May 2003 posts
Reflections on Charles Gunn, Nikki Wood, and
Black Panther Imagery - Spoilers for Home -- Eloise519,
22:46:02 05/08/03 Thu
Totally agreeing with neaux's now archived post, "A Grander
Notion of Gunn - Home."
How do you all put up comments so fast? The following has taken
me awhile.
Gunn's encounter with the WR&H BP does evoke the Black Panther
Party icon and what it symbolizes. The BP has long been used by
African Americans to convey strength in the face of overwhelming
odds. During WWII, Black GI's, fighting in Patton's segregated
forces, specifically the 761st Tank Battalion, used the BP as
their symbol. About two decades later, Black Alabamans struggling
for the right to vote and other human rights adopted the BP as
the symbol for their political party. In 1966, the Black Panther
Party for Self-Defense followed suit.
Perhaps I'm projecting, but I have been intrigued by what I see
as the inclusion of BPP imagery in the Jossverse beginning with
the Nikki Wood character introduced as the "subway or New
York slayer" in "A Fool for Love." It bothers me,
however, that she is still referred to as a "punk" slayer
in the UPN character bio of Spike.
"Spike has killed two Slayers: one lived during the Boxer
Rebellion; the second was a punk rock kid in New York whose trench
coat has become part of Spike's signature look."
Nikki Wood was a Black Panther. Outwardly she reminded me of my
BPP comrades and myself: the Afro, the coat, the attitude, the
skills!
(The coat and its symbolism in the Jossverse is a whole different
post).
In "Lies My Parents Told Me," we glimpse Nikki's Inner
Panther as remembered by her son Robin Wood. She is dedicated
to her mission as Slayer, even it means that her son comes second
in her life and is was ultimately abandoned by her death. Spike
was partially right: Nikki chose the mission over her son but
she did love him. She made a hard choice and as a BP mother, it
is one with which I identify completely.
(An aside - I think Spike's in denial about his own dear Mother.
The essence of the person remains in the demon.)
If Nikki Wood is not a former or latent BP, then she is certainly
reminiscent of the Blaxploitation Super Heroines like Coffy, Foxy
Brown, and Cleopatra Jones who ruled seventies era screens. Nikki
is certainly not "punk" by any definition.
For us BPs, the mission was all-consuming struggle for freedom,
justice, and human rights. We were for the most in our teens and
twenties. We held an expressed belief in self-defense and a willingness
to defend and care for others. COINTELPRO represented our PTB
and BB rolled into one annoying, merciless entity.
It's been good to see the Charles Gunn character develop. Gwen
(and where is she anyway?) "pulled his coat" in "Players"
- he had accepted the lie that he was just muscle. In "Sacrifice,"
at the gas station, he proclaimed the debut of the Free Will Gang.
"Peace Out," found him caged with his fellow (whining)
Free Willers, but he demonstrated he would "never give up
and never surrender."
It is empowering to have a purpose/mission and humbling to realize
the responsibility FW bestows.
In "Home," after Gunn's possible mind meld with the
BP, you sense the probability of his continued growth within and
apart from the FWG. Aside from being homage to the BPP, the BP
icon in this episode parallels mythic animal guides. Like the
First Slayer, animal guides impart knowledge and ability. Gunn
is tall man and he became taller with confidence and validation
as other posters have said. I'm surprised he didn't pick up a
black leather coat on the way down from the White Room. Hope it's
knowledge and not enchantment. Knowledge is power and knowledge
can lead to acceptance of one's true path as it dawned on Buffy
in "The Gift."
Knowledge and FW then are necessarily linked. Once you know, FW
and choice are in play. If you don't know that you don't know
then you really can't have FW and choice. Ignorance is not knowing
that you don't know, like enchantment. Wisdom is knowing that
you don't know and that you need to find out, to question. Imagination,
in part, is thinking about what you could know. Belief is choosing
to have faith in what you don't know or what you consider unknowable.
Choosing poorly can be stupid or making a mistake or doing the
best you can. Choosing evil is knowing that you will cause suffering,
injury, and destruction. All involve FW except ignorance and enchantment.
After viewing and hearing what passes as news and commentary lately
and listening to my fellow citizens respond on talk radio, I wonder
if ignorance and enchantment are, in fact, the same thing.
How do you break the spell when all the Channels are Clear?
Can you end the enchantment without going to a hell dimension?
If not, do you have directions?
All Power to the People! No Power to the Sheeple!
I'd love to hear your comments. Let me know if any reference or
link is wrong:
WWII Black GIs
http://www.members.aol.com/dignews/citation.htm
Lowndes County, Alabama
http://www.crmvet.org/vet/rogers.htm
COINTELPRO
http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/cointel.htm
[> Re: Reflections on Charles
Gunn, Nikki Wood, and Black Panther Imagery - Spoilers for Home
-- WickedBuffy, 23:34:07 05/08/03 Thu
I thought that was great - you were able to take all the various
posts that had begun mentioning that link and created a larger,
more complete, very visual, compelling and educational post. Everything
tied in so well together, past and present, imagery and metaphor
and you captured it all at once.
Thank you, it was a pleasure to absorb. :>
(I had absolutely no idea how to do it.)
[> great post! -- neaux,
04:25:56 05/09/03 Fri
[> [> Re: great post!
-- eloise519, 08:50:07 05/09/03 Fri
Thanks to all who commented, especially neaux for beginning the
discussion. Need to read these posts. So much to ponder. It's
a joy being among thinking, questioning people.
[> Thanks for all that (spoiler
Home) -- lunasea, 05:59:33 05/09/03 Fri
The Black Panthers originally formed to patrol African American
neighborhoods to protect residents from acts of police brutality.
In "Sacrifice" Gunn is reunited with a kid from his
old neighborhood. There are plenty of references this season to
Gunn being a leader. I can very easily see him having something
to do with really cleaning up his old neighborhood.
We are worried about corruption of our gang. The Black Panthers
started out just as patrols, but they went down the slippery slope
and got more and more militant. They called for the arming of
all blacks, the exemption of blacks from the draft and from all
sanctions of white America, the release of all blacks from jail,
and the payment of compensation to blacks for centuries of exploitation
by white Americans.
The Panther is both to show what Gunn will be doing and foreshadowing
for what direction his corruption will take. Angel will have a
hard time holding his family together, I think.
On a similar note, what cute science guy shows Fred is an evasion
of privacy. Wesley has access to stolen texts.
Wolfram and Hart doesn't have to be any strings or hidden clauses
attached. Willow started magick to help Buffy (and because it
is fun). Fred, Gunn and Wesley will probably jump head first into
using their power. I see Angel being a lot more tentative. He
understands firsthand the lure of power. That will be his dilema,
when it is an acceptable use of power. He will have the power
to do certain things to/for himself. What to do?
[> [> Re: Thanks for
all that (spoiler Home) -- Eloise519, 20:07:54 05/09/03
Fri
Corruption of the FWG is a distinct possibility. "Power corrupts
and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Clarification:
The BPP's neighborhood patrols and the "10 Point Platform
& Program" including the elements you mentioned - the draft,
prisons, reparations, etc. - were both established in 1966. In
succeeding years, the BPP actually became more mainstream, eliminated
"Self-Defense" from the Party's name, and dropped the
outward display of guns. The BPP was more of a target as it became
more politically and socially powerful. It's unbelievable now
but feeding little kids breakfast, publishing a newspaper, etc.
were considered very dangerous to the PTB at the time. But the
demise of our movement came, in part, from people wrestling with
their own demons. The inner fight is the ultimate struggle.
Power can be seductive/destructive/constructive. It'll be interesting
to see how the FWG handles W&H. I agree about Angel -- can't
imagine he'll be seduced by power. He seems to be motivated by
relationships.
Just have to wait and see. I enjoy AtS and BtVS, because they
continue to surprise me.
[> [> [> Re: Thanks
for all that (spoiler Home) -- lunasea, 12:53:18 05/10/03
Sat
Tim Minear has said that it was a leopard and not a panther in
the White Room. I get the feeling he is regreting using a black
cat. He seems frustrated when he answers questions about it.
When I first thought about Gunn, before all the talk about the
Black Panthers started, I tried to figure out what division was
left out. Charity and money. Should Cordy wake up, I can see her
wanting to be in charge of finance. In "Blood Money"
we learn that WR&H do raise money for charity (though charity
doesn't get it all). I can see Gunn very easily heading this to
not only rid the neighborhood of demons, but to really help it
really become something.
Gunn bypassed the security office and was shown something grander.
What at WR&H could do that? I don't just see Gunn as some sort
of leader. What resources would WR&H have for that? If he is just
going to lead his old neighborhood, he could leave WR&H. He
wouldn't have to accept. Instead, he is going to use those resources
to help his people. He readily accepts. I think he would have
sold his soul to the devil to do that.
It will be great to watch the kids try to handle all that power.
Will Wesley try to surplant the WC, since they are no longer?
This could put WR&H in bed with the Slayer. With Angel as the
head, could Buffy or Faith turn down their help? How can they
not trust it, but then again, how can they? It could be really
funny.
The firm itself will be Angel, something that was once evil and
is now trying to be good. There will be evil elements there, so
it will fail every now and then. It should get interesting.
[> Thanks Eloise519 and
lunasea! Iit all makes more sense now and lots of new stuff to
read about :-) -- LonesomeSundown, 06:47:01 05/09/03 Fri
[> Enlightening -- mamcu,
08:01:47 05/09/03 Fri
I had gotten as far as connecting Gunn's panther with the BP,
and at other times had seen the Nikki resemblance, but never thought
through all the connections with Free Will and the other points
you made. Thanks!
[> Excellent essay...some
lengthy immediate reactions (spoilers for Home) -- Random,
08:15:41 05/09/03 Fri
I doubt Nikki was an overt Black Panther -- or a militant -- simple
because she was a Slayer and probably too busy, and too isolated
to remain a member of a group that emphasized solidarity. But
you do make excellent points about the visual cues and the attitude
-- if we are conflating the Slayer's naturally militant perspective
with the organized militantism of the latter-day BP Party, we
are nevertheless witnessing the germs of a metaphor. Where Nikki
Wood fought to make the world -- and her son -- safe from vampires
and demons, the BP Party struggled for empowerment, not for its
own sake, but as a means of defeating societal demons, the vampires
that clearly sapped at the lifeforce of blacks during a racially-segregated
era (and it was, even after the fall of Jim Crow, by default if
not by law.) Nikki was certainly not a "punk" (though
I question the relevance of the word, simply because the 'punk'
modifies 'rock,' a valid modification referring more, I think,
to her mode of dress and attitude in an era where the term 'punk
rock kid' would have had meaningful analogy potential. Of course
we do have to take into account that the punk rock phenomena was
largely a white one, and perhaps other comparisons would be more
appropriate for Nikki...say, as Eloise suggests, blackploitation
and black militantism.)
What is curious -- and perhaps frustrating to some -- it the fact
that neither Nikki nor her son reference race. They are concerned
with other issues, to say nothing of issues of the Other, and
when one lives in a highly bifurcated world, one rarely has time
or mental energy to take on another polarized issue.They deal
with threats of the supernatural, ones which rarely touch on intra-species
racism. The inter-species issues are quite difficult enough. One
also imagines that their Watcher had some hand in this. While
we don't know whether he was black or white, we can probably posit
that he was stuffy and very British. (I don't recall seeing a
non-white Watcher, but I always pictured Kendra's Mr. Zabuto as
black/Carribean for obvious reasons...and it satisfies my sense
of right and wrong to some extent to believe so.)
Gunn, on the other hand, is a different issue. He grew up far
more involved in social issues than either Nikki or Robin. He
grew up in a neighborhood that, while not completely segregated,
if early AtS episodes are to be believed, was at least concerned
with issues of poverty and discrimination -- two key issues for
militant blacks (and non-militant ones, for that matter.) Keeping
in mind that the BPP was hardly the only outlet for black militantism
in the era, Gunn would certainly likely have a reasonable grasp
of the imagery and conceptualization of the black panther in relation
to his situation. We notice that, while Gunn has lost some of
his early rancor, he is nevertheless in a situation all too common:
a not-quite voting member of a group that is exclusively white
(with one green, heh) and led by a member of the white majority.
Note his instinctive reaction to being led by the offices of Security.
He is irritated, annoyed, at the idea that he is being relegated
(in his view, don't wish to demean members of the noble
profession of security)to what he percieves as a menial position
in light of the fact that he is part of a group that has been
handed control of the entire apparatus. I imagined his thoughts:
"So Angel becomes president, Wesley will probably be something
like vice-President, Fred'll take over R & D, and I'm gonna be
in charge of the doormen?" Not an unreasonable reaction.
So at last he is confronted with a black panther -- an animal
redolent with associative imagery. Prince videos aside, the black
panther would have a very specific meaning for Gunn. And therein
lies a rather brilliant observation by Eloise519 -- the idea of
the panther as a spirit guide contained in an historical icon.
We are looking at a complex situation. Even if it is enchantment,
the panther is a symbol of, ironically, disenchantment with the
prevailing status quo. As a figure already replete with connotations,
the panther is established as an archetypical spirit guide over
and above whatever W & H have planned. The traditional spirit
guides lead not to mere power, but wisdom. They are iconic --
shaman traditions both in North American and North Asian cultures
-- tend to emphasize the essential link between the animal and
the seeker. Generally, the traits of the guide are those the seeker
either associates him/herself with or takes on in the process
of searching. The black panther's symbolism is not merely literal
-- the traits that the original groups admired and co-opted --
but layered historical tradition. In effect, Gunn is looking at
his precursors, the militants who struggled to make the world
a better place.
Gunn has been in a subordinant position for the last three and
a half years, a position that one imagine must have grated, if
only subconsciously at times (and quite consciously at others)
on the proud and capable Gunn who once led his own Gang of Do-gooders
and finally cast his lot against them. What provoked this choice,
really? Aside from the obvious, Gunn suddenly began to see the
world in similar terms as those of Nikki and Robin, a world where
threats from the Other without were more pressing than dealing
with issues of the Other within society. What W&H is offering,
perhaps, is the gift of clarity...the ability to unify disparate
passions and goals. Not without a price, I imagine, but, for a
moment at least, we can imagine Gunn as not only happy, but powerful.
Such knowledge -- as Eloise519 notes -- is the beginning of free
will. Free will is the awareness of your choices and the ability
to pursue them. Furthermore, he takes a step beyond this: he has
surpassed his fate to take control of the next step. At one point,
he compromised one drive for the sake of another...now, perhaps,
he is free from that compromise. Though probably trapped by another
one, heh. Everything has a price.
The clear danger here is obvious: the attempt to reform and reshape
society is always perilous. Over and above the traditional maxims
about power, Gunn is faced with the simple question that plagues
all ME characters: what choices can we make, and what are the
consequences of choices made in the spirit of righteousness without
sufficient foresight or insight? Societal problems are complex,
and if we can, to some extent, brand the entire gang at AI vigilantes,
we must realize that dealing with supernatural threats is hardly
the same as dealing with the all-too-human ones.
[> [> Thanks Eloise and
Random - really enjoyed your posts -- Caroline, 14:00:09
05/09/03 Fri
[> [> Re: Interesting
essay...and interesting not really lengthy immediate reactions
(spoilers for Home) -- aliera, 16:25:21 05/09/03 Fri
The clear danger here is obvious: the attempt to reform and reshape
society is always perilous. Over and above the traditional maxims
about power, Gunn is faced with the ...simple question that
plagues all ME characters: what choices can we make, and what
are the consequences of choices made in the spirit of righteousness
without sufficient foresight or insight? Societal problems are
complex, and if we can, to some extent, brand the entire gang
at AI vigilantes, we must realize that dealing with supernatural
threats is hardly the same as dealing with the all-too-human ones.
Yes they are. The other thought I was remembering when I read
this was all the commentary made this season about AI not fighting
the bad guys (ie taking cases trying to help the general populace
doing the apocalypse or after Jasmine's demise) and becoming rather
much more self-interested than outer interested. I don't know
how it relates or where it's going; but it's been noticeable.
[> So what do people think
Gunn's new role will be? -- Masq, 11:36:01 05/09/03 Fri
Opening the floor for suggestions.
First stab: some kind of "shaman"? He has a vision quest
in the white room with the panther and is now in touch with another
level of wisdom?
[> [> Hope it's that
(Spoilers for Home) -- CW, 12:15:04 05/09/03 Fri
I'd like to see shaman Gunn added to the mix (as resident seer
if CC doesn't come back), at least more than I would secretly
traitorous, cool dude, Gunn.
[> [> Re: So what do
people think Gunn's new role will be? -- WickedBuffy, 12:23:21
05/09/03 Fri
I agree about the shaman part and would add "and then some".
He could possibly be in training to take The Little Girls place
- (I forgot the name of that group the first time I posted this
possibility and forgot it again... help?).
Gunn might even eventually transform into the black panther or
vice versa, to ultimately become (one of those "dieties").
They did lure him exactly to where she used to be - they could
have taken him anywhere. W&H might need that postition filled
to operate at top efficiency. The slate seems to be wiped clean,
the room was stark - as if signifying a new start to Gunn's transformation.
And as he got closer to the "total" transformation,
it would be interesting to see how AI reacts as what's happening
slowly unfolds. The methods they use trying to "save"
him. It could even cause great dramatic rift in the ranks if he
should be "saved".
Again with the saving someone against their will theme.
[> [> [> PLEASE NO
PANTHRO! -- neaux, 13:32:06 05/09/03 Fri
I pray Gunn doesnt become Panthro from Thundercats!
[> [> [> [> heh!
that shapeshifted across my mind, too. (Pantro is a funnier mental
pic, though) -- WickedBuffy, 16:18:16 05/09/03 Fri
[> [> What's been emphesized
recently -- Arethusa, 15:30:54 05/09/03 Fri
is Gunn's blend of intelligence, ability to see the big picture,
and common sense. He's been shown as a James Bond-type, even called
Bond-like in the script for Waiting in the Wings. Plus, he's also
depicted as sensual and sexual, again in a Bond-like way. (Or
maybe that was just in my imagination....) I can see him using
his new confidence and spirituality to direct a lot of missions
in the field, infiltrate the enemy like in Players, and lead his
units into demon battle.
[> [> [> I worry most
about what would happen if all that great stuff went "the
other way". -- WickedCynic, 16:21:51 05/09/03 Fri
[> Re: Reflections on Charles
Gunn, Nikki Wood, and Black Panther Imagery - Spoilers for Home
-- Rufus, 22:09:53 05/09/03 Fri
It's been good to see the Charles Gunn character develop. Gwen
(and where is she anyway?) "pulled his coat" in "Players"
- he had accepted the lie that he was just muscle. In "Sacrifice,"
at the gas station, he proclaimed the debut of the Free Will Gang.
"Peace Out," found him caged with his fellow (whining)
Free Willers, but he demonstrated he would "never give up
and never surrender."
Yes, that scene in the jail where Gunn uses his muscle/power fuled
by determination that shows exactly what the powers behind Wolfram
and Hart would find valuble in him. Gunn never gave up, even if
it meant kickin that door as long as it took to get them out of
that situation. Brains and muscle mean nothing if the person hasn't
the determination to never give up.
From the Penguin Dictionary of Symbols....
leopard: Ancient Egyptian priests wore leopard
skins during funeral ceremonies. The skin symbolized the genius
of Set, the god of Evil, the enemy and the adversary of
gods and men. Wearing leopard-skin meant that Set had been sacrificed,
the adversary defeated, and that the wearer carried about with
him evidence both of that sacrifice and of the magic power it
conferred. The sacrifice of which the skin was witness warded
off the evil influence of the wicked spirits who haunted the dead.
Similar beliefs and practices recur among Asian shamans and Amerindian
civilizations.
The leopard is a symbol of pride, but it is also a hunter. In
many respects it is related to Nimrod and, in more general
terms, may be regarded as a symbol of the warrior and kingly castes
in their aggressive aspects. The leopard symbolized blood-thirstiness
as well as strength and cunning.
Now, something I was wondering about was if something like the
Ra-tet was working in the White Room again? And is Gunn now one
of the "Big Cats"?
Masq's write up
on Long Day's Journey
The Ra-tet
According to Rhinehardt's Compendium, The Ra-tet is a mystical
order of five enormously powerful beings who are "totems",
or symbolic manifestations of the Egyptian sun god, Ra. Each represents
one of the five stages of Ra's journey across the sky. Together,
they represent day, or daylight. The Beast is systematically killing
the totems and retrieving the talismans that each carries within
his or her body. With the talismans, the Beast will perform a
ritual to blot out the sun and cast darkness on Los Angeles, and
eventually, the entire world.
Each of the Ra-tet also represents a point along the continuum
of good and evil, with the morning totem being the most benevolent
and the evening totem the most malevolent.
