on FX tonight btw ;-) .)

You did push my buttons. But no more so than I clearly pushed yours and for that again, I apologize, I wasn't clear. Also because it was you Scroll - I felt I needed to be clearer, because if you missed the point than others probabaly did as well. What you caught in my tone was great frustration - because you missed what I was attempting to discuss! ugh. LOL! (Been a frustrating month.) More on that in a minute, first a word about how I view posting on internet posting boards which might help or might not as the case may be ;-)

*************************************

I respect you as a poster. Again, I do NOT respond to people I don't respect. I ignore them. Of course there's no way you can tell who I ignore, because I can't possibly respond to everyone, so there are people I really respect on the board that I might not always respond to. Darby for instance writes some of the best posts on the board, I love them, but I just have nothing to say...so I laugh and smile and move on. Same with Rahael, Cebalaien and cjl and countless others - too many to name here. While there are three or four posters who I've learned I just can't read, because their posts cause me to despise both shows, hate all the characters and want to throw stuff at the computer screen - this embarrassing emotional reaction is just to silly to contemplate, so I save myself from the experience and just ignore them. Responding to posts that push my buttons or cause this violent an emotional response bring out Ms. Hyde, the evil side of me, the side I don't like. The Troll. I get overly emotional. Yep I'm a tad too emotional for my own good, it's a thing.

The other reason I've decided it's best not to respond to someone who pushes my buttons all the time or to read them - is I don't want to discourage them from posting or get into embarrassing shouting matches, etc. (Heck I'm sure my posts push people's buttons. Human beings are walking emotional landmines and words can be mighty weapons.) People, I disagree with, have a right to their opinion and to post on it, we all do. Just as we all have the right not to respond or read that opinion. If you don't like it? You don't have to read it or respond to it. It's a fan board, none of our comments are gospel truth, none of them are necessarily valid or invalid views of this show. They are just our opinions based on what we see or think we see in the shows we love and how it reflects on our life and views. They are attempts at trying to figure the show out and a way of interacting with the show and each other. And yes, at times a way of venting off steam regarding something we didn't like or a particular character arc. Or a way of just being a fan. We come to the board to connect and to exchange views on philosophy, life, and of course our favorite television shows.

I think it is important to remeber that nothing we say on this board directly affects what appears on the screen, it can however affect how we choose to view what is on that screen. Hence the reason I avoid certain posts - if something adversely affects my enjoyment of the tv show, I won't read it or respond to it and I will for my own wellbeing stop reading any related posts that specific poster posts in the future in the same manner I avoid spoilers. OTOH - I will read posts that enhance my enjoyment of the characters and the show, often makeing me like or appreciate something I didn't before. Or even getting me to look at it in a new interesting way - as Caroline's post just did or Calamis' post on Storyteller recently did - those posters I seek out. Or Rah's promise of the goddess posts that I'm eagerly awaiting. I seek those out. I print them off and gobble them like rich deserts. We all need to preserve our little pleasures, right?

This may seem like a twisted philosophy for posting, but hey it works for me. ****************************************************
Now a clarification on what my whole post on Spike and Angel was supposed to be about before it went off on this weird tangent:

It occurred to me today that Whedon had done something quite fascinating with these two characters. He decided to do a sort of opposite/yet positive affect storyline. (I'm not sure what the correct word is for this technique so my apologies for using the wrong ones .)

Angel would equal prodigal son, whose horrible acts as a human and in a sense a vampire are in a way a direct result of his father's attitude towards him. Through Angel - we can also address Buffy's father issues, first brought up in Nightmares Season 1 - actually, if you think about it, Angel's issues directly parallel Buffy's fears that Daddy left because he disapproved of her and thought she was bad. Spike would equal the devoted son, whose life and acts are in part the result of his mother's views of him and dependence on him and vice versa and in part the result of having no father figure and everyone picking on him, typical traits of the mother's boy or devoted son archetype - this is the sick mother motif, his horrible acts as a vampire are a direct result of how people treated him due to his at times too close relationship to his mother - a relationship he'll keep repeating just as Angel keeps repeating the disapproving father relationship.

The inversion or whatever you want to call it -comes into play with a nice ironic twist - when we contrast devoted son with the prodigal and see how it relates to Buffy and her relationships with Mom and Dad and their views of her.
We learn in Nightmares and other subsequent episodes that Buffy sees herself as a horrible, bad daughter with Hank, and this is the reason for him leaving her, the reason all her father figures leave, while she sees herself as the devoted good brave daughter with Joyce and Joyce stays with her, only leaving tragically in death due to illness. (See Joyce's comments in Listening to Fear and other S5 episodes) Good man = devoted son, lout = prodigal son.
The devoted son due to his separation from Mom, continues to seek her out and does evil acts as a reaction to those who picked on him, his mother's tragic demise & untimely separation from him and the lack of father figure, until he no longer believes he is the good man his mother adored, if he was, she wouldn't have died or perished (of course I have no proof of this - possibly it's more if he was the good man, he would never have left her like he did, actually that may be the more valid explanation here) - he's moved so far from the person he originally was, yet at the core he still is that person and it has nothing to do with her/it never did. The prodigal son due to his father's disapproval - in rebelling -seeks out his father's attention, doing worse and worse acts until he becomes what his father says he was bad news - when in reality he was good and by finding a way of atoning with the negative father image, he can get back to that. (Both the devoted son turned evil man and the prodigal turned evil = need to realize their parents do not create who they are. Who they are is separate from their parents.) Both stories add depth to Buffy's character and the other characters, equally they add a depth to Spike and Angel. And they discuss psychological themes related to growing up. This is an incredibly fascinating narrative technique that I was hoping we could explore further - I also wanted to know if I was wacked and reading it correctly or just overanalysing this silly tv show like my non-Buffy friends keep telling me I am. For what it's worth those were my reasons for posting this.

My apologies to those who got buttons pushed. Not my intent.
Just ignore me. ;-)

Hope this clarifies things.

SK
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: More clarification and a little on posting -- Scroll, 21:36:31 03/11/03 Tue

Thanks for the reply, s'kat. Don't worry, I won't stop posting (not after watching Angel tonight!) and it would certainly never be on your account. And if my apology isn't necessary, yours certainly isn't either : )

I really do appreciate it when you respond to my posts, you always have something insightful to say. For example, this post made me reconsider how it is I usually post. Why I post and which posters make me really think.

I too am waiting impatiently for Rahael's goddess post. I liked the hint she gave us in OnM and Sol's thread.

Again, thanks for the reply. It certainly clarified things : )

Scroll
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks Guys! Not just me -- Rahael, 05:50:39 03/13/03 Thu

responsible for the Goddess post. It's Random and Little Bit too. Which means, more than anything else, that it will actually get written and posted (every time I decide to do a 'proper' post it never ends up getting written!!!
[> [> [> [> Angle and Buffy in Sancturary -- Just George, 18:20:02 03/11/03 Tue

S'kat: "Angel is attempting in his journey to overcome that view of himself. Basically prove himself wrong. Buffy tries, but fails when she allows him to drink from her and when she fails to forgive Faith in Sancturary - Angel can't quite understand how she can love and forgive him - if she can't forgive Faith who hasn't been nearly as bad as he is."


I can see why Angle has a problem with Buffy in Sancturary. However, I've often felt his response was over the top. His angry speech seemed to come more from the writers need to distance Angel from any future emotional dependence on Buffy from a series point of view, rather than a true expression of the character's feelings. Without the artificial division of the series, the reconciliation that occurred the next week on BTVS would probably have occurred a few moments later in the police station on ATS. That it didn't was a function of the writers using the characters as plot devices for a moment to break the emotional connection between the two series.

Interestingly Faith acted more in character when she decided the only way to earn her redemption was to do as Buffy demands and go to jail. Angel would never have asked Faith to go to jail. Buffy's "pay back", as Angel calls it, was not to pound Faith (thought I suspect Buffy would have enjoyed that) but to put Faith where she couldn't do any more harm.

