May 2002
posts
Great
Eliza Dushku quote re: the complexity & interconnectedness
of "Buffy" eps -- Rob, 10:14:10 05/10/02
Fri
"Dushku's refusal to admit that she's a famous face is a
testament to her modesty. Hell, her role on Buffy alone made
her a known quantity, the kind that magazines beg to have
gracing their cover. Her stint on the show was not only
invigorating to viewers, but was an experience Dushku has
long thought about rekindling. "It's hard because the
storylines are so intricate and they're so well thought out.
I don't even think you know how much. Basically they'll say
to me, 'We'd love to have you back on Buffy could we
schedule you for like a September episode?' They go that far
back to start adding in little things. Every show is so
planned and every moment is so researched that they have to
plan out that far ahead. And it's hard for me to say, 'Yes,
I'll be available in September.' If a script comes along
tomorrow that I'm just nuts about I may have to be ready to
start it in 2 weeks. So it's hard to schedule that. But I'd
love to go back. I love the people, I love Joss."'
Read the whole article h
ere.
Rob
[>
Cool! -- Masq, 10:40:38 05/10/02 Fri
I love Eliza and Faith. On either BtVS or AtS!
[> [>
Ditto! (NT) -- Goji3, 10:59:24 05/10/02 Fri
[>
I'd love to see another Faith episode! -- Traveler,
11:01:31 05/10/02 Fri
[>
Re:" If a script comes along tomorrow that I'm
just nuts about " -- wiscoboy, 13:12:56 05/10/02
Fri
She's not working on Buffy due to the 'just got to do' roles
she's been doing in film? Who's she kidding? I think it's
called 'it's just the money stupid'. She's been doing
nothing but crap designed to stimulate the young male
adolescent. Maybe Joss needs to start thinking of making
some serious money creating a series of Buffy movies with
the current cast(they would certainly be much better than
the original, which, IMHO, was a piece of junk). This could
include characters such as Faith, which at least would give
Eliza the money she craves plus a viable art form to be a
prt of.
[>
So we're not imagining things!!!! (not that it would
matter.) -- yuri, 18:07:12 05/10/02 Fri
Willow, Tara &
Amy - a tale of three witches (spoiler to SR, long!) --
shadowkat,
11:46:28 05/10/02 Fri
Willlow, Tara, and Amy – the tale of three witches
Quotes from Psyche Transcripts. (Spoilers for Seeing
Red..)
Fifteen years ago, while I was at Colorado College, studying
myth, folklore and English lit, a coven of Wiccans came to
speak with us. People came expecting fortune telling and
tarot card readings and were sadly disappointed. Men and
Women from the coven explained that Wicca is a religion that
celebrates the earth and unlike the more patriarchal
religions, is interested in the reaffirmation of life and
the natural balance of all things. In Wicca you obtain
power from mother earth and return it back to her. Whatever
you take must be returned. When we die we return to the
earth and she brings us forth in a new form. We are all a
part of her and she is part of us. The moon and the earth
and tides are intricately connected and create a positive
energy matrix in which we can all draw strength. Negative
energy throws it out of wack, causes chaos, which we see in
the form of tornados, violent storms and volcanoes. You must
respect the mother and trust her to provide. You must
respect the boundaries, because if you ignore them, push
them or twist them to your own ends, you reap the results.
Tara is Wiccan. She represents the earth and all it
provides. She is mother, lover, and friend. She accepts
without judgment. She leaves when raped, but can provide
forgive when atonement is made. Of the Scoobies – Tara has
ascended to the realm of adulthood. She is a complete
personality. Mature. Forgiving. Able to deal to handle her
world with respect and trust, which was probably why she
like Buffy in The Gift, was killed. In the Buffyverse –
ascension tends to lead to the afterlife.
When we first meet Tara – she is uncertain, stuttering, shy.
But when she uses magic, it is white and pure and usually
gentle. Only once does she misuse it and this in reaction to
the prejudice and disdain her family shows her. Her family
represents the cruel unbending judgment of the patriarchal
world, where everything is black and white, the harsh world
of the sun. Women must be kept in line. Magic is wrong. As
her father, Mr. Maclay states in FAMILY(Season 5, Btvs):
“You can't control what's going to happen. You have evil
inside of you and it will come out. And letting yourself
work all this magic is only going to make it worse. Where do
you think that power comes from?”
It’s fitting that Tara’s family calls Tara a demon and
considers her magic “evil”. Demon’s come from the earth –
Riley and the Initiative even categorize them as “subterrean
creatures” or earth dwellers. And as such, they are below
us, beasts of burden that should be used or killed. Tara’s
family decides that her use of magic, her ability to tap
into the power of the earth, makes her their beast of
burden, an animal that must be kept in line.
We do not deal well with people who use unfamiliar
techniques to heal others or practice religious rites that
contrast with our own. In the early part of our country’s
history, we burned witches at the stake, because we saw them
as evil. Paganism is still considered by many to be the same
as devil worship. If you practice magic or do something
outside of what is considered “acceptable behavior” you are
demonized. Tara has been demonized by her family and peers
her whole life for her beliefs and her sexual orientation.
Tara: "I thought maybe we could do a spell - make people
talk again. I'I'd seen you in the group, the wicca group you
were... you were different than them. I mean they didn't
seem to know..."
Willow: "What they were talking about."
Tara: "I think if they saw a witch they would run the other
way."
She smiles and laughs. (HUSH , Season 4, BTvs)
Tara knows all about hiding. Her whole life she has had to
hide. Her religious practices and her practice of magic.
When she first meets Willow, she is desperately trying to
find a place to belong. She stutters and she is shy. As
Tara’s brother Donny tells her upon being introduced to her
friends: “What, uh, all of you hang out? Wow. That's more
people than you met in high school.” Just prior to that
scene, Tara had attempted to tell her new friends a joke and
was rejected, they didn’t get it.
GILES: Yes, uh, we'll, we'll, uh, find her weaknesses, and
then, uh-
TARA: Yeah. You learn her source, (grins) and, uh, we'll
introduce her to her insect reflection. (Everyone looks at
her in confusion. Tara stops smiling.) Um ... that, that was
funny if you, um, studied Taglarin mythic rites... (softly)
and are a complete dork. (FAMILY)
We meet her family and realize that not only has she felt
the need to hide her magic, she’s also felt that she has to
hide being a demon. She’s not a demon of course, but her
family believes she is. And so she believes it too. How
often do we accept someone else’s interpretation of who we
are as the true one? In Tara’s case, her father, whom she
trusted, had an ulterior motive for labeling her a demon. As
Spike states, after he proves that Tara is human, “There's
no demon in there. That's just a family legend, am I right?
(Mr. Maclay looks angry) Just a bit of spin to keep the
ladies in line.” (FAMILY, Season 4, Btvs.)
Willow’s problem is somewhat different from Tara’s. They are
alike in the sense that they have both been cruelly rejected
by peers. Willow was treated as the nerdy geek, constantly
pushed aside. Cruel comments such as Cordelia’s “nice to see
you’ve found the softer side of Sears” seem to be the rule
until Willow meets Buffy and begins to blossom into her own.
No longer taking the views of her peers as gospel. But the
pain is still there, deeply imbedded inside her. It is in
reaction to this pain that Willow turns to magic, while Tara
has been practicing all along.
Tara’s use of magic has to do with her love of her mother.
Her mother used magic and taught Tara how as well. When she
practices, Tara feels a connection to her mother and to her
mother’s beliefs. To Tara – magic is a reaffirmation of life
and the love she feels for her mother.
Willow: "How long have you been practicing?"
Tara: "Always, I mean, since I um, was little... my, my mom
used to,
She um, she had a lot of power, like you." (HUSH, Season 4,
Btvs)
Interesting what Tara says to Willow – her mother had
natural ability. The power was there bubbling beneath the
surface. Willow – Tara senses also has natural ability. The
ability attracts Tara – partly because it reminds her of her
mother, it also frightens her.
WILLOW: S-O-R-T of. (Tara frowns) I mean, I just feel like
the-the junior partner. You've been doing everything longer
than me. You've been out longer ... you've been practicing
witchcraft way longer.
TARA: Oh, but you're way beyond me there! In just a few- I
mean ... it frightens me how powerful you're getting.
WILLOW: (frowns) That's a weird word.
TARA: (nervous smile) "Getting"?
WILLOW: It frightens you? *I* frighten you? (Tough Love,
Season 5, Btvs.)
We don’t know how Tara’s mother died, just that she was sick
for a long time and finally it ended. But I have always
wondered if magic had something to do with it, particularly
based on her father’s words. “Demon. The women in our
family... have demon in them. Her mother had it. That's
where the magic comes from.”
But Tara’s relationship with her family and with her mother
is very different from Willow’s. If Tara learned magic as a
means of becoming closer to her mother and honoring her
mother’s memory, Willow learned it as a means of garnering
her absentee parents affections. In the beginning, magic was
Willow’s way of rebelling. Against her mother, against her
friends, against her world, while for Tara – magic was way
she melded with her world, celebrated it, loved it.
Willow: (stands up) No, Ma, hear this! I'm a rebel! I'm
having a rebellion!
Sheila: (smiling) Willow, honey, you don't need to act out
like this to prove your specialness.
Willow: Mom, I'm not acting out. I'm a witch! I-I can make
pencils float. And I can summon the four elements. Okay,
two, but four soon. (her mother doesn't react) A-and I'm
dating a musician. (Gingerbread, Btvs Season 3)
Compare this with Tara who tells Willow that she was
practicing magic with her mother. Tara received affection
through magic. Even with Willow – magic is a source of love.
When they first join hands and combine their talents it is
as if they are making love for the first time. Tara’s magic
comes from acceptance, confidence, love and kindness.
Willow’s comes from pain, rejection, fear, and uncertainty.
In Dopplegangland – Willow reacts to rejection she perceives
from friends and teachers by practicing dark magic with
Anya. As a result, she accidentally brings EvilWillow back
from an Alternate Universe. In Something Blue – Willow casts
a dangerous spell to help her get past the pain of OZ
leaving her and places all of her friends in jeopardy as a
result. For Willow – magic is a drug that she can use to
make herself feel better to alter the world to her liking.
To Tara, magic is a religion, a way of communing with the
earth.
WILLOW: (to Tara) Then what? This isn't something that's
gonna be fixed by a video club. I know I messed up, okay,
and ... I wanna fix it.
TARA: I can't believe that we are talking about this again.
You know how powerful magic is, how dangerous. You could
hurt someone, you ... you could hurt yourself.
WILLOW: (shaking head) I know a spell that will make her
forget she was ever in heaven.
TARA: (angrily) God, what is wrong with you?! (Tabula Rasa,
Season 6 Btvs.)
Another difference between Willow and Tara, Willow believes
magic can fix everything including their relationship. Giles
and Tara both assumed that Willow’s power came from a deep
respect for the natural forces. It doesn’t. Tara’s power
comes from that because she was taught to respect those
forces. Tara is Wiccan. Willow only joined a Wiccan group in
college to learn spells. The meetings bore her. Even Oz,
before he leaves, cautions Willow about her increased
dependence on magic. He senses that it comes from a dark
place inside her just like his power does. “I know what it’s
like to have power you can’t control. I mean, every time I
start to wolf out, I touch something –deep – dark. It’s not
fun..” (FEAR ITSELF, Season 4, Btvs) Tara doesn’t start to
sense this until much later and Giles doesn’t appear to
sense it at all. Perhaps that’s part of the problem, Giles,
Willow’s mentor, never really took magic that seriously,
when he is stripped of his memory, he calls it chicanary and
balderdash in Tabula Rasa. Oh don’t get me wrong - he has a
respect for it, but not a deep one. And this view, he may
have inadvertently passed on to Willow, who whether Giles
likes it or not has adopted him as her role model and father
figure to replace the ones that ignore her.
If Willow believes magic can solve everything – a belief
that has been reinforced over five seasons, is it any wonder
she attempts to use it to solve her problems with Tara? Yes
– what she does to Tara is wrong. But in Willow’s head –
she’s just fixing things. Like she did way back in Season 3
when she helped Buffy and the others fight the mayor, or
like she did in Season 4 when she joined their essences with
Buffy to fight Adam or like she does in Season 5, by
entering Buffy’s brain to snap her out of her catatonic
state. How, Willow wonders, is this really any different?
It’s not “rape” to Willow, it is controlling the situation,
fixing it, so that things work out the way she wants them
to.
WILLOW: Violate you? I ... I-I didn't ... mean anything like
that, I-I, I just wanted us not to fight any more. I love
you.
TARA: If you don't wanna fight, you don't fight. You don't
use magic to make a fight disappear.
Willow doesn’t realize that she’s violating more than Tara’s
mind here, she’s violating her trust. Tara trusted Willow
not to hurt her the way Glory did. But Willow did and as a
result, Tara leaves no longer able to trust Willow. Their
love was built on trust – without it there is nothing. But
it’s not just Tara’s trust Willow breaks when she uses
magic, she also breaks the trust her world of the sacred
order of the universe, she breaks the trust of the earth
from which she pulls her power from and as a result her
power is dark and consuming not light and healing like
Tara’s.
Enter Amy the rat. Poor Amy – she is also the product of bad
parenting and neglect. In the third episode of Btvs, Witch,
we are introduced to Amy and her mother Catherine Madison.
Catherine is a bit like Willow is now. She uses magic to
twist the world into the version she wishes to experience.
In Catherine’s case that is reliving her glory days as a
high school cheerleader. She goes to extremes to accomplish
this, including switching bodies with her daughter,
mutilating the other cheerleading candidates and almost
killing Buffy. Catherine believes she’s justified that she
desires a second go. As she tells Amy: “How dare you raise
your hand to your mother! I gave you birth. I gave up my
life so you could drag that worthless carcass around and
call it living?” Poor Amy – her mother rejected her in the
worst way possible – is it any wonder Amy begins to go down
the same path? Amy like Willow starts using magic to make
her world work for her. But instead of accessing the power
of the earth, she accesses the power of the hellmouth, of
darkness, just as her mother did before her. Magic
eventually becomes Amy’s drug – she goes after more and more
of it, until she messes up on a spell and turns herself into
a rat. It’s not until three years later that Willow is able
to undo it. Something Amy resents her for. This is made
clear when Amy visits Willow in Double Meat Palace. In this
episode, Amy has given a recovering Willow a taste of magic.
Willow furious with Amy for doing this tells her never to
visit her again.
WILLOW: You don't get it. What you did to me was wrong. Do
you have any idea how much harder that makes, just,
everything?
AMY: You know what I notice? You're not denying that you had
fun.
WILLOW: Shut up.
AMY: Oh, yeah. Sharp argument you got there. Were you on the
debate team? I forget. I forgot a lot while you were failing
to make me be not a rat. (DMP, Btvs Season 6)
If Tara represents Willow’s light side and the ways magic
can be used to heal the world. Amy represents her dark side
or the ways that magic should not be used. Amy uses magic to
make herself feel better just as her mother used it before
her. In Bewitched Bothered and Bewildered, Season 2 Btvs,
Xander discovers Amy using magic to lie to the teacher about
her homework. He blackmails her with this knowledge, causing
her to cast a very dangerous love spell which causes every
woman Xander meets to fall madly in love with him. The next
time we see Amy is in Gingerbread where she and Willow are
almost burned at the stake for practicing magic. At this
point their spells are harmless incantations used to protect
those that they love. But it is in this episode that Amy
turns herself into a rat. Now three years later, de-ratted
Amy, visits a magic den, steals sage from the Summers house
and attempts to pull Willow into her addiction. Magic is
fun, a trip to Disneyland – Amy tells Willow. “You're
telling me that you didn't have a genuine blast? Come on,
that was a sweet spell. That was like a trip to Disneyland
without the lines.” (Doublemeat Palace).
But magic is not just a drug to Willow. Magic is a little
bit more. As Willow tells Buffy in Wrecked:
WILLOW: I mean ... if you could be ... you know, plain old
Willow or super Willow, who would you be? (looks at Buffy) I
guess you don't actually have an option on the whole super
thing.
BUFFY: Will, there's nothing wrong with you. You don't need
magic to be special.
WILLOW: Don't I? I mean, Buffy, who was I? Just ... some
girl. Tara didn't even know that girl. (Wrecked, Season 6,
Btvs.)
As far back as Becoming Part II, Season 2 Btvs, Willow has
relied on magic to help the team. She believes that it makes
her important. A superhero. She can wreck vengeance. Kill
the bad guy. Without magic, she’s just that geeky nerd who
found the softer side of Sears. A nerd that no one in their
right mind could ever love. What does she say in Doomed,
after OZ has left – “Percy called me a nerd. I’m not a nerd
anymore. I dated a musician.” How does Amy get her to go out
and wreck havoc on the Bronze in Smashed?
“Maybe ... you'd rather sit home all night, alone, like in
high school.” Willow doesn’t use magic as a drug, she uses
it to hide the person she hates inside. She uses it to wreck
vengeance on those who hurt who she loves – such as Glory in
Tough Love. I always found the scene in Tough Love to be
very frightening. After Tara gets brain-sucked by Glory,
against everyone’s advice, Willow goes after the hell god.
She actually manages to inflict pain on Glory – which Buffy
later comments on in The Gift. “Will, you're the only person
that's ever hurt Glory. At all. You're my best shot at
getting her on the ropes…”
And Willow’s magic didn’t stop there – when we return to
Btvs in Season 6, Willow is running the SG. She is in
telepathic communication with all of them. She is also
working on a spell to raise Buffy from the dead. This is way
past stealing sage or visiting the local Warlock for a
energy fix. Willow has delved into the darkest magic and she
has found a way to bend it to her whim, use it to make the
world work the way she wants it to. Tara was right to be
frightened. The power lodged inside Willow is not connected
to the earth or from the same source as Tara’s, it runs
counter to it. It resides in chaos, from the hell mouth
Willow has lived near her entire life. Willow’s power is not
like Buffy’s , a gift from the Powers That Be, nor is it a
celebration of Wicca. It is dark and it howls deep inside
her. The only thing that has kept her power in check up to
this point may have been Tara.
If Amy is the dark, mischievous side of Willow’s
personality, Tara is the light. Tara is Willow’s spirit,
what keeps her grounded. Without Tara, Willow would be lost.
And that is not a good thing. When we grow up – we have to
learn how to deal with the world and all its challenges. We
can’t rely on outside sources like partners or magic to
handle our reality or hide from ourselves. Tara left Willow
because she correctly saw Willow relying on her as a crutch.
She may have returned to Willow too soon, but as she states
in Entropy, she missed Willow and just didn’t want to spend
all the time trying to build it all up again. She wanted to
skip over that stage. She wanted to move on. But Willow
hadn’t changed, not really. She hadn’t learned that magic
isn’t the way to handle emotional strife or deal with
emotional issues. You have to handle them the hard way by
going through them.
Willow: I just can't stand feeling this way. I want it to be
over.
Buffy: It will. I promise. But it's gonna take time.
Willow: Well, that's not good enough.
Buffy: I know. It's just how it is. You have to go through
the pain.
Willow: Well, isn't there someway I can just make it go
away? Just ‘cause I say so? Can't I just make it go ‘poof'?
(Something Blue, Season 4, btvs)
Therein lies the difference between our three witches. Tara
pushes herself through the pain, she returns to Willow
eventually, but she doesn’t use magic to control the
relationship or handle her pain. Amy uses magic like a drug
to deal with pain, to deal with the changes in her world, to
have fun. And Willow? She uses magic to make the pain go
poof. Her solution to problems is to wave a magic wand and
make them disappear. That as Tara has mentioned on more than
one occasion isn’t what magic is for.
But Willow hasn’t learned that yet – she still believes she
can make the pain go poof, that she can bend reality to her
will, that she can hide. As a result, her magic unlike
Tara’s will always reside in darkness and will always cause
misery and pain most of all to Willow herself. Wiccans
believe that the pain you send out comes back to you three-
fold, hence – Amy being turned into a rat after casting her
dangerous spells. Catherine, Amy’s mother, was sucked into
the dark heart of her own trophy while trying to kill Buffy.
One can only hope a similar fate does not await Willow due
to her desire to make pain go poof.
Thanks for reading. Feedback appreciated as always.
:- ) Shadowkat
[>
Wow...Great post! -- Belladonna, 12:54:05
05/10/02 Fri
[>
Great Analysis! -- DickBD, 13:07:44 05/10/02
Fri
But I'll be that coven of wiccans that came to talk with you
was like the group where Tara and Willow met!
[>
worshiping at the alter of Shadowkat's
genius....KABOOM! -- Kitt, 13:20:39 05/10/02 Fri
[>
Re: a tale of three witches and two quibbles, but no
spoliers... -- redcat, 13:21:48 05/10/02 Fri
Another wonder post, shadowkat!! Sometimes its like you’re
inside my head. I’m working on
an essay about the way the “threes” (triads, trios, triple
deaths) have been working lately in the
series and your post has really spurred me on. However, I
have two quite minor quibbles and one disagreement.
The first quibble is your comment that for Wiccans, the
balance inherent in the earth energy means
that “The moon and the earth and tides are intricately
connected and create a positive energy
matrix in which we can all draw strength. Negative energy
throws it out of wack, causes
chaos, which we see in the form of tornados, violent storms
and volcanoes. “
I’ve been a Wiccan for about thirty years and have never
heard any witch express the idea that natural
earth forces like storms, volcanoes or tornadoes are
expressions of “negative” energy. Their
EFFECT on humans, often experienced as tragedy or loss, may
very well be seen as the
karmic response to our own need for lessons, or as part of
the principle that one gets back
three times the negative and positive energy one puts out.
The storms and volcanoes
themselves, however, are made of wind and rain, fire and
earth, time and history, sacred and
secular processes. They are neither “good” nor “evil.”
They simply are, expressions of the
balance, part of the process, cleansing, revealing,
rejuvenating, creating. I say this as
someone who lives on a live volcano on an island in the
middle of the Pacific, and who has
been through two class 5 hurricanes (!!! this is HUGE,
people. Andrew in Florida was a class
4...) in the last twenty years, as well as tropical storms
that can drop as much as 31 inches of
rain in 30 hours. This is why Wiccans are such good
dancers. We remember that we might
have to dance in a raging wind storm while the lava flows
down the mountain all around us. :)
Second minor quibble: you said: “In the early part of our
country’’s history, we burned witches
at the stake....“
I’m assuming you’re American. If so, please do a quick
check on your history. No on was ever
burned at the stake in the British American colonies or
later during the American national
period. During the Salem “Witch” trials of 1692/3 to which
you most likely refer, nineteen
people were hanged by the neck until dead, one was pressed
to death and at least two died in
prison awaiting trial or hanging. Persons accused of
witchcraft or heresy were hanged in
England (the parent country of American law), burned in
Scotland, drowned in Ireland, burned
in parts of France, the Basque region of Spain, and in most
of Germany, but also were hanged
in other parts of France and Germany, tortured publically
without burning in at least several
celebrated cases in both countries, and generally were
strangled (considered
“compassionate”) in non-Basque Spain. The Netherlands and
the seven cantons of
Switzerland also present complicated regional cases, with
variations across both time and
space. (Geez, sorry for the lecture, but hey, I used to
teach this stuff, and old habits die
hard... )
As for the more serious issue I respectfully disagree with
you that Willow's power is pulled from a different source
than Tara's, because, for me, the earth energy that I see
both of their powers coming from contains within itself all
light and all shadow, all clear and all dark, all life and
all deeath, all yin and all yang. But I do agree
completely that Willow's APPROACH to the power comes from a
different place than Tara's, and the rest of your analysis
is SO RIGHT ON, that even tho I disagree with you about the
source concept, you've made me think through it in order to
clarify why I disagree, and that's the gift of great writing
and analysis.
