May 2002
posts
Did
anyone else think Seeing Red was really well written?
Spoilers, NO RANTS -- dream of the consortium,
08:59:07 05/09/02 Thu
I fear I may be the only one. But I was amazed at how
perfectly this episode was put together. My thoughts aren’t
really coherent, but here they are:
Subjective Nature of Reality – As shadowcat pointed out in
her marvelous essay (go to the archives and find it if you
missed it), one of the overarching themes of this season has
been the subjective nature of reality – how the actors in a
situation create reality by interpreting it – or
misinterpreting it. The various mind-bending acts of the
Troika have played out this theme (Normal Again, Gone), but
we have also seen how the abstract idea plays out in
interpersonal relationships. Xander fears becoming his
father and hurting Anya, and allows his fears to cause him
to hurt Anya. And he has definitely been becoming his
father. The drinking has been heavy. The comment about
Spike - “But I never forgot what he is” – shocked me, it
sounded so much like a racist, or a classist. Work with one
of those, but don’t forget they are below us. And never,
never, mix the races. Which leads, of course, to the other
major example of characters creating a reality – Spike.
Last season, when he would occasionally get some respect
from the Scoobies, he became capable of more good acts. (I
am going to avoid saying he became more “good”, because I
can’t bear another breakout of the spike-is-evil-no-he’s-not
debate). His time with the Scoobies socially conditioned
him, if you will, into new, positive behaviors, to the point
that in The Gift, he tells Buffy, “I know that I’m a
monster. But you treat me like a man. And that’s..” Well,
we aren’t told what that is. That’s changing me? That’s
enough for me? It doesn’t matter. We see the results. The
demon faces death to protect his former enemy’s sister. All
summer he remains, in Buffy’s absence, connected with the
Scoobies. They seem to expect him to work with them, and he
does so. But, after Buffy comes back, things change.
Buffy’s relationship with Spike is underground, secretive,
shame-filled. The Scoobies, particularly Xander, go back to
treating Spike like a monster. And so he again becomes one.
I believe that is why the line from The Gift is explicitly
referenced in last night’s show – to emphasize the point
that we make our realities. That is NOT to say that Spike
is not responsible for the horror of what he has done. He
is, of course, completely responsible – he makes his own
decisions. But he is influenced by those around him, by how
they see him.
Social Connectedness - One of the great, all-time themes of
Buffy is the importance of social connectedness. It is what
gives Buffy her edge as a slayer – she has friends, family.
The importance of her connections to people have been
emphasized over and over – she defeats Adam, Glory and so on
be dependence on her friends. So it wasn’t surprising to
see this point made again in Seeing Red with Xander. They
reconcile; they mention how many mistakes they’ve made; they
say how much they need each other and Willow. Oh right,
Willow. Problem is, Willow isn’t there. She’s inside.
And Buffy still hasn’t talked to her about Spike. In fact,
Buffy is still hiding things from her (the bruise on her
thigh). Willow isn’t connected to Buffy like she used to be
– she doesn’t pick up, for example, that Buffy slept with
Spike just by looking at her face, like Dawn could.
(Remember how quickly she realized that Xander had slept
with Faith?) She’s been cut off from everyone – and now
Tara is being taken away. (I didn’t mind, by the way, the
over-the-top lovely-doveys last night. I remember getting
back together with a college boyfriend after several months
of being broken up. Reuniting is like the giddiness of
first falling in love without the nervousness of not knowing
the person.) I don’t think it bodes well for Willow that her
separation from the group is being emphasized at a point
when she’s going all black-eyed. As for Spike, he has
clearly been removed from the human social group in a big
way. That just links right back into the “creating reality”
theme – if lack of social connectedness creates anti-social
behavior, then socially ostracizing those who are guilty of
wrong-doing will only encourage their descent into darkness.
It was a nice touch to have Dawn be the impetus to his
actions. It reminded us of how little we have seen of them
together this year – was Spike reverting to old form, or was
Buffy trying to keep her two lives (and selves) separated?
Was it her comments to the effect that Buffy cared enough to
be hurt by him that made him decide to visit her? And was
it her implied condemnation – Dawn, the one he has actually
never harmed in any way, the one he has always connected to
and protected – that convinced him (in part) that he needed
to find a way back into pure, unremorseful evil. (A path I
don’t believe will be successful – see the discussion above
about the leather jacket being left behind) The visit from
Clem was interesting, too – I think a way to remind us that
Spike doesn’t get off the hook with this line of thinking.
After all, he does have at least one good friend in the
demon world. It was also terribly nice to see Clem again,
Clem the peacemaker, Clem whose name means mercy. His
comment about things changing was a shaft of pure light in
an episode filled with darkness.
Warren is of course disconnected from everyone. He doesn’t
care about anybody, has no attachments, to the point that
Jonathon just rolls his eyes at Andrew’s naïve belief that
he might possibly take the slightest interest in their
welfare. And Warren is by far the creepiest villain we’ve
seen on Buffy, in my opinion.
Rape - The three rapists descend into darkness. Of course,
there aren’t three rapists, there are two attempted rapists
and one arguably successful rapist (yes, I’m talking about
Willow). The degree of horror reserved for each one’s
actions could be debated endlessly (and is, I think,
elsewhere on the board – at least in one case), but there’s
no doubt that these three attacked/manipulated a woman for
the purposes of/ resulting in sex. And they are the three
heading deepest into the darkness at the end of the episode.
There’s something more going on here that I can’t quite work
out, beyond the obvious. Maybe if I watched the episode (or
the season) again. Rape has been used in plots before on
Buffy, particularly in relationship to abuse of power. But
I am not quite certain of why this season seems to be about
rape in some way. There’s also been a lot of castration
imagery – the “orbs” last night being right over the top,
but there have been others mentioned along the way. How
does castration as a running theme relate to rape as a
theme? Does anyone have any ideas?
Other small thoughts – Dawn has really made strides in the
last few episodes, and I have finally enjoyed watching her.
Anya’s scene in the bar was quite funny and gave us great
hope for her. Xander’s drinking I mentioned above, but Spike
was drinking a lot, too. The Buffyverse women always seem
to suffer horribly for their very rare drinking and learn
their lesson, while the men seem to run to the bottle in
times of crisis. Just once I would like to see a
(preferably female) character on Buffy who poured herself a
good stiff drink and enjoyed it properly, without any
indication that she was suffering miserably and going to
make terrible judgments as a results. But then again, I
live in Boston, a pretty drinking-happy town, and tend to
get irritated with too much Puritanism. And I thought the
jet-packs, and Buffy’s reaction to them, were really
funny.
[>
"Clem whose name means mercy" - well, unless
you're a kitten... -- redcat, 10:02:29 05/09/02
Thu
[>
Re: Did anyone else think Seeing Red was really well
written? Spoilers, NO RANTS -- alcibiades, 10:02:46
05/09/02 Thu
I thought it was a great episode. Agree with everything you
say.
Just one other point.
Here's an interesting little juxtaposition I noticed.
Warren to Buffy before he jets off in Seeing Red: " I swear
to God...I'm going to take you down."
Buffy to Spike in Wrecked after their interlude: "I swear
to God...if you tell anyone about last night, I will kill
you."
I don't think that the repetition of the syntax is
coincidental. Buffy has just taken Warren down in Seeing
Red. And Buffy thinks that Spike has taken her down to, in
Wrecked. Into the dirt with him.
[>
YES! (and still with the spoilers) -- Bob Sikkel,
10:30:50 05/09/02 Thu
Made me ache for a while after, but yes.
Very interesting observations, and you were thinking in a
direction that I hadn't been.
I'm surprised that living in "a drink oriented town" makes
you irritated at Puritanism, and not at drunks! (Oops,
getting personal- sorry.)
You also touched on something that I HAD been thinking
about: Xander's attitude about Spike. Although I might
still almost be willing to concede that he has a point, I
think his condemnation of "what he is" reveals an over-
simplistic attitude (which is indeed a something-ism).
As Buffy points out, he has seen a "good" side of Spike, to
the point that he has entrusted Dawn's care to him, yet when
he comes right down to it he "remembers what he is"-
obviously implying "Evil Fiend". What he is not catching,
though, is that right now the greater evil is being done (as
is painfully brought home later) by fellow humans. Odd,
considering that he was afraid not of the ex-demon he was
supposed to marry, but of the "demon" that might exist
inside himself.
For that matter, Buffy has stubbornly refused to take her
"nemesises" seriously- again, I think, making the mistake of
assuming that because they are human (not to mention geeks)
they aren't really that much of a threat.
Well, with maturity comes the realisation that in life, as
in the Buffyverse, everything is a shade of grey.
bob
"My philosophy, like color TV,
Is all there in black and white."
-Raymond Scum
[> [>
Re: YES! (and still with the spoilers) -- maddog,
10:38:36 05/09/02 Thu
Are we all JUST coming to the realization that Xander hates
vampires of all sorts? He's been like this since day 1.
And the fact that the one good one ended up going bad and
killing Jenny didn't help either. Then there's the fact
that the two that became "good", ie Angel and Spike, both
ended up with Buffy at one point(which was always Xander's
wishful place). So it's a combination of hatred and
jealousy.
[> [> [>
Re: YES! (and still with the spoilers) -- DEN,
11:06:07 05/09/02 Thu
Another point about SR is its forwarding the process of pair-
splitting. Among the defining features of s4 and 5 were
Willow's and Xander's involvement in relationships so stable
as to be de facto marriages--and counterpoints to Buffy's
crash-and-burn conections. Now X/A and T/W are closed down.
Barring major plot shifts, it seems as if the original
scoobs will begin next year where they started as high
school sophomores: as singles. X/B in SR, the X/W spoilers
for the later eps, and Joss' hints for next season, also
suggest renewed bonding patterns among the three. Who knows?
Maybe a menage a scoob---but I'll stop there!
[> [> [> [>
Re: still with the spoilers - note one of those is a
future spoiler. -- Dyna, 11:33:55 05/09/02 Thu
[> [> [> [>
Are these future spoilers? -- Traveler, 15:52:59
05/09/02 Thu
Because if so, I am really really ticked.
[> [> [> [> [>
(It mentions "rumors" but it's very vague--
didn't mean to upset you, Trav.) -- Dyna, 16:29:57
05/09/02 Thu
[>
I agree--a couple of other notes. -- Dyna,
11:00:32 05/09/02 Thu
I didn't care for the direction of the bathroom scene, but
the writing throughout was outstanding. There were so many
great scenes of conversation between characters--Tara and
Willow, Dawn and Spike, Buffy and Xander, Anya and the
jilted girl, Spike and Clem, the LoD. Beautifully acted all
around, also.
One thing that struck me was the way that characters
repeatedly answered questions with "it's complicated." If
there was a theme to the non-action (emotional?
interpersonal?) threads of the plot, "it's complicated"
about sums it up. Even the bathroom scene, which inspired
so much anticipatory angst, wasn't a clear-cut "return to
evil" for Spike, nor did it seem to have the effect of
reengaging Buffy's outrage, pushing her back into (to quote
Riley) a "black-and-white space." Ambiguity, emotional
confusion, blurring of boundaries are still surprisingly in
evidence.
This episode is so rich in emotion it can be a little hard
to watch, but thinking back over it I'm amazed at how much
was accomplished in 44 minutes, without seeming rushed.
Another tough job for Steve DeKnight, pulled off remarkably
well.
[>
Re: Did anyone else think Seeing Red was the result of
a season of good writing? -- pr10n, 12:01:13 05/09/02
Thu
>Rape - The three rapists descend into darkness. Of course,
>there aren’t three rapists, there are two attempted
>rapists and one arguably successful rapist (yes, I’m
>talking about Willow).
I read the debates re: rape and intent and degrees of
culpability with interest -- a lot of posters have a great
legal understanding of what rape can be.
[dons the Holocaust Suit of Newbie Flame Fear]
What if we look at "that scene" as the only rape this
season, going with a strict physical violence
definition.
Then in degrees of hooror moving away from Buffy's bathroom
we have Warren and Katrina, and Willow and Tara -- and then
we leave the "sex" of rape behind and we get: War/And and
Jonathan and the meat suit, Amy and her "present" for
Willow, (and maybe more I haven't thought of yet), Xander
summons a demon to make things work, and then Willow and
Buffy torn from heaven, and the whole season starts with
CONTROL and forcing one's will on another.
Just thinking that maybe deceitful, forceful control has
been building all season long and just clim-- culminated in
that scene.
[> [>
ACK! Did I mention the *spoilers S6 * (NT) --
pr10n, 12:24:56 05/09/02 Thu
[> [>
Re: Did anyone else think Seeing Red was the result of
a season of good writing? -- ravenhairgrl, 18:36:00
05/09/02 Thu
Seeing Red was an amazing episode!
Excellent post, dream of the consortium!
Agreeing with pr10n that Control has been an ongoing theme
this season, beginning with Willow's inability to accept
Buffy's death at the risk of her own life and the life of
her friends(Bargaining).
Enjoying Season 6 very much :)
[>
I think it might be 1 of the best plotted, dialogued,
directed, & acted eps in the show's history. -- Rob,
12:42:38 05/09/02 Thu
I love Season Six. :o)
Rob
[>
Re: Did anyone else think Seeing Red was really well
written? Spoilers, NO RANTS -- mundusmundi, 13:18:48
05/09/02 Thu
Having been an anti-season-sixer for most of the year, I
watched "Seeing Red" again to see if maybe it merely
looked better in comparison to what's come before
(though I have to say both "Normal Again" and "Entropy" were
also recent winners). A couple quibbles aside, I agree that
it's just about perfect. Some more highlights:
1. Jonathan, who's been feeling like a monster since "Dead
Things," has to don the skin of one when he retrieves the
orbs. Perhaps the eppy's most evocative metaphor, showing
rather than telling.
2. Spike's surprised little smile and comment to Dawn, "So
the birds are flying again," when he hears about Tara and
Willow's reunion. Perhaps it's this in part that spurs his
own desparate hopes for a reconciliation with Buffy.
3. Xander and Warren. Anyone else think they look remarkably
alike? I did a doubletake during the scene when Xander walks
down the street to the Magic Box -- for a moment I thought
it was Warren. The duality struck me again during their
confrontation in the bar scene.
4. Xander's gentle turn-down of the girl at the bar. As he
drives home to Warren before he gets pummelled, the
difference between them is he can find someone,
however he may eventually lose them. I really enjoyed his
monologue about being half-fish. (A wink back to "Go Fish,"
perhaps?)
5. The scene between Spike and Dawn (finally!) and Xander
and Buffy's first scene. Angry words are spoken, but
restrained. No overemoting, which makes them more
effective.
6. Andrew's declaration of love for Warren. As I believe Rob
has said, that little moment did so much to humanize that
character and provide some motivation for why he acts the
way he does. The entire Troika, whom I've despised, were
exceptionally strong this week.
7. Spike dropping the cigarette. Symbolism anybody? I've no
clue what it may mean, but I liked it.
8. The more disturbing sequences notwithstanding, this was
by and large a fun episode. I loved the buzzsaws.
Andrew's jetpack blunder may be one of the funniest
sightgags ever on the show. I liked Tara's line early on:
"So, nerds, how are them--they?" What I've missed most this
season have been the tingles, moments of pure pleasure such
as these. "Seeing Red" left me all tingly.
[> [>
Re: Did anyone else think Seeing Red was really well
written? Spoilers, NO RANTS -- dream of the consortium,
13:36:59 05/09/02 Thu
I am in agreement entirely, 1-8.
I was pretty anti-season six myself, but I've come around.
I was disappointed in the opening (hated the biker vamps)
and wasn't particularly happy up through Wrecked. But I
thought Dead Things, Hell's Bells, Gone, Normal Again, Life
Serial, and Seeing Red were all excellent. And that adds up
to quite a few episodes. I didn't dislike Older and Far
Away either. Overall, I've found that the further the
season progresses, the more the elements are hanging
together coherently as a whole - themes are appearing and
reappearing, and so on. I have a feeling that watching the
whole thing at the end will be quite satisfying.
Though nothing could make me like Doublemeat Palace.
Nothing.
[> [> [>
Re: Did anyone else think Seeing Red was really well
written? Spoilers, NO RANTS -- clg0107, 14:21:55
05/09/02 Thu
But, as the more patient types cautioned earlier on, we're
you have to judge the whole book, not individual chapters.
It sounds like a some are deciding that perhaps the creative
team wasn't utterly lame, but perhaps that they as viewers
weren't giving the whole novel an opportunity to work
together and speak for itself.
:-)
~clg0107
[> [> [> [>
Absolutely....but I've liked season six -- Rufus,
14:45:57 05/09/02 Thu
This season has been hard because it seemed to take so long
to get to this point. There has been a gradual buildup to
this point and I feel the rest of the season may be just
what the doctor ordered.
[>
SR Spoilers, The Body Seeing Red -- Cleanthes,
14:12:06 05/09/02 Thu
Monsters don't kill people - natural causes and guns kill
people.
I went into `Seeing Red` pretty much unspoiled, but I had
seen a screen shot of Willow all pale & black veined,
dressed in black, beckoning chthonic forces. I guessed the
one thing that might send her back to full witch mode. (the
preview hinted it would happen this episode). Still, the
episode went by and no black outfit. The sudden death by
gun caught me completely by surprise.