The character of Buffy in Season 4 is not much concerned with redemption of the guilty, she is more concerned about protecting the innocent. The character of Angel in Season 1 is much more about redemption, partially because Angel himself feels he needs redemption so much. The fact that Faith does as Buffy demands in order to achieve Angel's ends just kills two birds with one stone.

-JG
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Angle and Buffy in Sancturary -- s'kat, 21:27:12 03/11/03 Tue

I agree with most of your points, particularly this one:
The character of Buffy in Season 4 is not much concerned with redemption of the guilty, she is more concerned about protecting the innocent. The character of Angel in Season 1 is much more about redemption, partially because Angel himself feels he needs redemption so much. The fact that Faith does as Buffy demands in order to achieve Angel's ends just kills two birds with one stone.

Regarding the point on Sanctuary and I hope this makes sense:

I think you have to look at Sanctuary in the context of several other episodes to get what's going on with B/A in it:

1. Enemies - this episode establishes in some ways why Buffy decides she needs a break from Angel in S3 Btvs.
In this episode Angel does almost too good a job at playing Angelus for Buffy's comfort level. Buffy has a bit of an idealized view of Angel and of vampires. She believes that without a soul, vampires do not carry any portion of the real human. Buffy's view of a soul is well - the complete persona. This is reflected in her words to Willow in Dopplegangland where she tells Willow that VampWillow isn't her, she's just a demon in her body - or what she tells Ford, in Lie To Me - a vampire isn't you, it's a demon who sets up house in your body and walks and talks like you but isn't you. She believes this because it's what she was taught. But Angel implies briefly in Dopplegangerland that this is not the case (you have to have seen the original to know this, it's edited out in FX episodes) and Buffy gives him a glare, so he awkwardly shuts up. We find out for certain in Ats when we are finally in Angel's pov. The problem Buffy has with Angel is she has sort of romanticized him. He realizes this slowly in subsequent episodes and it bothers him. But he in a sense has romanticized her as well. Enemies is among the first of many chinks in that image.

2. Pangs - Angel appears on Buffy without her knowing it.
The message of pangs is an interesting one - it's about how you can never repay someone never take back what you've done yet at the same time vengeance doesn't cure the wound either. Angel's appearance as a shadowy creature unable to take part is a bit of comment on how his own acts and past history set him apart with the SG. And how he feels that he can never change that as symbolized by the fact that he is mostly outside the house looking in.

3. I Will Always Remember You - in this episode they get the idealized romance, finally, but Angel realizes it's not what he wants. Just as he got that in his dream in The Prom, where he marries Buffy only to see Buffy exit the church with him and get consumed by flames. Her pristine image burning after their marriage - sort of reminds me a little of Xander's dream in Hell's Bells. Here - Buffy's life is again threatened by his relationship with her. The oracles tell him - if he remains human, Buffy will die. She could anyway of course. But once again that image of Buffy dying is reflected.
Also Angel's own self-image is hurt - he can't fight, he can't be champion - he can't overcome his past. Humanity is not what it's cracked up to be. Underrated episode this.
Buffy is furious with Angel at the beginning and the end of the episode - he's not being the man she dreamed of. He's not there for her. He comes to protect her unseen. So she puts a stake in it and decides to move on to Riley.

4. Sanctuary - the problem here isn't Faith so much as it is the unresolved issues between Buffy and Angel. Buffy is possibly furious with Angel for leaving. Still. She's furious with him for helping Faith who hurt her. Angel is furious with Buffy for moving on with Riley, when he can't move on or feels he can't at this point, jealous and envious of buffy's ability to seek comfort when he'll lose his soul if he dares to and Riley's ability to do it with her, he's also furious with Buffy for not seeing the good in Faith and for being judgemental and the issue first raised in Enemies and Amends arises again - she doesn't love me, Angel thinks, she doesn't even know me, not the real me. I'm bad. He believes this. Buffy doesn't. But it doesn't matter what Buffy believes here - what matters is what Angel believes.

5. Yoko Factor - Angel and Buffy have it out and here they are actually somewhat honest. He apologizes to her for calling her out and she rightfully tells him that he can't interfer in her life and keep his off limits. They are either together or apart. She can't hang in limbo any longer it's too painful. He agrees and leaves her life, so they both can move on.

It's an interesting relationship to examine and a realistic one. But hard as well, because there are so many tragic undertones.

I do think the father issues both have may be what causes the conflict and the passion in the relationship. Buffy's issues about abandonment and men leaving her and Angel's issues about not being a good man because Daddy didn't think so and need to deal with that.

Not sure that made sense. hope so.

thanks for the response.

SK
[> [> [> [> [> [> Have to say this... -- Tchaikovsky, 15:24:32 03/12/03 Wed

Brilliant Post!

Yet again!

shadowkat, I seem to spend half my board life making myself not just post 'Great Post (NT)' to everything you write. This one, representative of 100 ones which never made it, is for a particularly wonderful explanation of why, for me, 'Sanctuary' is perfectly in character for all of the (many) characters being juggled. For me, another Whedon/Minear masterstroke.

TCH
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks, TCH. -- s'kat, 19:16:32 03/12/03 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> This didn't post -- lunasea, 10:47:16 03/12/03 Wed

i think Angel's reaction in "Sanctuary" is driven by IWRY. If you had just given up everything for this woman and she was still not trusting you, even if you knew she didn't know, there would still be a visceral reaction.

I wondered when he said "I'm so sorry" in "Forever" was he regreting his decision in IWRY. Whenever they are together, he knows what could have been and he knows how much he loves her. She doesn't. It has to color things. I think that David plays this well.
[> [> [> [> Spike = Fantasy -- lunasea, 18:50:58 03/11/03 Tue

Cecily was a bitch. William thought she wasn't. William built up a fantasy about Cecily and wrote poems for that, maybe even thinking this bitch was capable of returning his affection.

Spike killed Chinese Slayer. Sees Angel and thinks that Angel is upset because Spike has done something he hasn't. Angel is upset because he and Darla are fighting and he is wrestling with he conscience. More fantasy.

What about Dru? We were happy until you (Angelus) got involved. More fantasy. It is Angel's fault that Dru didn't see Spike as evil enough any more and they weren't exactly happy. Spike could be rather short with her. More fantasy.

Then there is Buffy. We had the Buffy shrine. The Buffy maniquin and the Buffybot. "You always treated me like a man." Love isn't only blind, it rewrites history. Lots of fantasy there.

Still don't see how Spike is good. He is not evil. That isn't the same thing.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike = Fantasy -- Miss Edith, 01:47:41 03/12/03 Wed

You mention Spike was never good which is in a sense true. I always saw Spike as a character with simply the potential to be good.

As for Spike=fantasy. I would agree that he does have a tendency to romanticise the women he loves, and is unable to face the truth at times. But did he ever romanticise Buffy for instance to the extent that Angel did? Spike romanticised Buffy in accordance to himself, and her feelings for him. But Angel saw Buffy I would argue as very different from how she comes across to me.

To pick up on one point, Spike doesn't tell Buffy she *always* treated him like a man. In The Gift he thanks Buffy because "You treat me like a man" and that means everything to him. He is refering to events from the kiss in Intervention onwards. E.g in Tough Love he is trusted with Dawn and treated respectfully. He becomes a part of the gang in Spiral almost. Not rewritting history.

And was there really a romanticism of Buffy in season 6 for instance? Spike found out she could be a demon in Smashed and revelled in the knowledge. We do get Spike in DMP appearing conflicted, one minute teasing Buffy for being a demon, and next telling her to leave DMP as she's better than this. In episodes such as Dead Things Spike did face Buffy's darker instincts, in AYW Buffy acknowledges using him and he is okay with that, hardly someone living in denial. In Gone again he forces Buffy to leave because "you're not really here".

With Dru in Entropy he tells Anya he loves Dru but she was insane and didn't have a clue what was going on in front of her. I would say he does understand people to an extent, but he tries to explain away behaviour of women he loves and gloss over what doesn't fit with his worldview.

Sorry if this is all a bit disorganised, I don't make much sense before my morning cop of coffee. I can't formulate thoughts properly early in the morning, and I'm not sure what I'm really trying to say here. I need to get to a lecture now, I'll try and come back to this post later.
[> [> [> [> [> [> I would love to talk about this -- lunasea, 10:40:28 03/12/03 Wed

But Angel saw Buffy I would argue as very different from how she comes across to me.