Thank you for all the work, here and in other posts. I
always really enjoy reading your take on the show.
redcat
[> [>
Re: a tale of three witches and two quibbles, but no
spoliers... -- shadowkat, 13:31:55 05/10/02 Fri
Well you caught me...apologize for the bad
tornado/volcano
metaphor - had a feeling someone would call me on that.
It's been a while since I studied the salem witch trials -
so was sort of trying for the Gingerbread
metaphor...last
time looked into it was well...twenty years ago. So
thanks
for the info. ;-)
Not sure about Willow though - her magic spiraled much
quicker than Tara's and as someone pointed out elsewhere -
she's the only one who isn't a natural born witch. Her power
really started with the Becoming PArt II spell which was a
curse. So i think I'll stick to my Willow arguement
for now.
Thanks for your response though - it was wonderful!
[> [> [>
Oh dear, I'm up to 3 quibbles and 2
considerations... -- redcat, 15:32:55 05/10/02
Fri
Aloha, shadowkat -
Well, you’ve certainly pushed me to think about this source-
of-power issue. You say in your
original post, “The power lodged inside Willow is not
connected to the earth or from the same
source as Tara’s, it runs counter to it. It resides in
chaos, from the hell mouth Willow has lived
near her entire life. Willow’s power is not like Buffy’s , a
gift from the Powers That Be, nor is it a
celebration of Wicca. It is dark and it howls deep inside
her [dear goddess, I love the way you
write, even when I disagree with you]. The only thing that
has kept her power in check up to this
point may have been Tara.” You follow this in the second
post with the argument that Willow is
not a “natural born” witch, that her powers really start
with the curse she performs in Becoming,
Part II, and that they have spiraled much more quickly than
Tara’s [with which, by the way, I
absolutely agree].
Hmmm.....
Some points to consider:
1) Do we, in fact, know that Willow is not a “natural-born”
witch? We don’t know what her
lineage is; her mother’s lack of witch-sense is no
indication that if we went back a generation or
two, some red-haired, Russian-Yiddish-German healer-witch-
midwife hasn’t passed on some
innate ability to connect with the unseen powers to our girl
(all hail the evolutionary biologists in
the crowd ;). On the other hand, does it matter whether she
is or not? Within Wiccan culture and
community, and certainly within many Wiccans’ understandings
of ‘how things work,’ the fact
that many a powerful practitioner does not come from any
long line of “natural-born” witches, but
from long lines of farm wives and fish merchants, would
suggest that this is not important either
within Wicca or ME’s use of Wicca within the metaphorical
frame of the story.
2) The curse Willow performs in Becoming, Part II, is done
for a positive reason. Willow should
still have to pay the (triple) price for performing such a
curse, but her cost should reflect her
intentions. [side-note: I’m not sure whether or when Willow
ever does have to deal with her
action in this case. Any ideas?] For a good example of
this, albeit in a case where a fictional
woman uses an extremely negative curse to actually hurt
someone, but does so for the good of
the women and others in her community, see the film
“Antonia’s Line,” wherein the matriarch
curses the village rapist, but then becomes ill and quickly
thereafter dies herself, at least partly
from the energy drain it took for her to do the curse and
partly because the powers ALWAYS
make you pay the price -- usually with a pretty hefty tax
(gift with purchase?) on top.
3) I think about Tara’s statement from the scene in
“Forever,” when she tells Dawn, and by
extension Willow, that “witches can't be allowed to alter
the fabric of life for selfish reasons.
Wiccans took an oath a long time ago to honor that.” She is
not denying that the dark force -
which she calls the power of life and death - is something
Wiccans can’t access, she’s merely
stating that, historically and in most cases, they choose
not to. The dark, chaotic force on which
Willow increasingly draws is available to all Wiccans, all
witches, all people, because it exists and
is part of the balance of energy and power of the “IS” -
whatever you want to call that (it goes by
600,000 names in the Native Hawaiian pantheon of gods and
goddesses, by 1,000 names in the
contemporary American neo-pagan movement, by uncountable
names in cultures ancient and
living...) Tara chooses not to access the dark side of the
power very often, but she collaborates
with Willow to raise Buffy from the dead. And if she’s like
most Wiccans, she honors the dark
side, her own dark shadow, and the necessary power of death
and decay on every Samhain
(Halloween) and Winter’s Solstice eve.
4) If Willow’s power is from some place other than the site
of both Tara’s and Buffy’s power,
then please expand on where it comes from? I know this is
probably way off topic from where
you thought this essay was going, but it seems to me that a
portion of your claim here rests on a
re-reading of the canon. The hell-mouth is, after all,
clearly located in the very flesh of The
Mother, nestled deep inside her own bones. The
extraordinarily well-visualized relationship
between the powers of light and dark is a major part of what
has always drawn me to the show. I
think especially after the first season, Joss and ME have
rally been taking us on an exploration of
that link. Are you suggesting a new theology of the
Buffyverse? If so, please flesh it out for me
(no pun intended).
5) I still think that the main thrust of your analysis is
absolutely brilliant and I agree with you
whole-heartedly on the ways in which the three witches
approach and use their powers. I hope
you realize that I’m only responding at such length because
I really value your thoughts and
insights – your posts are worth reading carefully and
thoughtfully, and inspire what I hope you
read as respectful, intrigued and intellectually-excited
comradeship.
ke welina,
redcat
[> [> [> [>
Amazing response! Thank you...now I'm thinking --
shadowkat, 19:45:57 05/10/02 Fri
Author: shadowkat
Subject: Thank you so much for this! Excellent quibbles!
Wow! Well now you have me thinking...must say this baby was
hard to write, because I have gone a little over my own
head
on some of it. But your analysis does enrich it.
1.O"n the other hand, does it matter whether she is or not?
Within Wiccan culture and
community, and certainly within many Wiccans’ understandings
of ‘how things work,’ the fact
that many a powerful practitioner does not come from any
long line of “natural-born” witches, but
from long lines of farm wives and fish merchants, would
suggest that this is not important either
within Wicca or ME’s use of Wicca within the metaphorical
frame of the story"
On point one - I didn't think it was important at first, but
a lot of people have mentioned how it odd it was that
Willow's magic grew so quickly with no training, while Amy
and Tara had apparently been practicing for years. Tara even
mentions how much further Willow is than her in response to
Willow's comment that Tara has more experience and training.
It's also important to note that the council asks if they
are even registered. So my question is - does Willow's magic
have a dark source? Or is it the way she uses it giving it
that taint? From what I remember of druid
rites (I actually studied the ancient druid/Celt religion
more than the Wiccan one - while the two have similarities
they are very different in some respects.), it's how you
use
the magic not so much where it comes from that is important
- because it comes from the same source - the earth. The
druids and ancients really didn't split stuff
into black and white like the Christians did. Their religion
also wasn't linear. They believed in cycles. It wasn't good
and evil so much as order and chaos and balance.
So - that said, I think the problem with Willow's power may
be balance as opposed to source. If she had been trained
like Tara she may have been able to find that balance - but
she's so chaotic inside so her power reflects what is inside
her - red and chaotic. (Actually I think that may be the
problem with the interpretations of all the characters -
it's not good vs. evil so much as it is striving for balance
between the two and calm...because as you so aptly pointed
out in your previous response - we need the hurricanes as
much as we need the sunrise, both are necessary in our
world.
Sorry I sort of rambled there - let's see, it's only
important that she isn't natural to the extent that she
doesn't understand or know how to control the chaotic energy
within her. This is clearly shown in Fear Itself - when she
angrily creates a location spell without thinking it through
first or determining the purpose.
2. "The curse Willow performs in Becoming, Part II, is done
for a positive reason. Willow should
still have to pay the (triple) price for performing such a
curse, but her cost should reflect her
intentions. [side-note: I’m not sure whether or when Willow
ever does have to deal with her
action in this case. Any ideas?]" I was discussing this
with
cjl tonight - and we wondered about that. She didn't intend
it as a curse - like Jenny's family did, but the spell
itself was a vengeance spell - so is the intent
important?
ME seems to like the whole "road to hell is pathed in
good
intents" idea. By deciding to do that sort of spell while in
a weakened state - did Willow grab hold of something
that
she couldn't control? Giles mentions how dangerous the
spell
is on more than one occassion and oddly does not attempt it
himself. I'm not sure...but I remember her eyes glowing red
when it took hold and her voice changed speaking a language
she didn't know. Also it's interesting that a good majority
of her major spells since that time - have tended towards
the dark side. Willow even states on more than one occassion
that she "likes the dark magics". Was Becoming the
beginning of that arc? cjl suggested to me tonight that
maybe Willow would never have become a witch if Jenny
Calendar had lived?
3." The dark, chaotic force on which
Willow increasingly draws is available to all Wiccans, all
witches, all people, because it exists and
is part of the balance of energy and power of the “IS” -
whatever you want to call that (it goes by
600,000 names in the Native Hawaiian pantheon of gods and
goddesses, by 1,000 names in the
contemporary American neo-pagan movement, by uncountable
names in cultures ancient and
living...) Tara chooses not to access the dark side of the
power very often, but she collaborates
with Willow to raise Buffy from the dead. And if she’s like
most Wiccans, she honors the dark
side, her own dark shadow, and the necessary power of death
and decay on every Samhain
(Halloween) and Winter’s Solstice eve. "
I agree with your points about tara. I think she does honor
the shadow side of magic. It goes back to the view of
balance - a major theme this season. We see so many
characters struggling for it. In fact Tara is the only
character who appears to be in balance. All the other
characters aren't. It's been suggested that Dawn (the key)
is causing them to be out of wack. But I'm wondering if
this
is just a natural state of growing up. Seeking balance?
Yes - we have to honor both death and life, light and
darkness to be able to walk in the world. I think Tara sees
that. As demonstrated by her acceptance of what Buffy
told
her in DT. In Bargaining she agrees to help - but as she
puts it - it's not the same as raising Joyce from the grave,
Buffy was killed by mystical energy not natural causes and
that counts as an exception in her mind. I wonder
if she would have done it if Buffy had died of a gunshot
wound?
4."If Willow’s power is from some place other than the site
of both Tara’s and Buffy’s power,
then please expand on where it comes from? I know this is
probably way off topic from where
you thought this essay was going, but it seems to me that a
portion of your claim here rests on a
re-reading of the canon. The hell-mouth is, after all,
clearly located in the very flesh of The
Mother, nestled deep inside her own bones. The
extraordinarily well-visualized relationship
between the powers of light and dark is a major part of what
has always drawn me to the show. I
think especially after the first season, Joss and ME have
rally been taking us on an exploration of
that link. Are you suggesting a new theology of the
Buffyverse? If so, please flesh it out for me
(no pun intended). "
No - not suggesting a new theology. I guess in my mind, I
considered the hellmouth as separate from the mother not a
natural source. But you are absolutely right - if we go back
to the first episode of the series, Welcome to the Hellmouth
- it is most definitely part of the earth. After all Giles
says the world was made for demons first, they were the
first inhabitants, driven beneath the ground when humans
arrived or evolved. And they yearned to take back their
kingdom and have chaos reign once more.
Therefore - maybe a better way of putting it would be to say
that Willow's power comes from chaos - or the dark part of
the earth - the hellmouth. While Buffy's comes from the sky
- the PTB? No - doesn't work - she has darkness in her
too, the first slayer represented that. How about -
Buffy's
power is balanced between earth and sky - it's order.
Tara's
is also balanced. Willow's derives from the same source
that
Spike and Anya's comes from the emotional underbelly of
chaos. Or the howl of the wolves? OZ certainly saw it as a
darkness in Willow - since he had one as well - it was I
think part of the reason they were attracted to each other -
both had a chaotic beast inside them struggling to break
free?
Just some late night ramblings. Hope they made sense. I
really love your responses to my posts redcat - they make
me
think. (Particularly on this topic - since it hooks into
this novel I'm revising..;-) ) BTW - what have you come up
with on that Innanna myth? I'm unfortunately unfamilar with
Polyesian mythology and would love to hear it. Yep, i'm
a myth/folklore addict at heart.
best shadowkat
[> [> [> [> [>
hey, I’m supposed to be grading final exams!
but this is just too delicious... -- redcat, 01:27:16
05/11/02 Sat
to stop yet. We agree on so much and I find some of the
developing insights really fabulous. I
think we are actually thinking along very, very similar
lines about these issues. As you
note, the real question is not about the source of power,
but rather HOW the characters go
about doing what they do and WHY -- what has brought them to
the place where they use that
particular portion of the available power spectrum? I think
this discussion is helping us both
clarify our thoughts and find new ways of writing about them
– which is totally cool and
exciting, so thanks! Any one else want to join in?
I especially like the way your last post talks about the
notion that Tara has been taught the
proper ways to approach the power and how to control it
within herself, while Willow has not.
Traditionally, that training comes from an elder relative or
mentor, both in many indigenous
cultures and in western pre-christian and christian europe.
But without that training (including
a required course on ethics and usually some sense of
protocol) Willow is like an amazingly
talented but dangerous orphan, the type of cultural
“outsider” who (as in so many myths and
legends) can send the balance out of whack without really
realizing that they are doing it. The
control of young adepts like this is at least part of the
rationale behind many of the “rules”
passed down in lineage-based traditions. Paying attention
to the rules keeps you alive long
enough to learn the wisdom behind them on your own. (These
same rules are also often
reflected in modern, generally syncretic neo-pagan
practices, at least in America, and in fairy
tales like “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice.”) They “work” as
rules because they’re based on the
wisdom of long-term practitioners, i.e., 1) if you fuck up
because you’re being selfish or
impatient or arrogant, it WILL come back to bite you in the
ass, and 2) it will do so in perfect
triple proportion to your own fuck-uped-ness, and 3) not
being well-trained is not an adequate
excuse for doing poorly in the test of life, since the rules
themselves are always your greatest
teachers.
And I, too, have always been surprised that Giles didn’t
step up to the plate on this one,
especially after the death of Jenny Calendar. But I think
our favorite red-head would have
become a witch one way or the other. She is drawn to it,
both the dark and the light. (Excellent
insights in your post about Oz and the dark aspects they
share, BTW.) Willow will have to heal
her inner wounds, and probably do that at the same time that
she will have to become
humbled in her approach to her gift (especially if ME stays
true to angsty form), and especially
if she is ever going to understand the true nature of her
power. She has always had the
potential to live deeply in both the light and dark
simultaneously, as the most powerful witches
(and Slayers) can. As you say, “Willow even states on more
than one occasion that she "likes
the dark magics.” My favorite example is her standing on
the roof of of City Hall (“Choices”)
with Buffy and Angel after she has successfully removed the
protection spell from the mayor’s
big box of hairy critters with a spell of her own. She says
with great glee and satisfaction, “I’m
bad!” The scene is funny because our lovely young Willow is
rarely naughty, so that on the
surface we intellectually see the irony of her statement and
emotionally feel the pathos of her
insecurities and struggles as she says it. But underneath
that surface, and only because Joss
is both God and evil ;) three seasons later we look
back and go, “how could we not have
seen it coming??!!” when her eyes go all red for real. Then
finally, if we’re REALLY careful,
we fast-forward to the end of that same ep and see Willow
make an impassioned argument for
using witchcraft on the “good” side. “It’s a good fight,
Buffy, and I want in,” she proclaims, and
at that moment, we want to believe her, having conveniently
forgotten the rest of what she
wants “in” on. Sigh... Such is the power of the
narrative...
You also ask if Tara would have helped with the resurrection
spell in Bargaining “if Buffy had
died of a gunshot wound?” Excellent question! I don’t
know, but I doubt if she would have
been so willing to go along with it. She didn’t try to
raise her mother or help Dawn raise Joyce,
so I suspect not.
Reading your responses and then going back to read your
original post [what a delight, even
the third time around] makes me need to say, once again,
that your sense of things often
makes me take that "aha!" breath. It is fairly late at
night now as I write this, and thinking all
this through has taken me to a rather interesting place,
filled with powerful images. Sometimes
I think better in metaphor, image, geo-graphic/-logic/-
spatial terms than in linear ones, so
please bear with me on this. Anyway, I offer this image to
you and the rest of the board as a
sort of nightcap, and hope that it might be a useful way to
think about the difference between
the source of power that includes both light and dark, and
the differing ways Tara, Willow and
Amy (and Buffy?) approach, access, use, understand (insert
appropriate verb here) different
aspects of that power:
Imagine a strong, clear bright energy, surrounding you
equally on all sides, available to you
equally at all angles, shining from an ever-present source.
Each person is sort of a set of
lenses through which that energy can be focused, kind of
like a kaleidoscope but without the
repetitive patterns. (..wait, maybe WITH the repetitive
patterns? Most people I know, me
included, tend to repeat each and every pattern of our
parents that we explicitly told ourselves
at age 16 we would NEVER repeat...) Anyway, which lens we
choose to focus the energy
though will determine what part (what ray) of the energy we
“see” and can use. Willow’s lens
is red and black now, chaotic and disconnected, like a
wounded animal’s. She is refracting
power from the darkest side of the spectrum, through a lens
she has used (perhaps too
often?) before. But the problem with BEING the lens is that
lenses can crack. They can
shatter and disappear into dust (like Sam’s South American
shamans), lenses can shiver into
nothingness under too much pressure. And both pure good and
pure evil can cause lots of
pressure. Both saints and dark witches tend to go crazy,
but one from ecstacy and the other
from despair. Crazy-from-ecstasy can result in great poetry
(and, one assumes, an e-ticket
ride to heaven) while crazy-from-despair seems to lead to
other, not-so-pleasant things and
possibly long lines somewhere very disagreeable. I hope my
favorite motherless young witch
will be able to grow up soon and I wish that could happen
without too much of the pain I see
coming for her. But we get that grace far too rarely, so I
will chant (metaphorical) prayers for
her and her world, and for her pain, and for the pain she
seems set on causing her world
because of it.
Then I will go to sleep. Honest.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: hey, I’m supposed to be grading final
exams! but this is just too delicious... -- Rufus,
02:29:06 05/11/02 Sat
And I, too, have always been surprised that Giles didn’t
step up to the plate on this one,
especially after the death of Jenny Calendar. But I think
our favorite red-head would have
become a witch one way or the other. She is drawn to it,
both the dark and the light.
It's too bad that ASH went back to England, I think we would
have seen a different story had he stuck around. I think
Giles big problem is that he overestimated Willows maturity.
He assumed like everyone around her that she was as
dependable as a Timex. Too bad they all didn't get to see
her dream in Restless when we got to see just how afraid she
is of who she is. That fear changed the sweet Willow we
first met into someone that needed to appear powerful, but
was afraid they still had none. Giles did warn Willow about
dark magics in B1 and Flooded, but he was ignored because
Willow always thought she was the one in control. Willow was
always seen as a light in all the darkness surrounding her,
one that reminded everone what good was all about, her
leanings into darkness are he attempts to be like everyone
else, unhappy with herself because she can only see her
faults, not what her friends have come to love.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
ooh, shivering with delight and agreement
(spoilers/speculation based on SR & promo for Villians )
-- redcat, 13:48:43 05/11/02 Sat
"Too bad they all didn't get to see her dream in Restless
when we got to see just how afraid she is of who she is.
That fear changed the sweet Willow we first met into someone
that needed to appear powerful, but was afraid they still
had none."
You just made me think of the scene in Willow's dream in
Restless when Buffy pulls off her "costume" to reveal Willow
dressed in the same clothes she wore in the first ep.
Chills running up my spine, I contemplate what this means
for the aftermath of Willow's eyes turning red, then black,
during her obvious turn to the dark side after Tara's death.
The promo shows B standing in her "slayer-as-hero,"
shoulders-squared, righteousness-embodied way. Throw in a
big dash of impatience and this stance is eerily reminiscent
of the attitude she had in the scene in Restless as she
ripped Will's clothes off. I can't even begin to imagine
what might be to come (and don't want to know, so please
don't spoil me), but if Buffy has to strip away the dark in
order for Willow to find her light, what will that look
like?
Thoughts?
PS - I think that at least one part of what Buffy will have
to strip away is her own conception of Willow as (as you
say) "always ... a light in all the darkness surrounding
her". Even after Willow hurt Dawn and after all she's seen
Willow go through lately, Buffy still says to Willow that
she has always been there for her or that she can always
depend on her or something like that ..(sorry, can't
remember the exact quote). It seemed odd to me when she
said it, but if it's supposed to be some sort of signal or
foreshadowing, then I guess it should seem odd.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Shivering.........spoilers for Seeing Red and
Villians -- Rufus, 17:09:13 05/11/02 Sat
One concept Buffy had of Willow in season five was that of
the big gun.....an innanimate object that can be used to
destroy.
From The Gift...
BUFFY: Will, what do you got for me?
WILLOW: Some ideas. (Buffy goes to sit on the stairs leading
up to the loft) Well, notions. Or, theories based on wild
speculation. Did I mention I'm not good under pressure?
BUFFY: I need you, Will. You're my big gun.
WILLOW: (alarmed) I'm your - no, I-I was never a
gun.Someone else should be the gun. I, I could be a, a
cudgel. Or, or a pointy stick.
BUFFY: You're the strongest person here. You know that,
right?
WILLOW: (frowns) Well ... no.
BUFFY: Will, you're the only person that's ever hurt Glory.
At all. You're my best shot at getting her on the ropes, so
don't get a jelly belly on me now.
WILLOW: Well ... I, I ... do sort of have this one idea.
But, last few days, I've mostly been looking into ways to
help Tara. I-I know that shouldn't be my
priority....
At the worst of times in The Gift, Willow was preoccupied
with saving Tara, the only one that she could think of, the
only person she has loved so completely.
WILLOW: Well, I've been charting their essences. Mapping
out. I think ... if I can get close enough, I may be able to
reverse what Glory did. Like, take back what she took from
Tara. It might weaken Glory, or ... make her less coherent.
Or it might make all our heads explode.
There is a big irony that the same thing Willow had to do
with Glory may be what the gang may be forced to do to her.
Willow half-walks, half-crawls over to where Tara lies
unconscious in a pile of debris.
WILLOW: Tara?
Tara's eyes open. She looks at Willow.
WILLOW: Tara?