With all the rape talk, I feel odd mentioning how awful
death by gunfire really is. How dare they show it on
TV?
Yeah, yeah, there's a ton of it, most of it less well-
written than what ME gives us.
In this episode, I found myself thinking exactly of cases
from my own real life and I did so entirely because when
real things happen on Buffy, they do so with the background
of fantasy & vampires casting the REAL into high
contrast.
Three people well-known to me have been shot. As Tara said,
it's always sudden.
Well, my point, I guess, is comparing The Body to Seeing
Red. In both cases, Buffy found herself unable to deal with
ordinary causes of death.
[>
SR was painful to watch, but I loved it anyway --
Traveler, 15:50:09 05/09/02 Thu
Spuffy and trust
(Seeing Red and other S6 spoilers) -- yez, 13:44:15
05/09/02 Thu
Sorry, don't have the time to flesh this out as much as I
should, but wanted to put it out there in case others were
further along in their figuring out of this issue and wanted
to share their thoughts/insights.
Lots of people have been talking about trust, that being
Buffy's main reason, self-reported, for never being able to
love Spike -- she doesn't trust him enough. I've been
wondering about how/why exactly Buffy doesn't trust Spike
"enough."
At first, I was thinking that chip-related issues were at
the heart of the trust matter. But now I'm thinking that
Buffy isn't capable of trusting or loving anyone right
now.
In Seeing Red, when Xander begins berating Buffy for
sleeping with Spike, we see her echo some of what viewers
have said in her own (and Spike's) defense -- "but you let
him take care of Dawn, you fought together." And Xander's
response is that it's just because of the "leash" Spike has
built in his head.
In other words, you can only trust him so far. And maybe
even "It's OK to use him if you need to, but never trust him
because he's evil, he'll always be evil, and just when you
least expect it, he'll go all evil on your ass"?
But we know that Buffy hasn't just used Spike for sex -- she
*has* trusted him. She's entrusted the things she values
most to Spike's care -- the life of her sister and the
protection of the Key (one and the same). We know that
Buffy trusts Spike with her own life and that of her
friends' -- she allows/relies on him to fight at their
sides, and when Riley discovers them together, she's
sleeping at Spike's side.
So she trusts Spike's loyalty and his ferocity in defending
the things/people he cares about. Before the Scoobies, he
was doing this for Dru, too. And she trusts Spike enough to
be at her most physically vulnerable with him. She's naked
around him, she can even sleep around him. And if the wrist-
rubbing implication is accurate when she first talks to Tara
about the spell, she's even let him handcuff her.
And Buffy knows that Spike is not evil toward her even
though he isn't constrained by the chip with her. In fact,
it's only after Spike's "leash" is let out and they both
discover that he can hurt her that they start having a
sexual relationship. She rebuffed him before that, when she
could've been having "safer sex" with Spike.
So, what aspects of trust are lacking? She doesn't trust him
to always try to do the right thing?
Her friends and family have clearly demonstrated this season
that this is a challenge for them, too, yet she loves them.
Of course, they don't have quite the major not-right-thing-
doingness history that Spike has had in the past -- and they
aren't vampires. And this is one of the things we hear her
say in that alley -- Spike doesn't and can't understand her
need to do the right thing (turn herself in) -- though she
weakens her point a little, IMHO, by uttering this between
the pounding of her fists on an unresisting Spike's
face.
But I think the root of Buffy's mistrust is not the chip or
Spike's being a vampire -- it's actually her fears of
abandonment, of feeling the pain that comes with losing a
lover. She's having a hard enough time "just being here" in
this world without also being here heartbroken. And you
can't blame her for having major abandonment/trust issues
with her history (all her lovers, her father and mother,
Giles).
I think it's her emotional self that she doesn't trust him
with. And I'm just not sure she's even capable of trusting
anyone with that right now. She doesn't even trust her best
friends enough to talk about the relationship she's having
with Spike. In fact, aside from Tara, Spike has been the
only one she's really confided in all season, and she only
confided in Tara out of desperation.
Others have talked about this, and I agree: I think we're
going to see an exploration of chip-related trust issues in
future eps. At least, I hope we will. And what I hope we
see is that it's not her fears of his Big Badness that are
at the root of her trust issues -- it's her fear of
emotional pain, of taking another chance on love. And that
comes back to her struggle to really commit to life again,
IMHO.
yez
[>
Re: Spuffy and trust (Seeing Red and other S6
spoilers) -- luminesce, 14:17:17 05/09/02 Thu
(First attempt at this post got eaten. Here's a second
try.)
When Buffy speaks to Spike or about Spike she's often really
speaking to or about herself. (Think of the scene in Dead
Things where, terrified by her own emotional deadness, she
pummels him brutally and accuses him of being dead
inside.)
It seems entirely possible that her inability to trust Spike
is as much about her inability to trust herself--and she's
got some very good, very damaging reasons not to trust
herself, really.
Certainly, she doesn't trust herself enough to trust her
instinct to trust Spike.
[> [>
Yes, good point. -- yez, 20:11:51 05/09/02
Thu
[> [>
He can hurt me -- Artemis, 21:36:44 05/09/02
Thu
Great post . It's something I've thought for some time.
That her trust or lack of had to do with her fear of
getting her heartbroken . I always thought it interesting
that she said to Tara in Dead Things," Spike can hurt me"
Not Spike can "HIT" me . She says it again to Tara at the
end "Why can Spike Hurt me . I don't think the use of this
word "Hurt" was arbitrary. JMHO
[> [> [>
Re: He can hurt me -- Sarah, 23:53:58 05/09/02
Thu
I agree. I noticed the word choice right away as well.
It's especially interesting when you contrast it with this
exchange in Smashed.
SPIKE
I wasn't planning on hurting you...much.
BUFFY
You haven't even come close to hurting me.
SPIKE
Afraid to give me the chance. Afraid I'm gonna...
[> [> [> [>
Yeah, thanks for pointing the word choice out, good
catch. -- yez, 05:57:08 05/10/02 Fri
[> [>
Re: Wow - great catch on the word choice --
Valhalla, 21:53:14 05/09/02 Thu
[>
Great analysis! -- Dyna, 14:53:09 05/09/02
Thu
[>
Trust and risk -- Anne, 16:49:14 05/09/02
Thu
I think maybe one of Buffy's problem is that she actually
misunderstands the nature of trust. It's easy to think of
trust as involving some kind of comfortable certainty: we
trust the people that we know for sure won't hurt us; we
feel that we have some kind of absolute proof or basis for
not having to be afraid of them.
But of course, in the real world, to trust is to risk.
There is no certainty, ever, that others won't hurt one --
something that has become clear, and will no doubt become
clearer, in Season 7. Trust is a decision, one of the
scariest decision of all, not a rational conclusion on the
base of proof positive.
I think it's important here to recall the words of the
spirit guide in "Intervention" when talking about love --
"Love. Give. Forgive ... Risk the pain". And I also find
it interesting that the images used by that guide are
uncomfortably close to the ones used by Spike in the
bathroom:
"You love with all
of your soul. It's brighter than the fire, blinding. That's
why you pull away from it."
and Spike's words:
"It's wild and passionate and dangerous. It burns and
consumes"
So either Spike is not as far off here as he might seem, or
ME isn't very consistent.
[> [>
Re: Trust and risk -- yez, 20:10:22 05/09/02
Thu
I haven't seen that ep. yet -- thanks for pointing out that
parallel. It's very interesting. It's hard to believe it
would be a coincidence (well, not too hard, since the
writers are the same, but...).
yez
When heroes don't
act like heroes (SR spoilers, of course) -- SingedCat,
14:03:30 05/09/02 Thu
This is a new post, but also in reponse to someone's quote
in the 'rape' discussion further down the board:
*******************************
...I'm pretty damn sure if I had superhero powers and great
pain tolerance, I would not be begging and crying to someone
trying to rape me. The only crying I might be doing would be
over their corpse.
That was what is so horrible about ME using this scene and
in making so realistic that real rape victims are disturbed.
Buffy doesn't live in the Real World and her rape would not
be like a real rape. It is evil of them to portray it that
way.
******************************************
Well, I don't know.
"They say that when it comes to choosing heroes
It's best to choose the ones who aren't around
If you choose among the living, you tend to have
misgivings
when your hero lets you down
They might have had a bad night in your town."
ME has done this before-- broken with the traditionlly
symbolic portrayal of death & pain in the show to show you
something so real, so personal, that the event is
transformed, becomes different in kind as well as in degree.
I think we all know what I'm talking about here.
I find Buffy's reaction completely believeable, for reasons
I don't see stated anywhere else, so I'll state them here.
"So I will not name my heroes
And I'll keep my distance when I can
But if time should bend or break them, I hope I won't
forsake them
If by chance they need a friend
And need to walk on ordinary ground."
I don't think people usually consider what a huge role
physical and mental preparedness have in the creation of
heroic acts. Soldiers in battle, cops in the field, and
Buffy (and the gang)out fighting evil are in a heightened
state of physical awareness and emotional protection which
is not maintained by anyone forever. It's not always
perfect, and it gets breached occasionally, but the
protection is still there. That was her state of mind
fighting her vampire that kicked her into the gravestone.
Look at the significance of having the scene in the
bathroom. As a room, it is a symbol of privacy and
vulnerability; Buffy has shed her clothing, her Slayer
persona, we see a 22 year old woman coming home from a
double job: tired, sore, in need of (and about to
experience) the comfort and healing of the womb in the form
of a hot bath.
"God knows it must be tough to be a hero,
To wake up in a hero state of mind
It's hard to be heroic, it's easier to blow it
Somebody's watching all the time
And you're dancing on the thin edge of a dime."
Enter Spike, a fairly unwelcome interloper into this
intimate comfort zone, but the fact that she allows him to
stay and talk even here shows the level of trust that has
built up (however uneasily) between them. Unfortunately,
neither of them are aware just how desperate Spike has grown
until that desperation unhinges his reason and he forces
himself on her in an attempt to reawaken her desire.
Ironically enough, it is a fall in the shower during the
attack that makes her suddenly more incapacitated,
physically and emotionally, than she has been since she was
betrayed and assaulted in "Helpless".
It has been protested that it wasn't characteristic for
Buffy to plead and cry in this scene. Physically, I've only
had the kind of pain she had for a few seconds, but I'm sure
others can testify to its intensity, which can kee people
unable to move for days. Add to this the incapacitating
distress she must feel as the one thing that she has turned
to again and again for comfort-- Spike's love for her-- is
turned inside out and, literally, thrust upon her. She must
find it as much a manifestation of her own guilt as of
Spike's distress.
Those who want further exposition on this point can read
below (or skip if you're on that page already):
Starting from the time that she returned from the grave,
Buffy has taken Spike into her confidence, unconsciously
trusting the love that he has for her, as manifested by his
desire to be her confidant, and not to hurt her.
She moves into a wild sexual relationship with him, wherein
she makes her trust of his affection as clear as her
MIStrust of Spike himself, using her judgement of him(and
possibly herself) as a non-person to rationalize getting
what she needs from him, while simultaneously trusting his
desire not to hurt her. As the season has gone on, the line
between those two things has burred for her(AYW). When
this dichotomy finally dissolves (via Tara's revelation),
the stage is set for her final dissolution of their
relationship, and everything that comes after.
"If ever I'm mistaken for a hero
I only hope it's after I am gone
Some of us are heroes, some of us are zeroes,
One of those who never were 'the one'...
"Ah, but who is who when all is said and done?"
Heroes, by John Gorka (after Yesterday)
[>
Very well done. But I have a very serious question for
you and others. -- Sophist, 15:37:43 05/09/02 Thu
I didn't like "that scene" when I first saw it, and said so
here. However, several very thoughtful posts have suggested
that it is best seen as a situation which did not
begin as an intended rape, but rather began as one
similar to previous encounters between B/S in which (a) "no"
sometimes meant "yes"; and (b) lots of rough sex
occurred.
My question is this. If it did not begin as rape,
when was that line crossed? By this I mean, at what specific
point in the scene should Spike have realized that, this
time, "no" really meant "no"?
[> [>
Re: Very well done. But I have a very serious question
for you and others. -- pr10n,
16:01:30 05/09/02 Thu
My 2 cents: "the line" is too wide for Spike to describe
rationally.
I expressed a similar idea (but so minimalized compared to
Buffy's horror) to my 14-year old son: "I understand you
didn't mean to hit your sister in the eye with the Nerf
dart, and it was accidental. When did the 'accident' happen
-- when you decided to play with the Nerf gun? When you
loaded the gun? When you pointed it at your sister's head?
blahblah."
My goal is to reinforce the idea that actions often have
unpredictable consequences, but _some_ consequences are more
predictable than others and the root causes should be
avoided.
When the blood makes us hard and hot, it's too late to think
of consequences. What could we do instead of going to
Buffy's house when she's asked us to stay away?
p.s. My son blows off my wordy diatribes, so I am prepared
for such reactions. :)
[> [>
Re: Very well done. But I have a very serious question
for you and others. -- Ishkabibble, 16:57:32 05/09/02
Thu
I believe the fact that the question is being asked shows
how skillfully the writers and actors portrayed the
scene.
If you asked 10 or 50 or 100 people, I bet you would get 10
or 50 or 100 answers. Why? Because each of us has had
different past experiences, have a different notion of where
the boundary line lies, a different level of sensitivity to
such actions, ergo a different point of view.
So, there is no "real" answer to the question, IMHO. And
that is why men and women involved in date rape often don't
understand how the other could possibly have interpreted the
act so differently. Even I interpret the scene differently
depending on whether I imagine my daughter in Buffy's
position or imagine my son in Spike's position.
I think the asking of the question is more the point, than
all of us agreeing on the what the "real" answer is.
[> [> [>
Amazing post and great questions -- shadowkat,
17:49:05 05/09/02 Thu
First this is one of the better posts I've seen on this
topic, thank you. And I agree with you..we have a
tendency
to forget that at heart Buffy is an overworked, lonely
21 year old girl. Just as we and Buffy forget that Spike is
at heart a demon who struggles to keep raging conflicted
emotions in check on a daily basis. He is going insane.
Sophist's question - when should he have stopped? Being
a lawyer myself with a background in domestic abuse
and violent crimes...I can honestly say that's a
difficult
question.
The problem with this type of act is how complicated it
is.
And in some cases so difficult for the victim to prove.
Often she is blamed for letting him in, for not drawing the
line sooner, for encouraging him. I remember someone telling
me once - that if you get him riled, he can't stop.
The truth is - he can.
The line? Is it the same for vampires as men? Don't
know.
Where? If he was a man and not a vampire - I'd say it was
the moment she told him to leave.
For both? The moment she pleaded and said it hurts.
Something she never said to him before. But he couldn't hear
her...
As I said in a prior post - the essay about Reality,
most
violent acts are a struggle to regain control, reassert
control over our reality and are usually acts of
desperate
people filled with pain and self-loathing.
just ramblings...not sure if they make sense. But thanks
for
making me think. Wonderful posts.
[> [> [>
All you can do... -- SingedCat, 11:05:49
05/10/02 Fri
...is to pay attention to the other person's desires. Spike
never did that. Not out of willfulness, but just plain
blindness. Or maybe wilful blindness. The problem wasn't
with the moment, it was all the moments before it.
It's like nuclear war. The only way to win is not to
play.
[> [>
Re: Very well done. But I have a very serious question
for you and others. -- gabby, 19:49:56 05/09/02
Thu
Considering she broke it off with him way before this
episode it can not be considered like the other encounters.
It was an attempted rape at the point, no if ands or butts
about it.
[> [>
Spike didn't cross the line. He crossed a road. (SR
spoilers) -- Traveler, 20:48:19 05/09/02 Thu
It is hard to pick one arbitrary moment and say "this is it.
This is the moment he should have known." However, there
were a LOT of clues there for him to pick up on. The point
isn't that there was one clue that should have stopped him,
but rather that he ignored ALL of the clues.
[> [> [>
So it's "why did the vampire cross the road",
many type answers ? :) -- Ete, sorry..., 09:27:20
05/10/02 Fri
[>
Great Post, beautiful -- Ete, 16:17:48 05/09/02
Thu
[>
Yes, lovely! -- Dyna, 18:01:47 05/09/02 Thu
[>
And again, wonderful... -- yuri, 19:42:55
05/09/02 Thu
I love your point about the bathroom being a place where one
takes off the armor... People have already pointed out that
Buffy's physical strength has a direct correlation to her
mental state. Here she was at odds in her emotional life so
she was already weak, but even more so at that moment
because she was expecting to be alone with herself. When I
am dealing with something diffucult, I don't keep it on the
surface all day long. When I am in a place that I feel safe
I start to draw it up and immerse myself in it, to look at
it and deal with it on my own time. Had Spike approached her
in her kitchen, I do not think she would have had such a
diffucult time in fighting him off.
Is anyone else as
disgusted as I am with the level of hate & bitterness out
there in FANland today? -- Liq, 14:48:30 05/09/02
Thu
Not mentioning any particular boards, but Holy Gosh
Batman.... it is nasty out there....