Could you elaborate on this? The Buffy that Angel saw was the "real" Buffy as far as I was concerned.

I didn't think it was disorganized at all and was the most interesting thing I read today.

I always saw Spike as a character with simply the potential to be good.

I can agree on this, though Spike's potential seems to be tied to what the object of his obsession is. Is that really his potential? I would like to see him have his own potential.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I would love to talk about this -- Miss Edith, 01:12:50 03/13/03 Thu

One of my wishes in season 6 was for Spike to become his own man, and stop with the obsessions with being demonic enough for Dru, or being the new Angel for Buffy, "I can be good...Angel was a vampire" etc. I would agree with you there.

To an extent I do think that Angel saw the real Buffy. But IMO I feel the age gap meant he didn't always see the darker side of her slayer instincts. He always seemed to want to protect her. I'm not sure how well I'm putting this, it's more just a feeling I sensed from Angel seeing Buffy as pure and innocent, someone to protect so he could redemn himself. In Doopelgangland for instance he was about to tell Willow that vampires are not simply demons possessing your body, he sees Buffy's face and keeps quiet. In Amends again a wish to protect her. Perhaps instinctive but I would say in wishing to shelter Buffy he did fail to see who she truly was as the slayer.

Not doubting that his love was real, just wondering if he did project his need for an innocent to protect on to Buffy. In IWRY he is human, yet leaves Buffy so that he can fight for her. In doing that he wanted to leave her calmly sleeping which could be seen as admirable and romantic, but I would argue his actions there suggested he didn't understand Buffy as she would have wanted to fight alongside him.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I would love to talk about this -- Miss Edith, 01:54:20 03/13/03 Thu

Just wanted to add that I was talking of season 6 Spike when speaking of seeing potential in him. I was fascinated by the possibility of redemption with Spike in season 6, no matter how much the writers called me naive, it was a story that held my interest. Shades of grey have always fascinated me. I no longer feel as emotionally invested in the Spike character now that he has in my mind been given a similiar cop-out to Willow and her arc in season 6. Basically the presentation of current Spike is that he was a soulless animal but has a soul now, and is just as broody as Angel.

The souled version of Spike obtained a conscience the easy way. Fought a few demons, flash of light and had a soul. I don't know where the character will be taken in future but IMO it's fair to say he is now as good as any other man albeit with a past not unlike Angel's.

He still has the potential to become someone seperate from Buffy, in First Date he wanted to leave Sunnydale and start afresh so I would say he could be seen as a good man now for all it interests me (sorry for slightly O/T ranting, still a little bitter about how Spike and Willow's journeys played out. I'm not a fan of the quick fixes I guess).
[> [> [> Re: Spike as a 'good man' -- lunasea, 15:58:16 03/11/03 Tue

Have we ever actually seen William as a "good" man? He didn't want to even think about such dark things as what the police was concerned. Is a "good" man just someone that doesn't hurt anyone? Doesn't he harm people by not helping?

He writes poetry and others find him to be a wimp. That doesn't qualify as "good" in my book. He is more of a non-man.

And I loved Angel in "Spin the Bottle." It wasn't quite what I expected. Joss did an amazing job.

Where was the active search/struggle for good that seems to be required for good in the Buffyverse? Looking for a rhyming word isn't an active search for good, IMNSHO.

I just don't see William as a "good" man. I don't see him as a man at all.
[> [> [> [> Re: Spike as a 'good man' -- Alison, 16:15:31 03/11/03 Tue

now thats just over the top and cruel. Are all of us who are some what nerdy and shy non-people? does one have to relish the harder things in life to count as a person ( and were the people who were thinking of the murders in FFL good people? were THEY helping?) ?
I think not. William was not perfect, but he was certainly worth counting as a person...and I consider him to be as he said " a good man".
[> [> [> [> [> I agree, Alison -- dub, 17:46:39 03/11/03 Tue

It's part of what I was trying to say in my post below...there's just no need for the character bashing. What is it in aid of? If you don't like Spike, fine, ignore him, but quit the implied ridicule of those who enjoy the character.
[> [> [> [> Spike as a good man -- Rufus, 23:02:57 03/11/03 Tue

He writes poetry and others find him to be a wimp. That doesn't qualify as "good" in my book. He is more of a non-man.

I just don't see William as a "good" man. I don't see him as a man at all.

I'm probobly the most spoiled person on this board so I'll give it to you straight.....William was a good man...not a perfect man, but a good one. Your arguement that he is less of a man because he could be seen as a wimp is just a way of trying to win a fight by kicking the other guy in the balls. What you see as a good man seems to be determined by him not being a wimp which is your perogative, but to keep going on about Angel being better than Spike because Spike is just a wimp is like telling me that your Dad could beat up my Dad.

Angel and Spike are two very different men who have found themselves in similar circumstances. Both men have a problem with their self-image that what they look like or act like now hasn't helped. Angel may have been on his way to being a very bad man, or he could have grown up and gotten on with a productive life, and William could have been once choice away from being a very bad man because he was sick of not being seen. But, we don't know what they could have become we only know what they are now and a bit of what they have been. If you only place value on a man if he looks a certain way be it Angel or Spike then it's kind of sad, it's just as bad when women feel they have to look a certain way to be considered attractive. Fortunately people don't all like one type of man or woman. Personally I like nice men, men that don't have to bully others to get their way, men that are capable of doing more than looking good. One womans wimp is another womans husband.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike as a good man -- lunasea, 06:29:31 03/12/03 Wed

That is using ships to dismiss my argument.

I said in the Buffyverse the active struggle/fight to find good is what makes someone good. In FFL we do not see Spike having such a struggle. If it is shown later, I will reassess my opinion.

Spike struggles with a word. He seems to have no problem just shutting out the dark part of the world. That is for the police to handle. I don't see how using what I see as the Buffyverse definition of good, the active struggle/fight to find good, is present in William.

I have said that Liam was a stronger man. I did not say he was a good man. He at least was a man. This was shown when he stood up to his father and left home. It is also shown that he doesn't just accept what his father says is good. He realizes his father is a hypocrit. He hadn't yet engaged in the active struggle beyond that, if he would have at all.

If anything, it is those who want to label William a "good" man who are trying to elevate one character. William was a neutral man at best. He didn't contribute to evil, nor did he help his fellow man. That just gives the character somewhere to grow from.

The soul orients the creature to good or evil. Angel/us is strongly oriented each way and does not drop his moral/immoral compass for others. That is what I admire. The strength of one's convictions. I am entitled to this position. Spike is weakly oriented. That is why there is little difference between souled and unsouled Spike. Some find that admirable. I do not.

(as for the argument that he strongly loves Buffy. he strongly loved Dru one time. He helped Buffy he loved Dru so much. He had no problem switching his obsession from Dru to Buffy. What matters is the object of his obsession. What that object is is fluid.)

I have stated my opinion and backed it up with my opinion of the Buffyverse. It is not fact and should not be reacted to as if it is. It is just an opinion.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Pardon, exactly where in my post was there a mention of ships? -- Rufus, 15:14:46 03/12/03 Wed

I'm not a shipper...but from your response I can tell that you are. I told you the truth....William was a good and kind man...he may not have been considered a manly man like you think Angel has always been, but that would be placing value on a person using looks only.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> 'Manly Man' -- Dave Arias, 18:02:38 03/12/03 Wed

Hi. Long time lurker, first time poster.


>>I told you the truth....William was a good and kind man...he may not have been considered a manly man like you think Angel has always been, but that would be placing value on a person using looks only.>>


I don't think she was placing a value based on that basis. That would be devaluing the concept of what a "good man" is, when lunasea's point was that based on the themes of the series, what it takes to be a "good man" is something much more substantial.

Spike, according to the dialogue written for him in his pre-vamp days, was somebody who avoided having to deal with anything unpleasant, and lived a very sheltered, closed existence. He lived a life of avoidance.