Who is to say that just cause the Ra-Tet as we knew it appeared
to be dead that the killing of the Beast may not have set them
free to reform?
[> [> The Ra-tet . Thank
you, Rufus - I was trying to remember that all day. ::smacking
head on table:: -- WIckedShortTermMemoryLoss.. :/, 23:50:20
05/09/03 Fri
[> [> Idle speculation
re. the Ra-Tet- Spoilers for LDJ -- Arethusa, 07:34:01
05/10/03 Sat
This might be totally stupid-but there are 5 members of AI and
there were 5 members of the Ra-Tet. What if W&H wants to somehow
reestablish and control the Ra-Tet?
From Masq's analysis of LDJ:
Each of the Ra-tet also represents a point along the continuum
of good and evil, with the morning totem being the most benevolent
and the evening totem the most malevolent.
1. (Sunrise) Ma'at appears as a female "white magic"
(i.e., benevolent) shaman who resides in Los Angeles.
Fred's knowledge of technology-science to some, magic to others.
And except for the odd murder, she's pretty benevolent.
2. (Mid-morning) Ashet is a being composed entirely of light
encased within a male human shell.
Wes goes here by default. At least he's male, if not filled with
light.
3. (Noon) Manjet appears as a badly-dressed, horny, middle-aged
man. He is the "neutral" totem--a blend of the good
and evil traits that exists in every human being. Like the others,
he is immortal unless ritually murdered.
Angel balances good and evil in one body. And of course is immortal
unless ritually killed.
4. (Afternoon) Samkhet appears as a skinless saber tooth tiger
and lives in a cave in Death Valley.
Gunn has aparently adopted a big cat as his spirit guide.
5. (Sunset) Mesektet appeas as an evil young girl who likes
to wear red. Before her death, she served as the link between
the Earthly contingent of Wolfram and Hart and the senior partners.
Without her, the firm is cut off from its superiors.
Cordy was the link with the PTB.
Idea for a
future storyline involving Connor (spoiler for Home) -- Vash
the Stampede, 04:58:51 05/09/03 Fri
This originally started out as an observation regarding Connor's
fate and evolved into a story arc idea. Let me know what you think:
Angel may have been able to erase Connor's past, but he can't
change what he is: the child of two vampires, with all the strength
and power that intails. He may not be as skilled as he once was,
but he's still got the raw power needed to take on vampires and
demons alike. Eventually, he's going to go out and seek answers,
and this will bring him back into Angel's life. At some point,
he's going to learn the truth, that his life is a lie (maybe froma
a psychic, {shocked voice, "You have lived two lives!} or
a prophesey {"The son of two families shall..."}) and
here is where it gets interesting. How will he react to the knowledge
that all that he holds dear is a lie? How will his new family
react to the news that their memories of their beloved son/brother
are fake? And of course, how will Team Angel react to the fact
that Angel essentially rewrote a portion of their past.
Now obviosly season 5 is too soon for a story arc like this; but
if we get a sixth season, I think it might fit in well as one
of the storylines, maybe towards the end of the season.
I always thought Connor had the potential to be an intriguing
character, just wasn't developed properly. This would be a chance
to kind of reinvent him, make him more interesting than he was
before.
[> I had the exact same
thought.... -- Masq, 05:06:44 05/09/03 Fri
Angel may have been able to erase Connor's past, but he can't
change what he is: the child of two vampires, with all the strength
and power that intails. He may not be as skilled as he once was,
but he's still got the raw power needed to take on vampires and
demons alike. Eventually, he's going to go out and seek answers,
and this will bring him back into Angel's life.
I feel a fan fic coming on....
[> [> Wow, Masq responded
to my post! How cool is that :) -- Vash the Stampede, 06:36:14
05/09/03 Fri
[> [> Maybe, maybe not
-- d'Herblay, 08:52:55 05/09/03 Fri
I will claim that when I first saw "Home," one of the
things I thought was "90th percentile on its own isn't necessarily
Harvard material, but it will definitely get him into UCLA."
And I expected that Masq would bite right into the questions
of personal identity. However, I think both of you are presuming
a bit too much when you say that Angel can't change what Connor
is -- the son of two vampires, a strong and powerful champion,
etc.
Angel was told and seemed not to doubt that the young man was
Connor in some essential way; Angel was satisfied that Lilah upheld
their bargain. It seems to be part of the deal that no one remember
Connor as Angel's son, including Connor -- no memories
of Quortoth, of AI, of anything previously canon. Memories and
experiences are an important part (maybe the primary part) of
identity; Angel has to be satisfied that Connor is Connor even
without Connor's memories. What Angel sees in the cabin is a young
man who certainly looks and sounds like Connor. This alone wouldn't,
I think, satisfy Angel, that Connor's body alone had found
a happy family. Now the underlying assumption (or hope . . . I
should say "hope," as the above scenario is the best
way to write Connor back into the series, and I know Masq and
I both want to see Kartheiser back) is that Connor's genotype
follows his somatotype, i.e., that the body we see is definitely
the offspring of two vampires. I don't think this would be necessary
to satisfy Angel; in fact, I think it might be a deal breaker
-- precisely because it would lead to your imagined scenario.
So what crucial (in the Buffyverse) bit of identity is left if
body is there but unsatisfying, and mind and genetics are not
present?
What if the kid in that cabin is not the offspring of two
vampires, but a normal human kid who happens to contain Connor's
soul? The soul is separate from the memories in Buffyverse
tradition, so Angel would be sure that Connor wouldn't feel the
loss of Jasmine, the time in Quortoth, the manipulations of Cordy;
the soul was not the source of Connor's power, so he would not
find it necessary to seek out danger; the soul may be separable
from the birth circumstances of its possessor. Mostly, though,
I think it is the one thing that would most satisfy Angel, who
knows better than anyone how important the safe housing of a soul
is.
Unfortunately, if this is the case, a VK reappearance is less
likely; also unfortunately, it really muddies the waters. Whether
or not this is the case (and we may never know, even if the WB
renews Angel), I'm looking forward to the fanfic (but I
think it's best if we don't collaborate this time).
[> [> [> I already
know the plot... ; ) -- Masq, 09:12:41 05/09/03 Fri
[> [> [> I don't think
it went that far -- Vash the Stampede, 10:26:37 05/09/03
Fri
With no Connor as we know him, there would be no Jasmine, no Beast,
no evil Cordy, no death of Lilah, no destruction of Wolfram and
Hart, no death of Darla, no Holtz, etc. I doubt Wolfram and Hart
have the power, or even the ability, to change reality that much.
Vash
[> [> [> [> I believe
they just changed people's memories of what happened -- Masq,
11:00:31 05/09/03 Fri
The seasons as we saw them is what actually occured, but the memories
have been changed to work around the Connor bits. I'm already
coming up with an alternative scenario that makes sense in everyone's
heads and explains their real personality/character changes between
seasons 2 and 5, but that isn't the actual past they lived.
[> [> [> [> [>
Can't wait to read your alternative scenerio. -- WickedBuffy,
11:30:13 05/09/03 Fri
[> [> [> [> [>
What I wonder is...(s3-end of s4 AtS spoilers) -- Rob,
11:54:38 05/09/03 Fri
...will Wesley remember that he ever was on the outs with Angel?
Or is their relationship now going to be completely the same as
it once was? I wonder whether Wesley remembers something
happening that fractured their friendship, or whether to him,
since his abduction of Connor never happened, Angel and he have
been the best of friends all of these years.
Rob
[> Probably can't change
his destiny either. Write that fic, Masq! ;o) -- CW, 06:11:07
05/09/03 Fri
I Spit on
Your Grave (Spoiler for "Lies" but no further")
-- KdS, 05:59:23 05/09/03 Fri
Two separate topics this week, as the episodes created such polarised
reactions on my part. Last night Sky and ME served up a delicious,
frothy soufflé to follow a drum of inadequately labelled
toxic waste. Discussion on Lies My Parents Told Me follows
in this post.
I must admit, this was the most problematic episode of BtVS I've
ever seen. Sometimes that would be a complement, but in this case
it isn't. To me, the release of Lies My Parents Told Me
in its final form was an act of gross incompetence, misguidedness
and lack of elementary quality control.
What reports have emerged about the ME writing process suggest
that when episodes are credited to multiple scriptwriters, they
have been produced not by full co-operative writing, but by different
writers working on different scenes in isolation, presumably with
intermittent communication to make sure the separate scenes hang
together. It seems that usually each writer works on a different
plot, if there are multiple plots running together (as in each
writer taking a different pair of characters in Conversations
with Dead People), or a different act if an episode is very
firmly divided into acts (as in Life Serial, where David
Fury wrote the university and building site scenes, and Jane Espenson
wrote the Magic Box and Buffy/Spike scenes). In the case of Lies
My Parents Told Me, I have a strong sense that one writer
wrote the 19th-century flashbacks, and the other wrote the 21st-century
core plot. By comparison with the previous work of Drew Goddard
and David Fury, I conclude that Goddard wrote the flashbacks and
Fury the main plot. From the resulting episode, I also suspect
that the pair either failed to communicate, or disagreed to such
an extent that they deliberately wrote their portions in total
isolation from the other's.
David Fury is one of the more controversial ME writers, although
this is at least partly the result of his somewhat intemperate
off-screen statements on certain fan perceptions with which he
disagrees. Ignoring these as not germane to the discussion, his
strengths are the ability to write truly hilarious comedy of a
blackly satirical or farcical type (as opposed to the more humanised
and charitable comedy of Jane Espenson), gritty portrayals of
both verbal and physical conflict, and a remarkable ability to
capture the thought processes and emotional viewpoint of the more
amoral and thrill-driven type of vampire or human sociopath. His
weaknesses, which are clearly related to his strengths, are a
rather chilly and detached attitude to human emotion, and an occasionally
shocking tendency to fail to grasp the subtextual implications
of the overt events. In the case of the 21st-century portions
of Lies, those faults overcame him.
Before going into the gruesome details of the 21st-century scenes,
the 19th-century portions of Lies do deserve high praise.
In the portrayal of the Spike/Dru/Anne triangle, one of the most
perverse ever to come out of ME, we have a subtle, intelligent,
plausible and emotionally wrenching portrayal of the mutual dependency,
denial and suppressed resentment that characterises such an excessively
tight-knit parent-child relationship. While it may not significantly
change our view of Spike now, it adds further important depth
to the question of how he came to be. Moreover, by so clearly
comparing Spike's relationships with his mother and with Buffy,
it sheds an important new light on the final episodes of S6, and
does a great deal to remove the disturbing subtext, after the
stressing of Spike's serial rapist past in Never Leave Me,
that such disturbed, abusive real-life individuals just need to
find the right woman.
Unfortunately, the 21st-century scenes can only be described as
cold, repellent, and finally subtextually disgusting in a way
that suggests that if moral ambiguity were intended, it was disastrously
mishandled. BtVS has contrasted with many less ambitious television
drama series in its ability to show the characters clear-sightedly
at their worst. Never before, however, have I seen an episode
in which all the characters were simultaneously shown in
such an ugly light. After this episode, I simply don't see how
Giles can be brought back in the limited time remaining. In previous
episodes of the season, he has shown signs of depression and despair
approaching post-traumatic stress disorder. However, the coldly
murderous manipulator we see here goes well beyond such development.
It's as if when the Watchers' Council building was blown to pieces,
all the most negative aspects of that organisation had been somehow
imbued into the fabric of the building over history, and freed
by that act of violence had imbued themselves into its last survivor.
One can draw parallels to the drugging of Buffy in Helpless,
but that was done under protest and his conscience finally broke
when an innocent bystander became involved. One can also draw
parallels to the killing of Ben in The Gift, but that was
in a response to a demonstrated threat so massive that the potential
threat from Spike seems trivial in comparison. Buffy, we see from
this episode, does on some level realise how uncomfortable and
counter-productive her behaviour in the role of war leader is.
Yet her treatment of Wood at the end, even given her ignorance
of what actually happened between him and Spike, is cold and patronising.
The comparison between the natural death and the murder of a parent
can only be made by someone unlucky enough to have experienced
both, but one can doubt Buffy's casual assumption that she knows
exactly what he is going through.
Where the episode really goes completely off the rails, however,
is the sequence of Spike's epiphany about his and Wood's maternal
relationships. On the most anally retentive level, one can criticise
Spike's certainty that his mother really loved him and everything
she said could be ignored as the demon talking on the level of
its total dismissal of six years of canon, much of which involved
Spike himself. Some apologists for the episode have suggested
that Spike is meant to be deluded here, or deliberately lying
about his feelings to torment Wood. Yet his manner does not suggest
that his lines are anything but his deepest beliefs, and his tone
has none of the sarcasm which his explicit insults have had even
when souled. Moreover, the fact that, as demonstrated when he
replays the song, his trigger genuinely has been deactivated suggests
that he is not in any way deluded.
The implications of Spike's speech were heavily and deservedly
criticised at the time of the episode's US broadcast, as would
be expected given that the episode appears to argue that if you
devote your life to your child you are twisted, unhealthy and
deserve to die, but if you have other important things in your
life as well as your child, you are neglectful, devoid of love
and deserve to die. The misogyny of this, and the even more extreme
condemnations of Nikki reportedly posted by some fans who took
Spike's speech as gospel, can be shown by some comparisons to
other events in the series. By this judgement, Buffy should never
have returned from Los Angeles in Anne, and deserves the
most savage condemnation possible for her treatment of Joyce in
S1-2. At least Nikki made the young Robin aware of the potential
dangers in his life, while Buffy regularly left Joyce unprotected,
unguarded, and totally ignorant of the enemies that might attack
her. Similarly, no-one has ever seriously suggested that Angel
was selfish and irresponsible in attempting to bring up Connor
himself, despite the hazards of his lifestyle. By Spike's judgement
here, we should be applauding Wes for taking the child away. Another
serious problem in relation to Spike's epiphany and moral development
is his continued claim of moral equivalency with Nikki and that
his killing of her was mere self-defence. As others pointed out
on the board, Nikki would not have been attacking him if he had
not been killing and eating innocent people, while he would clearly
have killed Nikki even if she wasn't a Slayer. (One slightly positive
point was the fact that Spike does not explicitly repeat his claim
to Buffy two years previously that Nikki let him kill her, which
discussion after the US broadcast appeared to me to imply.) Finally,
his claim of Nikki's coat even after the revelation of her connection
with Wood is a piece of gratuitous cruelty that is very hard to
forgive. (A note: elise's post earlier today about the Black Power
associations of Nikki and the black leather trenchcoat suggest
a disturbing political undertone to this, given the post-Pangs
interest in analysing Spike as imperialist.)
If this was intended to be morally uncomfortable, the reaction
of elements of the fanbase to the episode in defending Spike and
condemning Nikki shows the irresponsibility of the manner in which
the episode was written. Many fan still appear to hold to the
S4-5 implication of Spike as the demonic teller of uncomfortable
truths, but nevertheless truths. There is considerable evidence
in S6 and early S7 to suggest a new paradigm in which many of
Spike's past speeches are re-evaluated as the result of a demonic
and therefore unduly negative judgement of human nature, not to
mention a certain amount of projection and conscious manipulation.
However, it is an act of gross irresponsibility to place such
dynamite opinions in the mouth of a morally ambiguous character
when there is clear evidence that large numbers of people do not
recognise that character's moral ambiguity. The overstated but
marginally deserved condemnations of the homophobic implications
of the final stages of S6 were based, in their most defensible
form, on the allegation that ME had irresponsibly failed to consider
the opinions of the wider social and cultural background. Lies
deserves far more condemnation, because its disquieting power
comes from a failure to consider the implications against the
background of the series itself.
There are some possibilities which might be considered to undercut
the darkness of the episodes opinions. The first is the ambiguity
of the title, which may apply to Anne's and Nikki's claims to
love their sons, or alternatively may refer to Anne's tirade of
hatred and Nikki's claim that the mission matters. Furthermore,
all the characters except Nikki claim to be acting under the drives
of necessity, but are actually following their own selfish desires.
One might even "fanwank" the episode to suggest that
we are actually seeing events from Spike's and Giles's twisted
points of view. However, given the problems with the ep, such
undercutting is far too subtle.
One of my viewing companions subsequently stated in conversation
that if the weekly Buffy/Angel evening had not become a regular
social event she would not intend to watch the later episodes
of the season, so disturbing did she find this episode. I have
grave concerns, but remember that many series which I have enjoyed
in the past have featured episodes in their later stages which
I found ideologically repellent. (I remember Babylon 5's
thuggish paean to secret vigilantism in Learning Curve,
and DS9's slyly and viciously homophobic Chrysalis.)
However, I can only see Lies as an implication that the
sure touch with metaphor which I once trusted ME for has utterly
vanished.
Oh, and the post title? I Spit on Your Grave was an infamous
early-1980s "video nasty" in which a young woman gets
gang-raped in pornographic detail and then slaughters her assailants
in various hideous ways. Some really perverse individuals have
tried to suggest there's some hidden feminist message here. Of
course, the parallel is ironic as here the rapist and murderer
gets to gratuitously spit on his victim's grave a quarter-century
later.
[> Sorry, that poster name
should be Eloise, not Elise. Sorry Eloise -- KdS, 06:15:59
05/09/03 Fri
[> Yeah, a tough episode
-- pilgrim, 08:30:10 05/09/03 Fri
A couple of points:
1. I agree with much of what you said. A tough episode, hard on
everyone.
2. I can see why you believe the episode was irresponsible. But
having read all the posts on this board when the episode played
in the US, I found the discussion lively, robust, enlightening
regarding our culture's expectations of mothers. Yours is a great
addition to that body of posts. Any TV episode that can inspire
thoughtful and at times passionate commentary on the mother-child
relationship (rather than the sap we usually get about what mothers
and children are supposed to feel and how they are supposed to
act), I'm for, and I'd rather the show not shy away from tough
writing because some fans may take Spike's word as gospel.
3. Both mothers end up dead, apparently suggesting that both kinds
of mothers (the ones who give up all for the child as well as
the ones who have other things in their lives) are wrong. Mothers
can't win. However, it was the demon Spike who kills both mothers.
He's the arbiter of right and wrong? Spike's murder of both women
says more about Spike than about the quality of their parenting.
4. It may have been just me, but I found both Anne and Nikki very
appealing as characters and as mothers. They are very different,
but both seem mature and confident, and both seem to have a close
and loving relationship with their child (despite William's physical
age, I think he's immature enough to be called a "child").
Each parent takes time with the child, communicates with him about
important things, obviously knows her child well, and supports
and encourages the child. I think the show clearly indicates no
particular criticism of the mothers, but rather of the sons.
5. That the trigger was deactivated only means that Spike's memories
of his mother don't hurt him any more. I don't see that as validating
souledSpike's judgments about what love is or how it should be
expressed. Inside Spike's head, apparently, he was able to remember
his mother's love and was able to tell her he was sorry. This
was enough to free him from the FE's manipulation. But his judgment
that real love means giving up everything you are to the loved
one strikes me as both utterly wrong and totally in character
for Spike. The episode makes it very clear, as you point out,
that souledSpike can still be plenty cruel, repellent, even as
other episodes show him struggling to be a better man.
[> [> Re: Yeah, a tough
episode -- Liam, 09:47:03 05/09/03 Fri
I agree that 'Lies' was a tough episode. My take was that the
writers, in their clunky way, were trying to say that Spike was
good and Wood bad, because Anne loved her son and Nikki didn't,
being concerned about the mission. It ignored the fact that Nikki
was _called_ as a slayer, and even if she had tried to get away,
Spike was coming after her, wanting to kill a second slayer.
There's also the fact that Spike took Nikki's coat. While it appears
trivial, we all know that things that look insignificant to others
can have great sentimental value. If Spike now claims that he
was not the person who then killed Nikki, but someone new, then
he has posession of a piece of property he knows to be stolen,
but refuses to return it to the son of the original owner.
[> [> Review Segment
by Jenoff Sympatico -- Rina, 09:49:02 05/09/03 Fri
Here is a review by Jenoff Sympatico that saw the episode differently:
http://www3.sympatico.ca/jenoff/btvs717.htm
[> [> [> Jenoff's
review -- KdS, 11:12:05 05/09/03 Fri
Jenoff doesn't even mention, in his review or synopsis, that Spike
told Wood that Nikki didn't love him. I think he must have missed
the line. Other than that, he's fairly good on Wood, but the loss
of that line means he severely overestimates Spike.
[> [> [> [> Re:
Jenoff's review -- Caroline, 14:14:50 05/09/03 Fri
Wood just tried to kill Spike. Spike did not try to kill him back.
Instead, Spike taunted Wood with 'Your mother didn't love you'.
Far better, IMHO, to taunt one's attempted killer than kill them
in return.