[>
Surprised....No.....Disgusted...YES! -- Rufus,
14:53:56 05/09/02 Thu
[> [>
Re: Surprised....No.....Disgusted...YES! -- Cleanthes,
15:11:02 05/09/02 Thu
I'm a Xena fan; I read enough X-files internet boards to
know what happened there.
Has anyone started calling Whedon's mother the whore of
Babylon yet? If not, BtVS "fans" have nothing on Xena
"fans". How about rumors that Whedon & (insert poor defamed
star's name) had a contretemps of some sexual nature? If
these haven't surfaced yet, they will, based on what I've
seen with regard to the other shows.
[> [> [>
I'm hoping we have better manners here.... --
Rufus, 16:11:23 05/09/02 Thu
I was never on the Xena boards but what I've seen in my
travels for spoilers has ticked me off. I don't comment on
those boards cause I'm not a regular, but here I have to say
that I hope we have better manners and understand to keep a
civil board to call a writer a bitch, or make nasty comments
about a character is not the way to go here. If people have
nothing to write other than their personal hate list about a
writer/character/or show in general they could at least
choose their words wisely, or better find a board that puts
up with that crap.
Of course you are not of that temperment Cleanthes, I'm
venting a bit to those who are.
[> [> [> [>
Re: I'm hoping we have better manners here.... --
Cleanthes,
19:08:15 05/09/02 Thu
I hope you're right.
Honestly, if there's anywhere in cyberspace where people
can be, well, philosophical about things, I surmise that
it's here.
[>
You're not the only one, Liq...it gives me tummy
rumblins -- celticross, 14:55:43 05/09/02 Thu
[>
In a word, yes. -- Aquitaine, 14:58:32 05/09/02
Thu
[>
Yes! Please let's stop the personal attacks on Joss, MN
and the writers! -- Caroline, 15:16:18 05/09/02
Thu
We're supposed to be polite here - in my book that means
analyse the show, not attack those who create it.
[>
Everyone KNOWS I wasn't talking about US here,
right? -- Liq, 15:28:08 05/09/02 Thu
[>
At least none of it is pointed at JM -- LeeAnn,
15:28:16 05/09/02 Thu
[>
Absolutely. You can barely avoid it. Tough day to try
and be on the up & up. -- Deeva, 15:34:44 05/09/02
Thu
[>
Which boards? I only ever read this one. --
Traveler, 15:40:20 05/09/02 Thu
[>
In defense of some of those boards -- Raccoon,
15:43:44 05/09/02 Thu
Some of the fan reaction can be explained by a writer
deciding to make a public appearance to comment on an
episode. Since SR was a landmark in BtVS history, a lot of
fans, particularly W/T shippers - had great hopes for the
interview. Steven DeKnight was, after all, the writer who
said Tara would leave "over his dead body". That, and
earlier statements on how BtVS would never go with the
Celluloid Closet cliché, have a lot of fans very upset right
now. Yes, the level of vitriol out there is upsetting. But
by going public the writers have in some way invited it.
Steven DeKnight *did* make light of a death that devastated
many, and when he makes distasteful remarks on keeping an
unedited tape of the W/T bed scenes in SR for himself I can
see why people are angry. I've been a fan of the show since
S1, but I'm also a bisexual and a victim of attempted rape
who is very disturbed at the direction the show is currently
taking.
As for fan reactions, I'm horrified at the amount of fans on
some boards who are willing to condone Spike's attempt at
rape.
[> [>
Re: In defense of some of those boards -- Liq,
16:00:04 05/09/02 Thu
Raccoon, I appreciate your defense of the other board, but
there is simply no excuse for what I have read today.
Steve DeKnight is a jokester as well as an exceptionally
gifted writer. Seeing Red was one of the best episodes of
this series and that is saying something. Yes it was
painful, powerful and imperative for the story that Joss
wants to tell. He knew he was walking into a volatile
situation and decided to handle it with humor. Maybe
misguided on his part, but hardly an excuse for the threats
and abuse he has been subject to today.
I stand by my comments and distaste of the behaviour
exhibited and condoned by the moderators of that particular
faction of the fandom these past couple of days.
We don't know how lucky we have it here that we can discuss
our opinions opening. This thread would have already been
deleted on the other board.
[> [> [>
Re: In defense of some of those boards -- Dochawk,
16:09:31 05/09/02 Thu
There is nothing wrong with criticizing mr. Deknight (who I
agree wrote a brilliant episode) for the amazing lack of
compassion he has shown to the fans that are paying him his
salary. It is the same right we have to criticize a
baseball player or a politician for their actions. But,
comments about his/her inheritance or death threats etc are
unnecessary and downplay legitimate complaints people may
have. I wish someone would post the succubus club interview
cause that seems to have added fuel to the fire and I would
like to read it for myself (I read the parts about Spike
posted below).
[> [> [> [>
here it is... minus most of the Spike bits (comments
are the transcribers - not mine) -- Liq, 16:14:59
05/09/02 Thu
Succubus Club Broadcast Transcript
C=Candy
K=Kitty
S=Steven DeKnight
K: Hi everyone, it's Kitty from the Succubus Club, just want
to let you know we will be on in 5 minutes with um, Steven
DeKnight.
We're just getting things set up, so stick around and stay
tuned.
K: Let's try this one, it's not hooked up I don't think.
You're listening to the Succubus club on KLBC.org your truly
underground radio station.
*Music, opening theme BtVS
C: Try it... now.
K: Ok, it's not working. Producer Ethan is going to work
diligently to make sure the third mic is working.
C: That would be lovely.
K: It would be lovely.
C: Evening everybody and welcome to another edition of The
Succubus Club, your weekly dose of Buffy news, music and
trivia.
That's Kitty over there.
K: And that's Candy and that's producer Ethan working on um
getting the third mic to work.
C: He's spanking it now.
K: He's spanking the third mic. We would like to thank
everyone for joining us this evening. We um will be having
writer of last night's episode of Buffy, Steven DeKnight, in
shortly. We're waiting for him to walk through the door. Ya
know the thing is that Candy and I laughed about the fact
that we always said we just want this to go smoothly.
C: That's all, that's all.
K: But of course, the joke is, could any Succubus
Club...
C: When a VIP is involved, can it, is it even possible for
it to go smoothly and the answer is ...Oh I hear it. There
we go.
K: There it goes. I only hear it in one ear though.
C: That's ok. Does it ever go smoothly?
K: No.
C: No.
K: It never goes smoothly.
C: If it did, I would worry.
K: Exactly so I think that the fact that it doesn't go
smoothly is a good thing.
C: Cause usually the show ends up ...*laughs.
K: Steven's here.
C: Right there...Hiiii.
K: Does this one work? This is only coming out of one ear
though.
C: Only half the people will be able to hear you then.
That's your mic right there.
S: Hey, hey, hey.
C: We're getting you headphones in just a minute.
S: Sweeet.
C: We just got on the air. Hi, how ya doing.
K: Hi.
C: Hi. Have a seat. Are you ok there Kitty? (laughs)
K: You see Steven, you see how I give you the good mic.
S: I really appreciate that. I notice no food and drink
allowed in the building, but please excuse my...
C: Oh we have water for you.
S: Oh great. Thank you, thank you.
C: We're all about following the rules here. Here pull that
a little closer to you, so we can hear you chew.
S: (chewing) Everybody getting that.
C: Yeah. You got headphones? We have no headphones? Kitty
you can get them... cause our guest is here.
K: I only hear out of one ear is that gonna be ok?
S: Is it the good ear?
K: No. So it's ok, they can still hear me?
C: Ok.
K: It's not like anyone wants to hear me.
C: I know. Well, welcome Steven.
K: Welcome back to the show.
S: (elvis voice) Well thank you very much.
K: Did you have any trouble finding the place?
S: No, not at all. It was actually much easier to find than
the last place.
C: Really? See I thought it would be more difficult, but I
guess it's not. Well cool, welcome to the show again.
S: Well thank you for having me.
C: You're welcome.
K: Well this is... he's just a plethora of controversy.
C: Well let's, let's. We have a couple of extra things to
talk about. Before we get into last nights episode and uh
and this novel here of questions.
S: Ahhhhh yes, yes, yes.
C: Which ya know about a third of them are pretty much the
same question.
S: Really? Why do you suck so much?
C: Yeah pretty much, something very similar.
K: Yeah you die now.
S: Why are you such a big fat liar. I see that one a
lot.
C: Yeah, there's that.
S: I think my friends can tell you the answer to that
question.
K: That you're always a big fat liar?
S: Oh absolutely.
C: Ok, just a couple things before we get into it. Um we do
have confirmation, we got it before the show that next week
live here in the studio we will have David Fury. So...
S: David Fury.
K: You know him don't you?
S: I do indeed know David Fury.
C: You've run into him a few times.
K: So now, is he a big fat liar?
S: Oh yes. He's a gigantic fat liar.
C: Um so he will be here live in the studio, next week uh
so...
K: And as far as any other guests, we don't know yet. But
keep listening because um we'll, keep listening, go to our
website, and we will let you know as soon as we know. But
for sure next week David Fury...I'll be here too.
C: We seem to have all these writers that just have to come
in the last few weeks of the season.
S: That's when we actually have time.
C: True, I know that's true.
K: So Kitty will be here next week and Fenric and David
Fury.
C: Right. Thank you. Um ok, so that is announced. So if you
have questions for Mr. Fury... I just have a request and
that is unlike most of the questions we got this week for
our guest, Mr DeKnight. I do ask that your questions for Mr.
Fury be done so in a respectful manner. Um...
S: Hey wait a minute.
C: No, I asked for you too. But they didn't listen.
S: They didn't listen.
C: No.
S: Don't start them with jackass?
C: Yeah exactly. Like don't threaten to hurt them or don't,
don't ask them personal questions that no one really cares
about. Just do so please in a respectful manner, otherwise
they will not get asked. And um, because these writers come
in on their own free time, to do this, for you. So the least
you can do is show them a little bit of respect.
K: It's not that we don't want to ask them the hard hitting
questions.
C: (laughing) Yeah.
K: Cause we're all about that. Oh um also should we give a
few disclaimers before we start the show?
C: Disclaimers would be great.
K: Ok, here's a few disclaimers. Disclaimer number one,
don't call during the show. If you call and want to talk to
Steven, um you know what, we're sorry but it's not gonna
happen.
C: (laughing)
S: I'm a very busy man.
K: He's so busy I swear, we have to book his time.
C: He's playing with wrapper right now, what are you talking
about.
S: Uh you guys have a trashcan?
C: Here I'll take care of it. It's a full service station.
Um... (laughing)
K: I'm just saying don't call and expect to talk... we have
so many questions we're gonna try and get to Steven. I'm
just saying, please don't call, we don't want to disappoint
you and you go oh I want to talk to Steven. So um we have
the musical requests for this evening, we've got Bush, we've
got ... a microphone not working. We Chibi Amano, we have
Michelle Branch, we have Curb and other stuff so um...we do
have music. We have lots of questions for Steven. So I'm
just asking you not to call during the show. Um, let's see
unless we specifically ask you to.
C: Ok
K: You call now.
C: Which we're not going to ask you to do so.
K: But producer Ethan will answer the phone.
C: One last thing. Ayayiyi...
K: One last thing,
C: It's just another Tara question.
S: Hmm. Are you gonna let me see these...
K: What's the other thing you were going to say?
S: Ahhh...
C: We'll get to that. We'll get to that.
S: Yes... yessss
------
S: Ah ya know there's a story behind that. I was actually
going to bring you something, but I got tied up in a
meeting.
C&K: Ohhhhh...
S: So I will have to send it to you.
C: It was the meeting to plot next year's big surprising
death.
S: I was almost late.
------
K: Steven's all about controversy.
S: I really am.
C: Ok let's get to what everybody really wants to hear. The
reason you're here...ahhh...ohhh
C: Last night's episode, Seeing Red umm....
------
C: Last night's episode was Seeing Red, episode 19 of this
season of Buffy. I will personally say thank you, it was an
awesome episode. It was...
S: Well you're very welcome.
C: It's along with OMWF and NA, it's like one of my favorite
episodes of the entire season so far.
S: Well thank you very much.
K: It was awesome.
C: We're not just kissing your ass, seriously we would say
this even if you weren't here.
S: Ummm I am sure many happy Willow and Tara fans share your
opinion.
C: Oh and we'll get to that.
K: We'll get to that. Because thing is, that for us, it was
so well done and so well written, despite the fact that we
may have been upset by certain things that happened. But
isn't that what good writing is? Isn't that what's supposed
to happen.
C: Isn't it supposed to evoke strong feelings.
S: I say yes.
C: And that's what I say too.
S: And I agree with you.
C: (laughing) We like that, we like that.
K: Always agree with the host.
S: So I see a stack of questions, I think I emailed you
guys...but don't hold back. Trust me, trust me my friends
have called me a lot worse.
K: Yes I think you said bring it on.
S: Bring it on, I will give you the straight dope.
C: Let's get to the most often asked question, I suppose,
and you touched on this earlier, the whole you're a big fat
liar thing.
S: I am a huge gigantic liar and...
K: And he's relishing in it, he's glowing in it.
C: You should see the smile on his face.
K: People are hating you right now.
S: (laughing)
C: That's ok though.
S: Ya know what really surprises me is that I though by now
that on the boards, people would have realized what a huge
gigantic liar I am. I mean I never visit without lying about
everything. And of course when people...
C: People believe what they want to believe, though.
S: People started hearing rumors and they um asked me point
blank Tara gonna die. And uhh and well what did they expect
me to say.
C: What did they expect you to say?
S: Ehh, of course not.
C: That's exactly, we've discussed this because let's give a
little background to those of you and I don't imagine
anybody listening doesn't know already. Basically, on the
Bronze one day, you came on and somebody asked, is Tara
going to die?, or whatever.
And you said over my dead body. So people have been sending
you questions and have been asking you if you're ok. If
you're ill, if you're dead.
S: (chuckling)
C: Ya know basically because you lied to them. It's one
thing to maybe not answer the question but it was in a whole
other to flat out lie and get their hopes up and and
then...
S: Well ya know the hardest thing is at ME, since I do talk
to the fans, is I kinda feel a semi responsibility to throw
up a little smoke now and then.
C: Right. And my point I think, last week when we started
getting these questions, was umm I think the writers and
correct me if I am wrong. I think the writers have almost
been forced to lie, at this point. Because so many people
are out there getting spoilers and finding out things about
future episodes and everybody almost knows everything that
is gonna happen from here to the end of the season.
S: Yeah there really is, there's huge giant leeks that we
have yet been able to pinpoint. To the point where with
Seeing Red, in the script um Tara getting shot and killed
wasn't in the shooting draft. It was a separate page.
C: Really. You stuck it in at the last minute kinda
thing.
S: Yeah, so um when we were sending it out to all the
departments that was not in the script.
C: Right.
S: But um of course by the time we started filming um, Marti
had already written the next episode, which makes reference
to it.
C: No way you can get around it.
S: And people got a hold of that and so we really only
delayed it for about a week.
C: Um ok let's get to some more of the specific questions.
So basically you're saying people shouldn't believe anything
you say at this point.
S: I think I've told people not to believe anything I
say.
C: Right.
S: And um the caveat there is that I always sprinkle in some
truth here and there just to throw you off.
C: I think, you see when I had heard that you had done that,
because I don't visit the Bronze regularly. When I had heard
that you had done that, honestly I laughed. I just thought
it was the funniest thing.
K: Ya know the thing is that, no disrespect to anybody out
there, who really really is hurt by whatever...I laughed. I
thought it was hilarious.
C: Not the death, but the fact that he said this.
K: The fact that he lied, it just reminded me of South Park,
when they lied about Cartman... I just thought it was funny.
Now everyone hates me.
C: No, it's ok. The fact is that they have been almost
forced to do this and what I told people is that if your
favorite character is happy or your couple is happy...it's
not going to last. It's just how it is and by now, by now
Season 6, people should know this by now.
S: Yep if you're happy it doesn't look good.
C: Right. So it's best if your couple is miserable. You have
a better chance that way.
K: You should never invest too much time in any
character...couple, or a character for that matter.
C: So I just that not only you but other writers, producers
have been forced to say things that later have found out to
be false.
S: Yes um with the exception that people keep quoting a Doug
Petrie (?) quote...
C: Yes I've got plenty of those.
S: Um...
C: It's all about this lesbian cliche' thing.
S: Yeah umm, well the Doug Petrie quote that happened way
before we knew that Tara was gonna get it.
C: That brings up the question.
S: I think it happened before we...
C: People want to know, when was it decided that Tara was
going to die.
S: Um I actually kinda fuzzy on that, it was either at the
end of last season or... right as we started this season. So
we've know for...
C: A while.
S: Absolutely. From the beginning of this season.
C: What it something that Joss came in, was it Joss'
decision, was it a group decision?
S: Oh, it's a Joss decision.
C: How did you feel when you heard that she was gonna
die.
S: Well Joss came in and he described the scene. Originally
it was gonna be outdoors uhhh uhhh Willow and Tara were
going to be having coffee. And uh Warren was going to be
like several blocks away and the shot was going to go off
and cut to her and he explained it exactly the way it was
shot. That Willow gets splattered with the blood. You go to
Tara and she's been shot and she says "Your shirt" and keels
over. So he knew that at the beginning of the season.
C: Interesting. Ok. That should answer some questions that
it wasn't something that happened recently.