It's easy to be "good" under these kinds of circumstances--it's the truly difficult, "unpleasant" situations, and the decisions you make when under them, that really prove what kind of person you are.

Liam, on the other hand, at the very least, made an assertive, decisive stand against someone he saw as an abusive hypocrite, and dealt with the consequences.

This was the basis under which lunasea's arguments rested, I think.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: 'Manly Man' -- Rufus, 18:53:00 03/12/03 Wed

Liam, on the other hand, at the very least, made an assertive, decisive stand against someone he saw as an abusive hypocrite, and dealt with the consequences.

I don't think so....Liam was getting ready to go back to the family home and steal some silver to finance some more drinking and whoreing at the local tavern...I don't think of that as a moral stand but you have brought up an interesting parallel between the two Williams ....both avoided living in some way...William/Spike avoided by living in a world of fantasy where only thoughts of things beautiful were allowed.....Liam(William)/Angel medicated himself into a world where he had control through drinking. Both men in fact were not living a real life as much as hiding from life. That doesn't mean that something could have happened to change their situations but both got vamped before we could see how either would have ended.

From Season two Buffy Becoming 1:

Angelus: There's moments in your life that make you, that set the course of who you're gonna be. Sometimes they're little, subtle moments. Sometimes... they're not. I'll show you what I mean.

The horseman continues past a tavern on the far side of the square. The door opens, and a young drunk Angel and his drunk friend are thrown out.

Angel: (with an Irish accent) We'll be back when we've found a bit more cash money! Keep the girls warm!

The tavern proprietor slams the door shut, and Angel pounds on it a couple of times.

Liam's friend: (moans) Let's go.

Liam staggers back over to him and puts his arm around him. They begin to walk with a definite sway in their step.

Liam: Come on. We'll sneak in and take some of me father's silver. He'll never miss it. He eats with his hands, the pig.

His friend is too drunk to go on, and faints dead away, falling out of Angel's arm to the pavement. Angel looks down at him.

Angel: Ah. Why don't you rest right here.

He takes a look around and spots a noble lady in a fancy period dress standing in an alley beyond an archway. The woman gives a slight backward glance to be sure she has his attention, and starts to walk further into the alley, disappearing around a corner from Angel's view. He follows her.

Liam took enough of a stand that he left his father's house but it's clear that he hadn't got that far just before he met Darla.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Baby Steps -- Dave Arias, 20:29:44 03/12/03 Wed

>> Both men in fact were not living a real life as much as hiding from life. That doesn't mean that something could have happened to change their situations but both got vamped before we could see how either would have ended.>>


We're pretty much in agreement at this point.

My initial argument was just that Liam had taken the first steps toward the right direction, even though he eventually stumbled, while there was no indication that William was changing--there was nothing to show that he had done anything proactive to show he was growing up.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> We will never know. -- Rufus, 22:46:59 03/12/03 Wed

I have said before that just as leaving home for Liam was the life altering event that could be the start of and eventual progression, the rejection from Cecily was the moment for William where he could have decided to make some changes....but both guys were turned into vampires before there was a chance for any of this to really get going. I'd say more but I'm too spoiled for ep 17 and it would come out in what I'd say next. Needless to say changes in people sometimes take a series of events not just one...so even though it looked like both Liam and William weren't destined to change much from what we saw them as, the fact is we will never know.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Baby Steps -- Dave Arias, 20:32:10 03/12/03 Wed

>> Both men in fact were not living a real life as much as hiding from life. That doesn't mean that something could have happened to change their situations but both got vamped before we could see how either would have ended.>>


We're pretty much in agreement at this point.

My initial argument was just that Liam had taken the first steps toward the right direction, even though he eventually stumbled, while there was no indication that William was changing--there was nothing to show that he had done anything proactive to indicate he was growing up.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Welcome to the board -- Scroll, 19:15:07 03/12/03 Wed

Liam, on the other hand, at the very least, made an assertive, decisive stand against someone he saw as an abusive hypocrite, and dealt with the consequences.

Hmm, I never thought of it that way before. Yeah, Liam does try to separate himself from his father. Perhaps given time and not meeting Darla, he might've been able to straighten up and "actuate his potential" (hehe, sorry, got that phrase stuck in my head). It's too bad we'll never know if Liam could've ever become that famous artist he wanted to be (er, that's my speculation anyway! :) ).

Welcome to the board, Dave. Pull up a chair and post awhile!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks -- Dave Arias, 20:39:53 03/12/03 Wed

>>It's too bad we'll never know if Liam could've ever become that famous artist he wanted to be (er, that's my speculation anyway! :) ).>>


That's a really clear, interesting insight. I can't believe I didn't see it. I always assumed without really thinking that the artistry was something he developed as Angelus--as a reaction to both his father, and his own useless, drunken days--but that could well be something that seperated him from his dad back when he was Liam.
[> [> [> [> Re: Spike as a 'good man' -- Miss Edith, 01:56:23 03/12/03 Wed

William was at a party in which gory murders were being discussed as title-tattle. I admired him for refusing to join in. Perhaps he could be seen as self-obsessed but we really don't have enough information to know either way. As he himself says, "I know I'm a bad poet...But I'm a good man".

And you find him a non-man because others laugh at him for being wimpy and writing poetry. A little harsh no? Ws the behaviour not a reflection on his bullying peers more than anything else. I certaintly didn't follow their judgement, I was more moved by William exposing his heart and inner thougts to Cecily showing the potential of what he could have been.

Without Buffy, Willow could have died in Welcome To The Hellmouth at Darla's hands. She was a frightened and screaming little girl at the time, does that mean she was never good or a person of merit because she wans't challenged and given the chance to prove herself?
[> [> [> [> [> We knew more about Willow -- lunasea, 10:56:54 03/12/03 Wed

does that mean she was never good or a person of merit because she wans't challenged and given the chance to prove herself?

Willow was tutoring others. That helped them. She was a good person before she started fighting demons. She agree to help Buffy get caught up before she knew anything about her. Willow befriended Buffy every bit as much as Buffy befriended her.

And you find him a non-man because others laugh at him for being wimpy and writing poetry. A little harsh no? Ws the behaviour not a reflection on his bullying peers more than anything else. I certaintly didn't follow their judgement, I was more moved by William exposing his heart and inner thougts to Cecily showing the potential of what he could have been.

I guess we can compare this to Liam, since they are written for comparison any way. (not to hold one up and one down, just show differences). Liam was bullied by his father. We saw him stand up to his father. Who cares about William's peers. Their bullying was a reflection of William, how he handled it. Spike doesn't tell Cecily how he feels until she asks him if the poems are about her. He doesn't take the intitiative. He doesn't tell his peers off. He let's both eat him up inside.

No inside, no man.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: We knew more about Willow -- Miss Edith, 02:22:38 03/13/03 Thu

I felt William did take the iniative by telling Cecily how he felt. She asked if the poems were about her, he took a deep breath and replied "Every syllable". A brave option, as he could have mumbled a denial.

I think the problem is we have seen so little of William other than the brief flashback in FFL. You seem to have drawn a lot of conclusions from that scene. ME could choose to show William as having tutored his classmates at some point, as being involved in charitable work. There are any number of ways in which William could have been what you would see as a good man. We don't have the information to make the definitive judgement that he was a non-man.

Liam was bullied by his father and stood up to him agreed. But having different personalities doesn't make one man better than the other. Liam was more outgoing that does not in my eyes make him the more worthy of the two. He was defensive and lashing out against the hurt his father caused him. A pro-active stance to take but not a wise one. He ended up homeless, breaking the hearts of his mother and little sister. Was that more positive than William letting his peers criticism affect him? Both cared about what others though. Liam tried to pretend he didn't and made the situation worse by living down to his fathers expectations. William cringed and took what was said personally but was unable to speak up. Two extremes at opposite ends of the spectrum, neither of the two men were able to gain respect by their responses to others belittling of them. I would say that Liam was every bit as much affected by his fathers words, choosing to speak up doesn't in my mind make him the better man, just a man with a different way of handling situations. Being shy doesn't disqualify William from being a man.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I like your posts, Miss Edith -- Dariel, 07:42:35 03/13/03 Thu

But then, I always do. Not only are your arguements well-reasoned, you exhibit an amazing patience!
[> Re: Buffy in S6 - a rebuttal of Marti Noxon -- Sarand, 15:20:57 03/11/03 Tue

Just wanted to add my voice of appreciation with regard to your post. Really enjoyed reading this and the responses to it and I'm looking forward to your take on Dawn and Spike.
[> My turn -- lunsea, 17:30:40 03/11/03 Tue

After my head stopped spinning, I figured I'd better come up with a rebuttal, since this was in response to my lengthy thread/interpretation.