[> [> [> [> [>
Yes! thank you. -- s'kat, 14:57:40 05/09/03 Fri
[> [> [> [> [>
I liked that quote too... -- Rufus, 00:40:48 05/12/03
Mon
Face it...Spike may come off as a bit of a prick saying what he
did but hey!..under the deadly circumstances it's better to piss
all over your opponent and let him sit in it for awhile.....killing
is so final and not nearly so humiliating.....veg....;)
[> Context and authorial
intent -- Caroline, 10:25:59 05/09/03 Fri
I've already written rather extensively on LMPTM so I won't repeat
many of the things I wrote when the episode aired. But I do have
to disagree with much of what you have written about the ep. You
criticize 3 characters: Giles, Buffy and Spike. I think that your
criticisms of each of these characters fails because you take
their actions completely out of context of the action of the episode
and what we know of them in the past.
Giles:
Giles fell in with Wood's desire to kill Spike rather quickly.
I felt that a little more persuasion should have been in order
but I don't think that, in the end, Giles going along with this
is out of character - the context needs to be remembered. Giles
had been trying to detrigger Spike from the FE's control. It appeared
unsuccessful and Spike had certainly shown himself unwilling to
reveal details in the previous scene. When someone comes along
who is the child of a slayer and raised by a respected Watcher,
of course Giles would give Wood more than just the time of day.
Giles was thinking that Spike was still triggered. Add on that
he killed a former slayer whose son was standing right in front
of him and I would say, based on Giles' past actions, he would
choose to kill Spike, particularly since Spike just won't go away
like Angel did. I think that this Giles is consistent with the
story being told as well as his past actions, even though I don't
like him very much right now!
Buffy:
You accuse Buffy of being cold and patronising to Wood when she
sides with Spike. I saw it differently. She has only known Wood
a short time and he is allowed into the inner circle and into
Buffy's friendship based on his background and credentials. She
doesn't really know him. But Spike is a different case. He sought
out a soul for her and all season he has struggled to become a
better man and Buffy has seen that struggle. Buffy is also nursing
some 'feelings' for Spike of a yet unspecified nature. So someone
she thought she could trust but doesn't know too well comes along
and tries to kill a guy that she 'believes' in, who has her back
and is completely supportive of her in all her endeavours and
she's not supposed to be pissed off? Add to this that both Giles
and Wood went behind her back to do it and left her out of the
loop in a rather patronising and condescending way when Giles
was telling her all along that she should be the general is the
outside of enough, in my view. I'm quoting from Psyche's shooting
script:
BUFFY
Spike's the strongest warrior I have,
and we need him if we're going to get
through this alive.
(then)
If you try anything again, he's going
to kill you, but more importantly,
I'm going to let him.
Wood looks down -- he can't bring himself to meet her gaze.
BUFFY (cont'd)
I have a mission: to win this war,
save the world. I don't have time
for your vendettas.
She turns her back on him, begins to walk away.
BUFFY (cont'd)
The mission's what matters.
And she leaves him. Alone.
I think it's important that Buffy uses the pronoun 'we'. 'We'
need him if 'we' are going to get through this alive. I think
that Wood is being included in this sentiment - he is clearly
on her team if he chooses to be. Just prior to this she has shown
that she knows how much it hurts to lose a mother. To find her
dead. To be unable to bring her back despite all the slayer power
and magic there is. She's empathizing with him. But her final
words about the mission being what matters shows that she has
the same mettle as Nikki, because she is repeating Nikki's words.
Buffy has been a bit cold and aloof this season, but she was the
one being patronised by Giles and Wood in this ep. She is the
one who shows feeling for Spike and for Wood. And she is the one
who prioritizes the importance of the mission. She's doing her
sacred duty.
Spike:
Let's start with the quotes from Psyche to make sure we're on
the same page.
SPIKE (cont'd)
I don't give a piss about your mum.
She was a Slayer. I was a vampire.
Wood attacks, Spike hits him again.
SPIKE (cont'd)
That's the way the game's played.
Spike is simply saying that vampires and slayers are engaged in
a constant struggle. That rings true to me. Notice that Spike
uses the past tense - I was a vampire. He's still that but he
has a soul - the moral compass now has a different orientation.
The man Wood is talking about no longer exists. Given that Spike
sought out a soul as a vampire and has spent all season trying
to be a better man, I think that he earns brownie points for personal
transformation and the right to not be killed - rather to live
to help in the fight for Christmas and puppies etc.
Spike begins with the taunts:
SPIKE
She sure loved you, didn't she?
Enough to risk her life, night after
night...
Wood throws punches that Spike dodges and deflects.
WOOD
You took my childhood...
(punch)
...when you took her from me.
(punch)
She was all I had. She was my world.
SPIKE
You weren't hers. Doesn't it piss
you off?
Wood hesitates, wincing at that. Then comes at Spike again.
WOOD
Shut up. You didn't know her.
Spike ducks a swing, then pummels Wood, who's beaten to his knees.
SPIKE
I know Slayers. No matter how many
people they got around them, they
fight alone. Life of The Chosen One.
Rest of us be damned. Your mum was
no different.
A weary and beaten Wood looks at Spike, with desperate defiance.
WOOD
She... She loved me.
SPIKE
So she said, I expect. Not enough to
quit, though, was it? Not enough to
walk away. For you.
Wood lies broken and bloody on the floor, unable to respond.
ON SPIKE, after a moment, letting the air settle.
SPIKE (cont'd)
Tell you a story. 'Bout a mother and
a son. Like you, I loved my mum. So
much so, I turned her into a vampire
so we could be together forever.
(beat)
She said some nasty bits to me after
I did that. Been weighing on me for
quite some time...
He paces, thinking it through.
SPIKE (cont'd)
But you helped me figure something
out. You see, unlike you, I had a
mother who loved me back. When I
sired her, I set loose a demon and it
tore into me... but that was the
demon talking, not her. I realize
that now.
(pause)
My mum loved me with all her heart.
I was her world.
There are several important points here. The first is that Spike
realizes that his mother does love him. His behaviour since he
staked his vampire mother has been driven by his vampire mother's
hatred of him. But as he brings up the repressed memories, he
can finally realize who his mother really is and thus who he is.
Just as Angelus turns on Buffy in S2 in passionate rage for making
him feel love when souled, William's mother turns on her son to
punish him for her love. Spike realizes what is going on. I don't
think that is a violation of canon - it's entirely consistent.
For me, Spike has always been a violation of canon - the mutant
vampire who loves his mother, is devoted to his girlfriend, makes
deals with slayers and falls for them. But that's another post
and I guess that I'm not so stuck on 'canon' as others appear
to be.
The next point I want to make is about Spike saying that Nikki
did not love her son and about the misogyny of the messages in
the ep about mothers etc. There were a whole bunch of posts written
about this - Spike as the unreliable narrator and how little evidence
there is for the interpretation of misogyny about the mothers.
I won't repeat these posts here, just point to the archives.
You spend a lot of time and energy being indignant about how the
episode could be interpreted, particularly by fans of Spike, whom,
you write, do not recognize his moral ambiguity. Who are these
people? Since coming to this board, I have learnt a great deal
about on-line fandom and it appears to me that part of the reason
the pro-Spike contingent loves him is that he is morally ambiguous,
that he is not a black and white character but instead rather
morally complex. What appears to draw people to Spike is precisely
the mixture of romanticism and cruelty that he seems to possess.
(If anything, Spike fans can be criticized for liking bad boys
far too much!) But even if there are fans out their who see Spike
as totally redeemed, we get into some quite thorny questions about
authorial intent etc and the social responsibility of authors.
I'm not sure where one would draw a line in the sand about what
is morally acceptable and what is not in terms of how different
fans will react, and how far one should try to change the perceptions
of a certain sub-section of fans or alter the story just in case
a sub-section of fans might interpret things in a certain way
- all I know is that way lies madness! If I was the author, I'd
go nuts!
[> [> Well said. Great
post. -- SK, 11:23:46 05/09/03 Fri
[> Multiple ironies (Spoiler
for episodes through "Lies" but no further) -- Sophist,
10:32:12 05/09/03 Fri
Let me first say that pilgrim's post is excellent and I agree
with it.
Now let me mention some ironies. When SR aired last year, we had
lengthy, strong (even bitter) discussions about stereotypes and
ME's social responsibilities. One irony is that the "Fray
is Canon" thread below continues that discussion on just
one of the 2 divisive scenes from SR.
Another irony involves whose ox is being gored. When SR aired,
I took the position that elements of stereotype were present in
Tara's death scene, that this was unfortunate, that ME could have
avoided the stereotype with small changes to the script, but that
ME did not intend any harmful message. I still hold these views.
BUT, these views have never caused me to dislike the episode or
to downgrade its quality in any way. Many posters expressed a
much harsher view of ME and its supposed violation of supposed
social responsibility, threatening refusals to watch the show.
My view was, I'm sure, the minority view (it probably was unique
to me). Many posters denied, vehemently, that any elements of
stereotype were present. Some even denied the existence of any
stereotype. The threats not to watch the show were ridiculed.
In S7, I've seen a number of posts expressing discomfort with
the "message" ME is sending and even some doubt about
whether to continue watching because of that message. Every one
of those posts that I can remember has come from someone on the
majority side of the SR debate. Irony is a funny thing.
I find myself on the majority side this year. I got no "bad
mother" message from LMPTM; until I saw it on the board,
it never occurred to me. Maybe I'm insensitive; maybe we all have
our buttons. The irony of my own attitude is very apparent.
I would elaborate on pilgrim's post with some additional thoughts:
1. I never thought ME intended to perpetuate stereotypes in SR,
and I certainly don't think they did in LMPTM. I find it hard
to justify threats not to watch the show or extreme statements
of disappointment in the absence of clear authorial intent.
2. Spike's words in LMPTM that form the core of the criticism
amount to two sentences. That seems like a small hook to hang
such large consequences.
3. As with so much of BtVS, the scenes from LMPTM are subject
to multiple interpretations. Ambiguity is the soul of art. That
ambiguity creates both the intensity of our reaction and the debate
that pilgrim mentioned. This is not new to LMPTM, it has existed
in the show since S1.
4. S'kat and others have posted some wonderful interpretations
of LMPTM which avoid the conclusions you draw about the "message".
If there is no such "message", then the concerns you
express about ME fall by the wayside. There is no need to adopt
the worst possible message from among the many available (he said
with conscious irony).
5. Polarized fan reaction to Spike is hardly new. It was intense
throughout S6 and peaked in SR. Many posters openly declared that
they could never forgive him. The fact that some posters tried
to justify him in ways you find deplorable does not mean that
ME has lost its touch. The same logic would mean we'd all have
given up on the show after SR, if not long before (FFL maybe,
or even Crush). Nor is this problem limited to Spike. There's
a long debate below in which I criticize what I consider to be
Buffy-bashing and double standards in evaluating her. Others disagree,
as is their right. We have had similar debates about Xander's
behavior in Becoming. These posts don't mean that ME is wrong.
To the contrary, they mean that ME has succeeded.
Personally, I loved LMPTM. I rate it among the top 5 of S7 so
far.
[> [> Great points, Caro
and Sophist. -- Rob, 11:20:19 05/09/03 Fri
[> [> [> Ditto! Excellent
points Caroline and Sophist! -- ponygirl, 11:31:27 05/09/03
Fri
[> [> Also very well
said. Thanks for that post. -- s'kat, 11:29:30 05/09/03
Fri
[> [> Yes, we all have
our buttons -- Rahael, 13:53:41 05/09/03 Fri
The distressing situatuon Seeing Red? I've been there, and then
some. I have been there. And there was indeed a resonance
for me with the Tara death too. Because in my life, it is not
unexpected that joy and happiness and love can get snuffed out,
so easily, so bewilderingly, so needlessly.
But I felt there was a tenderness, a generosity, a quality in
that episode that allowed me to engage with the narrative, to
find my own place in it. Moreover, it allowed me to revisit aspects
of those events that touched me personally.
In Lies, I felt like I was not allowed to be there. That the narrative
pushed me out, hit me a couple of times and taunted me to boot.
That's the difference for me.
It's not about plotting or characters. It's about the emotional
heart of the show, how it resonated with me, how it made me think
and feel and be passionate about it and about my own life and
my past. When that resonance dies, something goes. Like putting
down a Somerset Maugham short story and never picking him up again.
It may indeed be a very good episode. Something with that kind
of visceral power - yes. But it's alien to me. It's not for me
anymore. I'm not going to sit here and tell everyone who loved
it that they were wrong to do so, because that is not something
I do. But by that same token, I will have my own response too.
And it's valid. I understand too well though that it would be
best if it were both valid and kept to myself.
[> [> [> Button, button,
whose got the button? (spoilers to LMPTM) -- Sophist, 17:23:02
05/09/03 Fri
I fully understand the need for emotional resonance. Art flourishes
only if it engages our emotions. Let me suggest, though, some
reasons why you should hesitate before acting on your emotions,
at least in this case.
At this stage of the show, each conclusion we draw rests upon
a nearly infinite background of individually debatable interpretations
of previous acts. Even someone who doesn't subscribe to Occam
should give some pause before acting on hypothoses multiplied
this far.
Let me give an example. As is well known, Mal believes that Willow's
story arc in S6 was the natural culmination of her flaws exhibited
throughout the previous 5 seasons. In contrast, I see S6 as a
radical departure from her character of S1-5, so radical that
it's nearly, but not quite, out of character.
No amount of argument will ever change these contradictory views.
We'd have to start over from WttH, and even then we could never
control for the differing life experiences we bring to the show.
But while we can't change each other's view, we can do something
more important: doubt our own certainty. That residual doubt about
the certainty of an interpretation is, IMHO, critical to the very
core of analysis.
Let me suggest just some reasons why KdS should doubt the certainty
of the conclusions he drew (I'm picking on him because he made
a full post; you didn't):
1. His inference about the writers was incorrect. Darby's Goddard
post in the "Fray is canon" thread explains how LMPTM
was written. This may or may not be important.
2. I suggest that watching AtS has poisoned his understanding
of the soul canon. I don't mean this in the snarky sense based
on my view of the show. I mean it in the more fundamental sense
that the 2 shows should be seen as separate and distinct universes
with different, possibly inconsistent rules. Limiting oneself
to the Buffyverse may lead to a different view of the soul canon,
say, the one Mal and I share, in which the souled vamp is a separate
and distinct creature from the unsouled and bears no responsibility
for the acts of the unsouled. At the very least, it may open the
door to the possibility that Spike plausibly believes this, which
would cast a very different light on his words.
3. In the case of SR, it's easy to see how an inadvertent stereotype
could have been depicted. Those in the dominant heterosexual culture
may be unaware of issues important to others. In contrast, if
there is one statement that can safely be said of every human
being on this planet, it is that every one of us has a mother.
How likely is it that ME was validating Spike's statements as
a general condemnation of mothers? Or even as a specific one in
Wood's case? Isn't it more likely that Spike was using the ammunition
he had to hurt someone who'd just tried to kill him, regardless
of truth?
4. As for Buffy's comment on the Mission, let me recall the opening
of Apocalypse Now, a movie surely on the minds of ME at the time
LMPTM was written: "I needed a mission. And for my sins they
gave me one."
I don't expect these points to persuade anyone. I do hope to generate
a sense of doubt. We can start from there.
[> [> [> [> Re:
Buttons -- Rahael, 18:13:51 05/09/03 Fri
Condemnation of mothers - actually Spike distinguished between
mothers who love, and mothers who don't love. That is an important
distinction. Our relationships with our parents can be conflicted.
Fairy tales and literature and narratives abound with destructive
parental figures. BtVS has presented the 'bad' mother several
times. Professor Walsh, for instance. Doug Petrie himself commented
that Joss repeatedly visited the theme of the sick mother.
I think it's very hard to describe the visceral reaction I had.
We can intellectually distinguish between "separate people"
that the soul engenders.
But, and here, I find my words inadequate to describe - why I
am finding it so hard. "I killed a lot of people's mothers".
He is explicitly connected with this act. And yes, it could be
seen metaphorically, it can be filtered through canon, it can
be seen as part of a greater narrative, he may be the unreliable
narrator.
But when those words are spoken, my facility to be able to judge
it through those things falter. Because my mind says to myself:
"what the f*** are you saying to yourself? what is this rubbish
about souls and soul-lessness, and 'canon'?. What are you, someone
turning to fantasy to hide from life? Turn around, damn you, and
look at what truly frightens you. Turn around and look at what
you ran away from. That unrecognisable body. Lifeless. Broken."
And the screen splinters.
In real life, I can't use the words 'souls' and 'no souls' and
'canons' to put that body back together again.
And that's why it's so visceral and so difficult for me. not for
anyone else, just me.
[> [> [> [> [>
Oh, Rah -- ponygirl, 19:25:30 05/09/03 Fri
I wish I had a way to offer sympathy, comfort or even gratitude
that you are able to create such art out of your grief, but while
you have poetry in your soul I only have clunky prose. And sometimes
words fail. So just a wish: be well.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Clunky? That was quite lovely. Ponygirl, You have far
more of the poet in you than you think... -- OnM, 20:49:37
05/09/03 Fri
...and I'm sure that Rah would agree.
And since you have spoken so well and from the heart, all I can
add is my own sincere echo.
To Rah: All things must pass, as you know only too well. When
you wish to return, know for a certainty that we'll welcome you
back joyously. In the meantime, your marvelous words live on with
all of us at ATPo, as they always have.
Peace be with you and yours.
-- OnM
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Oh. -- aliera, 21:21:55 05/09/03 Fri
And although I walk through the valley of the shadow...you all
are all wonderful. Truly. Isn't it one of the hardest things that
we can't fix what's most important?
And yet...
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Ponygirl, OnM, Aliera, you are all very generous.
-- Rahael, 06:26:55 05/10/03 Sat
[> [> [> i'm really
sorry you feel that way, rahael... (spoilers for lmptm & some
previous s7 eps) -- anom, 21:36:08 05/11/03 Sun
...& that you have reason to. But I respect your decision even
as I regret it. I didn't like that scene either, though its effect
on me wasn't as personal as it was for you. When it aired in the
US, I wrote something like, "How was Spike's speech to Wood
any different from what unsouled Spike would have said?"
It makes no sense to me that Spike goes from "I can barely
live with what I've already done" & the self-revulsion with
which he said "I've killed...& I can feel every one of them"
in Never Leave Me (or Sleeper? I keep getting those 2 mixed up)
to "I don't give a piss about your mum" & the "so
what" attitude with which he said "I killed a lot of
people" (quotes from memory). This is what comes out of his
resolving his mother-issues? Maybe taken together w/Buffy's urging
him to reclaim his dark side, or at least the power associated
w/it, in Get It Done...nah. Can't buy it, at least not w/out further
follow-up to explain it.
I can tell you that as far as I can see the issue hasn't
been followed up on. Yet. It's possible there'll still be some
kind of resolution of it in the last 2 episodes (even though they'll
be necessarily almost completely Buffy-centric), & I'm hoping
there will be. Don't know if that'll be relevant for you, though.
[> [> [> [> Thank
you! -- Rahael, 00:57:32 05/12/03 Mon
I've started feeling as if I'm irrational to feel so shocked by
the speech.
Anom, your words are very much appreciated.
[> [> Buttons and how
we relate to art, censorship, etc -- shadowkat, 21:14:21
05/09/03 Fri
I've been debating for a while about posting on this because it
is a tough topic. Buttons. And I have no clue where to put it,
but since Sophist and Rah mention buttons in their posts, I'll
put it here, but it is not meant in any way to be a direct comment
on what they say. Because oddly enough I find myself agreeing
with both of them.
Buttons. Or rather negative emotional responses to stimuli.
I think I can safely state that every single person who has ever
posted on this fanboard or any Btvs fanboard has got them. And
let's face it if we didn't respond on a deep emotional level to
Btvs and Ats, we wouldn't spend hours on the internet posting
on it. Do we obsess about things we don't respond emotionally
to? Of course not.
And the writers want us to respond emotionally to their art. That's
the purpose of creating art to get people to respond to you in
an emotional way. Heck that's the reason Whedon loves musicals
and OMWF - because music hits us in the deepest emotional way.
It skips the head and goes straight to the heart.
While positive emotional responses to art are rather interesting
at times. It's the negative ones that can cause the most disruption.
The Parental Boycott Groups that censor TV are a direct result
of such negative knee jerk responses. Just as the people who banned
Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn were. Actually Huck Finn is an interesting
example since it has the honor of being boycotted and banned by
both African-Americans and Whites in the US at different points
in history. Ulyssess by James Joyce caused such an uproar when
it was published - that it was not even allowed in the US for
a few years. The uproar was over the explicit sexual content and
the crudity of a scene where a guy is peeing with the clap. Then
of course there's Catcher in The Rye and Slaughter House Five.