S: No, no this had been planned. The entire season.
C: That's obviously the biggest issue. Between that and the
whole Buffy Spike bathroom scene...ummm (chuckles) That's
pretty much all of our questions.
S: Ah yes the Spike Buffy bathroom scene. Now I'm sure there
are people out there that after my least episode Dead Things
and now this one...are sure that I absolutely hate women.
Cause I keep killing innocent women.
C: It's not just that but if I were to look at your last two
episodes I think you have quite an understanding, at least
for Spike. I think you write Spike incredibly well.
K: I agree.
C: It's in these last two episodes that I really enjoyed and
let me get to a couple questions on the Buffy Spike thing.
We will get back to the Tara Willow stuff, don't worry
everybody that you sent in questions we will get to as many
as possible.
------
K: Back to the Steven is evil.
S: He's totally evil. Never trusted that guy.
C: I have actually a really good question, this kind of ties
into the whole Buffy Spike thing because it deals with your
responsibility as a show, to your viewers.
K: Oh my god.
C: Relax.
S: Let me have it. Let me have it!
C: You don't have to answer it.
K: Oh good. I hate being responsible.
C: In regards to the bathroom scene between Buffy and Spike,
I know that everyone associated with this show has been
saying that Buffy is not aimed at kids, but the reality is
that kids do watch the show. As proven with Sarah's Kid
Choice Award win and kids are going to keep watching. I'm
reading messages on fan forums from 12 year olds who are
affected that their favorite character was portrayed in a
not so favorable light and are making statements like if I
was ever sexually assaulted it would be ok and well since
Buffy said no before, than it's ok. It's because they so
want to be ok about the whole Buffy Spike scene, they want
to reassure themselves that it's ok to love Spike and to
root for Buffy and Spike. Are you worried about the message
it would send to these people, should Buffy and Spike
continue as be a romantic couple in any form. I am not
saying it's the show's job to be the moral guide for
children, that's why they have parents, but I am just
curious.
K: He likes um give me that again.
C: No I thought it was important to read it as a whole.
K: It's an interesting question.
S: I just have to run out to the car for just a second, I'll
be right back...
K: No I'm holding him, I'm holding him.
S: Well ya know it's the whole Luke and Laura dilemma of
course. Um ya know there's a lot to that question that I
can't answer because it involves stuff that's coming up.
C: Really.
S: Yes.
C: Ok, well can discuss in general your responsibility to
viewers, to young viewers and how do you deal with that in
room when you're talking about stuff. Is it an issue?
S: Ummm, well the issue is usually telling the story.
C: Right.
S: It's not so much uhhh is this right for 14 year old
viewers.
C: Does it concern you at all though?
S: Sometimes. Sometimes, ya know I uh would prefer the show
was on at nine, a little later.
C: Especially this season, this season has been a lot
darker.
S: This season has been much much darker, sexual and
violent. Which is the story we decided we wanted to tell.
Buffy comes back to life our whole point was not to cheapen
that. To make it really hard for her. That it wasn't gonna
be your just standard tv, she's back, its ok, it's fine. And
she feels like she can't talk to her friends. Because one,
deep down, you know they don't want to hear it because they
brought her back.
C: Oh yeah, they don't want to hear that what they did was
wrong.
S: Yeah um I mean the bathroom rape scene was harsh. It was
intended to be harsh and ugly and real. Uhhh if you look
back at it you will notice there is no music until after
it's over. Because we wanted it to be stark. It was very
hard to film too.
C: Were you there that day?
S: Yes I was.
------
C: Someone else wrote in about the significance of him
leaving his coat behind...is there any?
K: Yeah people are going to read into everything.
S: Ummmm...it's a little something we are planning for
season 8...that I think will pay off. NO. Ya know, basically
two reasons. Going to his state of mind that when he
left.
C: It was off when he came in though.
S: Uh yes, yes because he hung it over the...
K: He left it on the..and walked up stairs.
C: Ok, keep going I have a comment after that. You said
there were a couple reasons.
S: I didn't actually see last nights episode...I just wanted
you to know. Well originally in the script, um I believe the
first draft he had his coat on and there was a scene where
Xander is coming up the street and he actually see's Spike
leave. And that's how Xander knows he's there and we had to
cut that out for time and expense. So we had a slight
problem of how did Xander know he was there. So it was kind
of a dual thing, Spikes state of mind and needing to have
Xander know he had been there.
------
C: Ok I kinda want to leave Spike and Buffy behind for now.
C: Facing the Bronzer community can be quite a daunting
task, especially after last night's episode. Now most of us
sane people realize there wasn't any grand (chuckling) anti
anything statement being made...but...
S: Oh the grand anti lesbian uhh...
C: Yes because ya'll hate em' ... apparently.
S: (sarcastic) Oh yeah because that was the reason for the
what, two and a half seasons of a beautiful lesbian
relationship... because I can tell you this... if Willow
were still dating Oz, he would be dead right now.
C: Ya know what and this, Kitty and I were talking about
this, because a lot of our emails were the very same thing.
And I suggested, so this is just a little note to everybody
out there...if you have a group of you that have the same
question. All thirty of you don't have to send in the same
question. I get it the first time. The thing is a lot of
them are calling this a lesbian cliche'. A lot of them use
this terminology.
K: We don't get that.
C: I don't understand, how is it a cliché' that a lesbian
dies and the other one gets all crazy and...
K: And the thing is if if, Willow and Tara never had any
love, never had any relationship. People would say that,
(deep) why aren't you get giving the lesbians any
relationships. Or any good and I just don't think of it that
way.
C: I don't even think of them as lesbians.
K: It was like Tara died, I was like oh my god that's so sad
for Willow and sad for her friends and I was sad that they
cannot be happy now but to me...
C: That's what it was, the happy couple got screwed, instead
of the lesbian couple.
K: And even my friend Jen when she found Tara was gonna die,
was all I knew it. I knew they were too happy. And it has
nothing to do with their sexual orientation.
S: Absolutely.
K: I really didn't think that at all and I swear it wasn't
even something that ran into my brain and when people
started saying that, I was like huhhh?
S: I think it's actually the opposite. We treated the two of
them as just two characters on the show.
C: I think it's pretty obvious that's what occurred.
S: Yes and if we had really focused on the fact that it was
a lesbian character, uh we might have said, oh jeez, we
can't do that it's a lesbian character. We can't kill her
... and that is totally wrong. Uh pretty much on the show
everybody but the major principles that are under contract
until uh 2012...
C: (laughs)
S: Look out they could get it. And we can still kill a major
character, err, we might have to bring her back.
K: A couple times.
S: A coupla times...make her a robot or something. But we
always, when we wrote them, we treated them like just two
characters that both happened to be women.
C: I mean that's the best way you could have done it. The
most respectful way you could have done it. I don't...ok,
I'm not even gonna say it...but Amber Benson in the credits
last night.
S: Yes.
C: Talk about that, who's decision, why.
S: Uh, that was the man's decision.
C: Ok, a lot of people say A) it was um a way of getting
peoples hopes up yet again, thinking they can't kill off a
person in the main credits. And to that I say, season one
dvd where Joss specifically stated that he wanted to put the
Jesse guy in the opening credits....
S: Yesss.
C: In the first episode just to throw people off. He wanted
to do that to screw with everybody. And he wanted to do it
but they didn't have the budget then. But they have the
budget now, their getting a lot of money.
S: Yes. So we can do that now.
C: Yes some people say it was like a tribute, saying thank
you to Amber.
S: It was. It was a thank you to Amber and I would uh be
lying if I say there was probably a little impishness in
that, of course.
C: Kinda mean.
S: Well you know it's not that were ever mean... but um, we
thought it would be really cool. It was really cool to put
her in the opening credits especially as a going away kinda
thing.
C: It was nice to see her.
------
*Unable to determine if they are on the air, as their
headphones are not functioning
S: I suspect it was the lesbians.
C: It's all their fault.
S: I'm pretty sure.
S: And dead vampires, lesbians.
C: Steve, having been a Tara - Amber fan for a while now I
have to say I admire the way you wrote the final Willow Tara
scene. Look it's a fan.
S: Yes, finally. I rockkk.
C: From what I have seen , actually I wanted talk about that
because the episode got out about a week early.
S: Bastards.
C: We'll talk about that in a minute.
S: Those Canadian bastards.
C: Sad for the fans but in many ways it was powerfully done,
my question was it difficult to write this episode at all,
or that scene.
S: Yeah it was a hard episode to write, not because of the
scenes but sometimes when you are writing, sometimes you are
on and sometimes you're a little off. And this one I had to
actually work which I am totally against.
C: Well sometimes it comes to you really easily right.
S: Sometimes it comes fast and easy and this one just really
just took a while for me to click into. But um you know but
no, not that hard to write. I think probably the subject
matter in Dead Things was a little harder. Cause there was a
lot harsher stuff.
------
C: Are you worried that the writers are sending out the
message that sex is bad. Or Buffy shouldn't be having sex.
It looks like Buffy is always punished or made to feel
guilty that she had great sex.
S: Um, well uh, gee uhh hmmm uhhh no. I am going to come out
firmly noooo. And I'll tell you why. You know you've gotta
look at the whole show, if every single person were having
very bad sex and guilty sex, then I would probably say we're
sending a message. But Buffy is extremely messed up, where
she is in her life.
C: They all are, aren't they.
S: They all are. Willow and Tara, great wonderful sex.
C: Great sex. Then she dies. Do you see how this goes
though, they have great sex and then something bad
happens.
S: Ya know I don't think it's because they have great sex
that something bad happens. It's, oh it's love and
(sarcastic) well that's trouble. Just don't fall in love,
that's all I'm saying. That's when you get it.
C: That's actually a really interesting point and we can
joke about to say that any time somebody's happy, something
bad's gonna happen, but it gets depressing after a while.
It's gets depressing when everything bad happens to these
people and very little good happens. Especially this season.
And I personally love this season, speaking for myself. But
speaking for those who have had a hard time with this
season, a lot of people have tuned out because it's too
dark, it's too depressing. What do you guys say to that. Do
you even care?
S: Well um you know, of course we care but this is the dark
depressing story we wanted to tell this season. Next season
may be different. But this time around it felt like that was
right and again we didn't want Buffy to come back and two
episodes later be all joke-y, everything is beautiful.
C: That would have been very unrealistic.
S: It would have been.
K: Well it's interesting that there are people that are
saying you are losing us as viewers, because the season's
too dark. Because now, of this whole controversial thing
between Willow and Tara...and people are saying they are not
going to watch the show
C: One question we had was, do you realize that there will
be viewers boycotting the show now, after what happened.
S: Uhhh I did not now their boycotting because the Tara
getting it, that's the boycott? I'm with them, I'm not
watching anymore. I never liked that show anyways.
------
*Discussion of Spike and a sarcastic turn on the Spuffers
eventually turns into why Warren uses a gun
S: Well Warren finally smartended up there. And it goes back
to that there were elements of this episode we wanted to be
starkly realistic. The rape scene, the gun. We wanted that
stuff to really resonate.
C: How aware are you and how much does it matter what the
fans say and think, I mean in general.
S: Well I mean um you know, if you read stuff on the boards,
man you suck, you can't write, you're a hack. You know I
could do better than that...of course it affects you.
C: In what way, tell us.
S: Umm you know everybody's... a critic, no. Everybody has
feelings, I am not immune.
*Talk about stories are a group effort and Joss is in on
them.
K: He gives you the storyline he tells you Tara is gonna die
this episode...
S: Yeah and then it's like figure out how to make that work.
Figure out what the hook is...so did we alienate some
people? Yeah probably but if we just tried not to alieanate
anybody ...man would I not wanna watch that show.
C: Exactly.
S: We do care about what the fans think, but at the end of
the day it's what we think is the story.
*Question about the Wanda Joss interview with the "give them
what they need quote", comments about the how fans complain
about every seasons sucking.
[> [> [> [> [>
Is this normal? Every season? -- LeeAnn,
16:49:42 05/09/02 Thu
comments about the how fans complain about every seasons
sucking.
Is this amount of vitriol normal? Have people ever vented
this much before?
[> [> [> [> [>
2nd hour -- Liq, 18:47:34 05/09/02 Thu
Succubus Club Broadcast Transcript - 2nd Hour
C=Candy
K=Kitty
S=Steven DeKnight
------
K: Well the controversy is just flying.
C: Hey, hey, hey Kitty, we have our very own haters now.
K: People hate us. It's so fun.
C: We've arrived.
K: We've arrived. I dunno why people hate us, we're just
delivering the questions and Steven's answering them as
honestly as he can.
C: Well maybe we aren't asking the right questions.
K: We have so many questions and many of them are very
similar to one another.
------
C: Dawn rocked last night.
K: Dawn was great. Anya was great in the bar scene and
Xander. We had a lot of great scenes between Buffy and
Xander at the end.
C: Ya know what, no Xander fans write questions. No Anya
fans write questions.
K: The thing is we are not going to be able to talk about
everything.
------
S: Give me the hardballs.
K: The hardballs.
C: Well talk to these people, talk to these Willow and Tara
fans who are so mad at you.
K: They hate you and now they hate us.
S: What do they hate me for? What...
K: You killed Tara, you killed her.
S: It was an accident. It was a stray shot. I didn't know it
was gonna turn out that way, I swear. I was as shocked as
you were when I saw the episode.
K: Oh my goddd, do you know...
S: C'mon, cmon cmon, Tara had to goooo.
K: C'mon.
S: Had to gooo.
C: Let's be serious about this.
K: Let's be serious.
C: Because, this this...
K: People do feel very close to these characters. I do
too.
C: Yes. We got emails of people breaking down and sobbing,
of of of various things like that. So take them very
seriously.
K: Ya know I almost cried too, it's not like I didn't have
any emotion. Tara is... I love Tara, I've always liked Tara.
She was always one of my favorite newer characters that came
along. So I always thought she was a guide for Buffy and the
for thegroup.
C: I didn't.
K: I know you didn't. But I knew she was gonna die, I was
very moved and touched. But it doesn't mean that I didn't
think it was necessarily that it was the wrong thing to do.
I was very very sad by it and I am very sad for Willow and
for all the people that loved Tara.
C: Ok, but they want to hear from Steve.
S: I I I totally understand, you know I go back to
Thirtysomething...as I often do, when Gary died. Cried my
eyes out. And of course that was before that new innerweb
invention. So I had no idea what was coming... it was
powerful powerful stuff.
C: And it's supposed to be.
S: Yes and again I did not kill her because she was a
lesbian. Um we killed because that was the story we wanted
to tell.
C: Ok, and maybe you can't tell us more, because I'm curious
what this story is that you wanted to tell. Is this what we
are going to see for the rest of the season, can you at
least say that much.
S: Yeee yesss...and into next season.
C: And into next season. Ok.
S: Yes.
C: So it was the best way to get this story across, was to
kill her.
S: Yes.
C: There was no other way?
S: The story focuses on WIllow, not Tara.
C: Well, ok yes.
K: Well a lot of people keep asking is Tara gonna come
back... I dunno, seems kinda strange that...
S: Yeah she'll be back next week, it was a flesh wound.
K: Just a flesh wound.
S: Ya know... I think she'll pull through.
C: Well Amber Benson is much loved at ...
S: Yes, we love Amber.
C: It's unfortunate that because everybody loves her.
S: Amber is wonderful to work with and it's always hard to
kill of somebody that you love to work with, that's
pleasant...
K: And the fans love.
S: And the fans love. But Joss thought it was necessary and
I agree. I thought it was a great move, I mean they killed
off Joyce, I thought that was great too.
C: It was sad but great. Poor dead people.
------
K: Get to more of those Willow Tara questions.
C: I'm trying...because they all really just want to know
why.
K: Right.
C: And and and...
S: Well you know there was the whole lesbian against god
thing, cause we just had too...
K: Oh stop.
S: Cause you know we are a very religious show...
C: You're really killing yourself aren't you.
S: Joss is very Christian.
K: My God you are making this a lot harder for yourself.
S: Ya know a lot of things to talk about, ya know the
homophobia the anti lesbian stuff and the show is
[/i]soo[/i] not that. And I think we've proven it's not that
and we ... killed her... because we thought it would be
emotionally powerful and a progressive story that we were
telling.
K: And like you said it's going to Willow's story because
next week we see Willow really going over to the dark side.
You see she is very angry and I'm interested to see whats
going to happen next week. Obviously this is where they
story wanted to go, that it's about Willow.
S: Yes this is, I mean this story has been building since
the beginning of season five. I believe it was season five,
when Willow is on the beach starting a fire and...
C: Yeah.
S: and blows up out of grill I mean...no specifically
K: Wait wasn't that the movie the Craft.
C: They only rip off from the best.
S: That was before I was on the show. So I mean not
specifically killing Tara but this whole Willow arc has been
planned for like two and a half years.
K: Ok
C: Ok, The other day I heard a dispondant gay teenage girl
who was in desperate pain to begin with say that Willow and
Tara are the only bright light in her world. They give her
hope for herself and her life, sad and painful, so please
answer this question for her. How do you think that she will
feel after the end of Seeing Red and when she hears all the
other Buffy fans who couldn't care less about Willow and
Tara, um meaning her, applauding about Tara's death and big
bad vengeful Willow storyline. What will you do, well what
do you think we should tell her about the ending of your
show.