S5 was not the Dark Night. Buffy had not come far enough for a Dark Night of the Soul. She wasn't yearning for union with the higher conscious. She was wrapped up in her own self too much for that. It was about whether Buffy could love. When Dawn was taken, she blamed herself and felt that she couldn't love. That is NOT the Dark Night of the Soul. The Dark Night isn't about doubting yourself, other than being able to fit into this world.

It is how do I get to that union. How do I get to heaven. S6 was most definitely about this. There is a profound lack of hope and light because of this comparison. Live in darkness and your eyes will adjust. Light a match and then when that match goes out the darkness is that much darker. That is the Dark Night of the Soul.

This site does a great job explaining and describing the Dark Night of the Soul: http://www.themystic.org/dark-night/index.htm

That is what I mean and probably what Marti means by it.

Here are some excerpts of that site:

"You've experienced indications of the reality of higher consciousness and yearn to be more deeply in communion with it. You see the principles of a higher power at work in your life. Yet, all in all, you find yourself somehow painfully on the outside. You feel caught between your old way of living, your old tendencies and associations, and this nebulous, unreachable realm of higher consciousness.

"You feel an exile in both places. You don't belong in the old pastimes. in the old empty or numbing way of life, yet you somehow can't fit in or feel at home in the fellowship of those who talk naturally of the higher consciousness and its reality.

"You try to be good, and often you can't. You try to be loving and find at times your heart is hard like stone. Sometimes your projects fall down around your ears. You keep struggling and still you don't break through. You understand the path is one of joy and yet your life seems to have been barren for a month or two, perhaps longer. Where did that early joy and zest go?

"Up to this particular time there was joy, there was delight. But now there is only a hanging on, a dogged hanging on. You persist because you can't conceive of going back to your old way of life. That seems impossible now. That would be like going to prison, living as if with a transorbital lobotomy.

"Being caught between the old way of life and the new possibilities, your sense of alienation intensifies. Your sense of inadequacy and not knowing what to do next becomes gnawingly constant. You feel you would do anything to get out of this state, yet it is only your ego which is keeping you in it. However, this insight is impossible for you to grasp while going through your long night.

"And you feel so totally alone. Sure, you have friends and you appreciate them, but you are keenly aware they are not capable of feeling what you are feeling or knowing what you are going through. Sometimes they seem like clowns, sometimes they seem empty-headed, caught up in meaningless pursuits. They do not understand, you think, how much you are suffering or how you cry out and pray deep into each midnight. You try their advice but it doesn't seem to touch the heart of the matter.

"You feel like a hollow person doing the activities of life with no motivation except expediency. Your eyes seem deeper in your head. You are profoundly aware of the suffering of humanity and the cruelty of one person to another. You feel that cruelty and negativity far outweigh love and constructive action.

"Alone, and not wishing to be, unable even to express yourself to others, you enter midnight and the greatest intensity of the dark night. Here you have finally come to the time of sovereign solitude. In this precious time, which has no apparent prospects of love or happiness, you clearly perceive that nothing in the outer world has proven adequate to heal your condition. Nobody, not even your dearest friends and loved ones, can make you whole. Even if they have tried, and love you enough to try loving you forever, they can't give you peace.

"Clearly, there is nowhere to turn. There is nothing to be done. All actions you considered have been tried. There is nothing to think, nothing to feel, nothing to do, nowhere to go. It seems you have to accept this defeat - or, you can persist in struggling against it. For awhile longer, you go about thinking, feeling, and doing other options that occur to you. But you realize in the midnight of your soul that you have tried every option you know of

"Helpless, totally helpless, as well as ever so alone, you abide in this condition. And you accept your predicament. You accept that there is really, except for a murmured prayer to a remote Lord and a remnant of a shredded faith, nothing else left.

"You abide. You accept your state. How have you gotten to this place? That's insignificant. Musings and feelings aside, you wait. You feel you may have to stay this way forever, doing the regular day-to-day things, but in this mood of emptiness. Nothing. Nothing."


That sounds an awful lot like S6 to me. What clinches it for me is what gets Buffy out of it.

"Believe it or not, that's what the dark night is all about: transformation. Your ego, your limited sense of self, your inadequate complex of ideas about who you are had to be dissolved. Your ego was, you begin to see, eclipsing higher consciousness and your true nature. Your old sense of self was inadequate to your new hopes and proper state. Your suffering intensified because of a major misapprehension. You were too used to thinking of yourself based on inputs from your previous experiences in life. On and on through life, you gathered information and responses from the world which indicated to you what kind of person you were and are. These superficial units of related inputs became integrated in what is called the ego - your sense of self, your sense of who you are. As long as you allowed this inaccurate or only partial sense of who you are to dominate, you could not know or abide in your true nature."

S5 was about Buffy's ego. It was strengthening it to the point where S6 is possible. S6 was about leaving it behind. When she picks it back up S7 she is screwed. S6 end with the Prayer of St Francis. What a fitting way to end Buffy's Dark Night of the Soul. "Lord make me an instrument of your peace." It is about not being all those roles, but letting the Lord (or in the Buffyverse love) work through you.

It isn't about an attachment to beauty and letting go of that. Many thought that is what she needed to do. Are my eyes attached to the brightness of a match? When it goes out, do they long for it to return? She was used to heaven and had to get readjusted to hell/earth. There is a difference. When the seeker sees heaven, it changes our perception of everything. Buffy didn't want heaven. She wanted joy about anything. Joy had just changed.

That was rebuttal to 1. I'll break this up.
[> [> You misread my post -- Caroline, 18:14:57 03/11/03 Tue

I said that Buffy has not had a dark night of the soul. I said the closest that she has come to it is S5, but that was not a real spiritual dark night of the soul.

I read the essay at the link you gave. I think that it supports my view. For a dark night of the soul to operate, the individual has lost all hope - the past and the future mean nothing, there is nowhere to turn - not the old values/world/ego and not the prospective one that the individual sees. In S6 - Buffy wanted to go back to heaven - she wanted what was in her immediate past. It was a time of depression for her but not every experience of depression and despair is a dark night of the soul.
[> [> [> Re: You misread my post -- lunasea, 18:42:21 03/11/03 Tue

In S6 - Buffy wanted to go back to heaven - she wanted what was in her immediate past.

In the Dark Night of the Soul, the seeker is seeking union with the higher conscious. How is this not seeking heaven? That she wanted to go back to heaven is what makes this a dark night and not just a normal depression. This is the Buffyverse were spiritual concepts are given form. This union with a higher conscious was given form as heaven. It isn't her past she wants. It is this union.

Your entire argument rests on Buff wanting to go back to her immediate past. Every seeker wants to cross the threshold. I wanted to get back to Big Mind. If it wasn't an experience, we wouldn't want it so much. We wouldn't think the dark was darker. It isn't about our past. It is about that union.

Also, you say that Buffy wants to return to her immediate past. Did she have any hope that this was possible? What hope did she really have? The seeker does not loose faith in God in the Dark Night. "Helpless, totally helpless, as well as ever so alone, you abide in this condition. And you accept your predicament. You accept that there is really, except for a murmured prayer to a remote Lord and a remnant of a shredded faith, nothing else left."

S6 isn't all Midnight. It builds to that. It builds as the seeker tries various things. Show me where Buffy has hope that lasts more than an episode, or maybe even a scene? Life Serial did a great job with this. Show me where the past or the future mean something to Buffy. Show me where Buffy has to turn. Even Spike ceases to be an escape. Show me where her values get her out. Show me where the world makes things ok. Show me where ego helps. Show me how her perspective, that she was wrong, helped.