Not allowed in high schools for years. The Color Purple by Toni
Morrison was banned for both the negative descriptions of African-American
men and for the lesbian content. The movie caused an uproar as
well. The late great Zora Neal Hurston was accused of selling
out by Richard Wright, because she used dialect in her tales and
seemed to court white patrons. Emminen caused an uproar due to
his hate lyrics and then changed everyone's opinion with Lose
Yourself and 8 Mile. Rap is an interesting type of music since
it is partly about pissing the other guy off - it's all about
buttons - or so it seemed to be in the Movie 8 Mile, I may be
wrong - know very little about rap. I can go on.
But back to Buffy and buttons. After LMPTM aired, I went to the
Bronze Beta and read some of David Fury's comments which I recommend
people read - in the VIP archives. Fury told one unhappy poster
that "it's just a television show and he is sorry that they
don't like the direction they are going but this is the story
in Joss Whedon's head and if they don't like it? Turn it off."
Something they said around the time of Seeing Red. Fury is well
known for his knee jerk emotional responses to fans. He's not
the best diplomat, most creators aren't. They see their work as
their child, any slander is personal. But hey - at the same time
he wants viewers to respond emotionally - or he wouldn't write
the way he does. Art is a double-edged sword.
A note about LMPTM - I love this episode but I did wince during
it and NOT at the same things others did. I winced at Giles and
Wood. Those were the two characters I couldn't stomach. You see
Wood pushes my buttons. So much so that when I learned about the
Nikki/Wood story I was pissed at the writers. I was spoiled on
this plot development. I knew about Nikki/Wood before First Date.
I was NOT spoiled on anything in LMPTM. But I knew Nikki was Wood's
mom and I knew how everyone would react to it and I knew the fans
reactions would annoy me and push my buttons and it has and I've
had to restrain myself. I considered leaving the board and not
posting while it was going on. I did post finally because not
posting was causing a horrendous writers block and making me miserable.
See? How pathetic is that?
Buttons.
I found Sophists comments about how the group who didn't see the
Lesbian Cliche is now the one who is reacting to the mother deal
in LMPTM incredibly fascinating and oddly true. How ironic.
I have to admit I didn't see either really - the mother bit or
the lesbian cliche. But then those aren't my buttons. The scene
that bothered me in Seeing Red was the attempted rape and not
for the same reasons it bugged other people, what bugged me and
pushed my buttons was that at the time it happened I was furious
with the heroine. So in effect rooting for the wrong character.
And as a result the attack made me ill -- because I know way too
many rape victims and have had legal background with the situation,
so the mere idea I'd identify with someone doing that sort of
attack threw me. I also hated the fact that so many fans thought
Buffy deserved it. I felt the writers led us to that place and
I was furious at them for doing so and I felt it was incredibly
clich and a soap opera trick. It took me a long time to get past
it and assorted posts on this board by Caroline, leslie, cjl,
and others changed my mind regarding that scene and what followed,
they made me appreciate the worth of the scene and the plot arc
- so that I was able to see it as a brave and interesting dramatic
choice - but it took two months for me to change my mind. Now
in hindsight I look back on it differently - it makes sense to
me now and I realize it works on numerous levels. I still can't
watch the scene though - it's too painful on a viceseral level.
My other button is Principal Wood - if they had put Buffy and
Wood in a romantic relationship and Buffy had sex with Wood -
I would have had to stop watching the show. I probably would have
thrown out my tapes. Why? Wood as a character is far too close
to someone who hurt me very recently. And what he's done to Buffy
is very very close to what that person did to me. The idea she'd
put up with it and allow him to get that close to her - would
send a message that I just could not handle.
Is that projection? Probably. Is it emotional? You betcha.
But it does not make it any less valid than anything else.
It would be nice if we could control these buttons by merely understanding
them, becoming conscious of them. But we can't. Doesn't stop me
from trying though. Believe me - I overanalyze everything. It
also would be nice if we could
get people to stop pushing our buttons or avoid posts or artwork
that does. But then...how do we do that when everyone has different
buttons? I remember in the post by Earl Allison way back in the
fall regarding Buttons - D'Herbalay posted that one person's button
is another's bow.
How true. But if you need proof - go find that post in the archives
and check out just how many peoples buttons are others bows and
vice versa. And people are mine fields. No more so than on the
internet where we truly don't know one another - all we know is
what we write and that, could be lies or stories or made up tales
to amuse and horrify (not saying that anyone is btw, just that
it could be) - think about it? Few if any of us post under our
real names, we edit portions of ourselves out of the posts, and
most of us don't even reveal our gender, race or sexual identity.
Even if we did reveal it - what proof do you have that the person
isn't lying? I don't know if the poster who says they are a mother
with two kids isn't in reality a 16 year old fan boy sitting in
their parents basement. I have no way of knowing these things.
I choose to trust people are who they say they are. But I don't
know. Not just from a pseudonyme on a posting board. Any more
than you know who I am or what my background is. Although there
are several people on the board who can vouch for me and I in
turn can vouch for them - since we recently met in person. (Such
a shame I can't afford to go to the board meet in June to further
that.)
But back to the point. If we don't know each other, how in the
heck can we avoid ticking each other off. I'll often post something
I think is relatively innocuous, tame even and out of the blue
someone will go nuts on me. And find myself appologizing all over
the place. I've stopped doing that finally, realizing sometimes
it's better to just drop it. It'll be archived soon enough. I've
also learned not to read or respond to posts that push my buttons
or posters who post on topics that always do. Makes life easier
and well, my modem isn't fast enough to read everything on the
board. And more to the point - if we don't know each other and
each others buttons - how in the heck can we expect a bunch of
writers who write a television show to know what our buttons are?
And how are they supposed to keep track of everyone's buttons?
And should they? I suppose some writers attempt to - after all
we do have tv shows that are fairly innocous or inoffensive in
every way. But is that art? I know that when I was working hard
not to post anything that could set anyone off - I got the worst
writers block in my life. Just imagine what we would have gotten
if Joss Whedon worried about pushing people's buttons - would
we even be watching the show? I mean Innocence got all sorts of
controversial write-ups. That episode pushed buttons. And killing
Angel in Becoming? Tons of people were upset. Yet most fans rate
that year as their favorite.
What I'm trying to say I guess - using all these personal examples
- is that no matter what we do - we are going to have negative
viceseral reactions to things. Sharing them in some ways helps
us to understand these reactions and maybe deal with them. Sometimes
it doesn't. Depends on how deep the reaction is. But to say someone
shouldn't write something or create something in fear of pushing
some deep-seated button we have - is counter-productive I think.
Just as telling them what they should write or create to skirt
out personal buttons is.
I also think when we post on fanboards - we should all keep in
mind that no matter how well we know each other - in truth most
of us are relative strangers - we are bound to get our buttons
pushed or push someone else's. (Even if we weren't strangers and
knew each others buttons we'd be bound to do that. ) It helps
to be cognizant of it and tolerant. Not saying anyone in this
thread hasn't been. Just a general statement.
God, I hope the above made some sense..anyways take it for what
it's worth.
SK
[> [> [> I'm taking
David Fury's advice -- Rahael, 06:25:42 05/10/03 Sat
I found the ep to be cynical in the extreme. Other important,
great Buffy episodes have never allowed the deaths of human beings
to be subverted to a storyline, to be dismissed or to be told
that it's not a problem. That is why I had such a high opinion
of BtVS. I do have a problem with anything in art that treats
murder, rape, abuse, etc etc as minor, untroubling, less important
than this really great character that the author is in to. (I
want to see that character subverted. I want them exposed - and
that's why I liked Storyteller.)
I find it troubling and I put those works down. I was disturbed
to see BtVS doing this. Rather than complain, I'm saying okay
David Fury - I'll switch off.
Again just my opinion. I don't think I'm stopping the ME writers
writing great art by critiqueing their work or not watching.
[> [> [> [> Re:
I'm taking David Fury's advice -- sk, 07:56:59 05/10/03
Sat
I think I made it pretty clear in my post that a) I didn't think
you were censoring them and b)that you had the right to do that
by "This is not meant as a direct response to Rah or Sophist
because in a way I agree with both of them".
[> [> [> [> [>
I had the same immediate reaction to your post... -- KdS,
08:31:55 05/10/03 Sat
... but I left it out of my response below because I thought it
was me being over-sensitive.
I'm not accusing you of misrepresenting me, sk, but I did notice
that your first response to my post was to bring up cases where
people have sought to get work that offends them banned. I believe
that there are elements in our attitude to art as a society that
are so repelled by blatantly ignorant and bigoted censorious campaigns
that we feel inhibited about discussing or criticising the moral
position of any work of art or entertainment for fear of being
accused of promoting censorship. Let me make my personal opinion
clear, I believe that short of direct hateful incitements to violence
against named individuals or social groups (or portrayal of actual
violence against nonconsenting parties), or unambiguous instructions
on how to commit criminal acts, there is no justification for
governmental action to remove something from distribution, for
attempts to use economic power to prevent other people from accessing
the item, or for seeking to punish people peripherally related
to the production of an item. But I would also defend the right
of anyone to simply criticise what they consider to be the overt
or subtextual moral and/or political implications of a work, without
being the subject of knee-jerk comparisons to Nazis or Stalinists
or book burners (not that you did anything of the sort, but other
people, not on this board, have in the past when I expressed similar
opinions about music).
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: I had the same immediate reaction to your post...
-- s'kat, 09:51:03 05/10/03 Sat
My first sentence was: "Tough topic. I don't know where to
post this but since people have mentioned buttons in this thread
I thought I'd put it here."
And for the record? I didn't read your post since I can't read
everything on the board and I knew it would push my own buttons
on the topic just from the title. So it was in no way meant as
response to what you had written, but rather a general response
to numerous posts on this board regarding emotional reactions
to external stimulous. Including the whole Dead Horse Thread below
and Spike rant above. I admitted in my post that I also tend to
react emotionally to things. I also rant about things. And if
ME had gone in a certain direction with Principal Wood - I would
be reacting much the same way.
What I was attempting to show with the censorship - was that negative
reactions to stimuli at their extreem can lead to book burning,
banning and censorship, even cancelled television shows. Just
an example. Of course no one here has advocated any of those things
that I'm aware of. It was an example of works that cause vicersal
and valid reactions and how people can take those reactions too
far. Not that you had, since it is clear to everyone you hadn't.
The only thing I've seen you want to ban is the movie League of
Extraordinary Gentleman ;-)
The fact that you and Rah reacted the way you did to my post demonstrates
in an ironic way the other point I was trying to make - that we
can often reacte emotionally to something that the writer never
intended to convey in his art and may have even gone out of his/her
way to state he/she didn't - but we for whatever reason felt.
Is our interpretation valid if the writer didn't intend it? Is
our reaction? Even if the writer took pains to state otherwise?
And should the writer worry about the possibility of such reactions
in the future? I think for what it's worth that our reactions
to art, whatever they may be or whatever may cause them, are valid
- but that it helps to separate them from the art to better understand
them. And sometimes to remain sane - it is better that we don't
try to understand the reaction and just back away from the art.
For example - I hated StoryTeller and Shiny Happy People. I don't
know why, exactly. I just had a violent reaction to both and have
found it impossible to re-watch them. I've analyzed why on the
board and I think I had a post-traumatic stress reaction to a
couple of scenes between B/W in Storyteller that just hit me the
wrong way.SHP? No clue, I just wanted to leave the room repeatedly.
Does this make the art bad? No. Does it make my reaction invalid?
no. Of course not. Does it matter to me that you or Rah loved
these episodes? Nope, doesn't change my reaction in the least
any more than my loving LMPTM changes yours. Do I want to figure
out the whys and wherefores of why I disliked SHP and Storyteller
right now? I went as far as I could...publicly on it. But the
reaction is a valid one just as yours and Rah's reactions to LMPTM
are valid. (In a way you could say I was defending your right
to be upset as well as my own as well as any number of posters
here. )
I view LMPTM as all about Buffy's guilt and pain regarding her
mother's death, the death of Kendra, and being a mother to Dawn.
I honestly think the episode is all about Buffy.
But - that does not make yours or Rah's reactions invalid.
Any more than the reactions others had to Seeing Red and the Lesbian
Cliche were invalid. Or mine to StoryTeller and Shiny Happy People.
But if people in the gay community in reaction to Tara's death
in SR and Willow's reaction to it in Villains decided to ban together
to boycott the show and flooded the media with it - then I believe
it may be taking that reaction too far. PArticularly since it
is by no means clear that was the writer's intent. In fact they've
appeared to go out of their way to say it wasn't. But that does
not change the fact that people had that response nor does it
make their response any less real or valid.
As I said in my post above this is a tough topic to talk about.
And yours and Rah's reactions to that post ironically proved my
point.
SK
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Coffee, tea, buttons (spoilers up to current BtS,
AtS) -- fresne, 11:21:37 05/10/03 Sat
"I view LMPTM as all about Buffy's guilt and pain regarding
her mother's death, the death of Kendra, and being a mother to
Dawn. I honestly think the episode is all about Buffy."
I completely agree.
Of course, it's me talking (err...typing) so, I also think it's
all about buttons. The characters. Ours.
Lies My Mother Told Me. And the daughter in this tale, herself
a mother of sorts, who came home too late to save her mother,
and deliberately positions herself as a daughter amid all these
sons, is lied to by her father figure.
What a weird quadrangle. Father attempting to eliminate daughter's
quazi lover. A son attempting to eliminate not just his mother's
killer, but in a way Wood's rival both for his actual mother and
Buffy's attention. No wonder Wood turns to Faith so quickly. Third
times the charm mayhap. Spike, a son, who in attempting to save
his mother, killed her and has been playing out his scripts ever
since.
That in the space of a few episodes another Angel/Spike parallel.
Already known, and yet the parallel. Faith asking Angelus if he
kisses his mother with that mouth? Re-emphasizing Angelus' role
as destroyer of his family. Spike thinking to save his mother
with an eternal kiss. But it doesn't work that way. Visits from
Darla, both Angel and Connor's mother, and the memory of Drucilla
who claims her motherhood with a circling hand. Interesting that
these sons destroyed their blood families, but left their vampiric
mothers to walk away.
So, it seems I return to the weird relationship dodecahedron after
all. Except it's a Rubic's cube. Combinations shifting with a
twist and a turn.
And I consider Buffy.
Joyce's child. The child in a way of that girl chained to the
earth, impregnated by demon power. The first slayer.
Mother/Sister to Dawn. Mother/sister to all the Slayers who come
after. Kendra, Faith, the potentials. Even if the line has passed
her by, well Angel is Spike's sire, for all that he didn't sire
him. My grandmother is in her way my mother to.
Buttons. The characters. Mine. Yours.
It's much on mind at the moment. I'm reading an absolutely fascinating
series by Jacqueline Carey, Kushiel's Dart being the first. Which
at its heart is about buttons. What pleases. What gives pain.
The manipulation of same. You see the main character (in a very
nicely done AU fantasy medieval Europe) is a sacred prostitute.
More than that a sacred masochist. Marked by her god as such.
And yet by yielding, controls. There's some very interesting discussion
of the interplay of antithetical concepts and the threads that
pluck hearts. The choice to stay. The choice to go. The way I
keep wanting to read just a little if the stop light holds too
long. I'll notice when the cars go. Really. I'm sure people would
touch a few buttons if I gave in.
We are who we are. Patterns appearing clear to one eye but invisible
to another. The old woman. The young girl.
And ultimately, for all in all, this is entertainment, if this
suffering isn't your tea, perhaps coffee would be better. Or perhaps
a different blend. Green tea? I understand it's full of antioxidants.
In my time, I've been there. Series that it's important I not
reread that last annoying, have to own it to have the whole set,
but Aaaahhh...book! Heck, I've stopped watching AtS several times
in frustration only to return. And this season, I've certainly
been glad of it. As contrast to the final season of X Files, which
like an ex-lover on whom my bitter bile like venom drips. Deep
breath. Remember the good years, when paranoid atmospheric love
was in the air like a blue smoken cancerous haze.
Good times.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Very much agree. Mothers(spoilers up to current
BtS, AtS) -- s'kat, 07:26:07 05/11/03 Sun
You say much in the above post that I very much agree with.
I think it is all about buttons, yours, mine, ours and the characters.
How we react to art and each other both negatively and positively
on an emotional level. Good art more often than not does and should
push buttons.
We are who we are. Patterns appearing clear to one eye but
invisible to another. The old woman. The young girl.
And ultimately, for all in all, this is entertainment, if this
suffering isn't your tea, perhaps coffee would be better. Or perhaps
a different blend. Green tea? I understand it's full of antioxidants.
Yes. Our personalities are made up of such a multitude of ingredients.
Our environment, our experiences, our biological makeup and DNA.
Psychology is still playing around in the dark trying to decipher
us. Freud decided a man or woman's makeup had to do with their
relationship to and feelings about their parents. Jung believed
it was more complex than that. And ME seems to be incorporating
both theories in their shows.
If we look at Buffy the Vampire Slayer as literally or figuratively
the psychological exploration of a girl coming of age - the story
may take on a different flavor? The demons she slays are her own.
They represent her own fears and dilemmas. Her own psychological
problems. Her friends and lovers the positive and negative forces
within her own psyche.
Dawn - the daughter, the child, the normal girl, the damsel, the
innocent, the adolescent. Dawn is three things to Buffy: her daughter,
her sister, and her child self.
Metaphorically - older women will often refer to their wards,
charges, protegees or young women friends in these terms. I've
certainly had them refer to me in this light.
Nikki - is Buffy, is her sister, her mother, her ancestor, her
role model, her history. Who she was. Who she might be.
The grandmother.
The First Slayer. is also Buffy. The one who came first. Who was
chained and impregnated and gave birth to all the other girls.
And made the choices that affect them. If personality is biology
- then the First Slayer's Dna lives in the power that lives in
Buffy. The dark ancestral/primitive (right?wrong? word) that lives
in us all.
Joyce - is Buffy's mother, her role model, her guilt and her life.
The DNA of Joyce lives in Buffy. Joyce's examples of motherhood,
Joyce's teachings remain inside her daughter.
Joyce is motherhood with all it's blemishes intact.
Today on Mother's Day in the States...I think about these things.
Our fears and hopes that we will become our mothers.
How that affects what we do. How we honor them and how we wish
not too. How in a way we are them and they are us.
My mother told me once that I would always feel a part of her,
no matter what happened to me or to her, she would stand beside
me, she'd feel my pain and my triumphe, because a child comes
from the mother's body and is an extension of that yet at the
same time incredibly separate from it and her/his own person.
I think LMPTM and the episodes that come before and after is Buffy.
The characters, the issues, are about her as much if not more
so than the other supporting characters. And they are difficult
issues - since BTVs is first and foremost a horror show - dwelling
more often than not on the pain of life rather than the joy as
most horror shows do.
In my time, I've been there. Series that it's important I not
reread that last annoying, have to own it to have the whole set,
but Aaaahhh...book! Heck, I've stopped watching AtS several times
in frustration only to return. And this season, I've certainly
been glad of it. As contrast to the final season of X Files, which
like an ex-lover on whom my bitter bile like venom drips. Deep
breath. Remember the good years, when paranoid atmospheric love
was in the air like a blue smoken cancerous haze.
Oh yes me too and on the same things. Recently tried to read the
novel Atonement. Couldn't make it past the first 136 pages without
an overwhelming desire to throw the book against a wall. I wanted
to rip it to shreds. Finally just gave up on it entirely. I've
left ATS numerous times in disgust - specifically during the First,
Second and parts of Third season. I'm glad I didn't leave it entirely.
And X-Files? Gave up.
Buttons. Sometimes I think it really is all about our buttons.
Thanks for another lovely post fresne.
SK
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Becoming OT: Atonement -- Tchaikovsky,
09:17:42 05/11/03 Sun
Recently tried to read the novel Atonement. Couldn't make it
past the first 136 pages without an overwhelming desire to throw
the book against a wall. I wanted to rip it to shreds. Finally
just gave up on it entirely.
One of my favourite books of the last two years! The ending is
quite wonderful, and as it goes along it starts to reveal ideas
about authorial intent and writers as Gods which actually complement
'Storyteller' quite nicely. A beautiful Woolfian parody at the
beginning, invaded by the prospect of something darker, more painful.
The stolid heat of the English summer with the air of desperation
that the second world war will bring. Auden's countries 'Each
sequestered in its hate'. The nightmare of the dark is about to
begin. The pain of resolution is tempered by the possibility that
not everything is real, like Cronenberg.
Now that was non-linear; and I'm not sure comparing it to 'Storyteller'
was the best tactic for making you re-read it sk!! But I'd like
to hear why you got so frustrated by it.
TCH
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Becoming OT: Atonement
-- s'kat, 09:59:42 05/11/03 Sun
LOL! Probably not, since I had a similar reaction to Storyteller.