S: Well uhhh let me start on the people who are applauding
Tara's death... that's crass, that's just wrongggg.
C: I don't think people are applauding the death, I think
they are applauding a well written, at least for I am.
S: Alright then that's ok.
C: You know what I mean.
K: I agree.
S: I was on the board and there were people who were happy
she got shot because...
C: People who didn't like Tara?
S: ...they didn't like Tara. They didn't like the character,
they didn't like acting, you know whatever that's for, ya
know pipe down. Nobody needs that, I am not even that crass.
But you know you can't really think about storylines in that
way when you are trying to tell a big grand seasonal story.
Anybody, like I said, anybody can die. And anybody can get
it, anybody can be destroyed or broken down and it's
whatever serves the story.
C: Ya know we hear that a lot, serves the story.
K: Yes we do. We do hear that a lot.
C: When Greenberg came in.
K: Is that just lip service, is that just like the way to
appease us.
S: Ya know, not at all. Not at all. Ya know Joss is all
about telling the story and I am sure everyone's noticed by
now that he's all about he likes to make his people suffer.
He finds suffering interesting, happy people not so
much.
C: Well you know there has always been this saying going
around probably since I think Angel died as the end of
season two. Which was, is that Joss is evil. That's this
statement that has gone around, for years now. And
unforetunately I think people tend to not take it seriously.
I am saying take it seriously.
K: It's so true.
C: The man is evil. He will hurt you, don't trust him.
S: Ya know he's the tradgedy man.
C: He is.
K: Yes he's like the huge Shakesphere fan.
C: Were you worried at all about the impact of Tara's death,
at all? I mean either on the Gay communtity or her fans,
were you even, did you even talk about it.
S: Well sure, sure... we brought it up about...yeah can we
really kill off the ah the great lesbian character, who's
having a wonderful relationship.
C: Tell us about that conversation please.
S: This was basically conversations with me and Petrie and
Espenson and ultimately we you know we came to the
conclusion that we have treated her as a person, on the
show, and uh if that means she gets killed than she gets
killed. No special treatment for anybody.
C: Fair enough, that's all I can ask for. Um.
K: Ummm.
S: It certainly wasn't a malicious act, like oh, let's kill
the lesbian.
K: Or let's kill Tara.
C: And I don't know how many different ways you can say that
to explain that to people. Nothing was done to hurt a
certain faction of fans.
S: Absolutely not and again she had never turned gay or
realized that she was gay uh her boyfriend would have gotten
killed.
C: It's about Willow.
S: It's about Willow.
K: It just happened to be that Tara was the one she was
with.
S: And to be completely honest it worked better as a story
that the one good, sweet, level-headed person on the show
gets it.
C: Ya know and it's really sad too, Kitty's mentioned all
season long too how she's been the only really grounded one,
all season long. Everyone else has been all flying off
everywhere, she was the one taking care of Dawn. She was the
one taking care of the house, you know she did all that.
K: She was the one that Buffy could confide in. She was the
one that...
C: Right.
S: Right.
K: She was the one there when Buffy's mother died, Buffy
considers her a very good friend and she's a great
character.
C: And with Giles gone she filled and with Joyce gone she
filled in very motherly, a parental role in a way. So to
have all that gone does that fill into the growing up theme
of this season. Did that play a part at all?
S: The death of a loved one is definetly part of it. There
are so many issues with the growing up theme. But yeah, the
death of a loved one is definetly a huge part, I mean it's
definetly a thing that can separate you and your younger
years from your later years.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: 2nd hour, Thanks Liq and welcome back --
Dochawk, 19:33:10 05/09/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Questions about succubus club -- yuri, 20:16:32
05/09/02 Thu
Where is it broadcast? Can you get it over the internet? How
often is it on? Is it usually a decent show or more like an
audio version of the Bronze?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Link inside........David Fury is next weeks guest -
- Rufus, 21:27:02 05/09/02 Thu
The
Succubus Club
It can get a little silly at times but is great when they
manage to get a writer to come on the show.
[> [> [> [>
Re: In defense of some of those boards -- Rufus,
16:21:41 05/09/02 Thu
But, comments about his/her inheritance or death threats
etc are unnecessary and downplay legitimate complaints
people may have.
I agree, as soon as people get that personal no one is much
interested in their opinion anymore, I know I'm not. I can
understand why Steve DeKnight may have been a bit on the
defensive, even Kitty and Candy noted that they now have a
segment of people that hate them now. All this over
fictional characters and a storyline that hasn't wrapped up
yet.
[> [> [>
You're right. -- Raccoon, 16:23:20 05/09/02
Thu
I agree with you that the debate has reached a level of
verbal abuse that is unacceptable. It's the personal pain
expressed between the lines of many of these posts that gets
to me.
I don't condone it either; I meant to show understanding,
not acceptance as such. I didn't mean to sound spiteful in
my post, and I hope I didn't offend this board, which is a
true haven.
[> [> [> [>
You were not in the least bit spiteful nor
offensive -- Liq, 16:27:43 05/09/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: You were not in the least bit spiteful nor
offensive -- Rufus, 16:32:40 05/09/02 Thu
What she said (Liq), and you brought up a legitimate point
without becoming insulting to anyone. My feelings about
Tara's death are mixed, I love the character, but I
understand that in the Buffyverse innocents die. I didn't
see Tara's death as something that condones homophobia, and
I thought they had written both Willow and Tara in a way
that made many forget the gender issues. I know it doesn't
make anyone feel any better, but I think it is wonderful
that this year the most healthy and loving relationship was
Willow and Tara. I will miss Tara.
[> [>
Liq, your last comment on Spike is dead on, I feel the
same. -- gabby, 19:45:22 05/09/02 Thu
[>
Perhaps ME made an error... -- LeeAnn, 15:48:28
05/09/02 Thu
...in having their most popular character do something most
people, even fervent Spike fans, consider unforgivable?
[> [>
ME doesn't care, all they care about this season is
creating big time drama to win an Emmy. -- JMC,
16:11:27 05/09/02 Thu
They don't care about ratings because they have a solid 2
year contract with UPN, and unless their ratings go to 3
million an episode they can do whatever the hell they
want.
That is the way I see it, there really is no other reason.
They have destoyed every popular character on the show, and
killed off the only one who hasn't done something
horrible.
[> [> [>
How about they actually think the drama makes for a
good show? -- Charlemagne,
17:13:33 05/09/02 Thu
Let's see...
Buffy has survived as one of the most popular shows on
television with the following plotlines....
Season 1
* Killed one of the likeable gang in the first episode
* Had an episode where Buffy knows she's going to die and
does for a time
Season 2
* Killed a popular character romance by having woman taken
over by old demon
* Revealed woman actually betrayed people to gypsys
* Took most popular character on show (Angel) and made him
pure evil
* Killed romance even more old fashionedly by leaving her
DEAD in Giles's bedroom
* Dumped most popular characte in show into Hell
Season 3
* Had two popular characters cheat on their spouses
* Had popular character turn to the Dark side of the
Force
* Had Giles betray Buffy unto a serial killer
* Killed three popular recurring characters in the end
Season 4
* Dumped callously like sack of old potatos popular
recurring character
* Had liberated main character have sex with boy and dumped
like a sack of potatos the next day
* Had main character send monsters after friends
* Had new character take up popular old character's position
in a week
* Had popular old character try and kill new character for
no reason
* Had new boyfriend sleep with Faith
Season 5
* Offscreen: Buffy is beaten by her soulmate Angel for
hiding faith
* Has main character lead cheat on Buffy with whore
* Has main character threaten to kill all her friends over
ficitional magical creation
* Lead Is dumped by boyfriend for not being demure
chickey
Season 6
* Do I need to say?
[>
I agree. It sucks. I've liked this season very
much. -- VampRiley, 17:11:58 05/09/02 Thu
[>
Surprised no...annoyed very... -- shadowkat,
17:18:09 05/09/02 Thu
And I have considered leaving the fan boards because of
it.
This board has actually been very good and sane.
Now let me back up and tell you a little about myself. I
am a frustrated writer who has three novels in the works
and is almost done revising my first - an extreemly dark
story with characters who do nasty things to each other with
clear themes. I find the dark side of human emotion
fascinating - I like to explore why we do horrible things to
try and understand it better.
Writers tell stories that are inside them - that is good
story telling. They do not tell stories to entertain fans -
that is pandering. People will either like it or they won't,
but if you have something to say and you know how to say it
well - maybe who knows they will. It's a risk putting
yourself out there - but writers do it...because we know no
other way. And the really good ones - like to unsettle
people just a bit.
As a writer - my characters speak to me and sometimes they
take over, sometimes I rule and usually what I'm trying to
get across is something deep in me that I want others to
see. Writing is my means of communicating a portion of my
soul of trying to communicate what worries me and to try and
make people think about things. Joss Whedon, MArti and the
others are writers for the same reasons. They are trying to
get you to think about things in an entertaining interesting
way without preaching or telling you what you should think.
They are showing you things that they have learned and
discovered and are honestly sharing them through complex
sometimes dark characters in the best way they know how,
taking tons of risks along the way. We should honor them for
that, not condemn them because they hurt a fictional
character that they created for a purpose - to tell a story
in their heads. As joss put it in an FX blurb - the viewers
who don't like what I have to say - won't watch - and I
don't want them anyway. Joss likes to unsettle viewers - he
likes to make us think. I applaud his
writers for that and him for it. That's what William
Shakespear did in his day. It's what the greats do. That's
art!
What bothers me about this rage - is the fans think they
write the stories - they control them. They think they know
the characters better than the writers do. No you don't.
Thank God. Because if the fans did - I wouldn't be watching
this show. I stopped watching most of the other shows on TV
because I realised the writers were pandering to the fans,
letting them dictate what should or should not happen. It
horrified me as a writer. That's pulp. Meaningless. And
not
worth an hour of my time.
If you don't like the story and hate the writing. Don't
watch.
Just my humble opinion. ;-)
[> [>
Here here! -- Rufus, 17:31:38 05/09/02 Thu
What bothers me about this rage - is the fans think they
write the stories - they control them. They think they know
the characters better than the writers do. No you don't.
Thank God. Because if the fans did - I wouldn't be watching
this show. I stopped watching most of the other shows on TV
because I realised the writers were pandering to the fans,
letting them dictate what should or should not happen. It
horrified me as a writer. That's pulp. Meaningless. And
not
worth an hour of my time.
I want the writers to tell their story, if they checked in
with every fan, nothing would ever hit the screen. I can
make guesses about characters, but they are only guesses.
It's impossible to like everything about the show, but I
think they have done well keeping me happy.
[> [>
Arts and politics -- Raccoon, 17:43:32 05/09/02
Thu
Probably two words I shouldn't be mixing at all. But I
will.
I think a lot of the fans' reactions right now has to do not
so much with the story itself as with the possible
interpretations of that story. Is SR good drama? Yes, it's
possibly one of the greatest episodes of the season. Is the
tragic ending of W/T good drama? Absolutely. However, ME has
always stated that they want the show to mean something more
than just an hour of television entertainment. And when they
make that sort of statement, they allow fans to criticize
them when the messages seem double-edged.
For the record: I don't think ME is anti-gay. I don't
believe they intended SR to pander to homophobic people. But
when the storyline ends up making sending a potentially
homophobic message - be a happy lesbian having sex and you
will die because of it - it upsets me. There's an infamous
JW quote, "I give the fans what they need, not what they
want". In this case, I'm wondering if I "need" for people
who have bashed me for my sexual choices to get the kind of
storytelling they want.
BtVS is a show directed at a teen demographic. Anyone who
watches it knows that it's actually a very adult show. But
young kids do watch it, and in that case I feel that ME
might have to be careful about the kind of messages they
send. I've read some very disturbing posts by teenagers on
other boards about what ME is interpreted as saying
regarding men, women and sex. Right now, what I'm taking
away from the Spuffy storyline is that girls shouldn't
really want or enjoy sex, so they should always say no, and
if they are assaulted they must consider whether it's partly
their fault.
The writers at ME are incredibly talented, and they have
created a truly compelling story. Intention and impact are
certainly two very different things. I just think there are
instances when attention could and should be paid to the
latter.
[> [> [>
Spoilers for SR in the above. -- Raccoon,
17:46:24 05/09/02 Thu
[> [> [>
Re: Arts and politics (SPOILERS for SR) --
shadowkat, 18:09:41 05/09/02 Thu
"But young kids do watch it, and in that case I feel that ME
might have to be careful about the kind of messages they
send. I've read some very disturbing posts by teenagers on
other boards about what ME is interpreted as saying
regarding men, women and sex. Right now, what I'm taking
away from the Spuffy storyline is that girls shouldn't
really want or enjoy sex, so they should always say no, and
if they are assaulted they must consider whether it's partly
their fault."
First - I was spoiled. I knew about both scenes way ahead of
time. The B C & S board had the spoilers in the subject
lines way back in March. And the thought that went through
my head was fear - that they wouldn't handle it well.
That
the sexual assault would be handled lightly or that it would
give the message to youngsters that this behavior was okay.
In fact I warned several people with young children and
teenagers to monitor this epsiode closely and at least watch
it with their kids. The show has always been dark - so this
subject matter isn't new, but the violence has never been
this stark.
When I saw SR I was oddly relieved. The scene was handled
with the same amount of emotional maturity as the Body. They
also made Spike upset about it, looking guilty. He did NOT
get off on it. He looked pained and more hurt than I've seen
him. Very conflicted. Buffy looked worn out, fragile
and in pain. I did not read the scene as it's bad to
have
sex or that doing what she did caused it. I read it as
a horrible situation that two people got caught in.
I think we have to take responsibility for how we interpret
our reality, how we interpret and give meaning to the
events
and items we see. To blame the writers for our
interpretations - is not taking responsibility for our own
interpretations. Part of this season's theme is about
actively participating in the interpretation of reality.
All the writers have done is present us with a story.
How we choose to interpret that presentation is up to
us.
It is not the fault of the writers.
I did not interpret Tara's death as anti-gay statement. I
figured they were going to kill Willow's lover way back in
Season 4 - so they could flip Willow to the dark side. I
thought it was going to happen sooner. If it had been OZ -
he would have been dead. If people wish to intepret it
differently - then that is up to them, it is not the fault
of the art, because I certainly didn't see any of that in
the scene and lots of people I've spoken with didn't
either.
It bothers me when we hold artists responsible for our
acts,
our interpretations, or our feelings relating to their
art.
What we see is what we choose to see not always what they
chose to show us. Just as how we choose to react is up to
us.
[> [> [> [>
Shadowkat, -- Raccoon, 18:20:34 05/09/02 Thu
I'm a writer myself. ITA with you that a writer must
be true to his/her story and characters.
Let me backtrack a little here: What I'm mainly reacting to
in my post is that ME have stated that they want their
work to reflect certain messages, and that they want
readers to interpret their work as reflecting these
messages. They want Buffy to be a show about female
empowerment. They want the Willow/Tara love story to eschew
the usual clichés gay relationships are victim to. When they
make that sort of announcements, their audience is entitled
to call them on it. If they hadn't, I wouldn't have felt
justified in making the sort of cricism that I currently
am.
[> [> [> [> [>
In that case.. -- shadowkat, 18:30:44 05/09/02
Thu
They are walking on difficult territory...I doubt that they
realized it would be taken this way. And from how it was
done did attempt to veer away from the message you are
picking up by doing several interesting things.
1. Tara was hit by a stray bullet. It was not directed at
her, it was directed at Buffy. If Tara hadn't been standing
near the window, she would have been fine.
2. Both women were fully clothed. They had them get back
together, but they did not have Tara shot while in bed
or
nude.
3. They demonstrated there was a gay relationship between
Andrew and Warren...possibly to show that it was not the
intent to show that cliche?
I think they wanted to show us that anyone can get hurt or
shot. Even a hero. Again - I didn't see what you saw in the
scene. I never saw it as homophobic or anti-gay. Would it
have been better not to go the Tara route and get a guy
instead to be her lover way back when they scripted the idea
in season 4?
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: In that case.. -- mundusmundi, 18:41:11
05/09/02 Thu
They demonstrated there was a gay relationship between
Andrew and Warren...possibly to show that it was not the
intent to show that cliche?
My interpretation is that the "relationship" is all in
Andrew's head, but regardless his revelation made for a
touching moment. All your other points I agree with.
Great comments above and below on the writing process, BTW.
When the dust settles and all is said and done, I think
"Seeing Red" will rank as one of the BtVS greats.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Andrew...spoilers -- LeeAnn, 08:13:10 05/10/02
Fri
It is so non PC to have a gay villian but I think that would
make it interesting if Andrew came back next season trying
to avenge Warren like Willow is supposed to avenge Tara.