TARA: W ... Willow?
WILLOW: (smiles hopefully) Tara?
TARA: (tearfully) Willow ... I got so lost.
WILLOW: (smiling) I found you.
Willow kisses Tara all over her face, then hugs her. They
both smile happily.
WILLOW: I will always find you.
With the death of Tara, Willow has ceased to be the strong
one, the one that everyone can depend upon. Willow has lost
the person she loved above all else, the person who kept her
grounded. Love and compassion has been the essence of Tara,
Willow is lost without her. I feel that what Willow will do
is a result of such despair that no one can reach her. All I
can say is look to the symbolic use of black and white for
the finale. I don't see Willow as a bad guy, or someone so
lost that they can never be found again. At the core, Willow
is a loving woman, one with compassion. We have to look at
the situation as a whole to finally get a feel of how
someone that was once so dependable can lose control, there
is stress to being the perfect one.
Giles said it best to Willow in Flooded...
GILES: (over his shoulder) You're a very stupid girl.
Willow pauses chewing, slowly stops smiling and frowns.
WILLOW: What? Giles...
GILES: (turns to face her) Do you have any idea what you've
done? The forces you've harnessed, the lines you've
crossed?
WILLOW: I thought you'd be ... impressed, or, or
something.
GILES: Oh, don't worry, you've ... made a very deep
impression. Of everyone here ... you were the one I
trusted most to respect the forces of nature.
WILLOW: Are you saying you don't trust me?
GILES: (intensely) Think what you've done to Buffy.
WILLOW: I brought her back!
GILES: At incredible risk!
WILLOW: Risk? Of what? Making her deader?
GILES: Of killing us all. Unleashing hell on Earth, I mean,
shall I go on?
WILLOW: No! (stands) Giles, I did what I had to do. I did
what nobody else could do.
GILES: Oh, there are others in this world who can do what
you did. You just don't want to meet them. (turns away
again)
WILLOW: No, probably not, but ... well, they're the bad
guys. I'm not a bad guy. (upset) I brought Buffy back
into this world, a-and maybe the word you should be looking
for is "congratulations."
GILES: Having Buffy back in the world makes me feel ...
indescribably wonderful, but I wouldn't congratulate you if
you jumped off a cliff and happened to survive.
WILLOW: That's not what I did, Giles.
GILES: (angry) You were lucky.
WILLOW: I wasn't lucky. I was amazing. And how would you
know? You weren't even there.
GILES: If I had been, I'd have bloody well stopped you.
The magicks you channeled are more ferocious and primal
than anything you can hope to understand, (even more angry)
and you are lucky to be alive, you rank, arrogant
amateur!
Giles made a mistake in assuming that Willow was a mature,
dependable, adult. All Willows mistakes ended without much
damage, but her lucky streak can't last. Giles does
understand that Willow has crossed a line, did he take the
time to consider just how far she would go? He could never
have anticipated the death of Tara, the one person that
Willow has been willing to fight, even the gods, for to
avenge a wrong done to her love. If Willow loses that much
control when Tara has been harmed but alive, what will be
unleashed when the powerful witch has to deal with the death
of love and hope and future happiness?
Like the Butterfly effect and the Law of Chaos, all the past
actions have converged to this point, none of the results
could have been predicted. Is there an element that can rise
above the power of destruction and avert entropic chaos?
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Quibble me this.. -- SpikeMom,
14:45:43 05/11/02 Sat
Regarding Giles:
I think the reason why he did not perform the Soul Spell for
Angel (aside from from the broken fingers/torture angle)may
be found in the Primeval episode. One of the reasons that
they must work together is that Giles cannot reach the
levels of majicks required and that Willow can, while Giles
can read and pronounce the Summarian etc., etc. He did more
than just dabble in his Ripper days but that was done as a
group with other practioners who may have been more
advanced/talented/aggressive/insert adjective here than he
was.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Amazing response! Thank you...now I'm thinking
-- O'Cailleagh, 06:23:51 05/11/02 Sat
As a Witch myself, I have to agree with a lot of what you
both said, although I tend to view Buffyverse Wicca as
something quite different to what we practise. As to
Willow's current evilness, I feel it to be a combination of
living on the Hellmouth, former geekiness, and a healthy
dose of corruption from Moloch, way back in s1.
[>
Very nice, thanks. -- yez, 14:17:57 05/10/02
Fri
[> [>
To Masq: thanks for the fast work; sorry for the
problem. -- Fred, the obvious pseudonym and deservedly-
chastened dolt., 14:38:10 05/10/02 Fri
[>
It's always a good day when one of your essays is
up! -- ponygirl, 14:38:10 05/10/02 Fri
[>
Re: Willow, Tara & Amy - a tale of three witches
(spoiler to SR, long!) -- DEN, 16:11:25 05/10/02
Fri
Great analysis--a credit to your undergrad education! You
have it exactly right. Magic for Willow is not about power
as such. It is about power to fix things. And fixing things
is a way for Willow to heal--or scab over for awhile--the
hole in her soul. Such a hole is not of itself a dark place-
-but it is an emptiness darkness can all too easily fill.
Remember CS Lewis and the faces evil wears!
I also think it worth adding that entirely apart from
Giles's influence, Willow's fundamental view of the universe
is scientific, rationalist, and pragmatic. Magic to her is
something to be intellectualized: understood and then
applied. In that she is part of a "demystification" process
going on in the West at least since the Enlightenment. If a
thing can be done, Willow will at least consider doing it--
along the lines of today's advocates of cloning and
yesterday's nuclear researchers. As a "magickal technocrat,"
Willow stands apart from not only Giles and Tara, but from
the Buffyverse itself. How will she react to the Rule of
Three as expressed in the technical artifact, the nine-
millimeter bullet, that ruptured Tara's heart and shattered
Willow's as well.
[>
Re: Willow, Tara & Amy - fabulous Post -- Dochawk,
23:25:58 05/10/02 Fri
Shadowkat,
you are quickly becoming my favorite poster. these are
fabulous. I would like your opinion on a couple of things
that may flesh it out even more:
1. What about the influence of Jenny Calander? She started
Willow down teh road and she had a great respect for the
earth's balance.
2. I have always thought the reason that Willow advanced so
rapidly was her intelligence. Because she was brighter than
other practioners she had more "brain" to interact and
therefore more powerful.
3. Which leads me to point 3, what about the warlocks,
Giles (more about him later), Rack and most importantly
Jonathan. jonathan has become a pretty powerful user of
magic, his spell in Superstar and then all this year he has
been the magic brains behind the Legion of Doom (without him
Warren would have been nothing and not been able to pull off
anything he created). Do Warlocks ahave a different
relationship to the earth? Does the power come from a
different place?
4. Giles. This is the only place in your post where I
differ with you. I do not think you give Giles enough
credit for understanding magic:
GILES: (over his shoulder) You're a very stupid girl.
Willow pauses chewing, slowly stops smiling and frowns.
WILLOW: What? Giles...
GILES: (turns to face her) Do you have any idea what you've
done? The forces you've harnessed, the lines you've
crossed?
WILLOW: I thought you'd be ... impressed, or, or
something.
GILES: Oh, don't worry, you've ... made a very deep
impression. Of everyone here ... you were the one I trusted
most to respect the forces of nature.
WILLOW: Are you saying you don't trust me?
GILES: (intensely) Think what you've done to Buffy.
WILLOW: I brought her back!
GILES: At incredible risk!
WILLOW: Risk? Of what? Making her deader?
GILES: Of killing us all. Unleashing hell on Earth, I mean,
shall I go on?
WILLOW: No! (stands) Giles, I did what I had to do. I did
what nobody else could do.
GILES: Oh, there are others in this world who can do what
you did. You just don't want to meet them. (turns away
again)
WILLOW: No, probably not, but ... well, they're the bad
guys. I'm not a bad guy. (upset) I brought Buffy back into
this world, a-and maybe the word you should be looking for
is "congratulations."
GILES: Having Buffy back in the world makes me feel ...
indescribably wonderful, but I wouldn't congratulate you if
you jumped off a cliff and happened to survive.
WILLOW: That's not what I did, Giles.
GILES: (angry) You were lucky.
WILLOW: I wasn't lucky. I was amazing. And how would you
know? You weren't even there.
GILES: If I had been, I'd have bloody well stopped you. The
magicks you channeled are more ferocious and primal than
anything you can hope to understand, (even more angry) and
you are lucky to be alive, you rank, arrogant amateur!
From The Dark Age:
Giles: Yes. One of us would, um... (nervously pours a
drink) go into a deep sleep, and the others would, uh,
summon him. It was an extraordinary high! (smiles nervously)
God, we were fools.
from Becoming 1(giles warning Willow about using magick):
Giles: (very concerned) W-Willow... channeling... such
potent magicks through yourself, it could open a door that
you may not be able to close.
Giles is clearly aware of the power and the cost of using
magic. He would have been a much better guide for Willow,
if he had realized the extent of her problems from the
beginning, because as he stated, he expected a better
understanding from her.
[> [>
Re: Willow, Tara & Amy - fabulous Post --
shadowkat, 07:26:23 05/11/02 Sat
Assuming my system doesn't kick me off before I finish
writing this...sigh.
1. What about the influence of Jenny Calander? She started
Willow down teh road and she had a great respect for the
earth's balance.
I think Jenny may have started Willow down that road,
although I agree with redcat who says Willow may have gone
there anyway and it started with Moloch - which was the
episode where jenny was first introduced. I think, Jenny's
dying may have upset any balance that Willow may have gained
and unfortunately - Willow took over Jenny's position and
the computer - which means she had access to all of Jenny's
files, files that Giles either did not know about or hadn't
considering looking through. It's interesting that Willow is
the one who figures out that curse spell not Giles.
2. I have always thought the reason that Willow advanced so
rapidly was her intelligence. Because she was brighter than
other practioners she had more "brain" to interact and
therefore more powerful.
I agree - it has been posted elsewhere that Willow looks at
magic and nature as a scientist or rationalist would not as
a mystic. There is a BIG difference. Mystics like Giles and
Tara appreciate that there are forces beyond our
comprehension or understanding - things that cannot be
rationalized, examined or explained but must always be
respected. Willow is extraordinarily bright, but has had
0
guidance from Giles, her parents, anyone - which often
happens when the student outdistances the teacher.
Unguided
she has delved into areas that are outside her capacity to
understand, but her intelligence makes her arrogant, so she
thinks - she does.
3. Which leads me to point 3, what about the warlocks, Giles
(more about him later), Rack and most importantly Jonathan.
jonathan has become a pretty powerful user of magic, his
spell in Superstar and then all this year he has been the
magic brains behind the Legion of Doom (without him Warren
would have been nothing and not been able to pull off
anything he created). Do Warlocks ahave a different
relationship to the earth? Does the power come from a
different place?
I don't know, interesting question. I would think their
relationship with the power has to be different in some way
or come from a different place. Of the male characters on
the show - the one who comes closest to the feminine is
understandably the vampire - washed in blood, from the
earth, demonic - all metaphors that myths have used to
discuss the anima or female side of us. The other male
characters - are from the sky, harsher, more strong, not
emotional, not chaotic. Even Jonathan who has used magic to
his own ends - is not in any way chaotic - the magic is
controlled and often appears to injure him. Notice how often
he burns himself. I think these magics tend to be less from
the earth or the source of life or maybe they are from
outide the circle? Not sure - I just sense more linear
logic from the male characters than female magic
practicers.
Just feels different to me
4. Giles. This is the only place in your post where I differ
I do not think you give Giles enough credit for
understanding magic.
Oh I agree - he understands it. Sorry had troubles
expressing what I meant about Giles - you're right, he
didn't seem to see the extent of the problem. It's not
that
he doesn't appreciate magic, he does. No the problem with
Giles is he doesn't want to be involved in it. He would like
to leave all of it behind. Giles is reluctant. He also is a
bit self absorbed by the time we reach Season 6 - Buffy
was his responsibility, he feels he failed her and its time
to move on with his life. Willow, as much as he loves and
cares for her, he does not consider a responsibility, just a
friend. I honestly think he ignored what she was doing
because it was easier to do so, her spells helped him out.
He is about to pay for that - big time.
My question - why didn't Giles do the Primeval Spell instead
of Willow? Why didn't Giles try the curse first?
Why didn't Giles do the truth spell? Why did he need
Willow?
ME hints that Giles doesn't have any power - just
rudimentary knowledge like all watchers when it comes to
magic. He's a mystic not a warlock. He played with magic in
his twenties but that's as far as he went. Like Spike
and
Ethan Rayne - he does respect it. Rayne went further with
it. Giles stopped after Eyghorn incident. Magic scares
Giles. But clearly not enough to have reigned in Willow -
assuming he could have...hmmm, got me thinking about
Giles
again. Feel another essay coming on...must think on it.
[> [> [>
Spike & Willow, Tara -- alcibiades, 08:17:07
05/11/02 Sat
"ME hints that Giles doesn't have any power - just
rudimentary knowledge like all watchers when it comes to
magic. He's a mystic not a warlock. He played with magic in
his twenties but that's as far as he went. Like Spike
and
Ethan Rayne - he does respect it."
It's interesting to think about the Season 2 story arc this
way -- that a lot of what occurred in it, Spike being wheel
chair bound, losing Dru to Angel and then forever, etc. came
about as punishment for the dark magic he invoked on Dru's
behalf when he started draining Angel's blood into Dru
(forgot the name of the episode).
I suppose one could even say that that is when Spike learned
viscerally that dark magic always has bad consequences for
the practitioner.
It is interesting in that case that in Lover's Walk, Spike
wants Willow to perform the love spell on Dru. He doesn't
want to perform it himself, because by then he knows that if
he performs it himself, it is sure to backfire in a really
painful way just when he is happy with Dru again.
Speaking of which, is Tara's death the price that Tara pays
for helping to raise Buffy? Or the price that Willow pays?
Or the price that both of them must pay?
Anya and Xander of course have been paying a price recently,
but that doesn't seem related to Buffy in the way that
Warren coming after Buffy and shooting Tara incidentally
does. Well except the extra little bit of pain added by
Spike sleeping with Anya because of how Buffy has trifled
with his feelings this year.
[> [> [> [>
Tara's price -- Dochawk, 09:09:17 05/11/02
Sat
totally new tangent here, but I think Tara is paying the
price for raising Buffy. A death was taken away, a death is
owed adn only a death would even the score. Tara's fate was
sealed when Willow killed the fawn. And she is paying the
price for all of them, not just Willow. I think that debt
has been paid, problem is, seeing Willow, what will she do
now and what will be the cost? Is Willow risking something
even more grave then her life? meaning her soul?
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Tara's price -- DEN, 13:54:43 05/11/02
Sat
Spike is both "trickster" and Cassandra: his fate is to tell
the truth and not to be believed. He said "there's always a
price." Four were complicit in the raising; four are paying.
Anya and Xander have a smaller bill because they were on the
margin. Tara and Willow, now---.
What impresses me about the Buffyverse is how HARD it is,
compard even with the Angelverse. There is no mercy, no
slack for ANYONE. The laws of karma are harsher in
Sunnydale than in any of the nightmare universes of orthodox
horror fiction. Check shadowkat's recent posting for
corroboration.
[>
Could it be that this season is about CONTROL? a.k.a.
Red=Redemption (spoilers) -- Joie (d V), 00:10:19
05/11/02 Sat
Shadowkat you sparked something in my mind with your talk of
Willow's continued propensity to use magic to control/change
her reality. It struck me that perhaps this is what all the
main characters are dealing with. All season has been about
the various ways of not letting nature take its
course...trying to manipulate or change reality...trying to
avoid dealing with reality.
Here are some of the controls and reality avoidances we've
seen this season:
-Bringing Buffy back to life (a decision made by all the
scoobies)
-Willow's use of magic
-Xander leaving Anya at the alter. (First he avoided
dealing with his doubts, then he literally ran/left and
didn't bother to clean the mess he made.)
-Dawn's stealing
-Buffy hiding her relationship with Spike (She went so far
to hide it that she poured out the antitode in NA rather
than deal with Spike telling her friends)
-Tara wanting to skip the steps of a natural
reconciliation.
(she wouldn't have been there and gotten killed if this
hadn't happened...yet ironically she was killed due to
Warren's manipulation of reality)
-Spike blaming his dealings with Buffy on the chip when it
doesn't even work on her.
-The Troika's multitude of ploys to control and change
reality....from making Katrina/any woman a sex slave
(leading to death), to the orbs used recently, to Warren's
desparate gun toting.
-Spike attempting to force himself on Buffy in the
bathroom.
-Anya's bent to make Xander pay.
I'm sure there's plenty more.
As often stated, I do think this season is in general about
growing up, but I think there is far more depth to it than
meets the eye. This season has been a chain of cause (due
to control) and effect.
Control is such a big issue in life (perhaps more than we
care to realize) and we are constantly dealing with the
repercussions there of.
I'd even dare say that the with the exception of natural
disasters and illnes, the majority of life's problems are
due to someone controling/manipulating/avoiding reality.
Its usually these things that create the need for
forgiveness. And once that forgiveness is dispensed, true
renewal or redemption can occur. This is what all of our
characters are so desparately in need of right now.
For centuries and in different walks of life, red has
symbolized redemption. Did anyone happen to notice all the
different people that were in contact with red last Tuesday?
I noticed Willow andTara in the Red sheets, Johnathan had on
a deep red/burgundy sweater, Spike's drink and bedspread (I
think), Buffy's blood, Buffy's blood on Xander, Tara's blood
on herself and Willow, and I even thought Willow's hair
looked more red than usual.
The ramifications of manipulating destinies can be huge like
Warren's murder(s) and Buffy's painful life after death. Or
they can be small like Dawn's shop lifting. Though all of
these manipulations are done selfishly by the manipulator
(they think only of what they want and need) it touches
others. As a result, lifes and relationships need to be
renewed and the manipulator needs to be redeemed or
condemned. I think the scoobies will be redeemed...
~Joie (d V)
[> [>
Re: Could it be that this season is about CONTROL?
a.k.a. Red=Redemption (spoilers) -- shadowkat,
07:41:59 05/11/02 Sat
Great comments. I agree. I wrote a post earlier in the week
on reality and how we deal with it - it's on my website
if you want to check it out. (Links are mentioned on ATP
board).
You've managed to expand on the theme brillantly - I
wrote
the essay before I saw SR. Didn't know "red" symbolized
redemption - always thought it symbolized anger. Hmmm
interesting. We have 6 characters in search of
redemption?
6 characters who are trying to handle difficult shifts and
nasty realities by either ignoring, avoiding, forcing change
or controlling? What's interesting is that instead of
controlling their own reactions or making a choice about
themselves - they are asserting control on factors outside
themselves.
It makes me think of that old 12 step quote, which I can't
for the life of me remember the exact phrasing of -
something like: "God grant me the ability to change the
things I can, the ability to accept what I can't change, and
the wisdom to know the difference." Our characters haven't
figured out the difference yet. Spike took the first step at
the end of SR when he got on that motorcycle and left town
to determine who the hell he is - he finally figured out
that the only reality he had control over was what was in
his head - who he was. He had to go and find himself before
he dealt with anyone else. (Actually I think Spike may have
been the only character last night that made a first
positive step - possibly b/c he shocked himself into an
epiphany?? Don't know - please - this is a digressing, don't
want to turn this into yet another S debate they are giving
me a headache.) Back to willow - she hasn't taken this step.
She wants to control reality outside herself instead of
controlling what's inside. Tara
I think is closer - but you're right, she came back too
soon. Tara took control - in the sense, I miss you, lets
move this forward. Not sure...anyway just a few
ramblings.
Thanks for the response - got me thinking! Have decided this
is my favorited board.
[> [> [>
CONTROL? a.k.a. Red=Redemption (slight B7
spoilers) -- MaeveRigan, 08:51:07 05/11/02 Sat
Of course there's no reason that Red can't symbolize both
anger and redemption, depending on the dramatic situation.
In fact, given that we're talking about ME and Buffy,
nothing's more likely.
Great point about control, how crucial it is for the
scoobies (and all of us, of course) to learn what we can and
cannot legitimately, realistically control in our lives, in
others', in the world. Where are the lines between hope and
despair, between megalomania and helplessness? We've seen
all the characters negotiate these, stumble, trip and
fall.
What's exciting, what keeps me watching, is that one by one
they're getting it.
Although B7 has been telegraphed as "Back to the beginning,"
I really think it's going to be *so* much more exciting than
that, because the characters will know so much more, have so
much more control--but in a good way.
[> [> [> [>
Red=Redemption, a question -- alcibiades,
09:32:21 05/11/02 Sat
Redcat (interesting spin on your name),
In which cultures does red symbolize redemption?
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Red=Redemption, a question -- redcat,
10:32:00 05/11/02 Sat
Great questions and comments, folks, all 'round on
this thread!! Yeah, shadowkat, for getting
us started!
Am having a bit of trouble with the posts. I tried posting
part of this earlier but it doesn’t seem
to have gone through, so, sorry if I wind up repeating
myself.
O'Cailleagh: nice to see there’s another pagan on the board.
Blessed be! And I agree with
you totally that magick and Wicca work differently in the
Buffyverse than they do in the “real”
world, and I don’t think we should expect them to, really.
Buffy isn’t about Wicca, it’s about
Joss getting to play with myth and culture and our heads in
the process. I’m willing to let him -
he does it pretty well.
alcibiades: I find Joie (d V)’s idea that red=redemption
really intriguing, but don’t off-hand know
of any culture/s where the color works like that. Usually,
red is associated with much more
“strong” emotions and processes, i.e., sex, death, birth,
love, anger/rage, pain, etc., or with
“socially big” issues like royalty, ascension, succession,
power. Redemption seems to me to
be a transformative concept, just like many of the
emotions/processes listed above, and so it
might be a good metaphoric fit. But redemption also seems
to include a certain quality of
“grace,” which I think of as the Great Gift (in Tarot,
signified by the Star card) willingly given by
the forces of love, compassion and forgiveness to the
generally-undeserving-but-hopeful
mortal who is at least trying to get things right. Grace is
therefore somewhat similar to what
the Spirit Guide in the guise of the First Slayer tells
Buffy: “Love. Give. Forgive. “ I don’t see a
similar metaphoric fit between this part of my understanding
of redemption with the other types
of emotions/processes generally associated with red. But
it’s a very intriguing concept and we
all may want to keep pushing the consideration further.
Thanks, Joie, for suggesting it.
[...and BTW, I’m redcat ‘cause I was born with flaming red
hair (now somewhat assisted by my
friend in a box) and obviously have a significant smattering
of kitty-cat DNA (oh, look, she’s
taking a nap again; and there she is looking bored and
insouciant when she feels she’s being
ignored; hey, watch out with those claws!!; what do you mean
you live on a tropical island and
don’t go in the water?...)]