But by comparing the two you may have, ironically, hit on the
reason I despised them both. One I hadn't realized until now.
I had to read Atonement for a book club and had the unpleasant
task of explaining to the woman who had recommended and loved
it why I couldn't finish it. It wasn't her fault after all that
I didn't like it.
Why didn't I like it? Why such a negative reaction? Hard to describe.
It could be a mood thing. My own life is frustrating me a great
deal right now and this book for some reason hit on some of things
that were frustrating me. In somewhat the same ways I expect that
Storyteller may have. I don't know.
The little girl - Briony - was a character that I, for some reason,
took a visceral dislike too, she annoyed and irritated me, much
in the same way that Andrew does in Storyteller - maybe, because
she reminded me a little of myself and my own tendency to escape
into stories and how doing so can hurt you? Maybe in some ways
Briony reminded me of Andrew and how inadvertently both characters
hurt themselves and those around them by believing they are gods
and can make their world safe and endurable through the written
word. Maybe that statement made by both McEwan and Espenson really
pissed me off. I don't know but it is worth considering. I remember
somewhere in the beginning of Atonement - scanning ahead to see
if it got better - I wanted Cecilia and Robbie to end up together,
I wanted Briony to get it and Lola and Marshall to be horribly
punished. That didn't happen of course. Lola and Marshall live
happily ever after. Briony finds love and success. Her sister
and Robbie, the only two characters I liked, are doomed. I think
if I wasn't in a frustrating place myself right now - this wouldn't
bug me so much, not sure. But I remember raging at the characters
to the extent that I decided to stop reading.
Objectively? The style and device used is brillant. But as fresne
stated above this wasn't my cup of tea right now, too much earl
grey, when I'm hungering for the antioxidants of green tea.
Hope that made some sense.
SK
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks for explaining.
Moving back towards Buffy -- Tchaikovsky, 10:32:51 05/11/03
Sun
I'm always intrigued by the writer writing about writing. It's
clever and solipsistic and ever so indulgent, but it really strikes
chords with my mind. Whedon has it a lot on the brain at the moment.
'Waiting in the Wings'. The count who can make people perform
over and over again. 'Once More, With Feeling'. A snap of the
fingers- fire and revelation. 'Awakening'. The laugh of the creator
at the joke which is at the watcher's expense. 'Storyteller'.
The incomplete vision, replete with a perfect over-polished start
and an impossible incomplete conclusion- how can Joss tie up his
series. Actually, I think that final scene is about Firefly. Andrew
doesn't know how to finish his video, and Joss never got the opportunity
to finish his new project. Circumstances cut short Andrew's self-referential
story, when he realises that what he is telling is a twisted reality.
In becoming the arbiter of the happenings, he has proclaimed himself
God, and appointed a horse to his Cabinet. But ultimately, there
is a real truth in which he is involved. Concurrently, Joss (and
Tim, although not Caligula's horse, obviously) set themselves
up as the masters of a new Universe, an alterno-Final Frontier.
Yet they are cut off by reality- no money, and Philistines running
network television for cheap, chicken food nonsense. They are
left spluttering in the middle of a sentence.
I suppose metanarration is the new black, really, and that's why
everyone's attempting it- from Ian McEwan to Scary Movie 2, (even
a parody to the unfulfilling sequel). If it leaves the author
too close to the middle of the frame, it can be disconcerting.
I think I share some of your reservations, shadowkat, by my orange
is still seeming quite tasty, all in all.
TCH
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Becoming On-T: Atonement
(spoilers for Home and Touched) -- ponygirl, 11:27:12 05/11/03
Sun
I loved Atonement myself, but haven't had any luck recommending
it to people, usually for the reasons you mention, shadowkat,
so it's not just you. However I do think you raise an interesting
point about what we want for the characters. I wanted the same
thing as you did, and so did Briony, she tried to give them what
they deserved the only way she knew how, through fiction. Of course
Briony herself was a fiction... Really all this is an excuse to
trot out my fave quote from the novel:
... how can a novelist achieve atonement when, with her absolute
power of deciding outcomes, she is also God? There is no one,
no entity or higher form that she can appeal to, or be reconciled
with, or that can forgive her. There is nothing outside her. In
her imagination she has set the limits and the terms. No atonement
for God, or novelists, even if they are atheists. It was always
an impossible task, and that was precisely the point. The attempt
was all.
This season we've seen a lot of characters taking on the roles
of Gods, or novelists. Jasmine seeks to write the story of the
world, Angel to re-write Connor's, Andrew to take reality and
twist it into a more pleasant version in his head; and Buffy realizes
that her word can send someone to their death. What do these gods
owe their characters? Jasmine wanted to connect with everyone
but couldn't see the value of individual lives, a few thousand
are an easy trade for billions. Ultimately her failure to connect
with one person, Connor, costs her her life. Angel wants to give
Connor what he never had, but he finds he can only do this by
removing himself permanently from Connor's life. Andrew's fictions
allow him to re-cast his worst acts in a better light, but he
can't sustain the fantasy in the face of real guilt and fear.
And Buffy, whose story isn't finished yet, has tried to detach
from those around her, will she be able to reconcile her desire
for connection with her position as the Slayer, the Law, the author
who is called upon to drive a sword into the chest of a character
or two?
Rambling and avoiding work, so I must go, but thanks for your
kinds words in the thread above, sk. Hoping that one goes bye-bye
soon.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> The first and last rule of communication --
Plin, 15:31:28 05/10/03 Sat
We can't control other people's understanding. No matter how careful
we try to be, there is no way for us to know what effect our words
or nonverbal cues will have on our listener/reader/viewer. Everyone
will interpret our message through a personal filter of experiences
and opinions. That's part of what makes discussion so fruitful
and fascinating. That's why we're all here, isn't it?
On the specific matter of LMPTM, I find it interesting to see
that so many (most?) people interpreted Spike's words to Wood
as implying that Nikki should have given up her mission, and would
have if only she'd loved her son enough. My reading of that scene
was that Spike was voicing Wood's own inner insecurity out loud,
and desire to be at the center of his mother's world. When Spike
tells Wood that he knows Slayers, and Slayers always fight alone
regardless of friends and family, I believe he was explaining
that it was just Wood's bad luck to be born to a woman with a
Mission. Spike was born to a woman who did put him at the center
of her world, and things didn't work out too well for them, either.
The message I took away from the scene was: "We all have
to play the cards we're dealt. We all have issues. We all have
to get over them." Spike did, and that's how he undid his
trigger. Wood... not so much. Not yet, anyway, as far as we've
been shown.
All that means, though, is that my own outlook and experiences
and filters led me to interpret the scene that way. My version
certainly isn't any more or less valid than anyone else's, and
it may be quite far from what the authors intended. All they can
do is control what they write, and then the director tries to
guide the actors' performance. After that, it's out of their hands
and into ours.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: The first and last rule of communication
-- s'kat, 07:34:32 05/11/03 Sun
We can't control other people's understanding. No matter how
careful we try to be, there is no way for us to know what effect
our words or nonverbal cues will have on our listener/reader/viewer.
Everyone will interpret our message through a personal filter
of experiences and opinions. That's part of what makes discussion
so fruitful and fascinating. That's why we're all here, isn't
it?
Well said and very true. Actually the older I get the more I realize
how little control we have over most things in our lives, accept
of course our own choices. We always have control over that. ie.
The choice to turn on the computer and post in the morning.
On the specific matter of LMPTM, I find it interesting to see
that so many (most?) people interpreted Spike's words to Wood
as implying that Nikki should have given up her mission, and would
have if only she'd loved her son enough. My reading of that scene
was that Spike was voicing Wood's own inner insecurity out loud,
and desire to be at the center of his mother's world. When Spike
tells Wood that he knows Slayers, and Slayers always fight alone
regardless of friends and family, I believe he was explaining
that it was just Wood's bad luck to be born to a woman with a
Mission. Spike was born to a woman who did put him at the center
of her world, and things didn't work out too well for them, either.
The message I took away from the scene was: "We all have
to play the cards we're dealt. We all have issues. We all have
to get over them." Spike did, and that's how he undid his
trigger. Wood... not so much. Not yet, anyway, as far as we've
been shown.
All that means, though, is that my own outlook and experiences
and filters led me to interpret the scene that way. My version
certainly isn't any more or less valid than anyone else's, and
it may be quite far from what the authors intended. All they can
do is control what they write, and then the director tries to
guide the actors' performance. After that, it's out of their hands
and into ours.
I came to the same conclusion when I first watched it.
And largely agree with it. I also think this is in many ways the
conclusion Buffy was meant to finally come to regarding her own
role as a mother and Joyce. "We all have to play the cards
we're dealt. We all have issues. We all have to get over them."
which in turn echoes Holden Webster's lines in CwDP - "Everybody
has issues Buffy."
We either get over them or we continue to let them trigger our
choices. Some issues may be so imbedded in our psyches they always
will.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Great point! -- Caroline, 07:43:04
05/12/03 Mon
I have to admit to being rather stunned at the reaction of many
fans to the Spike/Wood scene in LMPTM. I think it really works
when placed in context. Not only is it a commentary on Spike voicing
Wood insecurities out loud (as you so rightly point out), it is
also voicing what Spike has just learnt about his behaviour over
the last 100 years. The trigger was symbolic of Spike's own issues
with his own mother and the psychological insight he gained allowed
him to deactivate it and have some insight into Wood's behaviour.
Spike spoke to Wood in a mocking, taunting voice, no doubt inspired
by the fact that Wood just tried to kill him. But I think that
it was also a cruel to be kind sort of thing, in the same way
that Buffy was a little later when she told Wood she had no time
for vendettas. I think that Spike's words to Wood were incredibly
psychologically subtle and astute and I must admit to sitting
here in shock and amazement at what I see as a fundamental misunderstanding
of this scene.
[> [> [> [> [>
I thought you were perfectly clear. -- Sophist, 09:03:19
05/10/03 Sat
[> [> [> Reacting
to David Fury -- Sara, 19:56:17 05/10/03 Sat
I think artists who say "if you don't like what I do, don't
watch" are only partially right. That is one valid
choice, and one that we all make on a daily basis. But, criticising,
discussing and even protesting or also valid choices. When you
create art and share it with the public, you have to be ready
to accept the reactions. A fair response to the "if you don't
like it, don't watch it" would be "if you don't want
to hear the criticism, show it to your mother and don't put it
on the air." I think an artist who throws something out there,
can do harm as well as good, as well as make no difference whatsoever,
but has to accept responsibility for how people react. sk, this
is not about anything you've said, but is totally about the David
Fury quote, I'm tired and grouchy, and probably shouldn't be posting,
but here I am typing away. Too many people see protesting or criticising
as attempted censorship, when it's not, it's just reacting. Anyway,
I'm losing my train of thought so off to bed now! Hope things
are going well with you sk! Sorry, we won't see you in June, but
a July NYC meet will certainly be fab! g'night!
[> [> [> [> Fury,
Whedon, MN - giving audience what they need -- s'kat, 18:45:22
05/11/03 Sun
David Fury is no diplomat that's for certain. Actually both he
and Marti Noxon aren't very adept at giving interviews.
On numerous occassions one or the other has pushed all my buttons.
David Fury did in some of his "humorous" posts on Spike.
Making fun of fans. While I agreed with much that he said, I found
his tone insulting for someone who makes his living off of entertainment.
Just as I found Marti's at times. They often make sharp, defensive
comments to deal with criticism they aren't certain how to handle.
MN didn't know how to handle the criticism she was receiving regarding
the way Spike was portrayed on the show. Fans screamed at her:
If Spike is inherently evil - then show us don't confuse us. But
I'm not confusing you, we are showing you - she kept saying. In
Smashed he would have bitten that girl. YEah...screamed fans...but
why didn't he just bite her then? Why give him a five -ten minute
speech where he has to talk himself into it? After Buffy, your
hero, beats him up and tells him that's all he's good for? Marsters,
in numerous interviews, blames himself for how that scene worked
- but it wasn't Marsters fault, it was Marti's and the directors
and the writers for not making it clear - they gave him the speech
and they directed him on how to pause and say the lines or let
him do it without telling him not to. (According to A.S. HEad
- Whedon directed his actors not to do anything he didn't tell
them to do or he'd shoot the back of their head and forgoe closeups.
And he did - when ASH tried to play with a prop in one scene.)
Also Whedon deliberatly lightened up the snark in Hell's Bells
between Spike and Buffy. They deliberately made the character
ambiguous. Just as they deliberately made things ambiguous in
LMPTM. When you introduce ambiguity - it's a wonderful thing -
but don't be surprised if someone interprets it differently than
you do.
I think an artist who throws something out there, can do harm
as well as good, as well as make no difference whatsoever, but
has to accept responsibility for how people react.
Yes. That's very true. I remember a Creative Writing Teacher teaching
me that one once. I had written a story from the pov of my artistic
younger brother. The story was ambiguous in nature. Everyone who
read it - interpreted what was going on within it a different
way. One person interpreted it as a boy in art school who feels
alienated. One as a boy dying of cancer. Another as boy who is
the sole survior of the apocalypse. All three interpretations
were possible from the text. The first one was the intended one.
My professor took the middle view, dying of cancer, and blasted
me for not giving the reader a road map or making my intention
clear. He said you have to give the reader some direction in the
story. Otherwise you have NO right to get upset if they interpret
it 180 degrees differently than you expected. You introduce too
much ambiguity? You pay the price! He also told me that if I couldn't
take criticism and rejection I had no business being a writer.
Writers as someone aptly said on this very board, must have the
sensitivity of toilet seats. Because no matter what you write,
someone out there will despise it and they will tell you so, fairly
harshly. And unlike the Atpo board - you don't always have the
luxuary of ignoring or not reading the criticism.
In Writing Btvs, Joss Whedon has decided for good or ill to create
art not commercial entertainment. And art by its very nature can
piss people off. The best art often does. What do I mean by Commericial
Entertainment and Art? Commercial entertainment under film scholar
Gene Youngblood's definition is a medium that gives the audience
exactly what it expects and wants. Commercial entertainment is
well Murder She Wrote - where we know when the murder is committed
, Jessica Fletcher will show up and solve it and everything will
end hunky dory. Art does not give us what we respect - and more
often than not can hurt us. But it's a good type of hurt.
As Whedon states in an interview (taken from John Longworth's
book, quoted by David Lavery in his essay on Whedon in Slayage
7, cited later):" Ultimately stories come from violence,
they come from sex. They come from death. They come from the dark
places that everybody has to go to...if you raise a kid to think
everything is sunshine and flowers, they're going to get into
the real world and die...That's the reason fairy tales are so
creepy, because we need to encapsulate these things, to inoculate
ourselves against them, so that when we're confronted by the geniune
horror that is day-to-day life we don't go insane."
Here's another Joss Whedon quote from David Lavery's Slayage Article
on Whedon in Slayage 7. I include in this some of Mr. Lavery's
own comments. This quote addresses the differences between Commerical
Entertainment and ART:
"We know that in concurrence with the Gene Youngblood axiom
that entertainment gives the audience what it wants while art
contributes what it never dreamed it needed, [Whedon] does not
want his narrative religion to be merely entertainment. "Don't
give them what they want, he tells The ONION, give them what they
need. What they want is for Sam and Diane [Cheers] to get together.
Don't give it to them. Trust me...People want the easy path, a
happy resolution, but in the end, they're more interest in...No
one's going to see the story of Othello going to get a peaceful
divorce. People want the tragedy. They need things to go wrong,
they need the tension. In my characters there's a core of trust
and love that I'm very committed to. These guys would die for
each other, and it's very beautiful. But at the same time, you
can't keep that safety. Things have to go wrong, bad things have
to happen."
"One of the things TV is about, Whedon tells The Onion, "is
comfort, is knowing exactly where you are. I know they're going
to invite Jessica Fletcher over, one of them is going to get killed,
she very politely is going to solve it. I know what's going to
happen when I tune in to a particular show.....With Buffy we'll
do French farce one week and Medea the next week. We try very
hard structurally not to fall into a pattern either, so there's
not a shoot-out in a warehouse every episode. I'm very committed
to keeping the audience off their feet. It's sort of antithetical
to what TV is devised to do." (See John Longworth's TV Creators:
Conversations with Americas Top Producers of Television Drama.)
I think this is what they are trying for. And like most artists
they are human and full of faults. While its easy to say we have
the sensitivity of toilet seats, we obviously aren't toilet seats.
And to put your art out there is never an easy thing. But something
drives us to.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't feel that much sympathy for Mr.
Fury - I actually agree with what you state on Fury - and he makes
a lot more money than I do, doing what he loves, lucky bastard!
But at the same time? I can appreciate his inability to be dipolamatic
when dealing with criticism relating to his art. Very few artists
are.
HEck JD Salinger and McCormick are notorious for being anything
but. ;-)
And hanging in there...still unemployed, still looking. sigh.
Like the 9% of the population of NYC apparently.
sk
[> [> [> [> [>
Thank you so much for this, SK - I agree -- Rahael, 00:51:31
05/12/03 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
[> You're welcome. ;-) -- s'kat, 17:23:51 05/12/03
Mon
Btvs is almost over here in the states. But Angel has been renewed
- Kaloo- Kayla - I chortle in my joy!! So I hope to see you posting
on it. And any books that people should choose to read.
Because I do enjoy your posts. You write beautifully.
SK
[> An "apologist's"
rebuttal -- dms, 11:27:20 05/09/03 Fri
First off, let me say that I loved the episode. I actually liked
all the characters more after watching it. While all of them talked
about "the mission" and how what they were doing/saying
was for the greater good, the four principal actors (Buffy, Giles,
Spike and Wood) acted very emotionally. I thought they were all
right and they were all wrong. Furthermore, since Fury directed
the ep. as well as shared the writing credits, I think the contrast
between Vamp!William/William and Spike was not an accident. At
a recent con JM mentioned how much effort DF put into the episode,
and particularly the flashbacks.
[quote]Some apologists for the episode have suggested that Spike
is meant to be deluded here, or deliberately lying about his feelings
to torment Wood. Yet his manner does not suggest that his lines
are anything but his deepest beliefs[/quote]
In the heat of the moment, I don't think Spike was going to tell
Wood "my mum had some deep-seated resentments against me,
worried that I would never make something of myself and leave
the nest, and at some level maybe wanted to sleep with me. But,
I know the parent-child relationship isn't trouble-free, and I'm
now mature enough to overlook what she said and did and focus
on the fact that she did love me very much before I screwed things
up by murdering her and turning her into a soulless demon".
But, between the flashbacks and what he said to Wood, I believe
this is exactly what Spike thinks. Furthermore, I think he's now
aware that many of his past actions were driven by a lack of confidence
and self-loathing, and now that he's had his mommyphiphany his
behavior is going to change.
[quote]I simply don't see how Giles can be brought back in the
limited time remaining. In previous episodes of the season, he
has shown signs of depression and despair approaching post-traumatic
stress disorder. However, the coldly murderous manipulator we
see here goes well beyond such development.[/quote]
I'm not sure Giles needs to be brought back; I thought he was
in character. In The Gift and Helpless Giles was acting as a watcher.
In this episode, however, he was acting as a father; the name
of the episode, after all, is LM Parents TM. I interpreted his
behavior as that of a very protective and frightened father. Maybe
a better comparison would be to the Season 2 episode where his
past comes back to haunt him?
Giles' surrogate daughter's ex happens to be a souled vampire
with a post-hypnotic trigger planted by the First Evil who's recently
been on a killing spree. Furthermore, he's also her attempted
rapist, has tried to murder her on numerous occasions, is chip-loose
and fancy-free, and is living in said daughter's basement. Finally,
the two of them seem to be growing closer and closer, and Buffy
is making little to no effort to restrain Spike. She's leaving
it all up to his judgement. And, as we know, Giles thinks very
little of Spike's judgement (OMWF, anyone). I'm not surprised
that he tried to kill Spike; I'm more surprised that people expected
the two of them to become friends and for Giles to ask about his
soul, how he got it, etc.
I found Xander wanting to kill Spike after he slept with Anya
a much more incomprehensible act than Giles going after Spike.
Giles might have been more proactive with Spike then he ever was
with Angel; but then again, Angel always seemed guilty for both
his past and his Buffy-love. Spike, not so much. To Giles' knowledge,
Spike has shown no remorse for his soulless/souled acts and he
and Buffy are growing closer to each other (compared to Buffy
and Angel in season 3, who were drifting apart).