That would keep Willow from getting a Get Out of Jail Free
Card for what she's about to do and would show us that
vengence is a cycle that rebounds on everyone who takes
it.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: In that case.. -- Rufus, 18:41:47 05/09/02
Thu
I have to agree, I didn't see it as anti-gay or homophobic,
for one Warren didn't intend to kill anyone than the woman
who made him feel impotent. It doesn't make Tara being gone
feel any better, but I do think the couple was written well,
and were the happiest in this season, even when they broke
up they never stopped loving each other. Innocent people get
killed, it's too bad that this time it was Tara. Last night
on the interview with DeKnight he said that if Willow was
with Oz he would have been the one who died...so they have
considered this option for a long while. We also got a taste
of what can happen with Willow last year when she went to
the Dark Magic books at the Magic Box(in Tough Love)to find
a way to get revenge on Glory for hurting Tara. I wonder if
Glory were less powerful would we have paid more critical
attention to what Willow did?
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Actually, that's kind of my point -- Raccoon,
18:47:08 05/09/02 Thu
I don't think at all that the writers intended this
to be anti-gay. They might even have overlooked entirely the
possibility that people would interpret it that way. I think
you're right; they were intending to show that death can
strike innocents in a random and senseless manner.
My beef with this arc is mainly that ME have accepted so
much praise for harboring one of the strongest lesbian
relationships on network television. Because of that, they
might have been a little more careful when they decided to
end it. As it is, it reads like a footnote to The Celluloid
Closet. You can probably tell that I'm quite passionate
about this on a personal level, so this is JMHO, as
always.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I just got a copy of the book... -- Rufus,
18:56:54 05/09/02 Thu
Give me time to read it. I do agree that ME thought they
were not being cliche, but in the end it is how many people
are seeing it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Actually, ME gave the Willow/Tara pairing the respect
deserving of a relationship... -- Caroline, 07:18:17
05/10/02 Fri
not a LESBIAN relationship - they went out of their way to
show it as a normal thing. To me, that's a good thing.
[> [>
OK, now I can't believe that I found the lyrics for
this hopelessly obsure folk song, but... -- OnM,
20:47:22 05/09/02 Thu
... it do speaketh some version of the truth,
methinks.
Enjoy!
Railroad Bill
Lyrics and Music by Andy Breckman ( ©1990 Andy
Breckman )
Now Railroad Bill was a hard-livin' man.
He used to take his whiskey two at a time.
And everyone agreed he was the baddest engineer
That ever drove for the Santa Fe Line.
His name was known from the folks back home
To the tippy-top of Telegraph Hill.
And all the little boys when they were sneaking
cigarettes,
They used to dream about Railroad Bill.
Now one fine day Bill was walking along,
When he saw a kitten stuck in a tree.
When he saw what was the matter, he ran to get a ladder
To set that kitty cat free.
And Bill said, "No. I ain't gonna do it.
I ain't gonna climb up no tree!
This is a stupid stupid song, and no folk singer
Is gonna make a fool out of me."
I said, one fine day Bill was walking along
When he saw a kitten stuck in a tree.
When he saw what was the matter, he ran to get a ladder
To set that kitty cat free.
Bill said, "No, I ain't gonna do it.
I ain't gonna do what you said.
This is a stupid stupid song, and as far as I'm
concerned,
That cat can stay there 'till it's dead."
I said, "Wait a minute, Bill, you can't argue with me.
For God's sake, I just made you up!
I got the pen in my hand. I want you up in that tree,
And I want that cat unstuck!"
And Bill said, "No! I hate cats!
I ain't gonna climb for no cat!
Why don't you have me save some beautiful girl
Who's been tied down on the railroad track?"
I said, "Well, maybe there'll be room in the 8th or 9th
verse,
But right not I want you up in that tree.
I'm the writer, goddamn; I got the pen in my hand,
And you're supposed to listen to me."
"Listen to you? Why should I listen to you?
You should be listening to me instead.
I'm a railroad man, and if I was real,
I'd separate your face from your head!"
"Why, you ungrateful brute!" I said, "You've pushed me too
far!
I'll show you I can do as I please."
Just then an earthquake came and shook the whole terrain
And brought Railroad Bill to his knees.
And then a tidal wave broke and everything got soaked,
And Bill was almost completely washed away.
And then a big green monster from the planet Neptune landed
And bit Railroad Bill on the leg.
I got the pen in my hand. I can do what I want.
I'm a bright new young talent on the rise.
So get your ass up that tree, or I swear you ain't gonna
Get out of my folk song alive.
He said, "You don't scare me.
You may be funny, but you don't scare me.
And if you don't leave me alone, I'm gonna tell
everybody
Where you stole this melody."
But before he could speak, his tongue fell out,
And he could not make a sound.
And then he jumped on top of me and he grabbed me by the
throat
And he pulled me to the ground.
And then he punched me in the stomach and punched me in the
face real hard
And I think he almost broke my nose.
Just then a lightning bolt came out of nowhere and hit him
right between the eyes
And killed him instantly.
Well, the cat came down from the tree,
Had a bowl of warm milk, and went to sleep for the night.
Railroad Bill is survived by a wife and three small
children.
Dear God, I love to write.
[> [> [>
Lol. that was a treat. -- yuri, 23:59:08
05/09/02 Thu
[> [>
Re: Surprised no...annoyed very... -- Akita,
07:41:00 05/10/02 Fri
Shadowcat wrote: "Writers tell stories that are inside them
- that is good story telling. They do not tell stories to
entertain fans - that is pandering. People will either like
it or they won't, but if you have something to say and you
know how to say it well - maybe who knows they will. It's a
risk putting yourself out there - but writers do
it...because we know no other way. And the really good ones
- like to unsettle people just a bit."
I disagree to the following extent.
Joss et al. knew quite well they were going to push some
sociopolitical and cultural hot buttons in this episode, as
well as inflict much emotional pain on those fans who love
certain characters. Moreover, this show would not exist
without an exceedingly loyal fanbase, which is, I think,
largely driven by love of the characters.
I think they owe those fans some respect -- i.e., at least
an honest acknowledgment that they knew the pain that would
result, particularly for the W/T fans, and that that pain is
legitimate, but that it was essential to the story they are
telling. I think it is quite possible to do that without
"catering" to the whims of the fans, which trap they seem to
fear above all things. Given the subject matter they have
chosen to tackle I think it is disingenuous in the extreme
to figuratively throw their hands up and say "hey, it's just
a story.What's your problem?!"
But then I have never been part of the "Joss is God" club. I
do not put any TV in the same class as great literature or
theatre. TV to me is mostly an extension of the timeless
tradition of oral storytelling. And storytelling is always a
two-way street. For without an audience there is no story to
be told.
Respect is a two-way street too. And I may have lost a lot
of respect for ME in recent days. Not for the story they are
telling but for the way they are handling the fallout (so
far).
Akita
[>
A little fandom humor, courtesy of the Onion. --
Dyna, 17:20:31 05/09/02 Thu
http://www.theonion.com/onion3805/when_you_are_ready.html
Whenever my friend and I are tempted to argue about
Buffyverse issues, we remind each other of this article.
Smash: "Dyna, when you're ready to have a serious
conversation about the impossibility of Spike's redemption,
you have my email address."
Dyna: "Smash, when you're ready to have a serious
conversation about how much a Buffy/Angel reunion is never
going to happen, my number's on your speed dial."
It's surprisingly effective for taking the piss out of
fannish disputes. Highly recommended!
[>
Yes, it's disappointing -- ravenhair, 18:57:41
05/09/02 Thu
I was hoping for cooler heads after the uproar over MN's E!
interview a few months ago. But alas...
I still defend this season as an amazing year for BtVS.
[>
I'm glad I don't go anywhere but here. -- yuri,
19:58:33 05/09/02 Thu
[>
I think people lose a little focus... -- Tillow,
20:44:23 05/09/02 Thu
...regarding the fact that a drama is supposed to take us to
great depths.
I'm getting a little finicky about all the attacks on the
writers, myself. Particularly Marti. This is a team effort
with one captain. Joss. If the writers were truly terrible,
then this board wouldn't exist... no one would care one way
or the other.
So, YES, it's disturbing... Gives me the wiggins. :)
A long analysis
of spike and the incident *spoilers* -- Charlemagne,
15:53:44 05/09/02 Thu
I'd like to take a moment to give my opinion of why I
believe it was in character for Spike to "attack" Buffy last
night. Now everyone whose a Spuffy I don't want you to think
that this is a attack on your peaceful culture and in fact I
hope will give a balanced opinion on a very hot issue. I
must admit I have been shocked at the sheer volume of women
on this board (and horrofied and moved) who have suffered
attacks and as a would be-fiance to a woman who was a victem
of it I will treat the point with exceptional dignity. I
myself when I read the spoilers didn't suspect for an
instant that Spike would do something along those lines and
wondered where the writers pulled it from. In retrospect it
should have been seen as a possibilty from the
beginning.
The first thing to note about Spike is he is a Romantic poet
and for the Victorian times this is not a classical
gentlemen but the equivalent of a modern rock star like Van
Halen, people who were incredibly open to their feelings and
rebels against the existing establishment. Lord Byron is
Spike's spiritual brother as William. Even as they adored
the concept of love and honor they also mocked the people
who made claims to higher ideals as being complete fools in
the process for hypocrisy.
As a Vampire Angelus was a man who was repressed by his
father's expectations and continued to make war against
everything that his father loved from respectability,
institutions, the church, and marriage. Spike on the other
hand had a very different motive from what we can tell and
that was to make war on a society that treated what he
believed in like garbage. Drucilla was his goddess and
Angelus was his mentor in the fine art of proving humanity
was less than his worth along with the majority of vampires
around him.
It's likely why he didn't notice or care about Angelus's
relationship with dru before, he was overwhelmed by his
father-figure.
I'd like to give my opinions on what a Vampire is right now
and both confirm and debase the "soul myth". On Angel we see
that human beings can be born without a soul which means
they more or less are sociopathic. A thing about sociopaths
is that while they don't feel consciences they can in fact
feel quite a few other things and follow rules out of other
obligations. Joss has furthermore said that demons are
drawn to darkness as humans are to light yet we see on
occasion humans rebel against this as well as demons. Thus
upfront Spike can be good as a being but he is rebelling
against his very fundemental nature under god...what spike
does best.
Still Vampires are a hungry creature and it has been hinted
at that blood for them and all passions is like alchohal to
a 12 stepper. Angel when he kissed Buffy was forced back
into Vampire-face and I have no doubt in my mind that Spike
feels all these urges ever so keenly even when he is
conditioned to have his animal nature controlled by an
electronic device.
I think we should accept upfront that Spike is a murderer
and probably a rapist in the past. Certainly we know Angel
commited acts of sexual assault from the shades of his
victems and Holtz. Spike in my mind is just as likely to
show contempt for the world as a whole by the ultimate act
of debasement to those who truly offend him and while he was
going to bite her, his attack on Willow in the very episode
he escaped from the Iniative in Season 4 had uncomfortable
rape text that in my mind on UPN would have been openly
Spike planning to leave her violated after the process or
during it.
Not very good thus far I admit but onto Season 5 we see that
Spike comes to idealize Buffy in a way that is much like
Spike's spiritual brother in Xander (odd comparison I know)
who also draws strength from her. Spike likes Dawn and
together they form a new pack for the inherently social
creature of a Vampire while giving an outlet for his needs
of violence. Still there is an unrequited passion for the
woman who represents his dark angel in his mind. What
Celicy was to William, Buffy added the edge to for Spike
like Dru in a perverse parody of a Victorian woman almost
did.
Spike as a lover to Buffy though is something we should note
inexperienced. Sexually he is obviously an incredible lover
as he's been practicing fairly reguraly with Dru (probably a
few other women like Darla for all we know or even Angel but
aint going there) but I believe it's safe to say William was
a virgin in heart before knowing the Dark Kiss. All of
Spike's relationships have thus been unhealthy and when
Buffy comes to spike she comes in a way just like him....a
woman who has crawled from the Earth buried alive and
seperated from God.
Spike's seperating Buffy from her friends is not so bad a
thing as people think because he'd personally like Buffy and
him to join together like he and Dru. If he could I'm sure
he'd make her a vampire if he wasn't sure that would destroy
what he loved about her the Good with edge. Her friends
hate him after all and they don't relate to the isolation
and loneliness that is a person that has been dead and
severed from natural life cycles let alone common
morality.
However sexuality and killing vampires is not what Buffy
wants, that was Faith's way and the way of being a vampire.
At heart Buffy is not a rebel but wants still to fit in and
even when she built her own niche that she did fit into (the
Scoobys) she when severed from it went back to it. Spike is
thus unable to fit in and while a confident and incredible
lover is not where she wants to go....Spike doesn't want to
furthermore fit in with the Scoobies. He tried and
ultimately Xander is a moralist, Willow and Tara are too
compassionate, and only Dawn he cares for to any great deal
is a flower budding in her youth.
The attack was thus Spike's demon and passion overwhelming
his common sense with probably a lot of resentment built up
for a person that he wanted to be his guide for the rest of
eternity. Spike differentiates himself from the world by
what he idolizes and the morals he steps on that he holds as
the tools of hypocrisy.
With Buffy he knows that he is very close to becomming what
he once hated with all of his might yet is that a bad thing?
Last night was a turning point brought on by the animal side
of a beast that wasn't thinking, especially with a previous
relationship and the fact Buffy since leaving Spike has
since regressed back to a very poor mindset.
I believe it was n character, just not a nice period to look
upon.
-Charlemagne
[>
One small quibble -- Traveler, 16:43:12 05/09/02
Thu
"The attack was thus Spike's demon . . . "
If it was his demon nature asserting itself, why didn't he
go into vamp face?
[> [>
In part because the hunger was for sexuality not
blood -- Charlemagne,
18:31:04 05/09/02 Thu
Spike is after all a Vampire who is in a situation where his
entire instinct set has been blown out of the water and
rebuilt in an oddly jigsawed way. He's like a man whose
been "normal" and reprogrammed in a cult in some way except
in reverse. He can still be driven by demonic urges and
needs like his need for destruction (that doesn't put him in
Vamp face necessarily) but still have it be for entirely
human desires.
Remember all we know is that Vampires transform when the
Hunger is upon them, yet while they are not without vamp
face it doesn't mean that they necessarily any less
dominated by their natures
[> [> [>
Yes, but... (SR, Angel spoilers) -- Traveler,
19:10:04 05/09/02 Thu
"yet while they are not without vamp face it doesn't mean
that they necessarily any less dominated by their
natures"
Almost every time we ever see a vampire other than Angel or
Spike comitt violence, they are wearing their game face. I
think that is to show their demon soul coming to the
surface. I could be wrong, but it seems to be a logical
conclusion. Someone posted that Spike's attempt at rape was
not the crime of a vampire, but the crime of a man.
I rather prefer that idea, because it makes the scene even
more poignant and meaningful. Angel didn't try to kill
Wesley as a vampire, but as an enraged father. Spike didn't
try to rape Buffy as a vampire, but as a desperate lover.
Thus, even this evil act makes him more human.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Yes, but... (SR, Angel spoilers) -- Rufus,
19:21:34 05/09/02 Thu
I rather prefer that idea, because it makes the scene
even more poignant and meaningful. Angel didn't try to kill
Wesley as a vampire, but as an enraged father. Spike didn't
try to rape Buffy as a vampire, but as a desperate lover.
Thus, even this evil act makes him more human.
Violence isn't just a demon thing and in both shows that can
be forgotten. They were very specific in making sure that
the situation with Buffy and Spike was a human one. Buffy
normally could have killed Spike, he could have decided to
bite her, but he wanted Buffy to feel the same way he does,
and became desperate when he could see she couldn't or
wouldn't. It was an upsetting scene but would have been
worse if he had walked into her house intent on raping her.
His words to Clem show how conflicted he is, can this
person/monster ever be just a monster again? He is stuck
between worlds, stuck in shadows when he longs for light. He
may have blamed the chip for his feelings but we know the
chip is a collar and leash, it may stop him from acting out,
but his feelings for Buffy and the things he now feels for
others are all his own. So what does a vampire do when he
isn't allowed to be a monster, but can't be a man? He did
say things were going to change.
Out of character,
double standards, character bashing, and Spike (warning,
rant, spoliery) -- Earl Allison,
16:29:53 05/09/02 Thu
Like many others, I have been arguing over the ramifications
of and events in "Seeing Red."
I've been seeing a trend with some posters, not just here,
but in other places as well.
Words like "out of character" have been tossed around, and
some people have out-and-out refused to accept that Spike
would behave in the manner he clearly did.
I guess the problem is, since the writers decide who the
characters are from day-to-day, IS there such a thing as out
of character? I mean, they WRITE the characters -- and
whatever they write is canon.
A LOT of pro-Spike fans have been saying how out of
character this latest action is, how it's outrageous, wrong,
out of context, and largely an attack on the character.
Where were they when such things were "done," or perceived
to be done, to other characters?
I see several posters using Xander (mostly), Willow (some),
or Buffy (lots) and their actions as either mitigating
factors (tearing them down to make Spike better or more
acceptable), or to point out that, since THEY made mistakes
and weren't punished, how dare anyone suggest punishment or
think poorly of Spike.
Where were the cries of "OOC!" or "this is wrong!" when the
following happened?
Xander walked out on Anya. There were some who did question
this when it first aired, sure, but it's pretty much settled
into a "Xander was a b@stard, and should be punished! How
dare he play holier-than-thou with Spike!"