Also, wanted to say that I’m particularly intrigued by the
questions about Jonathan's use of
magic, which I've also been thinking about lately,
especially within the context of shadowkat's
original post on the 3 witches. No thoughts clear enough yet
to post, but my fellow Short
Person has definitely set up shop in the old brain pan, so
perhaps a post soon?
And I agree that Giles is more a scholar and a mystic than a
witch/warlock [note: I don’t
personally use differently-gendered names for
practitioners. Magick is magick, will is will, spirit
is spirit, and witches are witches -- no matter what kind of
stones they have. (Mine are mostly
amber and garnet...) But if it’s the accepted use on this
board, then I suppose I’m arguing that
Giles is NOT a warlock.] I do think he recognizes that
Willow is a natural adept, but he
dismisses her because she’s “just” Willow, just a kid, until
it’s too late, and only after he
realizes how powerful she’s become (Flooded). But then she
frightens him, I think, and
instead of dealing with that, he just walks out and leaves
the Scoobs to their own devices. I
hope he comes to his senses and uses HIS gifts of maturity
and wisdom and what I believe is
his true love for her, to help her find her way back from
the dark side.
On the topic of Spike's use of dark magicks, I see a
metaphysical/philosophical question: why
would a vampire have to "pay" (in a negative sense) for
using dark magic? Isn't he/she
"supposed to be treading on the dark side," as Spike reminds
Buffy on "Smashed"? I'm not
sure how this all works out in any "real-world" sense of
magicks and Wicca and un-named
chthonic powers and (generally) no-vampires-allowed reality,
but in the Buffyverse, the price
for using magick seems to depend on the needs of the writers
for (gasp!) dramatic character
development. And if Spike has to “pay” for using dark
magick, shouldn’t he then get some
good mileage out of the “good” things he’s done? Or is it
all reversed with a vamp, and his
punishment of being wheelchair-bound after the spell to
restore Drusilla using Angel’s blood is
really because he’s NOT monster enough, as we keep being
told by ME over and over again?
Anyway, Hope this isn’t too ramble-y. Hey, it’s Saturday
morning here and the sun’s shining. What’s it like where you
all are?
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Red=Caritas/Charity and Cupiditas/Amor *
Spoilers -- fresne, 19:54:19 05/11/02 Sat
Well, blood red is associated with Caritas. Basically, in an
Augustinian sort of way, everyone has love which wells up
within them. It is "how" we choose to love which makes our
love noble or ignoble, i.e., an act of Cupiditas (self
centered love) or Caritas (open giving love, also known as
charity.) Keeping in mind that Cupiditas and Caritas are two
sides of the same coin (which has more sides/words than I'm
to go into right now), because they derive from the same
source, the desire to and for love.
And depending on who you read, Cupiditas is the same thing
as Amor, which means "pull, attraction, being driven
together." It's not bad. It is after all what keeps the
species going. In a way it is what Spike (and no I don't
want to turn this into an ATLtS either, I'll be heading back
to Willow country soon.) describes when he discusses
passionate burning love.
Caritas isn't passionate in that way. I think the best
explanation that I've heard is that it is a calm clear light
towards which all things are attracted, but from which we
sometimes turn away because it is so very bright. It is the
flashpoint of mercy, as Giles would say, not because someone
deserves it, but because they need it. It is both the
opposite and the same thing as desire. Thus they are both
(Caritas and Cupiditas) symbolized by the color red.
And for a brief moment, I drift into color theory, which I
hopefully will not butcher. I wonder if the black of
Willow's eyes (or Amy, or Catherine, or insert black magic
mojoer here) are a reflected CMYK color or a shining black
RGB.
RGB (pretty shiny light like the sun or the computer screen
you're looking at right now) is an additive color system.
Black is the absence of light and therefore the absence of
color. When you add all the colors together, you get
white.
CMYK (pretty reflected light on a surface, like a red dress)
is a subtractive color system. White is the absence of
color. When you add all the colors together, you get
black.
So, here we have Willow (to get back to the subject) who has
always yearned towards the light. The light being
approbation from her peers. The light being her mother's
respect/attention. The light being love from a partner. She
has satisfied this desire by doing. She does magic. She
fixes things. She seeks out information.
Tara also yearned for the light. Lived her life in shadows.
Felt isolated from the warmth of the sun. I loved the color
saturation in Willow and Tara's musical number in OMwF. Then
she met Willow, whose light illuminated her. How Tara
satisfies her desire for the light is a bit harder to peg,
because it isn't as action oriented as Willow's "let me
help." When Tara shows love, it appears to be enfolding. She
embraces Willow, she talks quietly with Buffy, reaches out
to Dawn. I find myself thinking of her role in the Body.
We talk about the earth as a source of magic. The earth is
the dark of (well, it's not shiny like a monitor so I guess
the winner is) CMYK. Secret, enclosed, enclosing. The dead
returning to dust, feeding the grass that grows up from the
dark soil into the sun's light. I believe we've already
discussed entropy in relation to sunlight, so insert other's
more insightful comments on entropy here.
So, in Entropy, Tara, drawing knowledge and a sense of magic
from a long matrilineal line, living in shadows, you can
practically see her roots at the earth's center, in an act
which was both Caritas (give, forgive, love) and, well, Amor
(can you just be kissing me), goes to her source of light,
Willow.
For a moment I have a sense, which I can't really express in
any sort of argument or example, of Willow as the sun,
bright illuminating science, ideas, excitement, energy,
spinning, burning and Tara, as the cool dark forgiving,
giving earth. Both being necessary for life, but in
completely different, but equally important ways. Needing to
be in balance.
In a non-trinitarian sort of way, I'd like to throw Anya as
another witch into the mix. Not doing spells, and yes a
demon, but she once cast a curse which brought her to
D'Hoffran's attention. Just as Anya seems to be turning away
from vengeance as a be-all solve all, representing an
idyllic time in her life (immortal, powerful, confidant,
knowing her place in the universe), Willow seems about to
step up to the plate.
As we saw in the preview (spoiler I guess), when Willow's
eyes go black, when she draws on chaos or the Darkest magics
or whatever, it's not just black as evil. It's black as a
lack of the light that should naturally shine forth. Light
extinguished in a turning away from Caritas and towards
Cupiditas. I hurt. I want. I need.
Leaching the red from her hair. The color from her eyes.
Dressed in black. Extinguished. Shhh…
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
ah, fresne, what a graceful gift this post is!
flashpoint of mercy, indeed... -- redcat, 21:28:19
05/11/02 Sat
[>
Colorado College Spawned Shadowkat? -- RelativeGirl,
23:16:10 05/11/02 Sat
I don't think I've ever been so proud of my alma mater as
when I learned that Shadowkat went to CC too! Apparently I
should have spent more time in the English department and
less in the Religion department. I'm class of '86 which
means we were there at the same time. Hmmm, Shadowkat drop
me an email sometime.
Comparing a
couple of storylines just for fun (SPOILERS for SR and
really, really old GH soap) -- verdantheart, 13:15:43
05/10/02 Fri
Just for comparison's sake ...
"That scene" in "Seeing Red" reminded me of something I
experienced many (OK, I'm feeling old) years ago. When I was
a teen my sister tended to watch some soaps so I had some
fragmentary (which would explain any gaps in memory)
exposure to a soap called "General Hospital." You may know
where I'm going with this.
In that show an adult bar owner rapes a teenage girl. But as
the girl's trauma progresses, we find out that she's in love
with her rapist. As far as I remember, it was her first
sexual encounter (though I could be wrong ...) and it seemed
to me she barely knew him though she might have been
attracted to him. I thought that the storyline was rather
unrealistic and might even encourage some boys to push their
girlfriends. I found the whole idea disturbing rather than
romantic, but it seems I took the minority viewpoint, since
Luke & Laura turned into the great romance of the soap and
(from occasional ads I run into) appears to have endured to
this day ...
I found the treatment in SR more realistic from a character
point of view (didn't see it as out of character on either
side). I also saw the following differences: there was no
actual rape; any love on Buffy's side (and I'm not
necessarily saying there is any) could not be associated
with the rape attempt; I didn't feel that rape was being
romanticized in spite of the fact that a popular character
is involved; the situation was a complex one in which the
participants had previously engaged in rough sexual play and
no-means-yes doubletalk; it seemed clear to me that Spike's
actions were (I can't stress this enough, apparently)
wrong.
I don't remember much complaining about the GH storyline
(maybe there was some; there wasn't an Internet forum to
rant on at the time), but I thought it was rather surprising
to see a rape rewarded and viewed as romantic (on TV, yet).
I don't think that's how rape was portrayed on BtVS and,
interestingly, I don't think anyone's really complained
about that so much as some fan's defense or even
understanding of Spike's actions.
I don't know if this really adds much to our discussions,
but I found stepping back and comparing somewhat
interesting.
[>
Re: Comparing a couple of storylines just for fun
(SPOILERS for SR and really, really old GH soap) -- old
GH fan, 13:19:21 05/10/02 Fri
no, I remember when Luke and Laura were just becoming an
item, and there WAS lots of upset over Laura 'falling for'
the man who assulted her.
[> [>
That storyline was really creepy -- dream of the
consortium, 13:49:01 05/10/02 Fri
Laura would flashback - oh, pretty much every other episode
- to the rape in a weirdly dreamy way. It was as if she was
reminiscing about a first kiss, except of course, it was a
clearly brutal rape. It was deeply, deeply strange. I
remember finding it so even at the time, and I must have
been about 10.
[> [> [>
Re: That storyline was really creepy -- Agree-- and
then some!, 18:09:35 05/10/02 Fri
I never watched soaps, and I was in high school when that
whole "Luke & Laura" thing happened. My family-- mostly New
York women-- were scandalized that such an event could take
place in that time-- that the gushiest romatic couple on TV
got started by a televising of the primal rape fantasy. (My
aunt is an NYC therapist-- forgive the psychospeak)
I'll agree that it creeps me out-- but not so much as
discovering that there is such a thing as the primal rape
fantasy in psychology.It reminds me once again that Nature
is not a feminist. Bitch. :P
[>
Re: Comparing a couple of storylines just for fun
(SPOILERS for SR and really, really old GH soap) --
Rendyl, 16:42:00 05/10/02 Fri
Laura was married at the time of the rape (to Scott Baldwin)
and refused to tell him or anyone else who had raped her.
At first it seemed because she was upset, but then later
writing made it seem like she felt she needed to hide what
happened because she did have feelings for Luke.
I suspect the original idea was to have him rape her then
ship him off the show after suitable angst and
suffering.
What happened was the actor turned out to have great
chemistry with several other actors, including Genie (Laura)
and the storyline had to be altered so he could continue to
work on the show.
(This happens a lot on soaps. It seems like the writers
have no clue that putting people into these very intense
scenes often results in mind blowing performances. And, the
audience gets hooked on the characters. They do it with
other bad guys as well and then are forced to resort to the
twin brother or sister ploy to keep a popular character on
the show)
There are actually some similarities. Both in the GH
storyline and in SR the writers chose to blur the hard
lines. Laura and Luke had been flirting for quite a while.
They had not slept together, but they had kissed.
Luke and Spike were both bad boys. Luke was there to help
his sister (which originally meant hurting Laura) and Spike
to cure Dru (which of course meant hurting the slayer.)
Luke (like Spike) was drunk, stressed, and confused.
Unfortunately for Laura she was not a Slayer and Luke did
not stop.
I have always thought Laura simply told herself the rape was
not important. That she pushed it away and refused to
accept that it happened. That pretending it wasn't really
rape -was- her way of dealing with it. That being with Luke
afterward somehow made it okay in her head.
(I know, I know, but this was a woman who had repeatedly run
away from home, been in trouble with the law, had sex with
her much older boyfriend, and accidently killed her mothers
lover, all by the time she was 16. I expect a little
unsteadiness from her)
I did not like the retroactive PC'ing of the rape done a few
years ago. If your storyline won't stand then don't write
it. But then I don't write the show. (grin)
I did think the way One Life to Live handled Marty's rape
was well done. Throwing out the angsty-soapy standbys (like
donating blood to save your rapist-sigh) it becomes a decent
storyline. And for a while Todd Manning was the most
compelling character on daytime television. His stalking of
Nora when she was blind was just too creepy. The later
explorations of whether or not he could actually be redeemed
were good writing as well.
Ren
Seeing Ahead
(Spoilers for SR and the future BtVS) -- Vegeta,
14:04:25 05/10/02 Fri
I have to say that "Seeing Red" may be the most telling
episode of Season 6. So many of the storylines that ME has
created for S6 have finally come to a head. In my opinion,
it also seems that SR is also giving us a glimpse into the
future of BtVS.
Would it seem likely that the Spike you all know and love is
going to finally get that chip out? It seems that was
certainly his intention when he left Sunnydale near the end
of SR. If so, are we getting a glimpse of a/the "Big Bad"
in Season 7?
Xander and Buffy seemed to definetly reconnect in SR. When
Buffy and Xander reconciled at the end of SR, I found Tara's
comment about them very interesting... "Making up is the
best part". Even though I know the comment was in relation
to Willow and Tara's rekindled love, I think ME may have
been throwing us a little wink. I think it's entirely
possible that we may be seeing a much closer Xander and
Buffy in the future. ie "You know I love you..." (the last
thing Buffy says before Warren's most fatal
interuption).
Last but not least, are we seeing a exit of Willow's
character. The sneaky peak for Villians clearly shows
Willow going back down the path of Dark Magics. Will she be
consumed by magic as Riley's wife (don't remember her name)
described the shamans in South America were? I personally
hope not, but it's a definite possibility to consider.
I know I am kind of babbling, so I leave y'all with this
thought. How is it that Warren's jet pack still worked
after that ton of rocks fell on him?
[>
Re: Seeing Ahead (Spoilers for SR and the future
BtVS) -- pr10n, 14:19:58 05/10/02 Fri
From the "I haven't seen it on the board but I may have
missed it" Department:
Is there a little d'Hoffryn amulet action happening in the
Villains trailer?
I know folks on the board have mentioned they are waiting
for that little plot point (Something Blue) to come home to
roost. Maybe Willow is less/more than human, and therefore
won't be consumed by her power.
[> [>
Re: Seeing Ahead (Spoilers for SR and the future
BtVS) -- LittleBit, 19:47:16 05/10/02 Fri
I certainly thought so.
[>
Re: Seeing Ahead (Spoilers for SR and the future
BtVS) -- Robert, 15:56:34 05/10/02 Fri
>> "How is it that Warren's jet pack still worked after that
ton of rocks fell on him?"
Apparently, despite Warren's amorality, he is a good
engineer.
[>
Re: Seeing Ahead (Spoilers for SR and the future
BtVS) -- Ishkabibble, 17:22:06 05/10/02 Fri
"How is it that Warren's jet pack still worked after that
ton of rocks fell on him?"
It used rock(et) fuel? Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
[>
Re: Seeing Ahead (Spoilers for SR and the future BtVS
and Angel) -- Calluna, 17:39:40 05/10/02 Fri
I'm glad I'm not the only one to notice the Buffy/Xander
thing. Ever since Joss said that the next season would go
back to the beginning, I've been thinking that B&X might
finally get together. Especially now that Willow's gay (her
crush is no longer an issue), Spike's gone and Anya's a
demon again. For the first few years, I was totally against
the whole B&X thing because of Willow's crush. Been through
that too many times, felt sorry for Willow. But now, I think
Xander might be the best thing for Buffy. Nice guy who knows
all her secrets and issues. And Buffy knows all Xander's
issues too. It would be a nice counterpoint to what they're
supposedly setting up on Angel with Cordy and Angel.
Interesting that. We start out with Buffy and Angel/Cordy
and Xander and end up totally reversed. Weird, but
interesting none the less.
[> [>
Re: Seeing Ahead (Spoilers for SR and the future BtVS
and Angel) -- Dariel, 10:34:13 05/11/02 Sat
But now, I think Xander might be the best thing for
Buffy. Nice guy who knows all her secrets and issues. And
Buffy knows all Xander's issues too.
I don't see it. For one thing, there's no hint of a romantic
undertone in what Xander says to Buffy. In fact, it's just
the opposite. "I don't know what I'd do without you and
Will."
Xander hardly knows all of Buffy's secrets and issues, or
vice versa. What they've revealed to each other so far is
just the tip of the iceberg.
And isn't Xander supposed to represent Joss in a loose kind
of way? If that's so, Xander and Buffy becomes, well, kind
of ewwww. Like the whole show has been about Joss's teenage
fantasy about getting the girl.
(Okay, I'll admit to bias, being something of a B/S shipper.
But, B/X just turns my stomach--too incestous. I'd even take
Riley over Xander!)
A Buffy Tarot
-- Etrangere, 15:54:28 05/10/02 Fri
This is some stuff I've been working on during the May sweep
mostly, inspired by an old discussion on the board :
Buffy
Tarot
Don't hesitate to comment and criticise.
[>
I might have chosen a few differently, considering S6,
but overall it's extremely well done -- anjee
, 16:25:47 05/10/02 Fri
[>
Very interesting! Thanks for sharing! -- Nina,
17:40:43 05/10/02 Fri
[>
Re: A Buffy Tarot -- yuri, 18:35:29 05/10/02
Fri
I don't know tarot enough to comment on your matchings, but
good job with your first time in Photoshop! I could
recommend you as a web designer to many friends who seem to
think they understand photoshop and intenet aesthetics.
[> [>
Re: A Buffy Tarot -- MaeveRigan, 19:42:59
05/10/02 Fri
I really love this idea, Etrangere! And your choices of
characters & quotations for the major arcana are really
beautifully apropos.
The only one that struck me as possibly limited to seasons 1-
5 is Willow as Temperance. She certainly seems to have lost
touch with it in season 6. On second thought, it still
works. Temperance is the very thing our Willow needs most;
in season 6 she's Temperance, reversed.
Sooo...now for the lesser arcana. I guess the wands become
stakes? You'll still want swords, of course.
[>
Re: A Buffy Tarot (comments, longish) -- Just
George, 01:04:11 05/11/02 Sat
When I saw how much work you put into making your Tarot, I
figured it was only fair to put some work into commenting on
each one. BTW, I'm glad that you used the main characters as
the major arcana. I also appreciated the quotes as fitting
the needs of the cards and positively positioning the
characters.
My comments are:
Buffy as the Magician is cool. The look fits as well.
For the High Priestess I might have used Tara in diaphanous
dress from Buffy's dream in Restless. However, the current
Amber pic is very pretty.
I didn't get Anya as The Empress until I read your text. Now
I get it. And I can see why you used the pic, the flowers
fit. However, I think this is one of the less flattering
pics you used. It doesn't seem very BTVS.
Xander as The Emperor is great. The pic is great. The quote
is great. I realy liked this card!
Giles as The Hierophant is a natural. The writing is a bit
light, but the quote is great.
Spike IS The Lover. I'm glad you put him there. I love the
two women in the background.
Cordelia's car didn't come across in The Chariot card. It
seemed like it was faded out too much.
You choose my favorite Jenny pic for The Justice. It is
haunting.
I might have gone for a "sick" Riley pic from "Goodbye
Iowa". In the show he was feverish and had strangely hair.
It might fit the Hermit.
I might have done a montage pic for The Wheel of Fortune.
But I'm a sucker for Buffy with a sucker!
I like Oz as The Strength. This is also a cool pic. I might
have used the quote that goes something like "I know what
it's like to have something powerful, something dangerous,
inside me."
Angel pic as The Hanged Man was perfect. The quote was less
so, but I can't think of a better one.
The Master IS Death. The quote is perfect.
The Willow pic is a bit too racy for The Temperance. Also,
my spell checker suggests it should be " Temperance " with
an "a". I love the quote.
I love Faith as the devil. Her pic is a bit too dark. She is
hard to see on my monitor.
I think you made the right choice to have the Council as The
Tower. They are more important than the Initiative.
I love the quotes on the Star. I think I would have just
used the fire pic from Intervention. But it is a beautiful
card in any case.
I love Ethan as The Moon. Pic + Quotes = All Good.
I like the family pic, but should the "Sun" pic be just
Joyce? If so, you would need a new quote.
I loved the Mayor and his quote in "The Judgement".
Dawn as the world? Great choice!
I loved Jonathan as "The Fool". I have always been a fan of
Jonathan's character, and I am glad that he made it into
your Tarot.
Congratulations on producing something beautiful,
thoughtful, and interesting. I hope you get much enjoyment
from it.
[>
Ete, that's really beautiful. -- Lilac,
05:46:24 05/11/02 Sat
[>
Re: A Buffy Tarot - truly beautiful! -- recdat,
10:50:16 05/11/02 Sat
I also might have made some different choices (not sure
about Riley as the Hermit or Willow
as Temperance), but can see your reasoning in each card and
think some choices are
particularly apt. I really like Spike as the Lover and
Giles as the Hierophant, although I would
have perhaps taken his quote from Season 1 (can’t remember
it exactly now) that goes
something like this (talking to Xander and Willow, I think):
“Vampires exist. Buffy is a Vampire
Slayer. That’s all I think you need to know.”
But all the quotes and images are really wonderful!! Thanks
so much for sharing your work.
Verizon Wireless
vs. Sunnydale (minor spoils) -- neaux, 16:41:36
05/10/02 Fri
Verizon Wireless vs. Sunnydale
As I contemplate the lack of communication throughout season
6, I cant help but wonder what life would be like in
Sunndale if Cell Phones mattered. To be honest I cant recall
seeing a cell phone in Sunnydale, but as I watched "The I in
Team" today, I noticed Riley had a cell phone. As he made
contact with one of his initiative boys, he suffered massive
static problems. Is Sunnydale's hellmouth to blame for cell
phone problems? Is that why we dont see them being used?
We know that Angel's team in L.A. can afford them. Gunn and
Angel keep a heads up on things with their cellies. They
have the money to do so as well. But Angel Investigations
thrives on teamwork. The cell phone is just as important as
the Axe or sword.
Season 6 on Buffy has shown that the Scooby Team has been
fragmented. So maybe cell phones arent needed? That I'm not
so sure. Remember Xander trying to reach Buffy when she was
all Invisible? Damn a cell phone could have been handy.
Xander could have said, "Hey Buffy!! Get your butt over here
or you'll be pudding!" Cell phones could be a LIFESAVER.
But there is the money thing too. Xander could afford a
cell phone bill. So could Anya. It might not be in Buffy's
budget. But keeping tabs on Dawnie is pretty damn important
too. Does Dawn have a cell phone? I cant recall. I thought
all teenagers had cells. hmmm.. (Someone please respond to
this ponderance)
I assumed this has been discussed at length in the forums,
but since Verizon has made its way into Sunnydale this
season, we should think that the Mighty Verizon has found a
way to solve this problem. Willow is frequently on the
internet, so lets assume Verizon supplies the lines in
Sunnydale. Now whether Willow uses Cable or DSL, I'm not
quite sure, but I believe that Verizon provides both. If
Verizon has set up good internet connections, then I guess
they know the layout of the town pretty well. They probably
have seen the sewers and the sewer inhabitants and know they
have their work cut out for them. But I think that their
desire for United States domination requires them to break
into the Sunnydale market. I can see the Verizon crew at
their headquarters scratching their heads wondering why cell
phone use in a town in California is at an all time low.