[quote]Yet her treatment of Wood at the end, even given her ignorance
of what actually happened between him and Spike, is cold and patronising.[/quote]
Buffy has just found out that Wood, who she trusted, worked for,
went on a date with, brought into her home, shared details of
her life (and her friends' lives) with, patrolled alongside, and
otherwise made a part of the team, has a secret agenda that involves
going behind her back and killing Spike. I was amazed that she
was able to show him compassion (which I think she did; I found
her in no way to be patronizing). I would have bitch-slapped him
up and down Main Street. His attitude towards Spike is understable;
his manipulation of Buffy, on the other hand, I find inexcusable.
Does he care about helping Buffy? Or is it all about his mission
(getting revenge on the demons who took his mother away from him)?
He lied to her for weeks. Why is Buffy at fault for saying that
she won't protect Wood if he continues with his vendetta?
[quote]the episode appears to argue that if you devote your life
to your child you are twisted, unhealthy and deserve to die, but
if you have other important things in your life as well as your
child, you are neglectful, devoid of love and deserve to die.[/quote]
I strongly disagree. Anne was killed twice, and both times it
was an act of selfishness on William's part. I saw her as the
victim, not someone who "deserved" to die. IMO, Vamp!William
was shown to be wrong: 1) for siring his mother in the first place
and then 2) for killing her when she threatened to leave him and
then told him some uncomfortable things that played on his own
deep-seated misgivings/self-loathing. He didn't kill her because
she was an evil demon and he wasn't. He killed her because she
didn't turn out as he expected; that was an act of extreme selfishness.
And, when he apologized, I saw it as him asking forgiveness for
siring her and then staking her, for not being able to let her
go, for trying to dictate her behavior and her future. Not surprisingly,
letting go of someone he loves is something Spike has continued
to have difficulty with.
As for Nikki. I didn't see this episode as a commentary on working
mothers. Being a slayer is not a job. You don't choose the work,
the work chooses you. Furthermore, it doesn't pay, you're on call
24/7, you can't quit until you die. And, if you live along enough
so that you leave the safety of your parents home (assuming you
have parents), you have to get a job to pay the bills. I don't
see how being a superhero, the chosen one, etc. is equivalent
to being a working woman. As Buffy said in CWDP, it's a "calling".
Furthermore, I didn't get a message that Nikki was devoid of love.
Nikki loved Robin; she told him she loved him. She also told him
that her mission was what was most important to her. He was important,
though he was perhaps not her first priority at that point in
time.
And, I definitely did not get the message that she deserved to
die because she wasn't devoted to her son. Spike told Robin that
his mother's death (and much of his mother's life) was not about
him, and didn't that piss him off? Nikki didn't deserve to die;
but, she did die. It wasn't a reflection on Robin or the mother-son
relationship; it was part of the vampire-Slayer dynamic. In fact,
it had nothing to do with Robin at all. A random vamp could theoretically
kill Buffy any day of the week, and almost has (FFL). I don't
think ME is saying that Buffy is selfish for sticking to the mission,
even though she has Dawn. She's portrayed as heroic because she
sticks to it, day in and day out, despite the toll it's taking
on her emotionally.
The tragedy is that Nikki's death didn't have anything to do with
Robin, and yet he's spent years thinking that if he can slay the
demons and take on the mission he can somehow get close to his
mother and prove something to her (and to himself). In addition,
he doesn't even seem to know what the mission is. It's not becoming
a rogue demon hunter as a way to deal with your personal issues;
it's about saving the world, helping humanity, fighting evil because
it's the right thing to do.
I really don't think the episode is saying Spike=good and Wood=bad
(after all, Fury wrote it ;)). Rather, I think the writers' were
trying to show that Spike is finally going to be able to let Buffy
go and stand on his own (no longer need her to love him) because
at one point in his life he he was loved, put first. He's been
searching for love; now, he can stop. Spike is the one figure
on the show who was never loved by anyone who would make him a
priority. And, it showed in his behavior. Now, however, he realizes
that someone did. I expect to see changes in the way he behaves
after this episode. I think he'll be able to give love without
expecting it in return.
[> [> Another brilliant
post! I'm glad you guys are responding, so I don't have to take
the... -- considerable effort to defend an episode that I
loved--Rob, 11:57:54 05/09/03 Fri
[> [> [> Thoughts,
musing, defence (Lies...no further) -- Abby, 12:46:09 05/09/03
Fri
(Pre-Archive ravaging, so apologies etc re:discussed points)
The idea that the episode was in some way making judgements on
the good/bad mothering of Anne and Nikki never occured to me as
I devoured my tapes today, on the contrary, what I found the episode
to be conveying was the stark contrast between Spike and, to a
lesser extent Wood's, notion of love, and that of the Slayers
choice and forced reality.
Spike believes in love as an extreme, all-consuming. His love
for his mother made him want the relationship to be eternal- transcending
death. Not getting into details re: the healthiness of this, I
think this can be seen in Dru and the features of that relationship
and also his want to have 'all' of Buffy, isolating her etc not
being satisfied with the limited sexual relationship.
Therefore his judgement that Nikki didn't love Wood because she
did not give up her mission for him is understandable- in his
eyes if you love someone you do give everything up for them, or
try to give them everything; be it winning your soul or granting
eternal life.
Wood, by his reaction, believes this on a certain level. As a
child growing up, why wouldn't he question his mother's faith
to her mission over her child? He has directed anger at the vampires
that required her mission, anger at her 'abandonment' of him,
and anger at her killing all to Spike. The memory of his mother
is sacrosanct, he chooses to address only the fact that she was
taken from him, unwilling to look at the issue of his feelings
of rejection and belief in her having a 'choice' to fight.
Furthermore I thought that Spike's comment about it being the
game for slayers and vamps to fight and kill was important to
his growth past overwhelming guilt. Earlier he would have been
gripped with more pain at his vampire actions, now he accepts
that that was the nature of life for them and now is not the time
to slip back into a dehibilitating guilt. I found those comments
perceptive, although have yet to form strong opinion as to the
delusion or otherwise of his 'peace' with mother.
The juxtaposition of this concept of love with the Slayer's reality
and Giles' question about Dawn is significant to me. Buffy now
understands the 'bigger picture'. She is willing to sacrifice
her surrogate daughter to the Mission, her fight outweighs the
individual. Just as Nikki's did. Nikki would not, could not give
up her mission for Robin, just like Buffy will not now do for
Dawn ("She won't choose you"?). We are shown the greys
of a world for the slayer wherein you fight even if it means sacrificing
your family- Nikki did not make a conscious 'sacrifice' of Robin,
she tried to ensure hhis safety, but her not ignoring her calling
is seen by Spike and Wood as a sacrifice of her son.
So far from there being judgements about mothering from the writers
in my view, what we saw were the conflicting views of mothering
from the sons who wanted a love that overcame all and lasted,
with the reality of the slayer that chose her mission because
the world depended on her. I don't see there as being a 'bad'
or 'wrong' to the relationships we saw, only confusion and denial
in the interpretations and reaction to them.
I really enjoyed the episode, following the fluff of 'storyteller',
this was overflowing with deep repercussions. As for comedy, Wood's
confusion as to chip/soul/trigger/military was amusing, and disturbing?
The continuation of Wood's authoritarian, patronizing flirtation:
"Miss Summers" etc. And the lasting haunting image of
Drusilla circling her womb as she claimed her 'mother' status
from Anne.
[> [> Re: An "apologist's"
rebuttal -- Simone, 12:12:53 05/11/03 Sun
>>In the heat of the moment, I don't think Spike was going
to tell Wood "my mum had some deep-seated resentments against
me, worried that I would never make something of myself and leave
the nest, and at some level maybe wanted to sleep with me. But,
I know the parent-child relationship isn't trouble-free, and I'm
now mature enough to overlook what she said and did and focus
on the fact that she did love me very much before I screwed things
up by murdering her and turning her into a soulless demon".
But, between the flashbacks and what he said to Wood, I believe
this is exactly what Spike thinks. Furthermore, I think he's now
aware that many of his past actions were driven by a lack of confidence
and self-loathing, and now that he's had his mommyphiphany his
behavior is going to change.<<
Thank you! That's exactly how I interpret that scene as well.
I can sort of see why some take his words (i.e. "That was
the demon talking") to mean that he draws an absolute distinction
between his mother and the demon and uses that to abjure his own
responsibility for his past. Had he said "I created a demon,"
I might agree with that interpretation. But he said "I *unleashed*
a demon" (or something like that). To me, that changes the
entire tenor of his revelations. What I get out of it is that
he realizes that the "demon" was always a repressed
part of his mother. It's just that now he also realizes that it
wasn't the truer, more real part of her.
IMO, this is significant not just in terms of resolving most of
Spike's issues with his mother (and, implicitly, with women and
love in general) but also in terms of his own self-image. He finally
comes to terms with the stubborn humanity his mother mocked in
him and no longer feels the need to overcompensate which drove
him to create the nasty, brash Spike persona in the first place.
At the same time, this also helps him deal with his demonic past
and the debilitating guilt it has been causing him, as he realizes
that the evil demon is not who he really is (which is what his
FFL talk of "freedom" implied) and always will be. It
IS a part of him, but not a more truthful or important part of
him than the rest, as he used to think.
Which, I think, is what you were saying (please correct me if
I misinterpreted your post), only you were saying it better. Great
post.
[> [> [> You didn't
misinterpret. :) -- dms, 05:20:04 05/12/03 Mon
I think we're on the same page. I agree with you that Spike acknowledged
the demon that's inside him and was in his mother and "unleashed"
by him. When he said "I was a vampire" I took it to
mean that he's more than that now. I think he's starting to see
himself as a man with a demon in him (rather than a monster who's
trying to be a man).
One thing I liked about the Spike/Wood scene is that while on
first viewing I thought Spike was just being deliberately cruel
to Wood, after watching the scene again I felt he was 1) making
relatively value-neutral judgements about what it means to be
a Slayer and 2) showing Wood that his problem was with his mother,
not (primarily) with him.
Where I think Spike (and everyone else) was wrong was in separating
love/emotion and "the mission".
[> Re: I Spit on Your Grave
(Spoiler for "Lies" but no further") -- yabyumpan,
12:16:30 05/09/03 Fri
I haven't got time to respond at the moment. I pretty much agree
with most of what KdS posted. Hopefully this thread will still
be here in the morning when I get back from work so I can respond
more fully.
[> [> Re: I Spit on Your
Grave (Spoiler for "Lies" but no further")
-- yabyumpan, 01:33:25 05/10/03 Sat
Rah darlin' turn up when ever you want, I'm just glad you're still
loving AtS, I'd miss you if you weren't here :o) I'm already thinking
about what we can do after the seasons are over; pizza night?
fav episodes night? let's get drunk and rant about ****** night?
See you next week :o)
Ok, my review. I think all the main characters - Buffy, Spike,
Giles and Wood - came out of this ep smelling like the stuff you
put on roses.
Giles - in some ways, he's the one I feel less pissed at. I can
see why he's so grumpy and acted the way he did. He's got years
of experience, has been with and supported Buffy though years
of mission based and personal problems and yet Buffy totally disregards
his worries and advice. I think Giles is actually the only one
who is seeing the situation clearly. With the evidence that he
has he knows that Spike has killed, even with a soul, because
of the First and the trigger. He doesn't know if the trigger is
inactive after the magic stone thing came out of Spike's brain(and
he's proved right). He's seen Buffy behave in an irrational way
when she's been in love before. Yes, he was wrong to go behind
Buffy's back and help to set Spike up but I think Buffy's behaviour
and his very real concerns meant he felt he had no other choice.
Actually, I don't think I'm pissed at him very much at all. He's
a Watcher, all his life he's been trained to take out dangerous
vamps and to protect humanity and he takes that very seriously.
That has got to above and beyond any loyalty to Buffy or any one
else.
Wood - No, I don't like him, I think he's a slimey little creep
but I do feel some sympathy for him. He probably had some sort
of memory of seeing his mother and Spike fight, he lost his mother
when he was 4 years old because of Spike and now he sees Spike
parading around SD wearing the trophy he took from his mother
when he killed her. I don't think he was right in what he did
but I don't feel I can condemn him for it. It was obvious in the
garage that he knew the difference between souled and unsouled
Spike, he's seen Spike fight for the white hats so he must have
a good idea that he's changed sides. So yes, trying to take out
Spike because of a personal vendetta was wrong, and Buffy was
right in that they probably do need Spike around to fight the
BB. But Wood has been carrying his pain around for 26 years, he
was brought up by his mother's watcher and taught the skills he
needed to in some way, carry on his mother's work and now he has
a chance to finish off what she started. Maybe not the 'right'
thing to do, but IMO, understandable. Revenge is very rarly right
but I wonder if the people who condemned Wood, also condemn Fred
for taking revenge against Sidal(sp). At least Fred survived and
still has her parents, I can't see that Wood has anything really
now.
Buffy - I think Buffy is allowing her feelings for Spike cloud
her judgement. I not bothered about B/S one way or the other so
this isn't about being 'anti' B/S. They didn't know if Spike was
still a danger, if the trigger was still active. Once they knew
what the trigger was all they had to do was test it, Wood managed
to do that easily enough. But Buffy chose to disregard the potential
danger and unchain him, potenially putting everyone in danger.
That is not clear thinking and it's not the responsable actions
of a Leader. I also agree with Rah about the difference between
losing someone (a mother) to a natural and unnatural cause i.e.
murder. There is no comparison and Buffy was being pretty insensitve
to suggest there was. She was also so very wrong to say that she
would let Spike kill Wood if he threatened him again. What a huge
slap in the face to virtually say pretty much that she values
the life of his mother's murderer (even if he has now got a soul)
over him. Buffy was wrong at the end when she said she had nothing
left to learn, she's got a very long way to go if she can be that
insensitve and cruel.
Spike - Lots of mixed emotions about Spike. I did feel sorry for
him when he realised he'd been set up and almost felt sorry for
him when his mother turned on him. It's a shame she couldn't have
been so honest with him before he was turned although how many
mothers would say to their son's that you write drivel, you're
smothering me, get out of the house? Mainly though, I thought
Spike was arrogant, deluded and cruel. He was to quick to want
to get out of those chains, not prepared to go through the whole
process to make sure the trigger had been de-activated. I normally
don't like doing Angel/Spike comparisons but it made me think
of the times that Angel has insisted on being chained up or caged
because he was worried that he might be a danger to others, how
he is so aware of the potentail danger that he's got everyone
in his life to promise to take him out if it does happen. Spike
seemed unconcerned in this episode that by being free of the chains
and not knowing if the trigger is still active, that he could
be putting Buffy, Dawn and everyone else in danger. He also shows
lack of awareness and/or delusion by saying that he realises his
mother loved him and that it was the demon saying the hurtful
things. Can't he see that he was exactly the same after he was
turned, that turning him just gave him the courage and ability
to be the person he wanted to be and that it was the same for
his mother? The trigger was de-activated IMO because he was able
to face his pain, not because he realised his mother loved him.
I'm not saying she didn't but she also had a lot of anger and
resentment towards him too. that Spike can just dismiss that as
being the demon shows how deluded he is. His taunting of Wood
about his mother was just cruel. Imagine the outcry if Angel had
told Holtz in Benediction, after Holtz had stolen Connor and he's
lost all of Connor's growing up, that "I don't give a piss
about killing your family". Spike doesn't get anything, not
that his vamped-mother was telling him truths his unvamped mother
couldn't, or that a Slayer can possibly care about anything other
than the mission. He's deluded, foolish and cruel and taking the
coat at the end was just taking the piss. Spike may have a soul
but he's still got a very long way to go.
I didn't hate the episode or rally have a strong emotional reaction
to it but I do think it's very unclear about what it's trying
to say (I'm not even sure what that is) and it did leave a very
bad taste in my mouth.
[> [> [> Definitely,
re post finale get together. -- Rahael, 06:39:51 05/10/03
Sat
and plus, we still have *two* shows that we both enjoy and love!
Thank you for feeding my addictions (and indulging my attempt
to go cold turkey)
Oh yeah, absolutely re Fred. Apparently that was empowerment.
It's okay to go after souled but evil because it's doing a favour
to everyone.
Or maybe, killing people is just wrong.
[> My last Buffy ep??
-- Rahael, 13:35:48 05/09/03 Fri
Quite likely.
I'm the one who said I'd have stopped watching BtVS Season 7 at
this point if it wasn't for the fact that we had a meet up every
Thursday.
It wasn't the part about mothers or missions. It was the speech
that Spike gives Wood at the end. It was the way the authors endorsed
it by showing that these truths had set Spike free - from the
First Evil, from the trigger.
I was physically and emotionally repulsed and if I could do anything,
I would not have watched this ep because without it, I might have
been able to watch other BtVS eps.
At this point, I'm ready to give away my DVDs away. Anyone want
BtVS DVDs S1-5? Free? Okay. Maybe after I get over this funk I'll
want to watch S1-4 again.
None of you will get why I was so shocked and repulsed by this
episode - I'm not going to bother trying because I'm not willing
to let myself go through the emotional wringer for this.
Let me say this - allow me to be pissed off about this. I know
what I feel. I have the arrogance to feel that I have a mind,
one which is able to appreciate BtVS on all its levels, and I
had my own interpretation of Lies.
And don't worry - I'm hardly likely to be constantly posting on
the board saying why everyone should hate S7. I dramatically cut
down on posting after Lies aired in the US (and let me say that
the board posts did not prepare me for Spike saying "I don't
give a piss about your mother").
This is pretty much the only point where I'll bother saying this,
here.
In fact, despite what I said last night, I don't think I will
watch the rest of Season 7. I don't want to harm anyone else's
enjoyment. I'll turn up late, to catch the AtS ep.
I'm just saddened - by the episode I watched last night and by
the fact that something I had loved for so long has gone.
People told me to wait and watch the ep. I hated it more than
I thought I would (I was expecting to love it and have my own
interpretation). People tell me to finish off the story. But I
know where the story is going.
I've loved posting here. I've loved thinking about and writing
about Buffy. I'm not going to spoil that by watching episodes
that pain me and writing negative posts. This is where I jump
off. It's been a thrilling ride. Time to find the next big thing.
[> [> Re: My last Buffy
ep?? -- ponygirl, 13:48:48 05/09/03 Fri
Very sad to read your post Rahael. I'm not going to argue with
you, but let me just say how much I have enjoyed reading your
posts on BtVS. Whether I agreed with your views or not I always
sought out your posts for the wonderful writing and beautifully
articulated opinions. I hope that your decision doesn't mean we
won't see you posting on AtS!
[> [> [> Ditto to
you Ponygirl -- Rahael, 13:58:31 05/09/03 Fri
You're one of my very favourite posters. And I often say that
you are consistently the most prescient poster re both shows that
I have seen posting here.
[> [> Re: My last Buffy
ep?? -- Arethusa, 15:09:56 05/09/03 Fri
Rahael, I've enjoyed reading and responding to your posts more
than I can say. I very much hope you will post on AtS.
Thank you for your rare and wonderful understanding and support.
Your posts have been very important to me.
My thoughts are with you. Arethusa.
[> [> [> Thank you
Arethusa -- Rahael, 15:48:25 05/09/03 Fri
I don't even need to say how important your posts have been. How
they played an essential part in me growing up this past year
to be less ashamed of me and more confident.
That's a really precious gift to give to a human being you've
never 'met'. Thank you! Hugs, Arethusa.
(Also, thinking about Buffy helped me - and, ironies of ironies,
sometimes we have to say "I disagree" and "I'm
shutting the door on you now" and "you've taught me
all I need to know". Door closes. credits roll)
[> [> Re: -- aliera,
16:10:56 05/09/03 Fri
Wish I could make you feel as good as your words earlier made
me feel, Rah. But very sadly life doesn't work that way. Part
of weirdness now is I don't remember what I said after this ep
aired here. I do remember being offended actually by some of the
posting and flipping an email off to someone who was kind enough
to answer in in a better spirit than it probably deserved. So
much has happened since then on and off the board that it feels
like it's been miles ago. And I feel like I've been on roller
coaster from one week to the next. I do know that like I would
with OnM I'd read whatever you care to write; that's how highly
I think of you both as a writer and an individual. Heck, it makes
me feel better about the things that bother me. Ironically, OnM
makes me less bothered. Kinda like being sandwiched between Tara
and Faith. Not a bad place to be, actually. And I just can't imagine
the board without you...really hope I don't have to. ;-)
[> [> Why is Rahael like
Lord Kitchener? -- Tchaikovsky, 02:41:53 05/10/03 Sat
Because she's a truly great poster.
Leaving aside the fact that you're scarily perceptive about everything-
and your interpretation is always wonderful, there are countless
times when your wonderfully generous responses to my posts have
cheered up my day. I will miss the evidence of your board presence,
even if you are floating somewhere in the background.
And I haven't seen LMPTM, but I go in extremely warily.