Willow's mind-wipe of Tara. This was, IMHO (and I admit to
being favorably inclined towards Willow, so caveat), majorly
OOC, and a major corruption of what we knew of her -- she
risks all to fight Glory for the brain-suck, and then plays
with mind-wipes not once, but twice? Where was the outrage,
not that Willow was behaving badly, but that she SHOULDN'T
act that way? That this WASN'T our Willow? And if you
think it was, why is it so hard a logical progression to
think that Spike could behave as HE did? Where, aside from
the double standard, is that hidden?
I guess I'm getting sick of hearing how poor Spike was used
and abused by the writers, and how this is clearly OOC and
therefore wrong.
It happened, and like the fans of the other characters, it's
time for Spike to take some lumps, like it or not. Tara and
Willow fans are in for a rough ride, Buffy fans have been
smarting all season, and it hasn't been a good year for
Xander, either -- it was just Spike's turn.
Protest, certainly, but not at the expense of other
characters -- it doesn't (IMHO) mitigate Spike any. He at
best assaulted Buffy when she said no -- and quite frankly,
it was wrong the first time he had sex with her, and it was
wrong in the bathroom scene -- worst case, he did try to
rape her, to have sex with her without her consent.
Dragging other characters through the mud doesn't change
that.
Okay, I'm done. I'm sorry if anyone takes personal offense
to this rant, I'm not consciously singling anyone out --
just tired of the excuses, and wanted to say my piece.
Feel free to disembowel me now.
Take it and run.
[>
It was wrong the first time Buffy and Spike had sex??
Are you one of those religious moralists? -- JMC,
16:37:48 05/09/02 Thu
Sex is not evil, and I don't care what you say.
[> [>
Please re-read -- It was wrong the first time she said
"no." -- Earl Allison,
16:49:17 05/09/02 Thu
I don't care whether the girl's panties are around her
ankles when she says it, no is no. Not maybe, not sure, but
NO -- until and unless you have enough of a relationship to
realize that her no IS a yes.
Buffy is partly to blame, yes, but Spike moreso.
I'm glad you don't care about what I say -- and maybe I
wasn't 100% clear, but there were far more tactful and
polite ways to express your views, or at least to use
personal qualifiers like IMHO.
I TRIED not to offend, I get the feeling you don't care if
you do or not, and that's a shame.
Take it and run
[> [> [>
I thought you meant something different.... -- JMC,
16:53:01 05/09/02 Thu
I thought you meant Spike and Buffy having sex was wrong.
Sorry, if I was in error.
[> [> [> [>
B/S was wasn't wrong just not healthy, it was a sick
relationship. -- gabby, 19:41:10 05/09/02 Thu
[>
Disembowel.....is that what I'm supposed to take and
run with, cause Ewww -- Rufus, 18:19:54 05/09/02
Thu
It happened, and like the fans of the other characters,
it's time for Spike to take some lumps, like it or not. Tara
and Willow fans are in for a rough ride, Buffy fans have
been smarting all season, and it hasn't been a good year for
Xander, either -- it was just Spike's turn.
I think some of us have forgotten the first rule of Joss
regarding lumps everyone gets their turn.
[>
Oh, grow up! (About us relating to Angel and Buffy)
(spoilers for SE) -- Cactus Watcher, 19:07:07
05/09/02 Thu
This is kind of an extention of what Earl was saying, so
I've put it here.
My first reaction while watching 'Seeing Red' was that the
love scene between Tara and Willow was much different than
the ones we've seen before. Before, there was always
something sweet and magical about what we saw. This time it
was like watching two real personal friends of mine about to
have sex. The fact they were the same sex made no
difference, to me at least. They were two people doing
something perfectly normal, but something that should be
private, and I felt uncomfortable watching it. Then it
dawned on me. "Oh, my God! ME is going to catch hell for
this!" And that turned out to be just the tip of the
iceberg. We can expect a whole new round of anti-gay and
anti-violence-on-TV articles directed at ME over the
episode.
Indeed one of our brightest young posters is already a
victim of the fall-out over this episode. I can't imagine
that her parents would have been any happier if they had
missed everything with Tara and Willow in bed and seen the
rest. Now we have a young person deciding whether or not to
defy her parents and go on watching Buffy. The only thing I
can say to Mayapapaya is that this is an important decision
and not to take it lightly. Sooner or later you will have
to make decisions for yourself. But, you should know that
defying your parents carries all kinds of risks. That's
part of being grown up, understanding that there are
consequences for the risks you take.
Why did ME take the risks it took in airing 'Seeing Red?'
Now and forever more, whatever they do in the future, there
are going to be unreasonable people who will point to
'Seeing Red' and say that ME is part of what's wrong with
TV, and what's wrong with society. Frankly, I think ME took
those risks for us, it's most loyal viewers. In particular,
I think the attack scene was written as part of a season
long lesson for those viewers with special attachments to
particular characters.
Since 'The Gift' one by one we have seen our favorite
characters torn down. Each time we've seen a storm of
protests from the partisans of the particular character.
Last summer, we had a flood of support for Buffy. Each time
anyone suggested that there might have been less than noble
aspects about Buffy's death there were swarms of angry
posts. One poster, who wrote one of the best argued essays
of the summer, expressed the desire to throw things at
people who wanted to talk about the gray areas of Buffy's
actions. This season ME has emphasized that Buffy has had
some mental instability, and now people are willing to talk
about Buffy perhaps being clinically depressed. This season
we've seen Willow supporters aghast that "sweet" Willow
could do wrong. It's taken months for some of them to
listen to other's arguments, that Willow's problems are
fundamentally with herself and not with magic. Last week we
saw some pretty strong and unpleasant confrontations over
whether Xander or Anya was right. It's too soon for the
supporters of Xander and those of Anya (or just the
supporters of the male side or female side of the argument)
to notice that nobody's completely right or wrong in this.
This week some Spike supporters are in disbelief that Spike
could attack Buffy or for that matter, do anything evil at
all anymore. The rest of us just shake our heads and
mutter, "Hello? Vampire!"
It isn't just on Buffy. Last season Angel took a beating.
Wesley's actions and the reactions of the rest of the group
on Angel to them have been distressing.
I think ME has purposely been attacking our favorites. They
want us to care about the characters. But, they do not want
us to worship them. If nothing else this year, ME wants us
to realize that hero worship is a mistake, and that it
almost always leads to disappointments. Buffy and Angel are
fine stories whether or not the characters always act like
we wish they would. I don't expect everyone to get it.
But, at least ME has tried.
Mayapapaya, growing up is a life-long process.
To steal a line from Earl - Take it and run.
[> [>
Re: Oh, grow up! (About us relating to Angel and Buffy)
(spoilers for SE) -- Arethusa, 12:48:07 05/10/02
Fri
>>I think ME has purposely been attacking our favorites.
They want us to care about the characters. But, they do not
want us to worship them. If nothing else this year, ME wants
us to realize that hero worship is a mistake, and that it
almost always leads to disappointments.
Go back and re-watch "Waiting in the Wings." It's as much
about us fans as it is about Angel, Cordelia, Wesley, Fred,
and Gunn.
[>
Sure, a writer can write out-of-character for his/her
own creation. -- yez, 20:20:34 05/09/02 Thu
In theory. It's called bad writing. Contriving, forcing an
agenda for the sake of the agenda and losing site of what's
come before, etc. It happens. The characters we love or love
to hate are the ones that seem real -- whether we can
explain it or just sense it intuitively.
Personally, I *don't* feel that the bathroom scene was out
of character for Spike, but I have to admit that's really
dependent on the long term spin it gets on the show.
yez
[> [>
Agree, but he raises another interesting point SR
spoilers -- Anne, 03:50:16 05/10/02 Fri
Earl raises three completely separate questions:
1. is it possible to write out-of-character, and is it
legitimate to criticize writers who do;
2. Was Spike out of character in the attempted rape
scene;
3. and, was Spike any more out of character in the rape
scene than many other ME characters have been in many other
scenes.
The answer to (1) as you say is clearly yes, and is one of
the things one pays attention to when engaging in literary
or dramatic criticism. I don't feel like flogging the
answer to (2) right now, partly because I really can't
decide what the answer is yet.
I actually think number (3) is extremely interesting,
however. In a way, ME has almost a habit of having
characters behave 'out of character', and it has to do with
the fact that they have their characters grow and change so
much more than is typical in other TV shows. Sometimes the
change portrayed is done in a compelling fashion, whether or
not it seems strictly speaking "realistic", and sometims
less so. I personally, for instance, have found the
transformation of Cordy into St. Cordelia a little trying,
but many other people are obviously right in there with
her.
By and large, I will say that in restrospect the character
changes they portray are worth going with, whether or not
they are entirely believable in a photographic realism
sense. So I'm willing to wait and see what they do with
Spike, though I have my reservations.
[> [> [>
Re: Agree, but he raises another interesting point SR
spoilers -- yez, 06:08:43 05/10/02 Fri
I agree on #3, and I think that feeds right back into #1.
Growth and change are part of realistic human behavior,
realistic character development. So it goes back to, are you
able to take your character through a change in a believable
way or not? And that's about being a good "student" of human
nature and a good writer. The best characters -- the most
believable -- are those that really seem alive and that grow
and change in ways we can make sense of.
I forgot to mention earlier that it's possible for a
character to do something so radically out of character that
it gives you pause. And that's just like real life, too.
Every once in a while, someone will undertake radical
change, and you as a friend/family member/ acquaintance have
to try to make sense of it and figure out if the
relationship can still stand -- if you still like that
person or whatever. And the path to that is understanding,
explanation. Because I think most all human behavior, when
broken down into smaller steps, is something that others can
understand, whether or not we agree with those choices or
like the behavior -- we can understand how a person got from
here to there.
And that's the same for characters, too. For example, if, in
3 episodes, Spike had gone from actively trying to kill
Buffy to regretful that he'd almost hurt her, I think most
people would be right to scream "This writing sucks!"
Writing and all that entails. But we've been shown how he's
gotten from pt. A to pt. B, and while it's VERY different
than pt. A, we can follow that and believe it, whether or
not we like the writer's choice -- we can see how it's a
legitimate choice for that character because it's
essentially been supported by plenty of everyday evidence
that makes it make sense.
yez
[> [> [> [>
Continuity and interpretation (mild spoilers for
SR) -- Sophist, 08:47:06 05/10/02 Fri
Very good points by both yez and Anne above.
I first read EA's post last night and have been thinking
about it since. I think there's a lot to this issue. Since I
aspire to logical and structured posts (just ask Ian), I'm
going to try to do this in outline form.
As I see it, the issue of continuity is closely tied to the
issue of interpretation. That is, when we watch a show we
try (a) to interpret it in a way that is meaningful to
ourselves; and (b) to understand what the writer intends.
When a scene disrupts our personal sense of continuity, what
we are really saying is that either we can't interpret the
scene in light of our previous understanding, or that we
can't follow the writer's intent.
There are at least 3 types of continuity problems that I can
think of:
1. Cases where the characters make a reference to previous
events on the show, but misstate that internal "past". This
appears to me a clear example of bad writing, and fully
justifies criticism. There was an example of this in SR
(quoting from memory):
X: "Why didn't you tell me?"
B: "My personal life is none of your business."
X: "It always used to be."
Xander's last comment is manifestly and categorically false.
Buffy has never brought Xander into her personal life.
Xander has intruded into it on many occasions, but
Buffy does not consult Xander about her boyfriends and never
has.
When I, the viewer, hear Xander's words, the flow of the
dialogue is affected. I can't make sense of the literal
words, so I search for some hidden meaning. Am I supposed to
think the writers made a mistake here? That Xander was being
obnoxious? What?
2. Cases where the writers introduce something new about a
character. For example here, there are Andrew's comments
about Warren. In this case, we, the viewers, have to be
patient and let characters develop, as yez says. At the same
time, we are free to question why this point was not made
earlier and what is meant by making it now.
3. Cases in which a character seems to act in a way totally
inconsistent with previous behavior. Again, we have to allow
for development, but the development must have a discernable
logic to it or our ability to interpret the scene is
affected. When posters complain about the bathroom scene, I
think that's what they are saying: I can't place this in my
previous interpretive context, and I can't understand what
the writer is saying. Whether that's the writer's fault of
the viewer's fault depends mostly on how widespread the
disconnect is.
[> [> [> [> [>
Really? The Xander line bothered you? -- dream of
the consortium, 13:26:05 05/10/02 Fri
I actually thought it stood out as a GREAT piece of writing.
Because it is both true and not true. One point that Xander
is trying to make is objectively true, and Buffy and the
audience know it - Buffy never used to hide things from
Xander. Also, she used to take his advice seriously - think
of the episode when Riley leaves. But, he doesn't say that,
exactly, he's says that "it used to be [my business]." And
you're right, her personal life never was his business, of
course, not in the sense that he had any right to control it
or judge it. But he always seemed to think it was. So in a
moment of reconciliation, there is still this little
indication that Xander still has a somewhat paternalistic
view of Buffy that is inappropriate. And I think that's
excellent writing.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Really? The Xander line bothered you? --
Sophist, 14:08:35 05/10/02 Fri
I am inclined to agree with you on the main point.
That conversation was the first one, and they didn't
reconcile at all; Xander walked out. If we see Xander's
comment the way you suggest, then I agree with your
conclusion about his attitude and about the writing. It's
similar to my own suggestion that Xander was just being
obnoxious. The problem I had was that there was no response
to this blatantly untrue statement, so the interpretation
remains in doubt (are we supposed to take this statement at
face value and see Buffy as the one who is wrong here?).
I do think Buffy has kept things from Xander in the past
(the best example being the return of Angel in S3). She has
not made any secret of the identity of her boyfriend,
though, so maybe this is different.
That scene in ItW has always bothered me also. I have no
doubt that Xander believed Riley was the one for Buffy. I
just don't believe we or Buffy thought so; her reaction as
though she had lost "the one" is, for me, one of the weakest
moments in the whole show.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Continuity and interpretation (mild spoilers for
SR) -- ravenhair, 18:27:22 05/10/02 Fri
"Cases where the characters make a reference to previous
events on the show, but misstate that internal past."
I asked this question in a thread below but I think it's
appropriate here as well and maybe someone can provide some
insight. Spike placed so much importance on trust in the
episode Dead Things, the same writer for Seeing Red. In the
bathroom scene of SR, Spike dismisses the need for trust in
a relationship. Why the change of heart? Because he no
longer has Buffy as a moral compass, is Spike drawing his
own assessments regarding love and relationships? Does he
feel differently because the relationship failed and so he
rejects everything he strived for previously?
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Continuity and interpretation (mild spoilers for
SR) -- Sophist, 20:29:35 05/10/02 Fri
I don't know. I'm really struggling with this issue.
I'm in the camp that says it is OOC (in the sense of
inconsistent with the portrayal of the last 2 1/2 seasons)
for Spike to attempt rape. I was about ready to adopt the
interpretation that the scene was a tragic miscommunication
resulting from too many times when "no" meant "yes" and the
sex was rough. Doesn't condone Spike, but doesn't make it
attempted rape either -- legally, at least, attempted rape
requires that he must have intended to have sex
knowing that she did not consent. If consent was
confused because of previous behavior, no attempted
rape.
Then I read DeKnight's interview (quoted by Rufus) in which
he refers to the scene as a "rape scene". Now, clearly there
was no actual rape, but does he mean attempted rape? Is he
telling us that this is the way we were supposed to perceive
it? And now I'm back to the OOC issue.
The point you bring up presents the same problems. In fact,
in the first scene with Xander he asks Buffy how she can
trust Spike and she lists some of the times they all have
done so. Then, in the bathroom, she says she can't trust
him. About what?
Color me confused. Is that red?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
She says she can't trust him. About what? --
alcibiades, 10:54:17 05/11/02 Sat
The turning point in S/B's relationship came in AYW when
Buffy found Spike hording the yet totally unexplained Demon
Eggs. (And if that lose end is not explained SOON, I'm
really going to be mad) So I think trust in this instance
means she can't trust him to do the right thing in matters
of morality in the world.
The new trust he violates in the BathR scene is that now,
contrary to what she believed and he believed, she can't
trust him to do the right thing with her either.
Since Angel's betrayal and then later abandonment of her,
trust has been the major relationship hurdle for Buffy. She
stopped trusting Riley and committing to their relationship
after he slept with Faith, thinking it was her. And
admittedly, that he couldn't know it wasn't Buffy in their
most intimate act together is appalling.
That is something I believe Spike would know now that he is
her lover. Spike knows her, her body, her being. But she
can't trust him to be moral in matters that don't relate to
her and Dawn. And if he lost the chip.. she's not even sure
about Dawn.
The problem is of course is that from the preview it doesn't
look like she'll be able to trust Willow soon either. So
that limits that people she can depend on to Xander. She is
going to learn how to trust people again in Season 7. I
imagine, otherwise her life will become very narrow and
focused. She has got to learn to risk the pain -- something
she did not do with Spike at all and that she shut down with
Riley once Faith reappeared on the scene.
BTW, I thought that interchange Spike between Xander and
Buffy was telling. Xander telling Buffy Spike is evil and
Buffy telling Xander back, you fought with him all summer,
you left Dawn with him. Xander is holding a mirror back up
to Buffy of what she has been telling Spike about himself
since Smashed and I think that though she is still confused
about how she feels about him, but she also doesn't like how
Xander is reflecting her back at her.