Well the good news is that they have made the first step by
setting up that dandy payphone in town.
Here is the bad news. Verizon has one guy going through the
sewers saying "Can you Hear Me Now?" He is probably going to
get killed without backup. Does Verizon have an Army of "Can
you Hear Me now?" Guys? Well, they are going to need it if
they really want to service the Sunnydale area. Actually,
Verizon might want to tap into the seance market. I bet the
seance market is really big in Sunnydale. Live people
wanting to talk to Dead relatives.
anyway these are my random thoughts at this time.. and thank
you anyone who took the time to read them. Please anyone
with anything to add, please do!!
-neaux
[>
ROFL ! at least there's one thing the Hellmouth is
useful for -- Ete, 16:55:33 05/10/02 Fri
I can't stand those devil's devices called cell phones
:p
[>
Re: Verizon Wireless vs. Sunnydale (minor spoils) -
- Veronica, 17:24:55 05/10/02 Fri
Your message was a funny coincidence because my roommate,
who rarely watches Buffy, thought that the "Can you hear me
now?" guy WAS Xander!
[> [>
Re: Verizon Wireless vs. Sunnydale (minor spoils) -
- Dochawk, 17:39:01 05/10/02 Fri
then how the heck did the wireless cameras work? With all
those feeds?
And doesn't the "can you heare me now" guy do a commericial
in Angel's alley?
Think of the potential product placement!
[> [> [>
Re: Verizon Wireless vs. Sunnydale (minor spoils) -
- Talia, 23:11:04 05/10/02 Fri
rotfl, neaux. You're on to something!
Maybe the Trio put magical feeds in in the cameras along
with the technological ones.
Verizon can follow their lead and issue special "cell
phones" for Sunnydale. The special Sunnydale-only
commercials will feature the guy waving incense, chanting,
and then opening up his cell phone with arcane runes all
over it and saying "Can you here me now?"
[>
Cordy carried one in HS - remember Homecoming --
gds, 22:08:59 05/10/02 Fri
[> [>
Re: Cordy carried one in HS - remember Homecoming -
- neaux, 06:55:05 05/11/02 Sat
Thanks for the heads up.
But where did she end up going? somewhere with better
reception I guess.
[> [> [>
Cordy even had one in WttH/H and it worked in the
basement (?) of the Bronze -- Sophist, 08:25:21
05/11/02 Sat
Classic Movie of
the Week - May 10th 2002 -- OnM, 21:27:35 05/10/02
Fri
*******
Such questions... become infinitely more interesting than
the questions in simple-minded commercial
movies, about whether the hero will kill the bad guys, and
drive his car fast, and blow things up, or whether
his girlfriend will take off her clothes. Seeing a movie
like (this one), we are reminded that watching many
commercial films is the cinematic equivalent of reading Dick
and Jane. The mysteries of everyday life are
so much deeper and more exciting than the contrivances of
plots.
............ Roger Ebert
*******
Blue, liberty; White, equality; Red, fraternity... We looked
very closely at these three ideas, how they
functioned in everyday life, but from an individual's point
of view. These ideals are contradictory with
human nature. When you deal with them practically, you do
not know how to live with them. Do people
really want liberty, equality, fraternity?
............ Krzysztof Kieslowski
*******
As I was driving home from work tonight, I suddenly became
aware of the special color of the light. It was
about 20 minutes after 8 PM here in southeastern
Pennsylvania, and as the sun was preparing to settle
down below the horizon that long, graceful wavelength type
of light was casting a gracious, moody glow
over the street, the houses, the people and whatever else it
happened to caress.
I’ve seen this type of light any number of times before, and
it always tends to evoke some manner of
emotional response. The exact same city street that seems
terminally seedy and run-down by the harsh light
of midday looks somehow less derelict and more inviting even
though it is only the illumination that has
changed, not the subject being illuminated. I let my mind
detach from the demands of reason, and
embraced the moment, because I knew it was one that was
short-lived. Light changes fast at dusk, as it
does in the early morning scene that mirrors this one in
reverse. The clock may count the minutes as if they
are all the same, but the moment can be stretched if the
soul is willing to be alive in it.
Then the reasonable demands begin to return, and I stop at a
mini-market a few blocks from home to pick
up a few minor items I needed to complete my planned evening
repast, and by the time I exited the parking
lot a mere five minutes later, the glow was gone, and the
mood it had induced along with it. I felt no
particular remorse; moments come and moments go. I started
the engine of my car, and made my way the
last few blocks to home, thinking about an interesting intro
for what I was going to write in the movie
column tonight.
The visual look of this week’s Classic Movie might best be
described as what would occur if you could
take that period of a few brief minutes where some rose-hued
light over the world relaxes into realms of
possibilities-- and then sustains those effects for a period
of days. Real, yet dreamlike. A place where the
individual lines of choice and chance bring about a destiny
that becomes perfection without ever seeming to
actively try to do so. Like, fate happens...
Trois couleurs: Rouge, (Three Colors:
Red, or more simply as it was released in
the US, ‘Red’), is the final film in Polish director
Krzysztof Kieslowski’s trilogy of expressionistic
thoughts on the meanings behind the colors of the French
flag-- Blue, White and Red. Symbolically, blue is
meant to represent ‘liberty’, white speaks to ‘equality’ and
red to ‘fraternity’, or ‘platonic’ love. As
Kieslowski aptly ponders in the quote I opened the column
with, are these ideals contradictory with human
nature? What happens when we try to employ them in our
everyday lives?
Based on his cinematic efforts, Kieslowski seems to argue
that much of what appears to drive our lives
from one day to another is really a matter of fate, or
chance. We may have a core group of friends,
acquaintances and co-workers that we interact with on a
daily or regular basis, but how many do they
number out of all the other people in the world? People who
may live out their entire lives without ever
once coming into contact with you or I. Lives that play out
in ways that may be parallel or divergent, in
ways major or minor. Events that seem unconnected turn out
to have deep common roots.
The color Red is all about fate, and intersections,
and fraternity. It is about blood, and fear, and
warmth, and of course passion.
The story opens with a phone call made by a young woman
named Valentine (Irène Jacob) to her
boyfriend. We see the camera follow what appears to be the
electronic path of the call until we hear a ring
at the other end, and see a man pick up the receiver. But it
is not Valentine’s boyfriend, nor is it a wrong
number. What has actually happened is that there are two
seperate phone calls, each taking place at the
same exact instant. The camera has tricked us-- the man who
has answered is speaking with his
girlfriend, who is not Valentine. He is named Auguste
(Jean-Pierre Lorit), and is a law student. He
lives in an apartment right across the street from
Valentine’s, but we will soon discover that they have
never met one another. From this beginning, it seems
reasonable to assume that these two will soon
interact and become a part of each other’s lives, but
Red doesn’t follow the obvious course.
Instead, we follow Valentine through a day in her life. She
is Swiss, a model; her boyfriend is named
Michael, and she also takes ballet classes and plays one
roll on a slot machine in a cafe nearby her
apartment each morning. She seems strangely satisfied to
lose this tiny daily game of chance, as if winning
would be a bad omen or portent of some kind. She seems to
have a certain blend of forthrightness and
innocence that mirrors the rosy spectrum of hues that appear
all over the screen at regular intervals, some
muted, some intense.
One night while driving home, and momentarily distracted by
trying to tune the radio, she accidentally runs
over a dog, but it is only hurt, not killed. Unsure what to
do at first, she finds the name and address of the
dog’s owner on it’s collar, and after gingerly carrying the
injured animal to her car, drives to the owner’s
home. What she finds when she apologetically confronts the
owner shocks her. The man, a retired judge
named Joseph Kern (Jean-Louis Trintignant), expresses no
particular interest, and suggests that whatever
she cares to do is fine with him, including keeping the dog
for herself if she so wishes.
She takes the dog to the vet; fortunately the injuries are
not serious and she subsequently takes the animal
home. It seems to bond with her, yet when she takes it for a
walk a few days later, it cheerfully runs away.
Unable to shake her memory of the strange, lonely-looking
old man who seemed so rife with indifference,
she takes a chance that the dog may have returned home to
him, and so pays another visit. Sure enough,
the dog is there.
Valentine also discovers that the judge is engaged in the
act of eavedropping on his neighbor’s telephone
conversations. When she appears openly dismayed at this, he
invites her to turn him in to the police, or
even just walk across the street and inform the man whose
conversation with his lover was just overheard
by both the judge and Valentine. Baffled yet again at
Joseph’s apathy, she decides to do just that-- and
discovers that all is not quite so simple as it first
appears.
She returns to visit the judge several more times, her
initial repulsion at his behavior replaced with
increasing curiosity of what is driving this strange man’s
psyche. In between, she continues her phone calls
to Michael, but we do not see them together, we don’t even
know if they are going to continue as lovers or
not. We are left with the impression that this distance is
somehow mutually desirable, that both want to end
the relationship, but seek to avoid the ‘personal’ nature of
doing so.
Meanwhile, August and his girlfriend Karin (Frédérique
Feder) are having troubles of their own. Auguste
discovers that Karin is having an affair with another man,
and is devastated. He is in the process of
becoming a judge himself, but it seems to hardly matter to
him in light of his personal loss.
These are just a few of the threads that gradually weave
themselves into the overall tapestry that is
Red. I can’t recommend this beautiful, evocative film
too highly. While there are a few shared links
between it and the first two films of the trilogy, each part
can stand completely alone, which seems to be
intentional and reinforces Kieslowski’s central idea of
parallels and intersections and the degree to which
chance plays a role in the way events unfold.
This movie may be hard to locate at your local video shop,
but do make the effort if you can-- this is one of
the best movies ever made, anywhere, by anyone. You won’t
forget it anytime soon, and the next time the
light spills long and low over your evening’s journey home,
this can be one more pleasant association to
help your soul expand the moment.
Color me fraternal.
E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,
OnM
*******
Technical lifeblood:
Trois couleurs: Rouge (‘Red’) is not available
on DVD, according to the Internet Movie Database,
which is a cryin’ shame, sez your humble reviewer, but it is
purportedly available on VHS. (The review
copy was on laserdisc). The film was released in 1994, and
running time is 1 hour and 39 minutes. The
original theatrical aspect ratio is 1.85:1, which was
preserved on the laserdisc copy, but probably is not on
the VHS version, which is an even greater cryin’ shame if
so, because every square inch of the screen is
duly exercised to paint the glorious visuals that go on
frame after frame throughout this entire film.
Screenwriting credits go to Krzysztof Kieslowski and
Krzysztof Piesiewicz. Cinematography was by Piotr
Sobocinski, with film editing by Jacques Witta. Production
Design was by Claude Lenoir. Set Decoration
was by Pierre Agoston, Paola Andreani, Marc Babel, Jean-
Pierre Balsiger, Patrick Flumet, Patrick
Lehmann Daniel Mercier, David Stadelmann and Patrick Stoll.
(Once you see this film, you’ll know why it
took all of these people!) Costume Design was by Corinne
Jorry. Original music was by Zbigniew Preisner
with additional music by Bertrand Lenclos. The theatrical
soundtrack mix was in standard Dolby surround.
The US release of the film is presented in French with
English subtitles.
Cast overview:
Irène Jacob .... Valentine
Jean-Louis Trintignant .... The Judge
Frédérique Feder .... Karin
Jean-Pierre Lorit .... Auguste
Samuel Le Bihan .... Photographer
Marion Stalens .... Veterinary surgeon
Teco Celio .... Barman
Bernard Escalon .... Record Dealer
Jean Schlegel .... Neighbour
Elzbieta Jasinska .... Woman
Paul Vermeulen .... Karin's Friend
Jean-Marie Daunas .... Theatre Manager
Roland Carey .... Drug Dealer
*******
Miscellaneous:
If you find the general themes Kieslowski is examining in
Trois couleurs: Rouge to be as intriguing
as I do, you might also wish to check out his earlier film
The Double Life of Veronique, or of
course the other two ‘Colors’ in the trilogy.
A personal note from your humble movie man: These review-
bracketing sections may continue to be a bit
on the shortish side until either summer gets here and so
reduces my Buffyverse analytical workload, or I
finally get a break from my far more annoying Realverse
workload, which is equally analytical much of the
time, but far, far less fun! (Pays the bills, though, more
or less.. ~sigh~.)
So hang in there, OK? Odds are I’ll be back to normal any
year now! (O, ye of little fate...)
*******
The Question of the Week:
What is your favorite ‘mood-inducing’ film? You know what I
mean, the ones where you leave the theater
and find you are carrying with you this sorta ‘glowy’
feeling, like you just spent the last two hours in some
dream-like universe that you were very averse to leave.
Post ‘em if you’ve got ‘em, dear friends, and I’ll see you
next week.
Take care!
*******
[>
Re: Classic Movie of the Week - May 10th 2002 --
Vickie, 21:44:51 05/10/02 Fri
Chocolat
A beautiful fairy tale of a film, where joy triumphs over
the greyness of life.
Hey! a board theme and a Buffy theme!
[> [>
Yeah, very good choice-- I love that one, too. --
OnM, 22:52:29 05/10/02 Fri
[> [> [>
Wouldn't it be nice... -- Cactus Watcher,
07:10:25 05/11/02 Sat
to have the heroine tell each of us our favorite... I saw
Chocolat in the past few weeks. Sweet in more ways than
one. ;o)
[> [>
good movie - but for triumph over grey don't forget
Pleasantville -- gds, 08:55:48 05/11/02 Sat
[> [> [>
Ah, Pleasantville! One of my very favorite movies of
all time! :o) -- Rob, 11:29:19 05/11/02 Sat
[> [> [> [>
agreed. -- trap, 13:16:31 05/11/02 Sat
[>
Re: Classic Movie of the Week - May 10th 2002 --
Lumina, 00:34:56 05/11/02 Sat
Les Enfants du paradis - the most magical movie ever
made.
[> [>
Re: Classic Movie of the Week - May 10th 2002 -- SLF,
03:14:39 05/11/02 Sat
"Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop
Cafe".....Towanda!!!
[>
Region 2 DVD is available -- Terry, 05:38:24
05/11/02 Sat
[>
Absorbing movie -- SingedCat, 07:20:59 05/11/02
Sat
"What is your favorite ‘mood-inducing’ film? You know what I
mean, the ones where you leave the theater
and find you are carrying with you this sorta ‘glowy’
feeling, like you just spent the last two hours in some
dream-like universe that you were very averse to leave."
And the runners up are:
Shawshank Redemption
The Green Mile
Big Night
And the winner is...
The Milagro Beanfield War
Like Big Night, I was impressed, if not struck, the first
time I saw it, but for some reason months later I watched it
again. Now periodically I return to visit the little
community of Milagro, New Mexico, and her eccentric,
willful, inspired populace.
It's hard to choose a winner, save by sheer seniority, but
all of these movies take me immediately into their world, I
shut off the lights, my popcorn sits unnoticed and abandoned
on the couch as I move to the floor in front of the set and
pay attention to the story.
[>
Before Night Falls directed by Julian Shnabel --
yuri, 15:18:56 05/11/02 Sat
There are many many that I could have chosen, but I just
rewatched this the other evening and I was just as
completely engulfed by the movie as I was the first time, so
it's still swimming around in my body. It's a beautiful
movie, in the intense and wondrous sense of the word, and
funny, too. Schnabel's other movie, Basquiat, is great as
well, in case anyone likes his work, but I favor this
one.
[>
Re: Classic Movie of the Week - May 10th 2002 --
mundusmundi, 16:26:56 05/11/02 Sat
Rouge casts quite a spell indeed, especially the
final scene. Don't want to spoil it, but the climax is even
more poignant if you've seen the first two films. Trust me
on this one.
Last night on Bravo was Boys Don't Cry, probably the
last movie to leave me thoroughly mesmerized. Directed by
Kim Pierce, it's one of the greatest debuts I've ever seen,
filled with pathos and wry humor and compassion for all its
characters, even the most vile. Pierce creates a "magic
realism" kind of atmosphere, frequently cutting to shots of
an evening skyline filled with rolling clouds and crackling
with lightning. The first night I saw it, about a year ago,
there was a thunderstorm outside, and it was as if the
atmosphere of the movie had spilled out of the TV set, the
night was so cracklingly alive.
[> [>
Boys Don't Cry -- CW, 17:51:49 05/11/02 Sat
That movie left me with many contradictory impressions. As
mundus say it's compassionate with all the characters, but I
was left disgusted with all of them. The main character is
so far from being heroic, that you'd never turn your back on
her/him. Yet when things go seriously wrong you can't help,
but feel sympathetic. These were definitely people I'd avoid
like the plague in real life, but I couldn't stop watching.
Greek tragedy among the lowest of white trash. There is
little I can say good about any of it, but it was a darn
good movie. I did say contradictory, didn't I? ;o)
[>
Terry Gilliam's The Adventures of Baron Munchausen
-- Rob, 19:59:59 05/11/02 Sat
The Character
issue (SR Spoilers) -- Jaques Regnier, 23:41:51
05/10/02 Fri
I've went through virtually every post on this board and I
know that my opinion probably doesn't matter but I think
that above all else the writers were trying to remind the
viewers exactly what Spike is. He's evil. He was evil when
we first met him and he's evil now. The only diffrence has
been his lust and obsession (not love) easily confused by
the way with Buffy. Her death was what brought him to the
state he's at now. That was the main catalyst. Prior to
that he was trying to work through theses feelings and deny
them, but when she died she was imortalized to him and these
feelings grew stronger. I refuse to believe that they are
or ever were love. He's felt for unstable women before.
Dru anyone. His obsession grows stronger when Buffy turns
to him after the ressurection and it escalates from there.
I think what were seeing is the evil that has always been
there coming back. Why now, because the writers want it
too? Thats the real reason but the main reason is Spike is
getting closer to dealing with what he thought was love.
Buffy isn't turning out to be the GF he thought she would be
after her death. Those few months without her were agony
for him because he had no way to get over her without
defiling her memory. He is selfish. He wants things to go
his way. Andf before you say that I'm picking on him I do
not condone or agree with any of the actions taking by well
virtually any of the other members of the Scooby gang. I
just think that everyone missed the point. Spike is evil.
He is a vampire without a conscience. He doesn't have a
soul. He wants what he wants and thats it. He wants Buffy
so he thinks he can have her. The mistake he made that won
the viewers over was trying to get her in a way that would
make her willingly come to him. He played by the rules he
remembered from his human side. How to woo. When these
didn't work the demon took over. Spike's all about getting
what he wants. If it means saving lives or taking them in
his words NO biggie. I know the audience thinks its noble
and all that but its not its for purely selfish reasons and
Buffy being weak confused and messed up in the head tokk it
hook line and sinker. That is the opinion that the writers
wanted to get across but it backfired. I didn't like Buffy
for this but not because she was mean or cruel to him but
because she was dumb enough to use danger to feel something.
They are not right together because Spike is an evil
vampire. He was only doing good to get Buffy because he
needed something to pass the time. He couldn't kill anyone.
I am all for the return of evil Spike. Mad cause Buffy
didn't go for him and ready to exact revenge on her in a way
only he knows how. Why because she slept with evil and it
knows her innermost secrets. If Spike comes back he knows
how to hurt her and I think it will be a hell of a fight.
I also want to state that Buffy being shot was a plot device
used by the writers to get her out of the way for Willows
transformation. If shes there to stop her bafore the
transformation then Willow wont have time to turn evil so
Buffy had to be put out of commision for a time. Give Will
some revenge time Buffy free.
[>
Willow's Choice -- Dochawk, 09:29:47 05/11/02
Sat
What if the reason Buffy is shot is that Willow is given a
terrible choice, save Tara or save Buffy? Your lover or
your best friend in the worst way possible.
[> [>
Dochawk, you have an evil, evil mind. (Is ME
hiring?) -- redcat, 10:52:44 05/11/02 Sat
[> [>
Re: Willow's Choice -- shadowkat, 11:58:29
05/11/02 Sat
Actually I thought the same thing...if maybe that's the
choice she has to deal with.
The girl she raised from the grave is shot along with her
lover. Who get's to live?
Maybe she doesn't get to make it? Maybe that's the choice
made by the powers and the reason she can't bring back
Tara.
Sorry - could only bring back one and we picked this
one.
Whoa. Who wants to bet what goes through Willow's mind
next?
"if I never brought Buffy back none of this would have
happened?"
Oh and a side note to redcat - it a sunny afternoon here in
NY and why oh why am I not out enjoying it?? LOL!
[> [> [>
Re: Willow's Choice -- DEN, 13:45:32 05/11/02
Sat
'kat, I agree that part of Willow's grief is likely to spill
onto Buffy, right or wrong. It will be an ultimate test of
the relationship, I think--in line with the "test to
destruction" approach ME has been taking with every
relationship in s6. Any bets on the outcome?
(In the old days, armies thinking of introducing a new
cannon would keep putting more and more powder in the barrel
until it exploded: "test to destruction." like Willow. And
Spike. And Anya. And---
[> [> [>
Willow's Choice (spoilers for S6 {inc. future} &
especially SR) -- Fred, the obvious pseudonym,
17:10:11 05/11/02 Sat
There is no question; Willow's resurrection of Buffy was the
cause of Tara's death. Price for price.
1.) Willow resurrects Buffy.
2.) Some months after resurrection, Warren shoots at (now-
living) Buffy.
3.) Stray bullet hits Tara. Tara dies.
4.) Without a living Buffy, Warren would have had no reason
to arm himself or fire wildly, certainly not at that
address.
5.) The price is paid; the circle is closed.
This was really well none, in my opinion. No contrivance or
obvious supernatural involvement necessary past the original
resurrection. The Powers that Be have spoken; Tara's death
was a logical, ordered consequence of Willow's act in
Bargaining.
Willow is intelligent. Whether she admits it or not she
will have to figure it out. So what will she do with her
awareness of her own guilt? Will she admit it or will she
lash out at everything BUT herself to try to conceal her
responsibility from herself? High risk in all cases, I
think.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Willow's Choice (spoilers for S6 {inc. future} &
especially SR) -- shadowkat, 17:47:17 05/11/02
Sat
"Willow is intelligent. Whether she admits it or not she
will have to figure it out. So what will she do with her
awareness of her own guilt? Will she admit it or will she
lash out at everything BUT herself to try to conceal her
responsibility from herself? High risk in all cases, I
think." (BTW - how do you guys do italics??It never
works
for me, sigh.)
This made me think of OAFA - where Xander, Buffy and Tara
are doing the release spell in the kitchen while their SO's
Spike, Anya and Willow are trying to get out.
Psyche/Control
in the kitchen - while Emotion/Chaos trying to break
free.
Interesting - Spike appears to be blaming the chip for being
unable to be a monster, he did take responsibility for his
evil act, but only to extent he realised the conflict inside
him was so bad - that he had become neither monster nor man
and left to figure out if he can at the very least go back
to being a monster.