TCH
[> [> [> LOL. Awwwwww
-- Rahael, 06:28:42 05/10/03 Sat
Keep on with that Odyssey ;)
[> [> Sorry to hear this
but completely understand -- KdS, 05:02:49 05/10/03 Sat
See you next Thursday for Inside Out. I hope that you'll
at least still be reading the board and keeping track of S7 in
case your fears about the final lesson of the season aren't fulfilled.
Stay well.
[> [> Re: My last Buffy
ep?? -- MaeveRigan,
12:51:37 05/10/03 Sat
Very distressed, Rahael.
You're one of my favorite posters--maybe because I almost always
agree with you? No, really because you almost always show me something
new, and in a very articulate way.
It breaks my heart that this episode broke BtVS for you, but I
think maybe I can begin to imagine why. I'm not going to argue
with you.
I still have those ideas about Blake and AtS 4, though.
[> [> [> Thank you
-- Rahael, 10:03:43 05/11/03 Sun
And now I feel the guilt of one who has been avoiding work, and
interesting work too. I'm one of those people who has to read
the entire reading list before throwing all my notes away and
then writing up my own analysis and thoughts. Unfortunately I
am no longer afforded the luxury of having all day set aside to
pop down to the Rad Cam or Bodleian, and have other people think
I'm being really good and working hard (when in fact I'm having
the best! fun! ever!).
I commented before that I would prefer to do this quickly. Let
me amend that now (I quickly came to realise that it would not
be possible to do the subject justice!). One comforting this is
that in the midst of background reading I realised that this was
familiar territory for me, and has its roots in the quirky and
rich religious soil of 17th Century England. And now I'm wishing
that I had concentrated on the Muggletonians rather than James
Naylor.
And I do wish that AtS transcripts for eps were as easy to find
as BtVS ones. d'H, could you bring tapes with you to Paris?
Rahael, slightly ashamed and still eager (and apprenhensive)!
[> [> When good series
go bad... -- Sara, 19:41:40 05/10/03 Sat
I can't say I blame you at all, Rah. It's an awful shame but season
7 seems to be "empowerment, what empowerment? How do you
spell that?" and now instead of seeing cliches subverted,
we're seeing the basic message of the show subverted. I'm almost,
kind of holding out judgement until the end, but having been quite
dissapointed with season 6, my expectations are low. Besides,
even if the last episodes turn things around, they can't fix the
inconstancies and missteps of many of this seasons' episodes.
The show has become plot driven rather than character driven,
so nothing builds off the past, because actions exist mainly to
get from plot point A to plot point B. And, by the time we're
driving on down to plot point C, point A is completely irrelevant.
Really, really good tv is kind of like a really long novel, or
even series of novels as compared to movies, which are more like
a short story. For tv to really make it as a form of literature
it has to have the depth, structure and internal logic that makes
the characters real, instead of simply symbols or devices. Buffy
accomplished that in seasons 1-5. Season 6, I felt failed, but
it was a failure of ambition, trying too hard, having too big
a message, and I can respect and admire the attempt. In season
7 they have totally lost track of who the characters are, why
they do what they do, and what the underlying theme of the show
is. Everything the characters do this season seems to either be
totally out of character, where I say "why? why? and again
why?" or behaving in a way that suppports a one line simplistic
summary of who they are in the group. Bah! Humbug!
So, anyway, sorry I'm so rambly (really, really, really tired
after a hard week ending with a hard day, that will turn into
another hard day tomorrow, whine, whine whimper...) But don't
give up your DVD's, the fact that they've lost their way this
season, doesn't negate the quality and depth of previous seasons.
Let's face it, how often when we read a trilogy do we find the
last book isn't quite up to the first two?
So, can we start a posting book club? Who's in? We can take turns
picking out books to read, so we can expand each other's horizons.
I'm really going to miss reading your posts, Rahael, so tell me
what's the first book we should read?
- Sara, who must go to bed now, before she really starts to ramble
on, and on, and on, and on...........
[> [> [> Excellent,
Sara -- Rahael, 09:50:53 05/11/03 Sun
You voice my complaints concisely and fully. This is the frustration
I feel. This is exactly what I was saying to dH last night.
The problem is that I think that its going to colour my view of
characters in the past seasons, just as Darla's charisma and brilliance
in AtS S3 made me see her, and fall for her in a way that would
completely alter her past (not so captivating) appearances. After
I saw mid-season 5, I got to like Spike in a way that I had never
had before, only to reassess (negatively) the character again
in S7.
BtVS used to make my fingers tingle in anticipation of seeing
the latest ep. After watching a couple of eps in a row on a weekend
my mind would be drawn to its dark places, its high emotion. When
I read Joss' AVclub interview where he said that he had designed
BtVS to make people love it in a way that they didn't love other
tv shows, I went "Yes!, so that's what explains it!".
I fell for Buffy the character and everytime I saw SMG's face
as Buffy I would wonder at how she could look so tired, so vulnerable
and yet so strong all at the same time.
In a way I'm spoilt because I've already seen the programme that
should have been Buffy S7. It was a two part drama called the
Second Coming and it was brilliant. (The writer named BtVS as
his favourite contemporary programme.)
So I don't say this to piss off people - I'm just sad to lose
such a rich source of entertainment and thought for me.
On the other hand I saw a really thought provoking, interesting
and compelling dramatisation of Henry V last night at the National
Theatre. Who do we call a hero? How do we define triumphs and
victories and failure? I was reminded last night that the play
ends with a pointed remark that HV's reign was glorious but short,
and his heir, crowned as an infant, made England bleed.
So, maybe I learnt I should get off my backside and learn to exploit
all the great stuff on in London!
And I'm all up for that book club thing! Errr, my choices are
almost always unsuitable so I'm open to any suggestions from other
interested posters!
Rahael, off to sigh over Adrian Lester.
[> [> [> [> I want
to be in the Book Club! -- Tchaikovsky, 10:21:15 05/11/03
Sun
Sorry, these things make me all excited and childish! I've just
read a really weird book called 'Perfume', by Patrick Sueskind,
(should be an umlaut, but can't do them). It's all about somebody
whose entire experience of life is controlled by smell. He appreciates
everything olfactorily. He isn't living in an imaginary world,
it is just that his conception of reality is startlingly different
from everyone else's. It's also a fable about the recluse, the
extraordinary freak, and the exceptional talent, and therefore
crosses paths somewhat with Buffy. Although for Grenouille, morality
is hard to pin down- he has great troubles with abstract nouns,
and this takes the writing to a threatening place. Fascinating
stuff.
Not that I'm imposing or anything...;-). I'm now reading Howards
End. One thing 've learnt is that the title doesn't have an apostrophe.
Another is that EM Forster, who I'd always imagined to be rather
musty and static, like Evelyn Waugh, is actually basically writing
a soap opera which occasionally stops for philosophical meditation.
Which is right up my street.
TCH
[> [> [> [> [>
Perfume! -- Rahael, 11:08:41 05/11/03 Sun
I found Perfume to be very interesting and fascinating too, TCH.
Oh, yes, to both Howards End (I can't make myself read Passage)
and to Waugh, who I love. Handful of Dust is one of my favourite
novels.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Yea Book Club!!!!! Come join! Come join! Come join!
-- Sara, waving flags and banners, in total recruiting mode!,
16:45:36 05/11/03 Sun
Yea Book Club!!!!!! Who else wants to join? "Perfume"
sounds fascinating, and is now wending it's way to my happy home
care of BarnesAndNoble.com. Amazon.com told me it was out of print,
so it just goes to show you can't believe every web page you visit!
I also ordered the "Three Stigmata of Plamer Eldritch"
by Phillip K. Dick, just to get the free shipping, of course.
Perhaps, that should be our second book? Now, Tch and Rahael,
no cheating and talking about it until I catch up and read it!!!!
This is so great, a fabulous treat on a day where I really needed
one!
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> But "Three Stigmata" *scares* Rah!
-- d'Herblay, 17:31:37 05/11/03 Sun
However, I have been thinking about Galactic Pot Healer
in reference to the Jasmine arc . . .
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Well, we certainly don't want to scare Rah!
-- Sara, wondering what kind of nightmares I'm going to have...,
20:11:26 05/11/03 Sun
'Galactic Pot Healer' sounds good too, but I'm easy...it's what
Darbs loves about me! (Easygoing that is, get your minds out of
the gutter, people!!!!!)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> I want to join! -- mamcu, 10:53:26 05/12/03
Mon
I used to be luna, but then the metamorphosis happened...anyway,
I still want to read with you! Tell me how. On this board, or
elsewhere?
But The Three Stigmata... was stolen out of my public library--I
already tried to read in response to somebody's comments here.
Guess I'll try Amazon.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: I want to be in the Book Club! -- Caroline, 08:02:22
05/12/03 Mon
Perfume has become is one of my favourite books. Susskind is a
magnificent writer and I loved his very German way of taking things
to their most extreme, logical conclusion. I was simultaneously
enraptured and grossed out. I also enjoyed Atonement - McEwan's
characters really resonate emotionally with me.
I'd love to discuss books with all of you - I would love to be
part of a regular book discussion
[> [> [> Re: When
good series go bad... -- aliera, 17:05:12 05/11/03 Sun
So, anyway, sorry I'm so rambly (really, really, really tired
after a hard week ending with a hard day, that will turn into
another hard day tomorrow, whine, whine whimper...
Wow, maybe the whole region is under a bad star. Hellmouth nearby?
And I didn't find it too rambly at all and enjoyed hearing your
views... here's hoping that next week brings something unexpected
and wonderful to you Sara.
[> [> [> [> Re:
When good series go bad...(minor spoiler for Touched) -- Sara,
20:28:19 05/11/03 Sun
Thanks for your good hopes for next week, unfortunately pessimism
is today's realism, but I think we'll order chinese food tomorrow
for lunch and that is always a good thing. Chinese food and chocolate
solves many of my worlds ills. Actually, if the slayerettes started
distributing Hershey's bars to the Bringers that might change
the whole balance of power...oh wait, so that's why the tongues
are cut out, now I understand!
[> [> arghh -- WickedBuffy,
17:00:31 05/11/03 Sun
I just got here and all - but without you, my mental and emotional
learning curve is going to suffer immensely. :/
I respect your decison, of course.
In selfish mode, though, I feel like I'm losing something important.
But ultimately, I'm glad you''re taking care of yourself and not
giving up the peace you do have for some tv show. Nope, not worth
it.
ummm... but if your next "big thing" happens to have
a posting board that you will be frequenting again, could you
let me/us know? :D
[> [> [> you have
a very sweet heart too! -- Rahael, 01:01:40 05/12/03 Mon
Now I have moist eyes.
[> [> Rah... -- Rob,
20:24:29 05/12/03 Mon
As you know, I disagree with you about the 7th season. [I'll pause
a moment for you to lift your hand to your mouth in shock.] But
I also want to tell you again just how wonderful it is reading
your posts. You have such an intelligent, passionate voice here
at the board that even when I disagree with your opinions, I can't
help but read and be completely enthralled by your brilliant posts.
And I know I've told you all this before, but I just had to say
it again, because you're just the coolest. I know it, you know
it, everybody here knows it, d'Herb definitely knows it, and that's
just it! ;o)
Btw, I FINALLY got to use those notes you sent me over a year
ago about Cordelia and King Lear in the "Killed by Death"
annotations! That's the episode where she says "If tact is
saying stuff that isn't true, I'll pass!" I've been itching
to use those notes since I started the guide!
Speaking of which, what's your take on Cordy this season on AtS?
Rob
[> [> [> Oh Rob!
-- Rahael, 01:11:09 05/13/03 Tue
I was crying when I clicked on your post but you made me sniffle
in a different way. I owe you so much this morning.
ya know, you defend nearly every ep with equal enthusiasm but
I've been saying to people since Season 6 that you never take
it personally if people criticise an ep you like. I knew when
you disagreed with me about Lies you hadn't changed your opinion
of me. I don't know if that's true about many others.
[> [> [> [> Rah-
-- Arethusa, 04:10:32 05/13/03 Tue
Do you think a difference of opinion could change anyone's opinion
of you? (Hint-it can't.)
But this does give me an idea. If you leave we are free to tell
tales about you to future young ATPOers. Ah yes, we'll say. We
remember when Rahael was a regular poster and not just a series
of brilliant and passionate but archived posts. Alas, a pesky
curse, er, difference of opinion made her leave us. Let this be
a lesson to you, young poster. Never forget how important you
are to us, or you'll miss out on all the fun. And there's not
so much good companionship in this life that we can afford to
let it go a minute before we have to.
[> [> [> [> Aww!
:o) *cyberhugs for Rah* -- Rob (who needs a tissue himself
now!), 07:16:50 05/13/03 Tue
[> Second responses
-- KdS, 04:59:05 05/10/03 Sat
Thanks for all the thought-provoking responses. I note that many
of the responses defending the episode are based around the idea
that Spike was intended to be wrong in his remarks about Nikki,
and that the audience were expected to understand this. It was
suggested that the loss of the trigger was simply down to Spike's
apology to his mother, or simply facing that trauma. The problem
is that the demonstration of the failure of the trigger is so
closely associated with that speech, and Spike's manner throughout
the entire speech is that of someone undergoing a genuine epiphany.
As a result, it is very easy to believe that the speech is the
healing realisation in total. But the biggest problem is that
the delivery is identical to a number of occassions previously
in the series where we are expected to view Spike's insights as
correct or worthy of deep thought. I think it's too sincere and
simple to support dms's preferred interpretation that he's consciously
over-simplifying. dms also argued that the Slayer's position wasn't
analogous to a working mother. I don't believe this either, but
I think the message of the speech was that Spike does. He talks
about Nikki "signing up", suggests that she had a choice
and didn't love Robin enough to make the correct one. And again,
that's bound up into a speech that sounds like a single, homogeneous
epiphany.
About the portrayals of Live!Anne and Nikki - I agree that Nikki
is portrayed in a positive manner in her single flashback. However,
that single scene is in the pre-credit teaser, before any of the
other development of the ep. Given how wrenching the rest of episode
is, that relatively short scene doesn't stick particularly in
the memory the first time of watching, especially if you're totally
unspoiled (which I wasn't). Spike gets the last word, and there's
nothing to balance it. Wood doesn't have any real riposte to him
beyond inarticulate assertions, possibly because he's having the
crap beaten out of him at the time. As far as Anne is concerned,
although she gets praised and Nikki condemned by Spike, I agree
with yab that she's portrayed less sympathetically than Nikki.
I do believe that she could have done more to encourage William
to find his own life in a constructive way, rather than blindly
encouraging him in something she knew he had no talent for.
One point that some of the responses did make me rethink slightly
is my attitude to Giles. What I didn't notice while watching previous
eps is that most of the occasions on which Spike expresses sincere
guilt for his vampiric actions are when he's alone with Buffy.
That doesn't mean, as some people have suggested here, that he
only cares about what he did to Buffy. It's more that in the early
stages of the season he was still so fragile mentally that he
only felt safe to communicate with Buffy, and when he became more
mentally stable he fell back into his old unwillingness to show
weakness. I think that Buffy could have communicated his guilt
more meaningfully to the other Scoobies, but the need to do so
unfortunately coincided with her own public emotional shutdown.
The result is that it's quite plausible that Giles should be unsure
about Spike's reformation, although that in no way excuses going
behind Buffy's back and conspiring to murder an entity apparently
capable of moral agency.
Sophist raised some more specific points which deserve specific
responses, many of them what might be termed meta-points that
go beyond the detailed interpretation of the episode. Specific
rebuttal of these should be taken as a complement to the depth
and unique nature of these arguments, not as some personal hostility
;-). Firstly, I saw Darby's post about the writing of the episode
after posting my own and recognised that it contradicted my conclusions
about who was responsible for what. However, my valuations of
Fury and Goddard had nothing to do with my actual responses to
the ep. Those thoughts were secondary to my moral response to
the ep, and were largely driven by my admiration for Goddard's
earlier work this season, and the fact that my problems with the
episode seemed analogous to other people's difficulties with earlier
Fury scripts. I am not so hostile to Fury that I watch his episodes
with preconceived low expectations of their quality, as I hope
can be seen by my praise, against the current of the board on
its US broadcast, for his work on Release. I now accept
Goddard and Fury's collective responsibility.
Secondly, Sophist claims that the connection between human and
vampire incarnations of the same person is a product solely of
AtS. This ignores the fact that the lines were seriously blurred
in BtVS in Fool for Love, where Spike's own vampiric behaviour
is very obviously linked to the release of moral inhibitions from
his human personality, beliefs and experiences. The key problem
with the "separate universes" argument is the number
of recurring characters who have moved between BtVS and AtS (Faith,
Harmony, Dru, Willow) and been clearly the same character in both
"universes". I personally believe that the number of
scriptwriters who have worked on both, even in the later series
of AtS, and the numerous occasions this year where it has appeared
to me that BtVS and coincident or near-coincident AtS eps have
had similar thematic implications, give me enough justification
to view them as a single universe.
Thirdly, I have to take issue with the following point.
Spike's words in LMPTM that form the core of the criticism
amount to two sentences. That seems like a small hook to hang
such large consequences.
I think that it is quite justified to use those two sentences
as a "hook" where the two sentences form a key part
of a speech which is very clearly presented as the emotional and
thematic pivot of the episode. To take a contrasting example,
I've posted before that I'm uncomfortable with Buffy's "Mahatma
Gandhi" line in Anne. It seems to me that the line
demeans the beliefs of one of the most universally admired figures
of the 20th century merely for a cheap laugh. However, the fact
that it is so obviously a cheap laugh means that I can completely
separate my discomfort with that line from the episode as a whole.
Finally, Sophist talks about the "ironies" of the controversy
over this ep, and the controversy over the DeadEvilLesbian issue.
I don't think that people who complain about this ep are hypocritical
or confused if they take a more charitable view of Tara's death.
Tara's death and Willow's madness only had these extremely negative
connotations when interpreted entirely in the context of external
cultural tropes. There was not a single occasion in earlier episodes
in which any character who was not blatantly villainous, or any
subtext, had argued that their relationship was morally evil because
of their sex, or that gay people in general deserved to die. By
contrast there have been many past occasions in the series in
which speeches delivered by Spike in that calmly musing manner
have been portrayed as valid or entirely justified positions.
Sophist's argument fails to note the difference between internal
patterns and external culture. If the general discontent with
the thrust of S7 that he alludes to is the same position that
I believe it is, then that goes beyond the criticism of Seeing
Red or Lies by criticising what appears to be the core,
deliberate message of the season.
Following on from the end of that paragraph, but more broadly
directed than to the points raised by Sophist, I'm not arguing
Goddard and Fury of deliberately promoting such opinions. Rather,
I'm suggesting that they were either irresponsible or incompetent
in allowing them to be drawn from the episode. I'm willing to
view this episode as an isolated example of a script that went
seriously haywire. I would like to make a small challenge to the
people who defended the episode to describe, in a paragraph, what
they saw as the specific wider moral and philosophical point made
by the episode. If the intent was merely to create moral ambiguity
or achieve character development, then I see the issues as too
disturbing and socially relevant to responsibly use for such purposes.
[> [> Excellent --
Rahael, 06:42:19 05/10/03 Sat
[> [> I'm going to give
it a try. -- Darby, 08:52:58 05/10/03 Sat
Keep in mind, I don't think that the writing or plotting has met
BtVS standards this season, but there are reasons that this episode
didn't bother me that much in retrospect.
I believe the title is a misdirect, that the episode really is
Lies I Tell Myself About My Parents. It delves into the
near-impossibility of many children really understanding the motivations
of their parents, and of how as we get older, we may start to
think that we understand, but our own notions weigh us down.
Buffy sees her relationship with Giles as a competition, while
Giles begins to doubt that he has really prepared her for this
tough road. Giles, quite rightly, deserves to be a partner in
this fight, but Buffy sees every comment as a threat to her position
(a position she really doesn't want or feels she deserves, which
makes it all the more precarious). As he did with Ben, Giles is
ready to take the immoral action for the longterm good, since
Buffy's innate goodness and trust precludes her acting. This time
he doesn't hide what he has done from her, feeling that she needs
to face such things. Buffy sees his act as a betrayal based upon
jealousy and a lack of respect. Giles felt that she trusted Spike
too much, but he's just succeeded in eliminating her trust in
Giles.
Spike and Wood both see their mothers through a thick prism of
distance and confusion, since both Anne and Nikki acted in a way
that made no sense to their sons at the time. What Spike had to
do to his mum and what Nikki, to Wood's mind, did to herself,
both undermined their trust that their mothers loved them, and
was something they had carried ever since. I think we were meant
to know that both mothers were devoted but in the clutches of
a power much greater than they could control which tore them away.
Both men were led to an epiphany in Robin's garage, but I don't
think that either "revelation" was meant to be a true
interpretation of what their parents really felt - it was what
they needed to think about their parents. But Wood's reconciliation
was undermined by Spike's rage and ability to hurt him mentally
more than he ever could physically. And how much are we supposed
to think Wood believed of what Spike said, anyway-?