What is OOC btw?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Very good points. OOC is Out of Character. Going to
post more on it. -- Sophist, 11:22:41 05/11/02
Sat
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: She says she can't trust him. About what? --
DEN, 14:10:41 05/11/02 Sat
A bit OT, alcibiades--but IMO Riley has had a consistently
bad rap on the B/F switch:
1. He has no idea such a thing is possible, and even if he
did, no reason to assume it has taken place.
2. He never met Faith, and has no idea of her behavior
patterns.
3. He and Buffy have not been intimate for very long. Riley
would not be the first, the tenth, or the ten-millionth
person (man or woman)to be surprised when their partner
reveals an unexpected side in bed. Seems to me he handled it
about right: not jumping through a door the other person
might regret opening next morning, and being loving in the
ways he has been.
Buffy was the one who couldn't deal--but again IMO she was
being unreasonable even by her standards.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: She says she can't trust him. About what? --
Lilac, 14:31:22 05/11/02 Sat
Remember that Buffy recognized Giles when he had been turned
into a big slimy demon. So, it seems that her expectation
that Riley would be able to recognize that Faith was not her
would be in line with what Buffy has herself been able to do
in other circumstances.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: She says she can't trust him. About what? --
ravenhair, 18:18:25 05/11/02 Sat
I can accept AYW as the turning point for B/S. You're
explanations regarding Buffy's perspective is very helpful.
Spike must have turned his back on everything he believed
would make Buffy love him, including trust, after the
relationship failed.
Again, with regards to the conversation between Buffy and
Xander, I noticed she didn't tell Xander the chip doesn't
work on her when he brought it up. Possibly to protect Spike
from being staked, but she's still keeping secrets from her
friends - not a good.
I'm not too concerned about the relationship between Dawn
and Spike. Actually, I was encouraged after watching Seeing
Red. She may be his only friend besides Clem when he
returns to Sunnydale!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Continuity and interpretation (mild spoilers for
SR) -- ravenhair, 18:06:04 05/11/02 Sat
The DeKnight interview was more casual than formal, so I
don't think he put too much thought into his responses or
how they were phrased. I'm not under the impression the
bathroom scene was an actual rape, and I don't think we're
supposed to perceive it as such.
The conversation between Xander and Buffy was very
interesting. I believe it was the first time she has
defended Spike to her friends, albeit half-heartedly.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Continuity and interpretation (mild spoilers for
SR) -- Simone, 22:34:00 05/10/02 Fri
>>When a scene disrupts our personal sense of continuity,
what we are really saying is that either we can't interpret
the scene in light of our previous understanding, or that we
can't follow the writer's intent.<<
I don't know that I would consider this a criticism of the
writing but, lately, I've found that the show works best on
an allegorical level (which is a bit ironic, considering how
many fans are deploring the disappearance of the metaphor.
Heh). More literal interpretations still work, IMO, but seem
to require copious amounts of fanwanking. Personally, the
best way I've found to make sense of the characterizations
is through the paradigm whereby Willow, Xander, Giles, Dawn
and Spike all represent different aspects of Buffy's psyche.
I've seen several posts along the same lines in the past, so
I'll just give a brief overview of my specific take (and, I
must warn you, there probably isn't anything terribly
original about it), focusing on Xander/Buffy.
Xander was The Heart in "Primeval" (Willow was her Spirit
and Giles her Mind, if I remember correctly) - he used to be
the stabilizing force in her life, her moral centre, since
she has always judged with her heart. But, in "Restless,"
Willow had her "spirit" (her "psuche," her breath or soul -
which is starting to look incredibly significant in light of
the end of SR) sucked out of her, Giles' injury was to his
brain and Xander's to his heart. They have all been damaged
to the point where they can no longer serve her adequately.
She ends up having to face the First alone.
Over the last two seasons the foreshadowing has slowly come
to pass - her Spirit and her Mind seem to have drifted away
from her, whereas her Heart has become increasingly
corrupted, if you will, by self-righteousness, intolerance
and self-deception (understandable, given the traumatic
experiences they have all been through and never openly,
honestly dealt with). As it did so, it also began to assume
rights it never had and encroach upon areas which were not
previously its purview. Buffy's moral centre is starting to
suffocate her. Hence all the hiding, the shame and the
repression.
Unfortunately, it seems that Buffy is only now starting to
realize this. So far, she has trusted Xander's judgement
even when she probably shouldn't have - in ITW, she accepted
his assessment of her relationship with Riley, despite the
pretty obvious projecting and overidentifying going on. She
constantly trusts his opinion of Spike (her "shadow"), no
matter how many times he is proven wrong. She seems to be
actually cowed by his disapproval. SR was the first instance
I can think of in ages when she has openly questioned his
judgement and bristled at his paternalistic attitude. But
she is so used to relying on him unquestioningly that she's
still very tentative and ambivalent about it. Is this merely
the start of a trend? I hope so. They all need to re-examine
their beliefs, their assumptions, acknowledge and work out
their problems before they can function as a healthy unit
again (which, by the looks of it, might have to wait until
next year).
I also have this whole parallel between Spike and the First
Slayer, who seem to represent the same things and have both
been adamantly rejected by Buffy, that I'm still trying to
work out. Anyway... maybe this'll help someone regain their
grasp of the characters as it has me (assuming I'm not just
stating the obvious here, as I am wont to do).
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Very interesting. Thinking now. -- Sophist,
09:10:39 05/11/02 Sat
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Spike and the First Slayer -- alcibiades,
11:16:44 05/11/02 Sat
Great Post, btw. That makes so much sense of Restless,
which I have tried rewatching recently (but have to admit it
put me to sleep a time or two. Course, late at night.).
About the first Slayer and Spike, I believe Shadowkat first
mentioned the parallel of their positions on Buffy's body in
Restless and Seeing Red. But instead of trying to plunge a
penis into her to continue their interactions, the first
slayer keeps on trying to pentrate her heart -- but her
knife or stake or penis substitute is impotent -- it cannot
penetrate Buffy. Buffy throws them both off, telling the
FS, "You just have to get over the whole primal power thing.
You're not the source of me."
Buffy's repeated refrain of "it's over," "that's enough,"
have finally pentrated the other.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Spike and the First Slayer -- Simone,
13:34:50 05/11/02 Sat
I don't think I read Shadowkat's post and I can't seem to
find it. Which thread it was in?
My thing - and I don't know whether Shadowkat got into that
as well; I hope I'm not just repeating things that have
already been discussed to death, as I don't get a chance to
read even half the stuff posted here - is that Spike and the
First Slayer are like negative images of each other (one's
black on white, the other white on black), like two sides of
one coin. The coin being those primal, chaotic, irrational
drives within us all which are "beyond Good and Evil." They
can be good in that they are the source of our strength, our
survival instinct, our passion, our individualism, etc. -
that would be the First Slayer. However, uncontrolled, those
forces can also turn to anarchism, nihilism and other Bad
Things - that's what the whole vampire metaphor was about.
During adolescence, these forces tend to dominate our more
rational impulses and must be ruthlessly fought - that's
what the first 3 seasons of battling vampires and other
beasties were about. But, as we grow up, things change.
Those crazy hormonal voices in our heads quiet down and, as
the balance shifts, we need to make adjustments for that.
Spike has turned from the poster-boy for anarchy and chaos
into a reluctant and then willing ally (Anya has also been
used to illustrate that shift, as well as the increasing
number of innocuous demons), getting closer to what the
First Slayer is or should be, if only Buffy allowed it (not
that he's quite there yet). This season in particular, I
think that he has often been The Voice of Buffy's
Subconscious (meaning, The Voice of Truth - yes, I still
believe that, even after SR. ESPECIALLY after SR).
Unfortunately, Buffy and the SG (well, mainly Xander.
Willow's a bit more complicated than that and one of these
days I hope I have the time to rationalize her out) have
been too scarred by their early battles to recognize that.
They cannot see the potential good in that which they used
to consider inherently evil. Fear of their most basic
nature, of who they really are and what they really want,
has led them to the other extreme - intolerance, denial and
repression - which can be just as dangerous and just as much
of a Bad Thing. As Anya pointed out in "Smashed:" things
bottled up too long tend to go kaboom! You can only make
them worse by rejecting and ignoring them. I think that's
what we've been seeing lately.
The Initiative, in their attempt to completely control
and/or eradicate the monsters, merely succeeded in creating
a monster of a different kind (that Nietzsche - who seems
endlessly relevant to this show - quote keeps coming to
mind: "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the
process he does not become a monster"). In the same way, we
have seen fear turn the SG's greatest strengths into their
worst flaws. What used to be a beautiful friendship has
become a burden and a hindrance: they are all damaged and
dragging each other down, preventing each other from growing
and evolving the way they need to.
Anyway, this is all somewhat of an oversimplification,
really, but, right now, I have to go out and do something
about that pesky thing called "a life." ;)
[>
Re: Out of character (spoilers for Seeing Red) --
LittleBit, 06:01:47 05/10/02 Fri
I find it surprising that there is so much outrage that the
writers have taken their characters where the story arcs
dictate. And especially that a specific character should not
be written in a controversial manner.
I think that having characters behave 'out of character' is
a sign that the show remains dynamic, that we will no be
given static characters and relationships. I'll not speak
for any one else, but I will say for myself that I have had
the experience of saying, "I can't believe he did that,
that's not like him at all" about someone I thought I knew.
Someone I thought I knew better than that. So if people in
real life are able to act in an unpredicted manner, a well-
written character should be allowed the same leeway.
This doesn't mean I have to like all the choices the writers
make for the characters any more than I have to like all the
choices the people around me make. It does mean that I
respect that a well-rounded three-dimensional character is
capable of moving in varied directions. Sometimes this
includes 180º reversals. Especially in times of great
emotional turmoil.
A character on a single-minded unidirectional track is too
close to a cartoon character. To use contrasting examples
from the non-core group let's look at Warren and Jonathon.
Warren is one-track. He is firmly placed on the fast track
to evil. He has no regard for anyone. Even Andrew and
Jonathon are no more than 'minions' to him. He wanted to be
a comic-book action-adventure super-villain and that is what
he has become. And nothing else. We root for his demise
because he has been given no dimension. We won't miss him
when he gets his comeuppance, and it will happen because
that is the only possible outcome for a cartoon villain.
Contrast trhis with Jonathon, whom we have known
tangentially for all 6 years. We know he is an outcast nerd.
We know he hurts because of this. He tries to kill himself;
he presented Buffy with the Class Protector award. He casts
the superstar spell because he wants everyone to look up to
him, but within this reality he becomes a valued ally of the
Slayer doing good and slaying vampires and demons, making
people feel good about themselves, and somewhat overlooked,
effects the reconciliation of Buffy and Riley (the one thing
that continues when the spell ends). He becomes wealthy and
powerful but in a positive way. He's Bruce Wayne and Batman
with better romantic luck. He apologizes when the spell is
discovered and ended. He teams up with Warren and Andrew
because as they put it "ummm...okay." He pulls his weight in
the evil trio but as the evilness increases is more and more
visibly disturbed by it. He helps the Slayer. While it is
absolutely clear what behavior is out of character for
Warren, what is out of character for Jonathon? Much harder
to answer this question because Jonathon has been given
dimension.
So if Jonathon is able to be given choices about behavior,
and can move up and down the good—evil continuum, then why
should we restrict the core characters? I would hope they
would be given greater latitude to show the facets of their
personality. All of them have moved in rather large swings
along the continuum. Buffy, Willow, and Xander have shown
their darker sides, Spike and Anya have shown lighter sides.
All of them have been given fears not related to impending
apocolypse. All of them have responded at times in ways we
want to applaud, other times in ways we deplore. All of them
have been out of character this season. The season is about
growing up. Without the directional changes there's no
growth and without growth there's no, well, interest. And
BtVS is nothing if not interesting.
I vote for keeping it interesting, even if that means
staying around when characters do things I don't like.
[> [>
But there can surely be disagreement ... -- Anne,
06:19:58 05/10/02 Fri
about whether the story arcs really dictate the actions or
not. And that, as I think both yez and I are trying to say
in our above posts, is in principle a completely legitimate
subject of dramatic or literary criticism.
Whether or not any one individual on these boards has made a
persuasive argument that, for instance, Spike's actions are
inconsistent with the story arc is a separate question. But
such an argument is in principle possible, and attempts to
do so should not be condemned out of hand.
[> [>
Re: Out of character (spoilers for Seeing Red) --
Sulis, 09:50:49 05/10/02 Fri
While I agree completely that characters can and should act
in unexpected ways, I do think it a legitimate topic of
criticism whether a character has gone "out-of-character" or
not. That can happen and it weakens the story when it
does.
My favorite literary example of this comes from one of the
greats: Jane Austen and Mansfield Park. One critic I read
said that in this novel she sacrificed her characters to her
plot, and that captures my feelings perfectly. In many ways
I love this novel, but I can't feel the same way about it as
I do for Persuasion and Emma and P&P. Because Fanny HAD to
end up with Edmund for the MP plot to work, Austen made
Henry Crawford run away with Maria for no apparent reason,
except a mild sort of thwarted vanity. I remember quite
clearly reading that section, and thinking "What?!? How
could THAT happen?" It made no sense in terms of the
character or the interactions he was having at that time.
Austen might as well have had him abducted by space aliens;
she needed him out of the way, so she just sent him off. And
the ending of that particular novel has never been
satisfying to me because of this.
I worry a bit about Spike in the same way, that ME will do a
Henry Crawford on him, but in Seeing Red, I don't think they
did--I think his actions came from the character, and in
particular the interactions between him and Buffy ever since
Smashed. I certainly didn't like that he did what he did,
and I really wish he hadn't, but then I didn't like him
chaining her up in Crush either. I do think that it's not
out of character. But that's just my opinion
[> [> [>
Re: Out of character (spoilers for Seeing Red) --
LittleBit, 12:08:33 05/10/02 Fri
While I agree completely that characters can and should
act in unexpected ways, I do think it a legitimate topic of
criticism whether a character has gone "out-of-character" or
not. That can happen and it weakens the story when it
does.
I agree with this completely. But I'm sure you realize that
criticism about whether a character has gone "out-of-
character" or not is different from stating that the action
shoudn't have occurred because it was "out-of-character". If
it sounded as though I was condemning disagreement out of
hand, I can assure everyone that was not my intention. There
have been some excellent arguments for both sides, and I
have thoroughly enjoyed reading these, and weighing them
against my own views.
What I was trying to say, and may entirely miss on again, is
that if the character is moving in a direction we don't want
to see simply saying it shouldn't happen because it's out of
charcter and the writers don't know what they're doing or
had no reason for doing it, falls short of an argument for
me. Most of the characters have acted out of character this
season, but when that has happened the response has taken
the form of not liking the actions and why or thinking it
was an interesting direction to take and why.
In Spike's case, there have been exactly those responses,
but there has been a much higher percentage than usual of
those that state not what the opinion is of the actions and
the consequences, but that the actions should not have
occurred because it wasn't in character. Why wasn't it in
character? Because the writers just want to mess with us,
they write badly, they don't know what they're doing and
can't write because they don't understand their characters.
For myself, I don't find this an 'argument' in the debate
sense. If I thought they really wrote badly or didn't know
their characters, I wouldn't be watching the sixth season.
And maybe they do want to mess with us, jerk our emotions
around — it certainly wouldn't be the first time and most
likely won't be the last.
If you want to argue why it was or wasn't in character I am
ready and willing to listen. I may not be persuaded (and for
the record, think it was in character because of the
sequence of events and past history of the couple), but I
like a good presentation that may present a perspective I
hadn't thought of.
But just saying it was bad writing because it was out-of-
character doesn't work for me.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Out of character (spoilers for Seeing Red) --
Sulis, 15:01:16 05/10/02 Fri
I think I agree with everything you said here,
LittleBit!
y
[> [> [>
Re: Out of character (spoilers for Seeing Red) --
Arethusa, 13:59:09 05/10/02 Fri
Crawford stated to his sister (if I remember correctly) that
he flirted with Maria and Fanny because he was bored and
they were there. He especially devoted himself to Fanny
because she obviously, in her quiet way, disapproved of his
behavior, and snubbed him. He later starts flirting with
the married Maria again, Austen narrates, because she snubs
him, and then he gets carried away and runs off with her.
Fairly consistant, in that he flirts when he's bored and
lets his emotions run away with him.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Out of character and kinda OT -- Sulis,
15:14:09 05/10/02 Fri
I agree that he started with Fanny as a challenge, but I
think we see that she becomes much more than that to him.
He raves to his sister about her purity, about how he never
believed such a woman could exist, how she is so worth the
winning and on and on. And not just to her, he completely
convinces Edmund who is no dummy that he really appreciates
Fanny at her true worth. And then while off in London and in
his old set, he flirts with Maria because she snubs him,
yes, and I don't think that was out of character at all.
But running away with her? why? There's no reason for him
to do that at all; he doesn't want her, he isn't
emotionally involved with her, he simply doesn't care enough
to do something as extreme as that. That Maria runs away
with him makes some sense in view of what we've seen of her
tendency to make foolish choices. But frankly I always
thought her selfishness would prevent her ruining everything
that mattered most to her by wrecking her life for a man she
doesn't love and that she knows doesn't love her.m
Current
board
| More May 2002