Anya appears to have taken responsibility, she couldn't make
it as human and win Xander, so tried to be the vengeance
demon but just isn't getting back to it. She can't seem to
do it the way she used to.
(red herrings one and two??) Now we have Willow - who I
can't imagine taking responsibility...because she never has
up to now. Re-watching earlier episodes made me aware that
Willow has in some ways been the BB since Bargaining.
Yet
has never truly taken responsibility for it. Or paid.
Except in one way - loss of Tara. (Tabula Rasa, ATW,
OMWF,
and Smashed/Wrecked). When she goes off magic she gets
Tara back. Now she loses Tara - goes back to magic -
doesn't
get Tara - does she get forever lost? What Willow failed to
see - was you don't get rewarded for doing the right
thing.
That's not how life works. Buffy knows that all too
well.
Inside Cameos
-- West, 04:15:25 05/11/02 Sat
Yet another in my series of completely non-insightful
questions...
I remember quickly skimming over some mention of cameos that
the writers have done on Buffy. Of course, I'm too lazy to
go back and hunt those posts down... So does anyone know who
it was and where they appeared, and if there were any other
inside cameos?
[>
Re: Inside Cameos -- chuk_38, 07:46:42 05/11/02
Sat
well off the top of my head, i can only think of two, these
being.
1/ joss whedon as numfar
ANGEL episode (um, not too sure but it was in the
pylean trilogy storyline)
joss plays the hosts cousin(or brother), not too
sure, but it was really funny
2/ marti noxon as 'bad parker'
BUFFY episode 'once more with feeling'
she is the poor driver who is singing to the parkning
attendant, while anya, xander and giles walk by.
any more? i cant think.
but i am glad i could help
chuk :)
[> [>
Re: Inside Cameos -- hoping, 08:19:31 05/11/02
Sat
David Fury as the mustard man and also as the teacher who
plays hangman in Graduation Day.
[> [> [>
Re: Inside Cameos -- Rattletrap, 13:20:19
05/11/02 Sat
Fury also shows up as one of Wolfram and Hart's hired goat
sacrificers in an S2 Angel episode ("Reprise" maybe, not
sure).
[> [> [> [>
Re: Inside Cameos -- Grant, 15:34:44 05/11/02
Sat
Not a writer cameo, but an interesting one. Eliza Dushku has
a cameo in the season three episode "The Wish." She plays a
victim being drained by a vampire. You can spot her in the
scene where VampXander and VampWillow are going back to the
Bronze after their encounter with Cordelia.
The problem of
S6? spoilers up to SR -- Juliette, 06:30:34 05/11/02
Sat
I've noticed that there have been a lot of discussions over
the course of series 5 and 6 on why hundreds of female fans
are attracted to Spike, including the one below. Personally,
I have always found Spike the most attractive man on the
show, but, luckily for me, I stopped watching somewhere
around Gone, as I certainly would not be attracted to a
would-be rapist.
The debates don't seem to have started until S5. I started
watching in S4 so I may be wrong, but it seems to me that in
S2 it was perfectly OK to fnd Spike, the sexy, funny
vampire, attractive, just as I have known people find
Angelus more attractive than Angel (mostly due to the
leather pants...!)
But in S5 the B/S debates started, and Spike was labelled a
'serial killer' not a vampire, which I think is an important
difference. The show stopped being a funny SF show about
vampires as metaphors and started trying to be more literal
- the vampires became kilers, plain and simple, not
metaphors. It was no loger acceptable to find a vampire
attractive, and so those who were attracted to Spike had to
contend that he was no longer evil. The debate over whether
Spike was evil or not became more and more heated until,
eventually, the writers who believed he should stay evil
created a situation they thought would prove it once and for
all. (That so many, worryingly, defend his actions due to
his apparent remorse and that Buffy behaves much more like a
normal woman than a superhero when attacked are indicative
of the ever deeper hole the writers have dug for themselves
in using such an emotive subject.)
My point, which I think I lost somwhere, is this. I loved
Spike because he was funny. It didn't matter that he was a
vampire because the whole show was, for the most part, quite
light hearted, and he clearly loved Dru and would never hurt
her. I think that the show began to lose its way when it
began to take itself too seriously. But then, I am one of
the few who hated The Body because when I sit down to watch
BtVS, I want to be entertained, not traumatised (that
episode gave me panic attacks for a week, but perhaps I'm
biased as my mother has a degenerative illness). Anyone
agree?
[>
I understand your feeling about The Body -- Cactus
Watcher, 07:34:12 05/11/02 Sat
Many years ago when my father was dying, generally I tried
to go on living as if nothing were happening. But, Glen
Campbell had a very emotionally-charged hit song, that I
couldn't stand. There was nothing wrong with it. It was
just far too emotional for me to listen to, then. I had to
turn off the radio every time it came on.
Now is not the time for raw emotions on screen for you.
Don't torture yourself with trying to watch that kind of
thing now. I hope a time will come when you can see The
Body in less stressful times. I think it will seem much
different to you.
[> [>
Re: I understand your feeling about The Body --
Juliette, 12:38:29 05/11/02 Sat
Luckily for me, my mother appears to have MS (no firm
diagnosis) which is not fatal, yay! But its not certain and
I tend to panic sometimes! I guess maybe The Body just isn't
for me. I've heard that it was a very cathartic experience
for some people so I guess it just deends how if affects you
personally.
[>
Sorry, can't agree at all. -- Sophist, 08:21:10
05/11/02 Sat
The Body was one of the greatest hours in television
history. The moral grey you see today on the show perfectly
mirrors the transition we (I hope) make as we move from the
black and white views of high school to adulthood. The
metaphors are still there, but on a deeper level.
I understand that many people share your view about wanting
only to be entertained. My wife feels that way; I don't.
That's ok, she can watch Friends and I can watch Othello.
And Buffy, which, notwithstanding my criticisms, remains the
best television show I've ever seen.
[> [>
Entertainment -- Juliette, 12:34:23 05/11/02
Sat
I'm quite happy to watch Othello. My current favourite shows
are The West Wing, which often features depressing or
morally grey storylines, and 24, which is terrifying! That's
just not what I look for when I watch Buffy. I feel that the
show's tone has changed completely over the seasons,
becoming ever more depressing and losing all of its humour,
and I think that's rather sad.
[> [> [>
Entertainment, humour, and art -- matching mole,
13:14:49 05/11/02 Sat
My feelings about season 6 are a peculiar mixture of
admiration and dismay. Stepping back from S6 for a moment
I'll start by saying that I really liked the Body which I
consider the best episode of season 5, although S5 is my
least favourite season. But I certainly wouldn't want to
watch an entire season of BtVS that was like The Body not
because it would be too depressing but because it is too
focused on an extreme moment in time. It doesn't offer
balance and perspective. It doesn't have any humour. For
me humour isn't frivolous, it isn't escapist (at least not
necessarily) it is an important part of life. And I think
that in general humour doesn't get enough respect. You
laugh when you see something in an unexpected way. And in
many cases that means that you see it more clearly and more
completely than you did before.
Now I don't expect The Body to be a laugh riot. Nor do I
expect every film I see and every book I read to include
humour. But one of the things that I valued most highly
about BtVS seasons 1-4 was the really skillful intermix of
humour and seriousness. Not just because it was really
entertaining, which it was, but because it seemed like a
really great commentary on the characters and their world
(i.e. our world) told with a deft and light touch. It
seemed really true to me. The earlier shows seemed to be
about the inside of the character's heads *and* the world
and S6 in particular seems to be about the inside of the
character's heads alone. It seems to me that season 6 is an
original and honest (in some ways at least - I do have
certain reservations about some things the characters have
been made to do) look at the inside of the charcter's heads.
And I admire it for that. But I do feel the lack of
perspective that I think made the early BtVS so great.
I wasn't really going to post this now but rather wait until
the end of the season. However this thread seemed like a
good place to think out loud for a moment.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Entertainment, humour, and art -- aliera,
14:41:26 05/11/02 Sat
I don't think you're alone in that and I think that has been
heard. I'm looking forward to the remaining episodes this
season for some clarification on a few questions that still
elude me (the answers that is). But I'm looking forward to
next season also for the reasons you mentioned above and
some others.
Mainly, Buffy. I miss the strength of character from
previous seasons. I am still avidly watching this season
and this remains my alltime favorite show. But it seems
revealing to me that most of the posts I read about Buffy
are about her relationship to the other characters.
Espenson said that this season has been about Buffy focusing
on her *nature* meaning the dark, possibly demon based,
side of herself. But Joss said 'next year she won't be
dead' when talking about changes for Season 7, which was
even more interesting. He also mentions a return to more
humor and the basic premise of empowerment.
[> [> [> [> [>
The Root of Buffy's Power -- Darby, 16:45:26
05/11/02 Sat
The kitty's free of the sack - Jane Espenson specifically
refers to the Slayer's power as demonic in the interview
at
http://www.darkhorse.com/news/features/pg_feview/z_buffy/sku
_00586/item_00586b/index.html
I'm assuming that a regular writer on the show would have
the inside info on this, and it's not a slip.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: The Root of Buffy's Power -- aliera,
20:26:30 05/11/02 Sat
Thanks, I read it. I keep feeling the strongest urge to
hedge my bets tho'. That's why I put it that way. I very
much hope they will explore this next season. In the
meantime, I'll have to explore the comics too now.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Entertainment, humour, and art -- mundusmundi,
16:14:28 05/11/02 Sat
Comedy is always underrated -- just look at the Oscars. What
was great about "Seeing Red" was that beguiling mix of
comedy and tragedy that Buffy used to do -- and is
hopefully returning to form -- so well. "Mahatma!"
[>
Re: The problem of S6? spoilers up to SR -- Goji3,
07:31:19 05/12/02 Sun
My quibble is not with Spike, I like his character too!
However, my and most of the other quibles come from the
disgust of B/S and not understanding why people can miss its
distructivenes and unhealthyness.
The double-standard being set for Spike vs. the rest of the
scoobies and other things that aren't very logical stemming
from it.
See, We like Spike, we just can't understand why people
can't see the B/S relationship as destructive and/or
unhealthy.
Spike, Good
Spike with Buffy, Bad
[> [>
B/S and tv relationships -- Juliette, 15:16:40
05/12/02 Sun
ITA that the B/S relationship as portrayed is completely
destructive and unhealthy, on both sides. I think that's a
shame, as I believe it could have been played differently as
a really sweet relationship, maybe even leaving Spike's love
unrequited but developing a friendship between them.
Unfortunatly, it seems to me that as far back as Crush the
writers were seeing the relationship diffrently from each
other, or from me anyway! - a relationship with the Spike
from Crush would pretty much always be a bad idea as he's
clearly a sicko! I felt that Fool For Love really struck the
best balance between the sweet, in-love Spike who can't kill
Buffy but comforts her, and his vampire nature which is evil
and violent.
OTT and completely irrelevent, but my other fav couple is
Josh and Donna from the West Wing, and my flatmates think
I'm crazy. As far as they're concerned, Josh undermines and
sexually harrasses Donna. I always saw the relationship as
being one of friendly banter. My point is, it seems to be
impossible for eveyone to see the same thing ina
relationship even when the guy isn't an evil vampire!
[> [> [>
Re: B/S and tv relationships/ Josh/Donna --
Dochawk, 23:23:28 05/12/02 Sun
Nice to see another WW fan onboard, there seem to be
suprisingly few of us given that these are teh to best
written shows on television.
West Wing has been very careful to give its opinion about
sexual harassment earlier this year when the intern accuses
Sam. The relationship between Josh and Donna is
flirtateous, but nothing close to harassment.
[> [> [> [>
Re: B/S and tv relationships/ Josh/Donna --
Juliette, 10:49:38 05/13/02 Mon
That's what I thought. I've had several relationships like
that. I was quite surprised when they couldn't see why I
didn't have a problem with it!
What does it
mean to be OOC? Spoilers for SR -- Sophist, 12:13:18
05/11/02 Sat
There’s a long thread below on what it means to be out of
character (OOC). That got me thinking about why people had
such wildly disparate reactions to the bathroom scene. Since
I’m one who thought the scene was OOC, I want to explain why
in more detail. I want to thank Ete for helping me think
through some of this. Of course, she is not to blame for my
conclusions.
The Dalai Lama says “There are no evil people, just evil
deeds.” I agree with this. I also agree with the other side
of this coin: “There are no good people, just good deeds.”
What I mean by this (and I’m not binding the Dalai Lama to
my corruptions of his insight) is that evil comes in
packages, separately wrapped. For those with a science
background, it’s quantized. Some people commit rapes, others
robbery, others murder. But these weaknesses are discrete;
if you do one, it does not mean you will do the
others. Someone who steals your pension funds does not
thereby become more likely to rape you. These misdeeds arise
from 2 separate and distinct human weaknesses (money on the
one hand, power/sex on the other).
If this were not true – if good and evil came packaged
together – people would be far too predictable. Those who
did one bad act could be expected to do another, regardless
of whether they involved different weaknesses. Those who did
one good deed would inevitably do others. If we knew that
Hitler was a mass murderer, we would automatically know that
he abused his dog. Trouble is, he was and he didn’t.
What makes people infinitely variable is that they are an
unpredictable mix of strengths and weaknesses. John Doe may
give to charity and abuse his wife. Richard Roe may steal
from the pension fund and go to church every Sunday.
Having one weakness does not imply that you have others;
having one strength does not mean you have others.
When I see a post that says, “Spike totally would have done
that, he’s evil”, that’s not persuasive to me. What I need
to know is, is he evil in this way? Spike has done
many evil deeds that we’ve seen. He’s murdered, he’s lied,
he’s manipulated. What he has not done, ever, is rape
anyone. Or even attempt to (pace shadowkat and
leslie). How is he evil in this way?
When I think of an act as OOC, I mean that the writers must
give me some reason for believing that it is plausible for
this particular character to act in this way. So, what is
the background here? There is, I take it, no disagreement
that we have never seen Spike rape anyone. There is one bit
of suggestive dialogue from Lover’s Walk, but even that was
ambiguous and did not lead to any act. What we have seen
instead is a character who is submissive and empathetic to
women. He uses that submissive posture and his empathy to
seduce them. But for all the posturing of the big bad, we
don’t see him physically force anyone for sex. Even Harmony
(!) shoves him away.
Look at it this way (I’m going out on a limb here; Mal or EA
will probably catch me). We’ve seen a large number of posts
criticizing Spike on this Board. He’s been denounced as
evil, as a murderer, as a manipulator. But before SR, did
anyone ever say “Hey, that Spike is evil, he’s a rapist”?
I’d bet not.
Spike has weaknesses. He has done evil deeds. But there is
nothing in BtVS to show him evil in this particular
way. To me, it was OOC.
[>
My answer's above, I pressed "mew msg"
instead of replying :) -- MayaPapaya9, 13:45:49
05/11/02 Sat
[>
Re: What does it mean to be OOC? Spoilers for SR --
Lilac, 14:25:28 05/11/02 Sat
I agree that this was an OOC action. I think that it was
important that it was. It shocked us, it shocked Buffy, and
most importantly, it shocked Spike. I think that his doing
something that is so clearly not acceptable to his own self
image is what was needed to spur Spike to make some kind of
change -- what kind of change remains to be seen. He didn't
do this because he is just EVIL and nothing better should be
expected from him -- he did this because he was desperate.
It was a terrible act, it was OOC for this character, and it
was the moment of hitting bottom for him that needed to
happen in one way or another eventually, since things
clearly could not continue as they were.
[>
Re: What does it mean to be OOC? Spoilers for SR --
Dochawk, 15:01:24 05/11/02 Sat
I respectfully disagree with your conclusions Soph. First,
teh easy answer is there is 100 years of Spike the vamp we
haven't seen, but he was with Dru most of that time, so I
don't know. I do know that Spike was very close to the line
many times this season. Buffy caved multiple times (which
makes the line he crossed more difficult, but not
impossible), but he pushed her often. Shadowkat in her
wonderful essay last week, predicted Spike could do this
based on where he was going. I find his action totally
within the character as ME has built him.
[>
Re: What does it mean to be OOC? Spoilers for SR --
yuri, 15:12:31 05/11/02 Sat
This weird thing has happened to me, and I think it's
because my reaction to the show have begun to get so mixed
up with my analysis of it. I am really unable to state
things like whether or not I feel a character's actions are
OOC.
But really, that's another issue. I just wanted to state
that I'm not trying to prove with this post the OOC-ness of
Spike. However, I do not agree with your proof of why he was
OOC in Seeing Red.
I think one of the biggest problems is the ambiguity of the
word rape. I do not think that Spike is the kind of evil
that would pick some girl up at random and then force
himself upon her, with her trying to fight him off the whole
time. Neither do I think that he is the kind of person who
would shove an intoxicated girlfriend's hands away and
ignore her mumbled no's and go right along with what he
wanted to do. So no, I never would have said “Hey, that
Spike is evil, he’s a rapist.” However, I would not have put
past him the ability to retaliate physically against Buffy
if the circumstances were right, and if he thought what he
was doing may make her love him in some way, and I have long
been weary of the intensity of his obsession (or love, or
whatever) and, even more so, his dispair.
All criminal acts have circumstances that make them
different from one another, even if they are referred to
with the same word. Just as someone who steals mayn't be any
more likely to murder, a person who rapes one way would not
be any more likely to rape in another way.
I guess after this post I have more to say about my personal
take on the OOC thing. I was shocked, I went in to the
commercial break with my mouth gaping and it didn't close
for several ads. I was totally suprised and stunned.
However, I don't think this means it was out of character.
If I had gone into the commercials with a confused and
dubious feeling, and a "wait something's wrong" feeling,
then I would think it was out of character. I think some
people really did feel that way, but I also think many were
just incredibly shocked, and therefore assumed it wasn't in
character. (Looking back I guess it's obvious what my
opinion is with the rest of the post! That is how it goes,
then, isn't it?)
[>
Re: What does it mean to be OOC? Spoilers for SR --
lulabel, 18:20:12 05/11/02 Sat
I'd agree with your assertion that Spike is not a rapist. In
addition to the points you've made about his past behavior
with women, we've seen clear indications that he's not into
torture. (Yes, I know it's a different crime, but arguable
there are similar motivation of control and anger involved
with both. Both acts are means of emotionally destroying the
victim.) In S2 where Dru tortures Angel, Spike says it's
not his scene. In Angel S1, Spike gets a flunky to torture
Angel since he doesn't have the taste for it.
So yes, Spike is not a rapist. However, I don't think the
scene was OOC. I would argue that what Spike almost did
would probably be better described as "attempted non-
consensual sex", as the word "rape" is so loaded. It's
loaded because the usual parameters of rape involve hate,
and the intent to annihilate the victim. This is clearly not
the case here. Spike is desparate, while he's attacking
Buffy he says over and over "I can make you feel it" He's
trying to force her, through sex, to love him, not trying to
force sex upon her to reduce her or victimize her.
I see this behavior as a shocking but logical extension of
what he did in "Crush" which was pretty damn high on the
stupidity scale. "Crush" at the time seemed OOC, until we
remember back to "Lover's Walk".
[> [>
Doublespeak (SPOILERS for Seeing Red) -- Robert,
21:17:56 05/11/02 Sat
>> "So yes, Spike is not a rapist. However, I don't think
the scene was OOC. I would argue that what Spike almost did
would probably be better described as "attempted non-
consensual sex", as the word "rape" is so loaded."
From Merriam-Webster's dictionary comes the following
relevant definition of "rape".
"sexual intercourse with a woman by a man without her
consent and chiefly by force or deception"
So how is the dictionary definition of rape different from
your definition of non-consensual sex? I cannot help the
fact that some people hold connotations and meanings for the
word beyond its authoritative definitions, but connotations
don't change the fact that Spike attempted rape, by
definition. If I attempted the same act on my wife, I would
be sitting in a jail cell awaiting trial. Actually, I would
be dead. My wife is a tough lady and I love her for it.
>> "It's loaded because the usual parameters of rape involve
hate, and the intent to annihilate the victim."
Yes, but hate and violence are not always the motives. I
would add that Spike has hated Buffy in the past. The fact
that Spike can flip from hate to love (and possibly back
again) should be very chilling to Buffy and rest of the
team.
>> "He's trying to force her, through sex, to love him, not
trying to force sex upon her to reduce her or victimize
her."
If this isn't rape, then does this mean that should I force
sexual intercourse on a young woman, that I will be
exonerated so long as my motive was to force her to love me?
I don't think so!
I sat in a jury box for two extremely painful weeks in a
rape trial. I stuck with it to make sure that the victim
received the justice she was entitled to. It has been 15
years since, but the trial made a lasting and horrific
impression upon me. It acquainted me with things I had
absolutely no desire to know about. Please forgive me, but I
am finding your doublespeak to border on the tragic.
[> [> [>
Re: Doublespeak (SPOILERS for Seeing Red) --
lulabel, 21:39:27 05/11/02 Sat
I'm sorry if this offended you so. I was not attempting to
doublespeak here. I was trying to point out that there are
certain qualities that are commonly associated with the word
"rape" which don't necessarily apply to all instances of
rape. The same with murder - it's not some strange
accident that there are many grades of murder which
distinguish between intent/non-intent, pre-meditation, etc.
Likewise, not all rapes are the same - the use of rape as a
form of genocide in recent wars has a very different aspect
from non-consensual sex between sexual partners.
I'm certainly not trying to justify anything here. My
intent was to point out that the "out of character" problem
may be with trying to compare Spike's behavior to what is
typically considered to be the behavior of a rapist.
[> [> [>
Re: Doublespeak (SPOILERS for Seeing Red) --
redcat, 21:59:01 05/11/02 Sat
Thanks, Rob, for responding so clearly to the
concept that “non-consensual sex" is something
less than rape. I have so far stayed completely out of the
discussions about the bathroom
scene, for various reasons, all of them valid and most of
them personal. But the statement
that rape is “too loaded” a word to describe non-consensual
sex is frightening!
While I've never served on a jury in a rape case, as you
have, I have worked in women's
centers and women's shelters off and on for more than twenty
years. Several years ago, I
served on a faculty committee (at a small college on the
east coast) that was responsible for
investigating and adjudicating all charges of student
misconduct, including sexual assault. We
had a very serious case in which a young woman had been
rather brutally assaulted by a
classmate during a frat party. All the usual circumstances
applied - she'd been drinking, he
had a history of violence, after the event she ran
immediately to the shower, etc.