From the outside, I think that we were supposed to see that Buffy
should continue to trust Giles' motivations if not his actions;
that Spike, with some distance on his own demon-only self, is
starting to reinterpret what being a vamp really means (how else
can he live with himself and not be Angel?), but he is ignoring
facts that he knows to be true; that Robin, who lost his mother
too early to really know her at all, is starting to lose trust
in the mission that he saw as her only legacy.
The flippant dismissal of Spike of his years of killing is, I
think, supposed to be part of the path to absolving Vamp/Mother/Anne
of any culpability in how she treated him. I don't see it as a
rewriting of canon (although I'm having trouble with the lack
of difference between William and NewSpike), just a new aspect
of Spike's persona that will need to be dealt with. There must
be a reason why folks think Spike would be an interesting guest,
maybe even a semi-regular (not a spoiler, just an issue of discussion)
on future Angels.
And let me add my voice to those who will be sorry to lose Rahael's
perspective on the wind-down of Buffy, but I understand
the reaction when something goes too far, betrays your personal
connection too strongly. Hang in there on Angel, though,
which I feel is doing the storyline that the end of Buffy should
have been, and please contribute!
[> [> Striking while
the irony is hot. -- Sophist, 09:56:14 05/10/03 Sat
I suspect this will be my last post on this issue, since I have
little more to say. Hold the applause.
I'm not going to go into the details of analyzing LMPTM. That
has already been done much better than I could by many other posters,
Darby most recently. My points were intended as meta-, as you
rightly noted.
I'm only going to comment on seasonal arcs and the comparisons
to S6:
Your entire argument relies on an expressed certainty about some
"message" in S7. IMHO, until the season ends you
don't know what the message is. There have been too many occasions
in the past when ME has subverted expectations for me to claim
to know, in mid-season, what message they intend.
As I've said before, I took the same view in S6 with respect to
the MagiCrack storyline. I was sure that ME was going to subvert
that at the end and make everything right. When they didn't, I
became the most obnoxious critic of that arc. Fury hath no Hell
like a Sophist scorned.
It may be that at the end of S7 we'll all join together in denouncing
aspects of S7. It may be that we'll all be standing in awe of
their accomplishments. Until May 20, there's just no point in
taking irrevocable stands.
My only other comment involves what I see as your serious
misunderstanding of the controversy over SR and stereotypes. You
have treated the Dead Lesbian issue as ending with Tara's
death. In fact, it began at that point. Willow's vengeance
rampage thereafter was part and parcel of the criticism.
Willow's story arc was one of the two major storylines of S6.
By comparison, Spike's attitude towards women or mothers is a
footnote. Every point you made in your penultimate paragraph,
I see as supporting the criticisms of SR and undermining your
own of LMPTM. That's irony.
[> [> [> Spike's epiphany/
lack thereof (Lies, AtS up to Players no further, but future series
spec) -- Abby, 11:01:01 05/10/03 Sat
Like Darby, I saw this episode as being about the interpretations
of the mother's love by Spike and Wood, not an intended judgement
by the writers, and therefore everything the two said was subjective
and not supposed to be trusted.
Now onto the epiphany. I am nearly certain that this is not supposed
to be resoltution, or confirmation of the idea of split and distinct
demon/human personality, no matter what Spike's delusion implies,
for several concrete reasons:
*The flashback showed us clearly that the human lasts into the
vampire. We saw Spike's love continue, his personality informing
the demon as with every other vampire we have been shown in the
entire history of the show* If anything, the juxtaposition of
Spike's denial with his own behaviour is reiteration that he is
not completely addressing his mother's 'truth'.
(*In my memory: Holden, Harmony, Angel, Dru, etc)
*Plot device. The trigger needed to be deactivated, try hard and
you could view the trigger as deriving from Spike's trauma at
his mother apparently not loving him. His 'epiphany' could be
merely realisation that she did love him IN LIFE, even if he is
denying the other aspects of her personality that emerged as a
vampire. Whatever the failings of the writers' attempts -which
you all have addressed-, the deactiviation was obviously important
enough that this episode got through, regardless of the half-answers
it provides.
*I believe the flashbacks were the first step back into Spike's
mother relationship, initiated to link into later guest or regular
appearences in spin-off / angel (hopeful thinking that he won't
be sacrificed before the show's end- don't think they would remove
a character with such potential to make the transition and stir
it up with Angel). They can't/won't want to develop his character
too much with the possibility of spin-off in future.
*This links into my opinion that it would be unbelievable for
Spike to have full understanding of the vamp/human personality
link. In Angel we're seeing the addressing of Angel/Angelus and
their links in his fourth solo series, and after a lot more than
Spike's few months of souldom. Spike's journey to address and
integrate his demon and man is not going to happen in the few
remaining episodes of Buffy, nor would I want it to be.
I know that POV justification does not cut it for everyone, but
I'm willing to suspend my anger until I see it all played out.
I don't think that the writers would intend to promote the demon/human
split since every evidence we've seen is contrary. Finally I believe
that the continuance of Spike's denial fits: he's been told to
'get back in the game' and so in order to suspend the pain and
guilt he is clinging to the idea of separation- him not being
responsible for the crimes of his past.
[> [> I think that you
have missed a rather subtle point... -- Caroline, 13:45:12
05/12/03 Mon
about Spike's speech. He was being a truthteller. The truth he
was telling was what Wood had feared all his life - that his mother
chose her mission above him, that she didn't love him or didn't
love him enough. It wasn't the literal truth, as we can
see from the flashbacks because it appeared to me that Nikki was
very solicitous of her young son. But it was young Robin's truth
and that is what has driven Robin's behaviour ever since then.
And Spike should know - his own behaviour for the last 100 years
was driven by his response to his mother's words and actions.
I think the reason that Wood is quite inarticulate at this stage
is not just that he's having the crap beaten out of him, it's
that he is being assaulted by many emotions, not the least of
which is the truth of Spike's words as the concern him and what
has driven and motivated his behaviour for a very long time. Praise
to both Goddard and Fury for a very subtle and psychologically
insightful scene.
[> [> [> Confused
by this argument -- KdS, 15:44:53 05/12/03 Mon
Thanks for this clarification that you believe Spike's words and
Wood's fears are false, because I nearly posted something very
hostile based on your earlier post in response to Plin. But why
is it psychologically helpful to Wood to hear his worst fears,
which you argue are intended to be seen as incorrect, spat in
his face by his mother's murderer? Why is it therapeutic if those
misconceptions and those fears are being reinforced, instead of
dispelled? If you're arguing that Wood was supposed to recognise
Spike as evil and therefore recognise the falsity of those fears,
why is the scene framed so as to imply that Spike is telling the
absolute truth? And if things are this complicated, isn't it irresponsible
not to consider the possiblity that the average viewer might view
Spike's words as the absolute truth, with all their deeply unpleasant
implications about Nikki's choices and worth as a person?
[> [> [> [> Reverse
psychology and tough love? -- WickedBuffy, 18:07:12 05/12/03
Mon
[> [> [> [> Re:
Confused by this argument -- Caroline, 20:22:49 05/12/03
Mon
I am very glad that you did not respond in a hostile manner -
I certainly would not have responded to you if you had. I would
hope that we each have the right to our views and to debate our
views and even to express amazement at each others views, as long
as it's done politely.
But you are confused my argument. I do not say Spike's words and
Wood's fears are false. I do not say it is psychologically helpful
to Wood to hear this. I say that Spike is telling Wood the truth
about Wood's (perhaps unconscious) psychological motivation for
his behaviour since his mother's death. In your 'Second response'
post, you stated that you didn't accept the argument that Spike's
words about Nikki were intended to be wrong and that you were
uncomfortable with the 'truths' that Spike was telling because
his delivery was like other times when we were expected to consider
his words as worthy of deeper thought. My response basically is
that he was telling a 'truth' - the truths of Robin's deepest
fears. As you rightly say and as I argued in a thread I started
at the time the ep aired, we don't know enough about Nikki to
judge if Spike is literally right and the little we see of Nikki,
IMHO, is positive. What we see is Spike telling Robin's truths
and fears about his mother, not the literal, actual truth of Nikki's
feelings towards her son.
However, I will now argue that it would be psychologically helpful
if Wood can see what his obsession has done to his life and his
behaviour, the damage it has done and then he can salvage it.
Sometimes the truth does hurt - and sometimes it is our enemies
that have the greatest insight into us - precisely because we
and our enemies are often very similar. The scene with Robin and
Nikki tells us so much more about Robin than it does about Wood
- his own needs, fears and desires. But the poor little boy loses
his mother, is scarred for life and his life is then ruled by
a vendetta to avenge his mother's death. His whole life is ruled
by it and it may not be psychologically healthy. And someone else
whose behaviour has also been ruled by the scars of his interaction
with his mother tells Wood the deal. Furthermore, the vampire
who killed his mother no longer exists, he has transformed into
a soulled being with a conscience. (Wood knows this, which is
why he had to trigger the vamp in Spike and not kill the soulled
being. This is why I don't have the same level of emotion as you
do about Wood being informed by his mother's killer.) IMHO, that's
what makes this scene so powerful and it parallels the epiphany
that Spike undergoes. Thus my admiration for the writers.
As for the responsibility of the writers - if I wanted them to
write for the lowest common denominator, I 'd go watch another
show. I come to BtVS precisely because of this psychological complexity.
I don't want the writers to water it down for me or the so-called
'average viewer' (hmmm - don't think there is an average viewer
of BtVS - I had a boring work thing to attend and had a great
time 'cos I spent the evening with my boss's teenage children
and we discussed Buffy all night and I was amazed and pleased
at the extent of their insight). I want them to tell the story
they want to tell. They have brought Spike on an amazing journey
and I feel that I have been going on that journey with them. Just
as we have the 'right' (if that's the right word) to interpret
the text as we wish, the writers have the right to present their
text and their intent to us.
[> [> [> [> [>
Agree...very well said. -- s'kat, 21:27:30 05/12/03
Mon
This has got to stop, I've agreed with literally everything you've
said on LMPTM, Caroline. Beginning to think you have the psychological
components of the episode nailed.
I think this is the best analysis I've seen of the psychology
at work on Wood and Spike:
What we see is Spike telling Robin's truths and fears about
his mother, not the literal, actual truth of Nikki's feelings
towards her son.
However, I will now argue that it would be psychologically helpful
if Wood can see what his obsession has done to his life and his
behaviour, the damage it has done and then he can salvage it.
Sometimes the truth does hurt - and sometimes it is our enemies
that have the greatest insight into us - precisely because we
and our enemies are often very similar. The scene with Robin and
Nikki tells us so much more about Robin than it does about Wood
- his own needs, fears and desires. But the poor little boy loses
his mother, is scarred for life and his life is then ruled by
a vendetta to avenge his mother's death. His whole life is ruled
by it and it may not be psychologically healthy. And someone else
whose behaviour has also been ruled by the scars of his interaction
with his mother tells Wood the deal. Furthermore, the vampire
who killed his mother no longer exists, he has transformed into
a soulled being with a conscience. (Wood knows this, which is
why he had to trigger the vamp in Spike and not kill the soulled
being. This is why I don't have the same level of emotion as you
do about Wood being informed by his mother's killer.)
Wonderfully said. Wonder if once the season is over - you'd be
interested in expanding on the psychology of Robin Wood?
I also very strongly agree with this:
As for the responsibility of the writers - if I wanted them
to write for the lowest common denominator, I 'd go watch another
show. I come to BtVS precisely because of this psychological complexity.
I don't want the writers to water it down for me or the so-called
'average viewer' (hmmm - don't think there is an average viewer
of BtVS - I had a boring work thing to attend and had a great
time 'cos I spent the evening with my boss's teenage children
and we discussed Buffy all night and I was amazed and pleased
at the extent of their insight). I want them to tell the story
they want to tell. They have brought Spike on an amazing journey
and I feel that I have been going on that journey with them. Just
as we have the 'right' (if that's the right word) to interpret
the text as we wish, the writers have the right to present their
text and their intent to us.
There are far too many tv shows on at the moment that go for the
lowest common denominator. They restate their point three times,
usually with a speech at the end. Btvs and Ats have been my oasis
in a desert for quite a while. As a close friend of mine stated
once - you need a community to really appreciate the layers. Can't
say that about most television.
At any rate, I've been enjoying your posts on this topic.
Thank you for them.
SK
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Thanks very much s'kat (and to kDs and Yaby) -- Caroline,
06:41:14 05/13/03 Tue
I'm normally not one to hammer on a point and just take up board
space on one point but for some reason I felt the need to keep
going until we has some understanding, even though I may have
to now agree to disagree with the London board contingent!! I
guess I've been doing this because I'd hate to see people burned
by the show so late in the game and take away some bad feelings
when they are only 5 episodes from the end. I know how much of
a wonderful experience being a viewer of the show and a participant
on this board has been for me and I'd hate for anyone to be upset
or let down after 6.5 of the most wonderful seasons of any show
on television. Rah, kDs and Yaby - I hope that things start looking
up for you guys so that we all can end this season and the series
on a high.
[> [> [> [> [>
Thank you very much, Caroline -- KdS, 01:41:32 05/13/03
Tue
For explanations of what I thought you were saying and why it
upset me, see my reply to Plin just below.
Thanks for explaining your argument in enough detail for me to
fully understand it. I think it's a respectable argument, although
it really hasn't changed my opinions about the ep. I hope that
you won't be offended if I suggest we agree to disagree.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Confused by this argument -- yabyumpan, 02:13:58
05/13/03 Tue
For me, the biggest problem I have with seeing Spike a the 'truth
teller' is that he doesn't seem to me to be telling the truth
to himself. I can't remember the exact quote and I can't access
psyche's site right now, but doesn't Spike say something about
he knows his mother loved him now because it was just the demon
saying the hurtful things? If Spike can't see that his VampMother
was telling him truths that his non-vampmother couldn't, then
I just can't give any credence to the idea that he would be able
to see Wood clearly enough to be a credable 'truth-teller'.
However, I will now argue that it would be psychologically
helpful if Wood can see what his obsession has done to his life
and his behaviour, the damage it has done and then he can salvage
it.
I don't actually see Wood as that damaged or overly obsessive.
Maybe if he'd spent his life as a 'lone demon hunter' I would
agree, but he's clearly made a life for himself outside of that.
He's a school principal, that's not something you just step into
(well not in the UK, I presume in the US you would have to go
through teacher training and years of experience before you reach
that level as well). He hasn't been activley hunting Spike down
all these years and although he did come to SD for Buffy, he was
shocked to find Spike there. Yes, he is a 'Vampire killer', but
he was brought up by a watcher so it's not very surprising that
he took that on board as well.
I saw that reaslising that he was close to his mother's killer
brought all the old pain and grief to the surface. Yes, there
may be 'abandonment' issues regarding his mother but I think the
real issue is that his mother's killer is there, swaggering around
in her coat. Yes, Spike has a soul now but I would liken it to
meeting your mother's murderer, who had killed when he was high
on drugs. The fact that he may now be 'clean' wouldn't take away
the pain and anger of what he did.
[> [> [> [> Confused
by the hostility -- Plin, 23:40:48 05/12/03 Mon
I have to admit that I'm at a loss as to how Caroline's reply
to my earlier post, or my post itself, could arouse hostility.
I don't understand what is controversial about stating that a
little boy suffered because he feared his mother didn't love him
enough, even though there's every evidence she did. Wasn't he
the typical age at which children suffer separation anxiety regarding
their parents? I think any young child, perhaps especially a four-year-old,
would be traumatized and confused by the death of a parent. In
Wood's special circumstances, he was able to transfer his fears
to the "mission," and these fears have colored every
aspect of his life since then. That's my perception of the scene,
and it certainly wasn't my intention to come across as antagonizing
towards others who don't share it.
At the same time, though, I guess I have to go back to the original
premise of that post, and repeat that we have no control over
what other people might take away from our words. At least in
a dialogue-based forum we can (try to) correct misperceptions
and attempt to reach some kind of shared understanding, even if
we remain in disagreement. We come here because we can't talk
to the characters themselves and ask them about their motivations
(well, if you're like me, you try, but I almost never get a response!).
[> [> [> [> [>
To Plin and Caroline -- KdS, 01:38:49 05/13/03 Tue
Plin, I think you misunderstood me, didn't say I felt hostile
to your post. Caroline, regarding your post, it upset me because
when you talked about Spike's psychological insight and what Wood
needed to hear, I thought that you were arguing that Nikki unambiguously
didn't love Robin as much as she should have and that Robin needed
to hear that. It was exactly the possibility that the episode
would be seen as expressing that that motivated my, and I think
Rah and yab's hostility to the ep, for reasons which have been
expressed too often on the ep's US broadcast and now to go into
again.
[> Response (no spoilers)
-- LittleBit, 16:17:47 05/10/03 Sat
I had this reaction to a portion of your post when I first read
it, but thought perhaps it was just an initial response so I waited
a day and find, after reading the follow-up post, that the reaction
is still as strong.
I am not replying to your assessment of the actual episode but
to the comments you make that address issues surrounding that
episode.
I am feeling insulted that you are implying that I, who was totally
unspoiled, would not be able to balance the scenes as they were
presented, draw my own conclusions about the dialogue based on
context and character development or to see the larger picture
as presented.
"Many fan still appear to hold to the S4-5 implication
of Spike as the demonic teller of uncomfortable truths, but nevertheless
truths. There is considerable evidence in S6 and early S7 to suggest
a new paradigm in which many of Spike's past speeches are re-evaluated
as the result of a demonic and therefore unduly negative judgement
of human nature, not to mention a certain amount of projection
and conscious manipulation. However, it is an act of gross irresponsibility
to place such dynamite opinions in the mouth of a morally ambiguous
character when there is clear evidence that large numbers of people
do not recognise that character's moral ambiguity."
I do not understand the logic of this statement. If there is,
as you acknowledge, considerable evidence that the writers
have altered a paradigm not just recently but over the course
of more than a season and a half, then I do not see how it follows
that the writers have a responsibility to viewers who are unable
or unwilling to follow that change. Would it have made a difference
if the words had been placed in the mouth of a non-morally ambiguous
character? We have seen a working mother on this show, one whose
daughter slipped out nearly every night to wander around in cemeteries.
Open your eyes, Mom. What do you think
has been going on for the past two years?
The fights, the weird occurrences.
How many times have you washed blood out of my clothing,
and you still haven't figured it out?
- Becoming, part 2 - Joss Whedon -
Did Joyce, a working mother, not love her daughter enough to notice
what was happening in her life? Should she have stopped working
to show that she loved her enough? We now know far better than
that, but at that point we knew Joyce cared but hadn't seen the
close relationship yet, the one forged after Joyce knew what was
happening in her daughter's life.
"I'm not arguing Goddard and Fury of deliberately promoting
such opinions. Rather, I'm suggesting that they were either irresponsible
or incompetent in allowing them to be drawn from the episode."
I don't believe that a writer ever "allows" a viewer
to draw a conclusion. All they do is present the story, with context
and the viewer draws his or her own conclusion. As you state in
your first post, there are those who refuse to recognize a change
relating to one of the characters. Recognizing character development
is not, and in my opinion should not be, the responsibility of
the writer, but of the viewer. In that absence, having a narrative
announcement that there has been a change would not make a difference.
[> [> Apologies --
KdS, 03:48:18 05/11/03 Sun
Please accept my sincere apologies if you felt that I was insulting
your intelligence or sensitivity. I've been impressed by many
of your previous writings on this board, and I never intended
to offend you.
You believe that writers have no responsibility for unintended
viewer responses. I believe that, to an extent, they do. I think
both our positions on this are sufficiently strongly held that
we should agree to disagree.
[> [> Completely agree,
Bit -- Caroline, 08:27:47 05/12/03 Mon
[> maybe I missed this?
-- anom, 22:56:28 05/11/03 Sun
"Another serious problem in relation to Spike's epiphany
and moral development is his continued claim of moral equivalency
with Nikki and that his killing of her was mere self-defence."
I didn't hear anything Spike said as claiming this--only that
both of them were playing their roles as vampire & Slayer. Can
you quote something to support this?
"As others pointed out on the board, Nikki would not have
been attacking him if he had not been killing and eating innocent
people, while he would clearly have killed Nikki even if she wasn't
a Slayer."
She might never have known he was killing people, or even that
he existed, if he hadn't, as he says in the teaser, come looking
for her (can't remember for sure, does he say he came to NY to
find her? in any case, he specifically sought her out because
she was the Slayer). And while he might well have killed Nikki
if he'd run across her by coincidence, if she hadn't been a Slayer,
they might never have crossed paths, or he might have chosen a
different target.
Current board
| More May 2003