The realization in Grave shows how she didn't have any of these. She was given hope in her speech to Dawn. She makes direct references to the future and how much it means to her and to the past. Buffy has found a place to turn, the Prayer of St. Francis. Her values (love) get her out. The world makes things ok and she abandons ego. Her new perspective fixes everything. In the cures, we can see the disease.

The cause and the cure make this a Dark Night of the Soul. You see it as Buffy's immediate past. I see it as a metaphor for union with the higher conscious. Joss is an atheist. He isn't going to have Buffy wanting to commune with God. In the Buffyverse love is God. S5 saw Buffy discover that she is love. S6 was Buffy trying to get that back. What prevented this was her ego.

Sounds like the Dark Night to me.
[> [> [> [> Once again you misread my post -- Caroline, 20:18:32 03/11/03 Tue

The dark night of the soul is an experience where the individual on a spiritual path is lost in profound despair, not wanting the world they have left behind or the one they see ahead. In S6, Buffy wanted the world she left behind - heaven. Ergo, no dark night of the soul.
[> [> [> [> [> The show is a metaphor -- lunasea, 07:44:21 03/12/03 Wed

You are basing all of this on heaven as a literal place. Since when are things literal on the show? The writers sent Buffy to heaven so she could know and want it. It is a symbol for that spiritual longing of the Dark Night of the Soul. Why else would a bunch of atheists send their hero there?

Buffy didn't want the literal place she left behind. She didn't want to die. She had that option and she didn't take it. If she wanted physical heaven so bad, why wasn't she there? She could have returned to it very easily.

She didn't. She wanted joy. She wanted to feel. She wanted that union. She didn't want the world she left behind. She wanted what it gave her. Big difference.

If what she wanted was the physical place of heaven, then why did she climb out of the Grave with all that flowery music and symbolism? She didn't learn to accept the world as hell. She realized the world was heaven.

Atheists ended that show with The Prayer of St. Francis. Atheists sent Buffy to heaven. Atheist wrote the stuff in between. It was the atheist version of the Dark Night of the Soul. It was based on love and connection. In the Buffyverse, love is god. Sending Buffy to heaven was symbolic of her realization on the Platform.

I was an atheist when I went through mine. The religious don't have a monopoly on spirituality.

Even the Vatican realizes heaven is a state of mind and not an actual place or world. Buffy wanted that state of mind. Not a place, not a world, a feeling.
[> [> [> [> [> [> I have to say this. -- Caroline, 08:53:50 03/12/03 Wed

Lunasea, I am going to make the assumption that you do not intend to insult or offend me with your post. I do realize the show is a metaphor. It's rather frustrating that you continue to misread my post but I will have to let that go, and just chalk this up to agreeing to disagree.

Based on that, I need to say the following. I have no problem with you holding very different views to me. I am not a shipper of any ship, so IMHO your Bangel shippiness does bias your views on Spike. That is just my view and I hope that I have never made you feel that your view is not valid, it's just one that I disagree with. What I do have a problem with is your assertions about particular characters that you do not like (Dawn is whiny, Spike is a plot device not a man) to be very offensive. I love all of these characters and hate to have any of them bashed. That may not be your intent, but that is the way it comes across to me. You stated in a post some days back that you were just venting, that this is who you are and that this is just a tv show. I would really like it if you came here for the civilized and erudite discussion, not the venting and crude assertions.

I have read many of your posts and you have insight, imagination and the energy necessary to carry your ideas through. Please add more sensitivity and care in your posting and you could potentially be a very valuable addition to this board. We have had misunderstandings many times before on this board and many of them have been solved by all of us being more sensitive on how we post. This form of communication limits all cues to the written word - there is no intonation, tone of voice, facial expressions, hand gestures etc that show when we are joking, sarcastic etc. I come here for respectful, rigorous and fun discussion. I like to think that we maintain that.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Responsibility lies with writer and reader -- lunasea, 10:45:14 03/12/03 Wed

It takes two to fight. In this PC world everyone is so afraid of saying what they feel that nothing really gets said any more. We say it is the speaker/writers fault for saying something offensive and remove all responsibility from the listener/reader. I find it interesting that all positions are equally valid, but how they are said it not. Isn't how something is said a position? Haven't we evolved to the point where we can look beyond tone (real or preceived) and to the message? I find it interesting that the group that seems least able to do this is the most objective.

My essays aren't usually some objective analytical attempt to explain the meaning of something. They are my attempts to show something, namely what I see the writers as doing or what they have done to me. I have a couple of essays that do go off into ivory-tower land. I have one I want to do about bloodlust that fits that.

Others handle this perspective rather well, better than I could. That isn't what I offer. If Masq finds me disruptive, I have no problem just lurking. I have "insight, imagination and energy." If I start censoring myself, I will lose that. I have tried before. What I write isn't worth reading then.

The writers are really writing for irrational-fan girl. That is a perspective that is lacking here. Such people usually aren't interested in what this board talks about. Irrational doesn't tend to go with "philosophical." I wear two hats that inhance each other. They allow me to write with insight, imagination and energy. It may be disconcerting to read, but I wouldn't get the same things if I only wore one hat.

It is up to the reader. Can they read with two eyes and take irrational-fan girl not as fact or even assertions, but just raw emotional reactions (that should pretty much be dismissed except to show that is the reaction)? That is what I am trying to give. They really aren't things I want to even debate. Just feelings. I can back up "Bad Spike" analytically and will, but those just get dismissed because it was preceded by "Bad Spike." It isn't something I am interested in enough to put the energy into.

Actually, I really appreciate the feedback about this. It helped me understand this. Understanding the show is great, but understanding myself is even better. Now that I know how this works, it has helped my writing.
[> The effect that all of this has had (slightly long and rambly) -- dub ;o), 17:34:50 03/11/03 Tue

I haven't read any of the responses to this (the original post by Caroline) yet, but I want to thank you before I do.

This board has traditionally been one that engages in polite and erudite discussion. We haven't escaped 'ship-free, and I don't think any Buffy or Angel board has, but we've managed to sidestep the 'ship issues on most occasions because there is just so much more of greater interest and importance to talk about. We have, in the past, taken a lighthearted and humorous approach to posters' self-confessed obsessions with certain characters. That's how rowan, after her infamous post on Cheekbones, came by the title "Evil Grabby Spike Hands." That's how we came up with the ATLtS acronym. It was fun, and funny.

Just lately though, that seems to have changed. Perhaps it was unavoidable, but we're so close to the end of Buffy I was really thinking we were going to make it. There is no "rule" here, or posted in Masq's FAQ, against character-bashing, like there is on the Trollop Board. We never needed one here before.

In the last month though many of us have become involved in reading and replying to lunasea's detailed and well-written posts. Speaking personally, my past experience here has been that when someone writes thoughtfully and well there is always something in their take on things for me to learn from. That was how I initially approached this new poster and her posts as well, and I was not disappointed. lunasea has obviously spent as much time as any of us here analyzing the shows we love and she shares those analyses, for the most part, in carefully worded posts.

It was apparent almost from the beginning that lunasea was a "huge Buffy/Angel 'shipper." Absolutely no problem with that. I'm sure we have representatives of every 'ship going on the board. What we haven't had much of until now was someone who approached such a detailed and compelling analysis of the show(s) through the lense of 'shippiness and/or character bashing. That was unexpected to the point that I missed it, at first.

I, like most of us here, have watched every single episode of Buffy. I was intrigued and attracted to Angel when he made his debut. His interaction with Buffy in the first three seasons was fascinating to watch and I enjoyed every minute of it. Then his time with Buffy was over, and I moved on to watching her interact with other characters in a romantic manner. I kinda figured the Riley thing was doomed because of chemistry, but that was purely a personal observation; I didn't "hate" Riley, he was just a character in a TV show. I followed the storyline along and if Buffy had ended up as Bride!Buffy, and then SoccerMom!Buffy with Riley and the three kids, I'd probably still be watching.

Spike came back to Sunnydale and I thought, "Cool, he'll spice things up a bit. He was evil. Wonder where Drusilla got to?"