Unfortunately, she also made a comment to a friend, which
was then repeated to the
investigating officer, that she had taken the shower because
she “felt dirty, like a whore” after
the rape. One of the older male faculty members on the
committee decided that that comment
“proved” no rape had occurred because he believed it showed
that while the sex might have
been non-consensual, if the girl felt like a whore
afterwards instead of a victim, then it couldn’t
really have been a rape. Luckily, his opinion was
resoundingly voted down and the male
student was expelled from the college. I hope that lulabel
reads both of our responses and
thinks about her/his assertion. I have no intention of
engaging any of the Buffy-related topics
that the bathroom scene has engendered on the board, but
like you, I feel that some things are
too important to ignore and this is one of them.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Doublespeak (SPOILERS for Seeing Red) --
Robert, 22:35:51 05/11/02 Sat
>> "But the statement that rape is 'too loaded' a word to
describe non-consensual sex is frightening! "
I read George Orwell's 1984, not has a school assignment,
but for personal edification. It has made me sensitive to
the use of words and of euphemisms. My initial gut reaction
is that this was an attempt to make Spike's act something
less serious than rape, maybe even something that was
Buffy's fault. How is this for a slippery slope?
[> [>
Reminds me of a trail once... -- Goji3, 07:23:07
05/12/02 Sun
Where some head jock-guy had rapped his girlfreind and his
testemony was something along the lines of "She wanted
it"
Doesn't make it right, and, as you can guess, he got the
book thrown at him.
I believe this is they "type" of rape Spike committed. Fits
in well with his character, actually
And most OOC arguments do tend towards "My Poor Spikey Would
Never Do That" kind of arguments. No where near as
litterate as Sophists.
Anyway, I'm agreeing with Dochawk on this one. It was in
character for Spike to do that, the fact that it goes
against a part of his character is even portrayed in that
scene!!
Although, he later asks himself "Why DIDN'T I do it?"
Obviously he still thinks she wants it...Spike's not too
smart about women is he!
He currently has "Pathetic Dilusions of Complex Affections"
(Wobbley Headed Bob Quote!!) about the situation.
[> [> [>
D'OH! Sorry, Ment Vahallah! I Feel Stupid now... --
Goji3, 07:45:47 05/12/02 Sun
[>
Re: What does it mean to be OOC? Spoilers for SR --
Valhalla, 18:55:15 05/11/02 Sat
I have to respectfully disagree that Spike's actions
were OOC, also, mostly for the reasons brought up by
MayaPapaya9 and yuri. In one way, the question whether
Spike is evil in the way a rapist is evil is not quite the
right one. As you said, there are no evil people, only evil
deeds. I think the question is, is Spike capable of the
particular evil deed he did in the bathroom? I think the
answer is yes, and I think ME has been planting the seeds
for such actions by Spike for a long time.
Others have discussed how Spike elevates passion above
other emotions and principles (Spike spoke of it himself in
that scene), and how Spike's attitude toward his
relationships with women may have led to the bathroom scene,
how desperate he was to make Buffy listen to him, etc., so I
won't go into that. But one thing I haven't seen discussed
(and maybe it has been and I just missed it) is the creepy
elements in Spike's pursuit of Buffy which laid the
groundwork for that scene.
For most of season 5, Spike is Buffy's stalker. If you
strip away the played-for-laughs aspect of his scenes,
here's what you have:
Spike's obsessed with Buffy, first with killing her
(season 2), then with her in a slightly different way: back
in 1998, Spike and Dru are fighting over Dru's infidelity in
South America, when Dru says 'I can still see her [Buffy]
floating all around you, laughing ... You can't blame the
ghoul, Spike. You're covered with her. I look at you – all
I see is the Slayer.' (flashback in Fool for Love, falls
chronologically between end of season 2 and the 8th episode
of season 3). Spike dreams of Buffy and realizes he's in
love with her. (Out of My Mind). Spike starts lurking
outside the Summers house at night (No Place Like Home, Into
the Woods, Blood Ties). Riley catches Spike in Buffy's
room, smelling Buffy's sweater; Spike snatches a pair of
Buffy's underwear as Riley throws him out (Shadow). Buffy
catches Spike in her basement with photos of her (Listening
to Fear). We see later that Spike has built a shrine of
Buffy in his crypt, complete with photos and another of
Buffy's sweaters. We see Spike fondling the sweater
(Crush). Spike puts a blonde wig on a mannequin and talks to
it as if it were Buffy. (Family, Triangle). Spike and
Harmony play Slayer sex games with Harm as the Slayer.
(Crush) Later, Spike custom-orders the Buffybot, and plays
Slayer sex games with it, too. (I Was Made to Love You,
Intervention). Spike offers to kill Dru to prove his love
to Buffy (Crush). Dawn even calls Spike on his stalking of
Buffy ('Spike, I'm not stupid. You're, like, stalking my
sister', Forever).
A lot of these scenes were played for laughs, or pathos
on Spike's part. But it doesn't mean they're not also
pretty creepy. In my book, this all pretty much screams
'permanent restraining order' at least. (Of course, Buffy
can't exactly go the RO route). And while not all stalkers
become rapists, and not all rapists start out as stalkers,
many rapists do start out as stalkers and then escalate to
sexual assault. Enough, anyway, for Spike's attempted rape
to not be OOC. For most of a season, Buffy rejected Spike
wholesale, but Spike imposed himself on her, even if by
proxy (the Buffybot, the photos) and without her knowledge
(lurking outside her house). Spike imposed himself on her
when they had no relationship. Is it so surprising then,
that in the bathroom scene, now that they have a history
that includes not just sex, but some real confidences – he'd
impose himself on her again?
(As a small aside, when Buffy brings the TriDork(1)
camera to Spike to accuse him of planting it, his indignancy
made me laugh – what, he'll lurk outside her bedroom at
night, sneak into her room to sniff her clothes, play sex
games with Slayer-proxies, but he would never stoop to
watching her with a spycam?)
I have always liked Spike, and continue to like him,
specifically because his character is neither all evil or
all good. We've seen him do evil, do good, suffer, make
others suffer, take charge, hang about pathetically, in
love, hostile, greedy, generous, protective, synpathetic,
remorseful, manipulative – just like the rest of the
characters on the show. Just like real people. But if I
heard that a friend had someone hanging around outside her
house at night, stole her clothes and photos of her, built a
shrine to her, and had not one but two life-size replicas of
her that he chatted and had sex with, and then tried to
assault her, it wouldn't surpise me.
What we've seen of Spike is just what you pointed out –
good and evil don't come in separate packages. He is
exactly what you said – an unpredictable mix of strengths
and weaknesses. Many discussions have centered around
whether Spike is inherently evil, has become good, or is
redeemable. On BtVS, as in the real world, any one is
possible. But while one type of crime is not a predictor of
other types of crimes, there are some transgressions that
are sufficiently similar to others that it's unsurprising to
hear that one person has committed them both.
(1) 'TriDork' – someone used this phrase during chat – not
my creation!
[> [>
That was EXCELLENT, Thanks -- Dochawk, 19:01:32
05/11/02 Sat
[> [>
These are excellent points -- Sophist, 20:34:25
05/11/02 Sat
I completely agree with everything you said about Spike. But
he was obsessed with Dru before he was with Buffy, yet there
is nothing to suggest he ever tried to force her to have sex
with him (he did talk about torturing her to force her to
love him, but that's not the same). There is lots of
evidence that she rejected him, though. Had there been some
background of similar behavior with Dru, I'd have no
problem. When the obsession was there, but the behavior was
different, I see it as OOC.
I'm not sure I'm really able to assess your equation of
stalking with propensity to rape. I guess it depends on how
close you think the boundary is between rapist and stalker.
My (limited) experience is that stalkers are obsessed with
one person. They typically follow that person for obscure
motives, but (at least in my knowledge) not to rape them.
Kill them, sure; that has certainly happened.
Rapists seem to have the problem not with one particular
woman, but with women generally. I can say it this way: with
a stalker, Buffy alone is at risk. With a rapist, all the
women in the SG would be at risk.
Someone more familiar with these crimes may be able to add
some expertise here (don't mean you're not Valhalla, but you
didn't say you were).
[> [> [>
More doublespeak (SPOILERS for Seeing Red) --
Robert, 22:26:10 05/11/02 Sat
>> "But he was obsessed with Dru before he was with Buffy,
yet there is nothing to suggest he ever tried to force her
to have sex with him (he did talk about torturing her to
force her to love him, but that's not the same). "
Oh really? You don't think that rape is torture? The Bosnian
women might disagree.
Even beyond that, I would argue that Spike was obsessed with
Buffy nearly from day one (that being "School Hard" of
course). Spike's obsession with Buffy was perfectly evident
to both Drusilla and Harmony during season 5. Drusilla
rejected Spike because he was already demonstrating a
greater passion for Buffy. Spike's passion initially
manifested as hate and later as infatuation. I don't believe
that Spike's non-rape of Drusilla can be taken as evidence
for "Seeing Red" being out-of-character.
>> "With a rapist, all the women in the SG would be at
risk."
Oh, so you believe that all rapists want to rape all
women?
[> [> [> [>
Re: More doublespeak (SPOILERS for Seeing Red) --
Ronia, 23:16:51 05/12/02 Sun
Tiny note...not taking sides here, but watching
interestedly, Spike tortured Dru because SHE liked it, not
because he liked it. It was an afterthought to him.
[> [> [>
Re: Definitions -- Valhalla, 23:51:21 05/11/02
Sat
Well, I wouldn't call myself an expert by any means,
although I have done rape counseling, and been involved in
other activities relating to violence against women (ok,
that sounded horrible - I wasn't taking part in violence
against women, but in activities against violence against
women, like the domestic violence clinic in law school, blah
blah blah).
I think you've really put your finger on something, though,
which is what is meant by the word rapist. Ok, everyone has
to bear with here, because I'm finding this very hard to
articulate. There's an implication that if someone is a
rapist, then that describes something significant about his
relationships with women generally, and something essential
about his character. This is definitely true of some men
(I'm just going to stick with the flawed but traditional
gender split here, please forgive) who have forced women to
have sex with them; they deal with women primarily through a
prism of dominance and control. (can't believe I just used
the word 'prism', but there it is). But there are also
many, many situations where sexual assault is highly
contextual, just as it was with Buffy and Spike, where the
attacker acts in a way that is not how he normally acts in
all of his relationships.
Ergh. Not putting that very clearly. Years ago, I read an
NYT articple reporting on some really large study done on
thousands of college-age kids about sex and sexual assault.
One very interesting result was when asked if they had ever
raped a woman, an incredibly low percent of men said yes.
But when the question was rephrased to ask if they had ever
used what would constitute force (a la the legal
definitation of rape) to get a woman to have sex with them,
some astounding percent, like 25 or 30%%, said yes. (sorry,
I don't know what the exact percent was).
And I remember thinking that this was shocking -- such a
high percent, but not really surprising. Because to say
you've raped someone is to say something truly monstrous
about yourself, about your essential character, something
which no one considers themselves, but to say you've used
force to make someone have sex with you describes your
actions (bad) but not your character. And while I'm on my
soapbox, I think the disgusting but traditional 'she asked
for it' or 'she wanted it' defenses are not simply legal or
moral defenses, but often partly also a genuine
rationalization for one's actions in forcing someone to have
sex with you; because who the hell wants to admit they made
someone have sex with them against their will? It's easier
to believe that the other person really did want it.
Take the difference between a murderer and a serial killer.
If you kill your spouse, you're a murderer, but people don't
automatically assume you're about to go on a killing spree.
We accept that there's a distinction between being a killer
and being a serial killer. Both are reviled, but serial
killers are more reviled. But if you're a rapist, the
implication is that you're a serial rapist, that raping
women is part of your nature. Maybe it's partly because of
the 'ist' ending - there's a difference, I think, between
saying you're an artist, which implies something about what
you do and what you are, and saying you're a painter, which
says mostly something about what you do, and less about what
you are. (but maybe that's getting off track). In any
case, it does happen, quite often, that someone uses force
to have sex with someone in particular situations while at
the same time, using force is not their only or even
primarly way of engaging in sex. This actually goes along
with what you said about no evil people, only evil
deeds.
By the way, I'm not saying that you, Sophist, think this
way, or that everyone thinks this way. And in fact I think
this has become less true over time; most people have long
given up the idea that rape is committed only by psychotic,
obviously dangerous men prowling the streets for victims
every day.
Back to Buffy, and Spike's stalking behavior. Almost all
serious violence between people who know each other starts
small and escalates into something big, with the exception
of violence for profit or money. That is, people who beat
their spouses don't just come home one day and start
pounding away; long before the physical violence starts,
there's many small instances of control or threats or verbal
abuse etc., which grow in intensity until the hitting
starts. It's often the same in relationships with sexual
assault. (note! that's not to say that every instance of
controlling behavior will lead ultimately to physical
violence, but that of relationships that include physical
violence, most of them started out with 'lesser' instances
of abuse. To say that B is preceded by A doesn't mean that
A always leads to B). Not to mention that violence and
sexaul assault often take place as part of relationships
that also include many loving and genuinely affectionate
acts.
Which is why Spike's stalking Buffy lays the foundation for
the bathroom scene. The equation isn't stalker = rapist,
it's that rapist often = started out as a stalker. My
interpretation of the bathroom scene was that Spike's
desperation to be with Buffy and for her to show that she
has feelings for subsumed his other sensibilities. I don't
think he intended to use force to make her have sex with
him. His sin was that for a few minutes he was so wrapped
up in himself that he was utterly blind to her feelings. In
fact when he realized that she really didn't want him, that
it wasn't a replay of previous encounters, he looks stunned
and horrified. And I don't think he was horrified simply
because Buffy would never get close to him ever again, but
because he realized that he had almost forced her to have
sex with him because he was so wrapped up in his own
thoughts and needs.
Ok, back to word 'rapist'. It's true that there's not much
evidence (none, really) to show that sexual assault is
Spike's primary way of relating to women. In that sense,
it's not right to say Spike's character is that of a rapist.
But there is evidence to show that Spike, when his obsession
with Buffy is running strong, will ignore the usual
stricture defining acceptable behavior, to be close to her.
And I'm not sure that the fact that we never saw Spike force
Dru to have sex with him is dispositive; first, I don't read
Spike's intent in the bathroom as being an intent to force
himself on Buffy. Second, Spike may never had forced
himself on Dru, but we certainly saw that he went to great
lengths to keep her (conspired with Buffy to get her away
from Angel, eg) or get her back (followed her down to South
America). His behavior with Dru may not have foreshadowed
that with Buffy, but nothing about his relationship with Dru
is actually inconsistent with what he did later.
Ok, off the soapbox, putting it away.
[> [> [> [>
This is going to sound really odd, but -- Sophist,
08:55:38 05/12/02 Sun
I was lying in bed last night thinking about your original
post (too much information, I'm sure), and I was wondering
if I could reconcile your views with mine. You new post
expresses almost precisely what I was thinking (in part; I'm
still not buying the stalker point):
My interpretation of the bathroom scene was that Spike's
desperation to be with Buffy and for her to show that she
has feelings for subsumed his other sensibilities. I don't
think he intended to use force to make her have sex with
him. His sin was that for a few minutes he was so wrapped up
in himself that he was utterly blind to her feelings. In
fact when he realized that she really didn't want him, that
it wasn't a replay of previous encounters, he looks stunned
and horrified. And I don't think he was horrified simply
because Buffy would never get close to him ever again, but
because he realized that he had almost forced her to have
sex with him because he was so wrapped up in his own
thoughts and needs.
Ok, back to word 'rapist'. It's true that there's not much
evidence (none, really) to show that sexual assault is
Spike's primary way of relating to women. In that sense,
it's not right to say Spike's character is that of a rapist.
But there is evidence to show that Spike, when his obsession
with Buffy is running strong, will ignore the usual
stricture defining acceptable behavior, to be close to her.
And I'm not sure that the fact that we never saw Spike force
Dru to have sex with him is dispositive; first, I don't read
Spike's intent in the bathroom as being an intent to force
himself on Buffy. Second, Spike may never had forced himself
on Dru, but we certainly saw that he went to great lengths
to keep her (conspired with Buffy to get her away from
Angel, eg) or get her back (followed her down to South
America). His behavior with Dru may not have foreshadowed
that with Buffy, but nothing about his relationship with Dru
is actually inconsistent with what he did later.
I think I understand this and agree with it, but I want to
make sure we're on the same page. I'm going to re-state part
of it; please let me know if I understood you correctly.
What you're saying is that Spike was obsessed with Dru and
then Buffy. In both cases, when he lost the woman's love, he
tried to force her to love him. In Dru's case, that started
with a spell and then a suggestion of torture (not to have
sex, but to make her remember why she loved him). In Buffy's
case, he first tried to do something he thought would please
her (staking Dru). At the end, the only connection he could
think of that worked was sex. His behavior was a way of
saying "Please have sex with me. That way you'll remember
the good times when we loved each other." In that sense,
it's parallel to his promise to torture Dru to make her love
him (doing what he believed the woman wanted to see in
him).
If I have this right, then I agree with you and I can see
this as in character. However, there is a serious
consequence to this view that may arouse some strong
feelings (judging by the posts above).
You say "I don't think he intended to use force to make
her have sex with him. His sin was that for a few minutes he
was so wrapped up in himself that he was utterly blind to
her feelings." If so, then there was no attempted
rape. I'm speaking as a lawyer here. The legal
definition of attempted rape is that the perpetrator
specifically intend to rape the victim. Spike's behavior, as
I understand you to describe it, does not fall within this
definition.
This is a very sophisticated and nuanced view of the scene.
I'm not at all sure that ME intended it this way. If they
did, it was an extraordinarily bold decision. If they
didn't, hey, we can still adopt our own interpretation can't
we?
Please let me know what you think.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: This is going to sound really odd, but --
LittleBit, 10:17:28 05/12/02 Sun
"This is a very sophisticated and nuanced view of the scene.
I'm not at all sure that ME intended it this way. If they
did, it was an extraordinarily bold decision. If they
didn't, hey, we can still adopt our own interpretation can't
we?"
And herein lies the crux of the entire problem for ME.
Having believed they created a recognizably evil character
to contrast with an equally recognizably good herione, they
found themselves with a very charismatic 'Bad Boy' and a
heroine who is unsure of her entire identity. By putting the
two together and allowing each to play off the uncertainties
of the other, they created a relationship dynamic that while
clearly unhealthy never fully painted itself as impossible.
Even an event that should have been absolutely clear on its
right/wrong good/evil aspects is colored by both the
previous interactions and the subsequent reactions of both
parties. Intent is as significant as the action. Given the
characters as developed to this point, the event that
transpired was never an intended outcome for either.
Whether or not ME can overcome this problem remains to be
seen. They overcame the obstacle of Angel with the
introduction of a new romantic interest for Buffy, who
regardless of whether he may or may not have been the 'right
one' served the purpose of helping her to move past Angel.
In Spike's case it is Buffy herself who has allowed him to
move past Drusilla. It will be interesting to see what road
each takes to regain a self-identity independent of the
other.
[> [> [> [>
Wonderful posts! Exactly what I was trying to say, but
much more thought out. -- yuri, 13:26:39 05/12/02
Sun
[> [>
Re: What does it mean to be OOC? Spoilers for SR --
Rufus, 01:59:39 05/12/02 Sun
What we've seen of Spike is just what you pointed out –
good and evil don't come in separate packages. He is exactly
what you said – an unpredictable mix of strengths and
weaknesses. Many discussions have centered around whether
Spike is inherently evil, has become good, or is redeemable.
On BtVS, as in the real world, any one is possible. But
while one type of crime is not a predictor of other types of
crimes, there are some transgressions that are sufficiently
similar to others that it's unsurprising to hear that one
person has committed them both.
I agree that the attempted rape wasn't OOC given Spikes
established habits concerning Buffy. Spike isn't very good
at love. He talks about it but in the end had a juvenile
vision of love that as Buffy said, burns out and becomes
nothing. Spike scoffed at Buffys idea of love being for old
married couples. She also said that even though she had
feelings for him she couldn't trust him. He thought she was
just telling herself a lie. The only one who was deluded in
that scene was Spike. He couldn't have Buffy, he knew that
and decided to try to convince Buffy that she was wrong. I
don't think he entered that bathroom intending to rape
Buffy, he certainly doesn't want to hurt her, but when he
lost it, he almost raped her, and certainly hurt her. He
indeed violated her trust in him, first by sleeping with a
friend of hers(I know they were on a break, but it sure is
no turn on), and then trying to take her by force. As Buffy
is the slayer the ball is in her court. The only way for her
to get a permanent restraining order is to kill Spike. I
don't see any evidence that Buffy will kill Spike unless he
forces the issue.
Evil and good are potential for all, vampire and human. But
the overwhelming evidence of what Buffy and the gang and the
research from Giles proves that they aren't in a battle
between good and evil for nothing. It is clear in Seeing Red
that Spike is in a battle of his own. The only way to
resolve the internal struggle of the vampire is to either do
what comes more naturally and make Buffy a bloody toothpick,
or make a change that ensures that Buffy nor any other human
need ever fear his motives again.
[> [>
Re: What does it mean to be OOC? Spoilers for SR --
abt, 06:22:48 05/12/02 Sun
Spike did not stalk Buffy in the way Angelus did.
When Angelus stalked Buffy, he made damn sure she knew about
it. The intention was that she should know he was watching
her, following her. He wanted to frighten her.
When Spike was following her around, whenever he got caught
he'd come up with some lame unscary excuse. He didn't even
want to admit it to himself, let alone try to frighten Buffy
with his attentions.
re the Buffybot. In IWMTLY, Giles tells Spike to 'Get over
it'. We next see Spike assembling the things he intends to
give Warren as a guide, with the words 'Bloody right, I'll
move on.' This would indicate Spike's intention is to work
out his lust on the Buffybot so he can indeed move on.
[>
I respectfully disagree, Sophist...Dochawk's statements
pretty much sum up my opinion. -- Rob, 19:34:26
05/11/02 Sat
[> [>
I meant Valhalla's statements...Oops! Sorry, Valhalla!
:o) -- Rob, 19:35:54 05/11/02 Sat
[> [> [>
Actually, I agree with just about everybody who
responded here who disagreed w/ you... -- Rob,
19:42:02 05/11/02 Sat
...But, since I like ya, Sophist, I'm sending you now some
cyber-hugs and puppies to make up for it. :o)
Rob
[> [> [> [>
LOL. Rob, you're like VampWillow in The Wish: You love
all the parts. -- Sophist, 20:38:30 05/11/02 Sat
[> [> [> [> [>
Heh heh...Exactly. ;o) -- Rob, 11:58:01 05/12/02
Sun
[>
He's just an Exciteable Boy -- Malandanza,
21:31:55 05/11/02 Sat
I can't add much to this thread, since Valhalla said
everything so well, but I will address this comment:
)"We’ve seen a large number of posts criticizing Spike on
this Board. He’s been denounced as evil, as a murderer, as a
manipulator. But before SR, did anyone ever say “Hey, that
Spike is evil, he’s a rapist”? I’d bet not."
I did once suggest that Spike probably had prior sexual
experience to his night with Dru amid the ruins of China
(and was chastised for using rape metaphorically, although I
meant it literally). I do think that we have evidence that
Angelus was a rapist -- the scene with the gypsy girl was
highly suggestive of rape before murder. Recently, the
Holtz episodes confirmed that Angelus had raped Holtz's
wife.
Spike was running with Angelus -- he emulated Angelus,
Angelus was his Yoda, he cried himself to sleep at night
wishing he was Angelus (okay -- maybe not the last one).
Why wouldn't he follow Angelus' example? He desperately
wanted to fit in. So I don't think it is a stretch to say
that at some point in the past, Spike may very well have
raped a girl -- especially when you consider how closely
violence and sex are associated in Spike's mind. (and I
think part of Spike's obsession with both Dru and Buffy is
that they had been Angelus' girls)
But what puzzles me about this debate is that people have no
problem accepting that Spike is a cold-blooded murderer, but
balk at his being a rapist. Like the scene from The
Initiative -- the standard defense is that Spike wasn't
trying to rape Willow, just kill her. Why is that
better?
[> [>
Here, Here...and have a response -- shadowkat,
21:57:10 05/11/02 Sat
"But what puzzles me about this debate is that people have
no problem accepting that Spike is a cold-blooded murderer,
but balk at his being a rapist. Like the scene from The
Initiative -- the standard defense is that Spike wasn't
trying to rape Willow, just kill her. Why is that
better?"
This has been bugging me too. On one thread someone actually
said that vamping her would be kinder. Threw me for a loop.
Just as it throws me that having your memories ripped from
you, so you have no clue who you are - isn't anything close
to an attempted sexual assault? Uhhh...
why? Is it because one bugs us more on a visual level?
On the vamping - is it because we know it's not real -
so
feel safe?
On the ripping of memories - is it because it feels
impossible so you don't take it seriously?
I think it might be...I think subconsciously we can deal
with violence that is laced with metaphor or is hidden but
when it's thrust in our face in a way that we've either
experienced ourselves or we know can be experienced, it's
something we turn away from. In The Body - Joyce died in a
normal way and we sobbed, we couldn't handle it. It was too
REAL. But had she been killed by vampires and Buffy kicked
their butts, I think we probably would have shrugged it off,
just as we shrugged off Kendra and Jenny's deaths. I think
the bathroom scene was too real for some people - they felt
it viscerally, they may never have seen one depicted on tv
before or it echoed their own experience...I don't know. But
Spike or Angelus biting girls or having it referred to past
rapes is not because it doesn't affect us in the gut. And I
think that may be why we react the way we do. Isn't it
interesting how easily we can be manipulated and influenced
by an image? An angled shot? Lighting and scene? Would we
have reacted in the same way if it had been filmed like the
scene in The Initiative? Or the scene in The Pack or the
scene in Epiphany in Ats or the scene in Consequences? From
what i've seen - no.
So - I think the knee jerk reaction is due to how it was
shot, just as our reaction to Joyce's death was...it
felt
too "real". The writers forced us to look at something from
two points of view, then they did something really
interesting, they echoed the violence in the head of Spike
not Buffy. How you interpret the reactions of the actors
and the scene is up to you...but how they filmed it is the
reason it will stay with you and possibly affects you
more
than Xander's attempted rape of Buffy in the Pack or
Faith's
attempted rape of Xander or Spike's attempted murder of
Willow.
[>
Re: What does it mean to be OOC? Spoilers for SR --
Simone, 01:42:31 05/12/02 Sun
For the record, I do not perceive Spike's actions in SR as
"out of character" (except in the sense that HE hadn't
thought himself capable of doing something like that. At
least not to Buffy). Valhalla has pretty much covered the
reasons why.
That said, I am troubled by something. If Spike's actions,
especially when coupled with his history of trying to force
admissions of "feeling" and stalkery, obsessive behaviour,
make him a rapist, does that mean that Buffy's actions in
DT, especially when coupled with her long history of dealing
with her issues through violence in general and treating
Spike like her personal (un)living punching bag in
particular, make her an abuser? I'm trying to wrap my brain
around this, because I really didn't think so at the time
when DT aired and now I'm no longer sure why.
[> [>
Re: What does it mean to be OOC? Spoilers for SR --
shadowkat, 08:00:43 05/12/02 Sun
"If Spike's actions, especially when coupled with his
history of trying to force admissions of "feeling" and
stalkery, obsessive behaviour, make him a rapist, does that
mean that Buffy's actions in DT, especially when coupled
with her long history of dealing with her issues through
violence in general and treating Spike like her personal
(un)living punching bag in particular, make her an abuser?
I'm trying to wrap my brain around this, because I really
didn't think so at the time when DT aired and now I'm no
longer sure why."
Interesting question. Outside of the soul thing and
moral
compass - there is a key difference between Buffy and
Spike.
Buffy really only hits Spike - no one else. Why she hits him
has more or less been set up - he represents what she hates
in herself and outside herself. I don't believe her abuse of
him is truly that of an abuser and for those of who read my
two essays on this - yes, I changed my mind regarding
Buffy's abuse of Spike at least on that point.
What ME is attempting to do is extraordinarily complex for a
television show and part of the reason I've become utterly
obsessed with it this year: They are asking us the audience
some difficult questions and not providing any answers.
1. Is it okay to beat up on the harmless villain repeatedly?
Taking your agressions out on him? Even if he is the
villain? Isn't this a bit like beating up a dog - and who do
you have to blame if the dog suddenly turns on you? Or what
happens if your abuse turns the dog on?
By beating up Spike and doing what she has done with Spike,
Buffy has played a dangerous game. Does this make her an
abuser? No, because outside of Spike and the demons she
fights, she really doesn't hit anyone. Does this make what
she is doing - right? No. But as Tara pointed out - it is
not that simple. Nothing about their relationship is. Having
just finished re-watching OMWF - beginning of Wrecked -
certain items that I hadn't seen before shouted out to
me.
1. Spike will do anything to get Buffy. He has no moral
compass to tell him what would be a good or bad way of doing
it. And when he finds out she came out wrong - the only
thing that was holding him back -his view that she was on a
higher plain then he is - ie. the whole I know you'll never
love me, I know I'm a monster speech from the gift,-
changes. May have even become null and void from his p.o.v.
Riley is absolutely right when he states that Spike is
opportunistic, amoral and deadly. Spike doesn't disagree
with this. He just believes that Buffy should be able to
deal with it, because now she's dark too. In Smashed, He
even states the rules have changed. In his
p.o.v - not only can he hit her back, but the reason he can
do so is she's on his level now. She's like him. They can be
dark together. He does not realize that this is NOT true
until Seeing Red. Why? Because of Buffy's own actions
towards him.
2. Buffy - Spike is a weird character for her to deal with.
She can hit him, show him the darkest part of herself and he
doesn't care, he still loves her for it. That must be
incredibly intoxicating. Imagine being able to let loose, to
hit someone repeatedly, to do whatever you wish, to have
them tell you your wonderful - wow. Part of the reason she
beats him to a pulp in DT is that he represents that part of
her nature, that darkness, what she hates. HE accepts it,
she can't, it disgusts her. When she is beating him up - she
is beating up the slayer - that part of herself, just as she
did in her dream.
ME is trying to do two things at once here - tell a story
about a young woman exploring the dark side of herself and
struggling with issues of responsibility and control & a
metaphorical/mythic story about how you need to accept and
somehow deal with that dark side. They go out of their way
to show us how spike represents her left hand, her shadow,
or the primal force of the slayer - in Tabula Rasa, a
left
hand palm down is under the glass next to Spike, in
Smashed
a left hand palm down is shown next to Spike. Buffy is
stronger - can beat the crap out of anyone while she is
involved with Spike. When she breaks it off, she's weak,
keeps getting injured, and finally is shot. What is brillant
and possibly confusing to some of us - is that they are
trying to do both at the same time: the metaphorical and the
literal side by side. Telling the difference between the two
can be tough for the casual viewer.
I know this sounds a bit off the topic of your question -
but I'll try to bring it around again. No - I don't think
she's meant to be seen as an abuser - I think her abuse of
Spike is more metaphorical than literal, the metaphor is
the literal beating up of the dark side, fighting it
down.
What is going on in Buffy's mind at this point? She thinks
she killed Katrina. But who did? Buffy the normal girl?
No - her slayer persona, the left hand, the dark part of
her. What does she say before she finds Katrina in
danger?
Thank you. Thank you for giving me a distraction from the
evil bloodsucking fiend. She beats him up because he
represents the part of her responsible for Katrina's
death.
And he echoes the same things that part of her is telling
her: "she's just one girl, you didn't know her, it was an
accident, and look at how many people you saved?" Buffy
is hearing that voice inside her head and Spike echoes it,
Just like Faith did in Season 3's Bad Girls and
Consequences. So Buffy beats it up in an attempt to silence
it, to get it out of herself. Unfortunately - when she looks
down at him, she realizes that all she's done is make it
worse. That she has hurt "Spike" not the voice. By beating
up Spike- she proves the voice inside herself right.
Hope this made sense.
[> [> [>
Re: What does it mean to be OOC? Spoilers for SR/Buffy
the Abuser -- Dochawk, 12:28:06 05/12/02 Sun
In "the Prom", Buffy tells us, "the nice thing about being a
slayer is kicking ass is like comfort food" (from memory not
a script), I think Buffy does get some perverse pleasure
from beating up on Spike. But then I think Spike gets some
pleasure out of it to. This has never been a healthy
relationship for the reasons many other people point out.
But, remember in Dead things, Spike can fight back, he can
say stop, he doesn't (and they have the advantage that
without a stake she can't won't kill him). So is Buffy an
abuser? I don't think so. Is there more violence in her
sexual relationships than normal? Absoutely. BTW on a side
note: in an interview earlier this year MN talks about how
interested she is in S & M and since she suggested both
scenes, I wonder if this reflects that bias.
[> [> [> [>
Re: What does it mean to be OOC? Spoilers for SR/Buffy
the Abuser -- Simone, 13:27:53 05/12/02 Sun
>>But, remember in Dead things, Spike can fight back, he can
say stop, he doesn't.<<
a) I don't know how capable he was of stopping her after the
first few punches, even had he wanted to (which I don't
think he did).
b) He put on vamp face when he invited her to take it all
out on him. I thought slipping back into his human face was
a sign that he'd had enough, that she was crossing a line.
She kept hitting him.
c) He offered to be her punching bag in an attempt to stop
her from taking her guilt and rage out on herself and
turning herself in to the police. She took him up on it even
though she had no intention of letting him change her
mind.
d) We are talking about different transgressions here (abuse
vs. rape) and their entire context will be different. Buffy
fighting back in SR aggravates Spike's actions. His not
fighting back in DT does NOT mitigate hers. Just because
someone is messed up enough to be willing to put up with
abuse (on account of they see it as a sign of love, they're
under the impression that if they'll only take enough then
the abuser will finally realize how much s/he needs and
loves them, etc., etc.) that does not make it OK. The "he
asked for it" excuse carries no more weight with me than the
"her no usually means yes" excuse.
[> [> [> [> [>
And yet again, WHERE was this concern when it was
Harmony? -- Earl
Allison, 14:46:13 05/12/02 Sun
I don't excuse Buffy's beating of Spike, but I also don't
see it as a mitigating factor.
And again, AMAZING how the post title reads "Buffy the
Abuser" -- with no mention, and no recollection, of SPIKE
the Abuser -- does his being soulless make it okay?
Hell, Spike abused Buffy with words, REPEATEDLY, this
Season, from things like "you came back wrong" to "you
belong in the dark with me." Of course, no mention of that
either.
Let me again say, I don't excuse what Buffy has done, but I
am SICK and TIRED of it cropping up in context to Spike's
actions from "Seeing Red," as if to say "See! Buffy is
guilty here, too!"
I'm sorry if this came on strong, but the overwhelming lack
of consistency here (and I might well be guilty of it as
well) is really getting to me.
Take it and run.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Nevermind, calm now. -- Earl Allison,
15:10:53 05/12/02 Sun
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Oh, good. :) -- Simone, 15:29:22 05/12/02
Sun
In that case, I hope it's safe for me to point out that I
actually MENTIONED Spike's abuse of Harmony in my post
below. And the discussion was about Buffy's status as a
PHYSICAL abuser in light of her past history and the beating
in DT vs. his status as a rapist in light of his past
history and the assault on her in SR.
Yes, they have both also been hurtful and, I guess,
emotionally abusive towards each other. I didn't think that
was relevant here.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Buffy vs. Spike as abusers -- Dochawk, 16:10:12
05/12/02 Sun
Earl,
I think you know that I think Spike has been far less
healthy in this relationship than Buffy, who really does
know its just for convenience. And I think Spike has been
an abuser his whole life(even as far as sending Cecily
unwanted love notes), I don't think Buffy has been.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I know and understand -- Earl Allison,
16:49:46 05/12/02 Sun
Dochawk,
None of the venom was directed at you :)
I know, I just needed to vent because, calm or not, I'm
tired of the "Dead Things" issue because frankly, it has
precious little to do with Spike's behavior (IMHO) from
"Seeing Red," and intentional or not, it seems like it's
being used to either mitigate Spike's actions, or at least
to cast Buffy in unfavorable light.
I merely wanted to point out that Spike has had abusive
behavior in the past, even with the chip -- and that
conveniently gets forgotten in some cases (not you).
I don't know, by defending Buffy I may well be as guilty as
those I condemn/accuse, but frankly, Spike is NOT a good
person. He can be non-evil, but good, good for goodness'
sake, seems to currently be beyond him.
I'm still not being clear, so I'll leave it at that.
Take it and run.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: I know and understand -- Rufus, 20:35:29
05/12/02 Sun
I don't know, by defending Buffy I may well be as guilty
as those I condemn/accuse, but frankly, Spike is NOT a good
person. He can be non-evil, but good, good for goodness'
sake, seems to currently be beyond him.
I agree, Spike has done good things, but his conflict is
about why he is doing them. He knows what he has done for
Buffy is against everything he is about, but he has done
them. We saw in the alley in Smashed that it didn't take
long for him to talk himself back into attacking humans
again. So, Spike has two things stopping him from reverting
back, the chip, and his love for Buffy. Buffy has told him
she can never love and trust him, the chip he may be off to
take care of....or is he after something else? I see that
the writers are going to stick with the basic canon of the
soul being the only guarantee that at least vampires as
hybrids will be more likely to persue goodness as something
that makes them feel good.
[> [> [>
Re: What does it mean to be OOC? Spoilers for SR --
Simone, 12:36:13 05/12/02 Sun
See, at the metaphorical level, I don't think what Spike did
is about rape any more than what Buffy did is about abuse.
I completely agree with your contention that Buffy's
behaviour towards him is about the fact that he's her
"shadow," everything that that she hates, fears and is
ashamed of in herself, everything that she feels like she
must reject, repress and punish. I've held the same theory
myself since S5. But it works both ways. If he's her
"shadow," she's his, uhhh, "superego" (yes, I realize I'm
mixing Jungian and Freudian terminology here. Leave me alone
;)). The controls he has accepted on his own behaviour, his
driving force for the last 2 seasons, are All. About. Buffy:
what Buffy thinks, what Buffy wants, what Buffy feels. But
when control over one's subconscious is exercised as
mercilessly as Buffy has attempted to do here, things
fester, resentment builds up and, sooner or later, all those
things you tried to deny and repress blow up in your face in
the most unexpected and damaging way possible. Sooner or
later, your subconsious takes over and makes it all about
what IT feels, what IT wants.
Now, I'm very keen on looking at things from this
perspective, because it allows me to avoid passing judgement
on anyone's moral culpability, at which I am TERRIBLE (I
can't get much further than "Buffy hurt Spike. Spike hurt
Buffy. They both suck. Gee, that's sad. I hope they work it
out somehow"). But if we're going to discuss things on a
more literal level, it should apply to both incidents (DT
and SR).
So what are the facts? The fact is that Buffy has dealt with
her shame, anger and frustration at herself and her life by
playing "kick the Spike" for a long, long time. The fact is
that we have seen her, on more than one occasion, let off
steam by kicking some thoroughly confused vamp ass. The fact
is that we have seen her channel her personal rage into
killing vamps who were not an immediate threat to human life
(ITW), which she DOESN'T normally do. The fact is that she
does tend to only express intense emotion through physical
violence - she punched Angel in the face a few times too and
it's telling that Riley was disappointed when she refused to
punch him (perhaps it's also telling that, while Spike was
certainly abusive towards Harmony, none of his "I'll make
you" behaviour was in evidence there either). This is what
hit me like a ton of bricks last night while I was going
through Valhalla's list of Spike's transgressions: Buffy has
every bit as much of a history hinting at abuse as he does
hinting at rape.
Now, one could argue that kicking vamps around while ranting
about your nasty history prof doesn't count as abuse because
they're the enemy. She's SUPPOSED to beat them up. So what
if she enjoys herself and lets off some steam while she's
doing it? Fine. I have no problem with that. But then, all
the sexual undertones in Spike's violent behaviour towards
his prey (like the attack on Willow in "Intervention")
should also be dismissed as him just doing what vampires do
and not an indication of his underlying nature as a rapist.
We are then left with their behaviour towards each other and
a couple of - perhaps questionable - instances of similar
behaviour towards the other people they loved intensely:
Angel and Drusilla. The way I see it (and I would welcome
arguments as to why I'm wrong), they're about even. At a
literal level of interpretation, if he's a rapist, then
she's an abuser.
[> [> [> [>
The difference is we live in a human world not in a
vampire world -- Dochawk, 16:12:52 05/12/02 Sun
[>
My conclusions after that discusion with Sophist : a
theory about Spike's unconcious motivations --
Etrangere, 08:01:29 05/12/02 Sun
Ok. This is in no way a post trying to condone or apologise
for what Spike did to Buffy in SR, just an attempt to
understand what looks for Sophist like an Out Of Character
move (thanks to him for helping me going through the idea).
Character analysis, here, no question of responsability.
Others have said it, rape is about control. Rape is about
power. Rape is done by people angry at women trying to
assert their power on her.
For those reasons, it looks like Spike makes for a very
unlikely attempting rapist.
On contrary, Spike's relation ship with women is more about
being submissive to them. He, like Buffy accused him, is in
love with pain. In the same way he seeks the challenge in
his fights, he will always look for the "upper" woman to be
in love with. If anything, he puts her on a piedestral, he
doesn't try to drag her down, contrary to Warren who wanted
to assert his control on the girl who rejected him in Dead
Things, Spike begs Buffy to give him a crumb in Crush. The
fact that she was chained only served to underline how she
was still in power over him.
And that's the way Spike wants it. That's how he understands
love. He never knew anything else. His love for Cecily never
got beside the worshipping point, his love for Drusilla was
all about serving all her wishes, and when he fell in love
with Buffy, that was because he admired her for he could not
kill her. She was stronger than him, above him.
Spike never felt he was worthy of Buffy or of her love.
After his panicked attempt in Crush he accepted very easily
to be loving her from afar. "I know that you will never love
me. I know that I'm a monster, but you treat me like a man,
and that's..."
A death and a resurection later, Spike comes to realise that
Buffy treats him too well. Like he isn't worthy of.
She makes him feel like he was still alive.
This...
You know
You've got a willing slave
And you just love to play the thought
That you might misbehave.
But till you do I'm telling you,
Stop visiting my grave
And let me rest in peace.
could be read as a plea to be treated like a "willing
slave". Not like a man. Not like a friend. Which is what
Buffy was doing prior to OMWF.
And that's actually what Buffy starts doing, in reason of
her own inner turmoil. She starts using Spike, nearly
abusing him.
Spike wants to be treated well, of course, but being treated
as a man confuses him too much, so he must remind Buffy how
evil he is. How he is not worthy of her. "Hello, vampire
here ! I'm supposed to be treading on the dark side ! What's
your excuse ?" So he can't keep his mouth shut and makes
that "the only thing better than killing a slayer would be
to f-" comment.
The only way he could understand that Buffy would starts
being attracted to her was saying she came back wrong,
remember ? Because she could never lower herself that
far.
Dead Things makes certainly sense then. The more she trusts
him (accepting being handcuffed), the more he tries to make
her see him as evil, unworthy of it (Bronze scene) But when
she hits him, he invite it gladly, it recomforts him, it's
going in a form of relationship he can understand : "you
always hurt the one you love". In other words, as long as
you hurt me it means that you love me. The reasonment of
someone who's been abused. (I think it makes sense that he
would have been in the past by Angelus)
Comes As You Were. Buffy breaks up with him because he
finaly managed to get his point across : he is evil. But she
tries to respect him anew. "I'm sorry, William". He can't
stand that. He can't stand her niceness in Hell's Bells and
he runs away.
Many were struck in the Bathroom scene how it started very
well. Too well. Buffy actually admitted to have feelings for
him. That she couldn't let Xander kill him. You remember his
reaction after Drusilla left him ? "She just left. She
didn't even care enough to cut off my head or set me on
fire. I mean, is that too much to ask? You know? Some little
sign that she cared?"
Spike isn't able to, deep-down, understand how Buffy can
care for him and treat him with respect in the same time. So
he has to screw things again. Like in Smashed, like in Dead
Things, like in As You Were with the eggs right in the place
where Buffy and him spend most of their time. He thinks he
has to provoke Buffy's anger so as to be able to connect
through the violence directed at her. Like saying to her,
I'm bad, I'm evil, hit me. (Any similarity with an AtS
episode is not coincidental :)
Except Buffy doesn't. Even in that situation, she's
expecting him to stop when she asks him, and when she uses
violence to stop him, it's only that. And then she refuses
to send Xander after him.
So Spike is let to deal with his reaction of disgust about
what he did alone. (well, Clem's with him) He has to deal
with the idea that he might not be as bad, evil or unworthy
that he though, since even the worse act he could think of
was unable to convince Buffy of the same.
Since the beginning, I believe that at least part of the
reason that he loved Bufffy was to give him a good excuse to
fight for the good. Remember his spontaneous reaction in
Where the Wild Things Are ? He thinks to help them, then
convince himself not to. Because it makes no sense for him,
a vampire helping the white hat. But a vampire who, for
love, does anything to please his love, it makes sense for
Spike.
For the first time Spike question this.
"SPIKE: Why do I feel this way?
CLEM: Love's a funny thing.
SPIKE: Is that what this is?"
We see Seeing Red ending with Spike choosing to blame his
all new feelings of guilt on his chip before leaving
Sunnydale. Will that idea last long ? What will he do if
once the chip removed he realised that those feelings have
not changed ?
[>
ITA... (spoilers SR) -- Juliette, 16:07:37
05/12/02 Sun
Ironically, the entire time I was a B/S shipper, my chief
defence of Spike was that while he might eat people for
sustenence or even randomly kill them due to his lack of
conscience, he was not a rapist. He was good to his
girlfriends (well, not Harmony, but that seemed to be mostly
played for laughs. He cetainly didn't rape her). The scene
with Willow in The Initiative disturbed me more than
anything else because of its overtones of rape, but it was
not rape. It was a vampire trying to eat someone, not a
sitation likely to occur in real life! As you can imagine,
I'm not a big fan of Seeing Red!
Current
board
| More May 2002