Spike got chipped and I thought, "Oh, poor guy, now he's just gonna be comic relief." How can you feel anything but pity for a vampire who tries to commit suicide by falling on a wooden stake while wearing a Hawaiian shirt (or whatever that was that Xander loaned him)?

Then, as had always happened on BtVS, things changed and Spike started to be used more and more. He reluctantly became part of the gang. I accepted him as a Scoobie. In Season Five there was a major focus on Spike and his burgeoning love for Buffy, and no one could possibly miss the enormous effect it had on the character and on his behaviour in the series. It took a while, but the writers convinced me that Spike truly loved Buffy, that he had the potential to once again be a "good man," and that he would sacrifice anything, up to and including his own undead life, for the woman he loved and, more importantly, for the things she believed in (i.e. keeping her sister safe and ridding the world of vampires, demons, and hell gods).

Season six took this relationship to a place that was passionate, disturbing, and destined to self-destruct and Season seven so far has taken us past that to an exploration of mutual trust, respect, affection and dependence (not co-dependence!).

I'm in for the long-haul. I'm goin' with wherever the next few eps take us, and I'm fully prepared for it to be gutwrenching. What I was not prepared for was to be faced with the theory, reiterated countless times, that my personal viewing of and reaction to this particular small segment of the BtVS experience over a period of at least the last four years was inaccurate, deluded, and just plain wrong. Having someone say that once or twice would cause me to do a quick reality check and reaffirm my initial impressions. Having someone say it daily, up to and including the massive season six filibuster, was enough to make me start to question my hold on reality (even as it existed long before the aneurysm, lol!). I started to feel a sort of malaise associated with watching Buffy, and a reluctance to engage in defense of my personal point of view when I knew that the charges of "Spuffy!" would be hurled at anything I tried to say.


And so I thank you Caroline, for reassuring me that I wasn't losing my mind; I didn't hallucinate the last four years; I did interpret what was going on with this particular aspect of the show in a way that, if not universally agreed with, is obvious, realistic, sensible, and at least as valid as any other. Your take on Buffy's return, while it didn't focus on the character of Spike, did prove that there is always more than one way to...oops...can't really use that phrase anymore in these days of Kitten Poker!

dub ;o)
[> [> Excellent, well worded post. -- Alison, 18:33:11 03/11/03 Tue

[> [> Well-written post dub -- s'kat, 21:37:23 03/11/03 Tue

Please see my response to Scroll above, entitled "More clarification and on posting" - see the bit on how I read posts.

If it helps..? You're not alone. I have the same take on Spike, Angel and Riley that you do. So do many of my friends both male and female, one of which is a Xandershipper.

SK
[> [> Thanks, dub, I needed this -- Scroll, 21:57:44 03/11/03 Tue

Lately I think I've gotten a little in over my head. If you read s'kat's post above and the posts leading to it, you'll see what I mean by "in over my head". Your post really helped me to remember exactly why I'm on this board and watching these shows. I'm in it for the long haul too. My eyes are glued on the screen every Tuesday from 8-10pm. I love all the characters. Sure, I love some more than others, but each and every one of them is interesting to me. Even characters as peripheral as Larry, Devon, and Percy held my attention because of how they affected Xander, Oz, and Willow.

So I've decided to just sit back, and enjoy the roller-coaster that will be the next six episodes (well, nine episodes for Angel). And if I am tempted to post something that is not of my best nature, I'll re-read, edit, re-read, edit, re-read, edit (repeat, then rinse) before hitting Send.
[> [> Yeah, what dubdub said. -- Solitude1056, 22:01:46 03/11/03 Tue

[> [> You forgot about Grabby hands of Chocolate aka First (Virtue) aka Queen of Trollops.....;) -- Rufus, 23:17:33 03/11/03 Tue

I agree with what you said, now just think nice thoughts and of that kitty pic I posted and sent you the other day....you know the Kitty that almost got away....

pic on right of Rufus (sleepy kitty) after a hard night posting
[> [> Re: The effect that all of this has had (slightly long and rambly) -- MsGiles, 04:16:30 03/12/03 Wed

I agree, thanks for putting things so well. The energies of ship are powerful, and I feel that s6 is playing these energies off against each other to great effect. I'm getting a lot out of these s6 posts: it's well worth the odd slight spoilerism
[> [> Amen -- ponygirl, 07:01:37 03/12/03 Wed

A little bleary-eyed this morning, and I'm realizing I shouldn't see bands and drink and stay up until 2 a.m. to watch my tape of Angel on a work night (btw The Be Good Tanyas are an excellent band and they're from Vancouver!)--yours was the first post I clicked on because I knew that you would have some words of wisdom to ease me into the day. I agree with your take on things 100%, thanks for posting. Let's all buckle in for the last leg of this long and memorable haul!
[> [> [> Ooooh, 'Be Good Tanyas'...I've even heard of them! -- dub ;o), 09:39:13 03/12/03 Wed

[> [> Thank you dub. -- Caroline, 07:46:19 03/12/03 Wed

I must echo the responses above - this is a truly beautiful post. I share your vision about the kind of place this board is. I love the fact that there are people that have different views and I read many of these different views with delight. Why? Because the disagreement is always about our views and opinions and most people don't try to make me feel stupid for having a certain opinion or view. All you need is a good substantiation of what you think and then we can all happily prattle on for ages. I'd like the board to stay that way. Thanks to all of you who try every day to sensitively express your views without pulling the punches of intellectual rigour.

Now I can't wait to do the Spike post that I feel is the other half of the Buffy one - I see Spike and Buffy being intimately psychologically connected, certainly since S5.
[> [> [> Definitely looking forward to that, Caroline--can't wait! -- dub ;o), 09:42:45 03/12/03 Wed

[> [> [> Re: Thank you dub. -- Rufus, 22:49:17 03/12/03 Wed

Now I can't wait to do the Spike post that I feel is the other half of the Buffy one - I see Spike and Buffy being intimately psychologically connected, certainly since S5.

Spike just may have connections that you haven't considered yet....Buffy perhaps one of them.
[> [> Marvellous dub- clear and NOT rambly! -- Tchaikovsky, 09:44:23 03/12/03 Wed

[> [> You are well-named, Wisewoman! -- luna, 19:10:54 03/12/03 Wed

[> Still my turn -- lunasea, 18:22:13 03/11/03 Tue

2. This supposes that earth has to be dualities. One thing we learn in Buddhism is that Nirvana and Samsara are one and the same. You say that Buffy was in a place that transcends oppositions and returns to the world of duality. "light/dark, hot/cold, good/evil" These aren't things. They aren't real. They are perceptions.

Everything that is messing up Buffy isn't a fact or real, but her perception of it. That is what makes this a Dark Night. These perceptions come from ego. Dark Night is fueled by ego. You can't merge with the higher conscious with ego intact.

The responsibilities Buffy has don't numb her slowly. She is numb as soon as she comes back. Showing her responsibilities and how she doesn't handle them shows how numb she is. Bills and money are meaningless pieces of paper. That isn't because she has to pay them. That is how she feels. She doesn't want to avoid her responsibilities. She doesn't run from them. She goes to the bank. She goes back to school. She gets jobs. She just doesn't care. They aren't the problem. She is.

It is up to the viewer to interpret. Did the responsibilties weigh on Buffy or were they to illustrate how little Buffy didn't care? We could debate this. It might be interesing.

3. Buffy isn't even angry. She is "going through the motions." That isn't anger. The closest she comes to anything is in "Tabula Rasa" "Sorry. Everybody's sorry. I know that you guys are just trying to help ... but it's just, it's too much. And, and I, I can't take it any more. (tearful) If you guys ... if you guys understood how it felt ... how it feels. It's like I'm dying, it- "

No anger there. We might be angry, but Buffy isn't. I would like to see evidence of where you think Buffy was angry. She didn't like the situation, but she didn't have enough to be angry.

It isn't depression. It is numbness. There is a difference. I am not sure if SMG understood it. Buffy was now open to the world's pain and it overwhelmed. She isn't upset about what she has lost. She doesn't know how to handle what she has. It wasn't so much about what she lost and mourning it as what she was returned to and what that did to her.

Different angles. We could debate which Buffy saw things from.

4. I would say that Buffy could be with Spike because she didn't feel things for him. He wasn't numbing her so she could feel again.

5. Buffy returns, but without Self. She is now an instrument of somethings else's peace.

We will see how the finale of S7 puts S6 in perspective

I would be interested in hearing your interpretation of Buffy seeing Angel and coming back briefly rejuvenated.
[> [> Defining depression -- Caroline, 16:53:33 03/12/03 Wed

2. I state that Buffy is constructing her reality

3. Numbness is part of depression. The main symptoms of depression include apathy, loss of libido, listlessness, withdrawal of energy from normal pursuits. In very severe cases, the person may not get out of bed or do anything at all - which is symptomatic of a depressive breakdown. This type of depression is characterised by numbness or paralysis, where the individual is not aware of feeling anything at all. Depression is not wallowing in one's own dark feelings - the person has blanked out and feels nothing but apathy. A violent and angry rage is usually hiding under the depression - depression, for many people, is the experience of anger turned inwards towards the self. (that is why, according the the statistics, that a depressed person is most likely to kill themselves just after seeking treatment and starting to feel better - they get in touch with the anger underneath.) Applying this to Buffy - her behaviour from Smashed onwards show us the depth of her anger - at her friends, herself and Spike.

I don't understand the points you make about Buffy and Spike's relationship or Buffy not returning with a Self.
[> Ooh! a major post by Caroline! I was only saying yesterday... -- Rahael, 18:55:56 03/11/03 Tue

well, actually it's getting close to 3 am so that should be the day before yesterday, that you should post more!!!

Want to reply properly, and am confident this will stay up while I can still safely express my appreciation and responses later on today.
[> Re: Buffy in S6 - a rebuttal of Marti Noxon -- Rufus, 23:06:28 03/11/03 Tue

I will, however, make one digression about Spike - unlike Wood, I don't think that he is suffering from an Oedipal conflict. I suspect (but don't have entirely enough proof yet) that Spike is stuck in a pre-oedipal stage where he has not even separated from his mother - I'm thinking of a Kleinian attachment here. Spike has a mother but a father is never mentioned, he seems to be a bit of a mummy's boy and never had a serious rival to mother's affections.

Not going to spoil you....but are you ever going to have fun with ep 17....;)
[> [> Then I have a question for you, oh queen of all things spoilery -- Caroline, 07:16:13 03/12/03 Wed

All I want to know is, should I wait until after ep. 17 to do the Spike post that is the other half of of my Buffy post? That's all I need to know.

Thanks in advance.
[> [> [> Passing on some advice -- s'kat, 08:06:17 03/12/03 Wed

While I'm not spoiled on 7.17, two spoiled friends gave me some advice I'll pass on to you:

Wait to do any Spike posts until after episode 7.17 airs.
You might have to change a few things. OTOH - guessing is half the fun, so if you post before and are proven right, you can do a happy gloating snoopy dance.

Personally? I'm dying to read your Spike post. Can't wait to see your take on this.


SK
[> [> [> Yes. -- dub (Spoiler Deputy-Queen), 12:58:17 03/12/03 Wed

[> [> [> Oh yeah......... -- Rufus, 15:19:00 03/12/03 Wed

Ep 17 is going to be very important in how you see Spike/William...I'd wait.
[> [> [> [> You guys are making me want to read the spoilers . . . I can't take it! :) -- acesgirl (who's been good all season and is waning), 16:28:31 03/12/03 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> Yesssssss I can take all the pain away....but only if ask...<g>...;) -- Rufus, 16:43:30 03/12/03 Wed

I suck at being evil I guess I'll have to take that seminar that Sol is running "Evil for Nice Canadians".

So now I'll go against what I said in my message subject...if you have been avoiding spoilers and find you have been enjoying the shows more then I suggest you keep avoiding them.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Nope. Not gonna do it. No siree. - I'm off the stuff and I'm staying that way. -- acesgirl (proud of her resolve), 17:12:30 03/12/03 Wed

[> Re: Buffy in S6 - a rebuttal of Marti Noxon -- dms, 06:33:48 03/12/03 Wed

Wonderful post.

[quote]Buffy and Spike have their explosion - the duality that each feel about their relationship cannot be contained. Buffy accommodates this by separating herself from Spike physically but maintaining some emotional connection with him, even after the rape attempt. We see in S7 that Buffy has come to rely on Spike in a very deep way. I think that she has to come to a better accommodation with Spike than this - there are still issues to be resolved between the two.[/quote]

I'm curious if you have any ideas what a better accommodation would be.
[> Thank you, Caroline, for starting an excellent thread that has helped raise important issues -- Resh (coming out of posting hibernation for just a minute), 09:57:59 03/12/03 Wed

I thoroughly enjoyed and deeply agree with your analysis above (hey, anything relating Buffy's journey to Inanna's is more than fine in my book!!). Thank you for taking the time to craft it for us into such a beautiful and thoughtful essay.

And as someone who has had many of the same reactions to lunasea's recent posts as dub, I want to thank dub for writing so eloquently of the passion and pleasure of taking the long-range view, and of trasuring our capacity to hold multiple, complex and sometimes confliciting analyses in our heads even as we simultaneously experience extraordinary emotional connections to the shows and their characters.

Also want to thank all those who contributed to the very nice sub-thread discussions on differing approaches to literary criticism. These types of discussions are the gristle and bones of this board, one of the reasons I keep coming back to read (even though I don't post much these days).

The main reason I'm writing today, however, is to thank Caroline for maintaining such a polite and honorable tone in all of her postings, especially those responding to lunasea, whose posts I, like Caroline (and many others, apparently) am struggling not to read as intentionally rude or confrontative. Caroline's civility here is a great example of the best of what this board can be and traditionally has been.

Lunasea, I have enjoyed reading many of your series of posts, but have to say that I share KdS's concern (posted in a thread above) with the tone of some of your comments, both in that long series but especially in some of your posts in this thread responding to Caroline. As do some others here, I disagree with certain portions of your formal analysis. Nevertheless, you are often an insightful writer whose work is fluid, well-crafted and certainly engaging. Reading critiques, opinions and thoughts different from my own is one of my great pleasures on this board. I learn so much here, from so many people. However, as a somewhat jaded veteran of earlier board vent-fests, I'd like to add my support to those who both ask for and, ultimately, insist upon civil behaviour from all posters. This includes not using derogatory language or making hostile statements about other posters, either individually or as a community. While I hope that you will continue to post your interesting analyses, I urge you to refrain from the type of arrogant and negative comments about other posters who hold vies different from yours that have peppered your recent posts. As individuals and as a community, we deserve better.

malama pono,
Resh
[> [> Thank you, Resh -- Caroline, 14:07:53 03/12/03 Wed

for your very kind words - it's great to know that you are still with us.
[> 'The True Mesoptamian Ring' -- Celebaelin, 05:44:47 03/13/03 Thu

For an explanation of the title see my post

LOL! You can't say that!

above in this thread. I hope I've identified the myth you were referring to in your original post correctly btw Caroline. The interpretation of Spike remaining in Hell like the sexless mourners created by Enki is temptingly sympathetic from a certain twisted male viewpoint. It bears further consideration to be sure. I'm sorry to say that I haven't yet found any reference to the death of either Nergal or Dumzi, although it's not beyond imagination that the former died before Ereshkigal became enamoured with the later. Since Ereshkigal had essentially superceded Nergal as deity of death it seems likely that she could have arranged this! At the moment I'm thinking that potentially she got news of Inanna's 'bit of rough' and decided to make a complex play for 'fertility guy' (oh, and create winter in the process), these Gods huh? What are they like? If I've got the wrong story entirely maybe you could tell me where I can find a version of the exact myth you mean, or maybe I should just look a little more! I'm having to post before I've read everything so I'm sorry if this has already been covered, I just noticed that there weren't any Thursday posts and thought I'd better get in quick. Congratulations on starting this HUGE thread.

C

Current board | More March 2003