May 2003 posts
Follow-up to anti-Spike Salon.com article: Letters
in Response -- Rob, 11:14:59 05/16/03 Fri
Salon.com posted viewer responses, and most were similar to most
responses we got here last week:
http://www.salon.com/ent/letters/2003/05/14/spike/index.html
May 14, 2003
Jaime J. Weinman makes a good point about coolness, and Spike
ruining the last season of "Buffy," although of course
Spike isn't really bad, he's just badly written. The most interestingly
written character this season is the far-from-cool Andrew: I'm
in mourning for the rest of the cast.
On the other hand, Spike used to be cool and well-written. So
was Oz. So I think the real problem must be the terrible, horrible,
untrue-to-the-characters story lines.
Last season, Willow was (at least half of the time) badly written.
This season, everybody, all of the time, except for Andrew and
Anya, is boring, mopey and prone to President Bush-style speechmaking.
Boring, boring, boring! Even the villains are boring. I loathe
Marti Noxon. Bad writing is worse than a stake through the heart.
-- Kelly Link
Jaime Weinman's lament about Spike's alleged "ruining"
of Buffy fails to take into account an important detail: The Scoobies
aren't in high school anymore. Weinman is longing for a show that
hasn't existed for several seasons, not just this one. Willow
is now an überwitch, Xander has become a kind of unofficial
watcher, and even annoying little Dawn suddenly knows how to kick
ass. How is all this Spike's fault?
I happen to disagree with Weinman's assessment of the show as
well as Spike's role in it. While many programs have "jumped
the shark," and Buffy has veered dangerously close to doing
that throughout its run (see any episode with the Initiative),
Whedon and Company have always pulled it back from the brink brilliantly.
In fact, Buffy is going out on a high note. Has there been a villain
as straight-up creepy as Caleb in recent memory? I think not.
And the First's ability to exploit the emotional chinks in the
gang's armor is also quite chilling, recalling Hannibal Lecter's
onion-stripping assessment of Clarice Starling during their first
meeting.
As for Spike, Weinman sees him all wrong. Spike has never been
the "cool guy" as she claims. He's the uncool guy trying
to BE the cool guy. In life Spike was William, a pathetic milquetoast
who couldn't have gotten laid in a whorehouse. His afterlife has
been spent trying to reinvent himself, and after he regains his
soul we once again see the insecure man he once was, now trying
to live with his carnage. Sure he has his James Dean moments,
but that's clearly not who Spike is.
Spike's transformation has been one of the most interesting aspects
of the show, and he fits in perfectly with Weinman's celebration
of the uncool. He's way off base on this score.
-- Todd Prepsky
I would just like to briefly comment on the article by Jaime Weinman.
I'm sorry that the writer has so grossly misunderstood the show
that he attempts to critique.
I began watching the show only because of Spike. His story resonated
with me because, despite his bravado, Spike is truly the outsider.
He is the one with his face pressed against the glass looking
into the world that Buffy shares with her friends and wanting
to be a part of that with her. He is the one who has suffered
the pain of being an outcast in the face of the mocking and disdain
of the core-four clique. He has been the butt of their jokes and
the punching bag for the resolution of Buffy's Season 6 self-hatred
issues.
Spike's journey in the name of love is the most impressive story
line I have seen on television and is worthy of all the praise
that has been heaped on James Marsters for his portrayal of Spike.
To dismiss Spike's story with the overused Fonzie comparison is
to truly deny oneself the pleasure of watching the story of a
character of true depth and beauty unfold. I'm sorry Jaime Weinman
can't see the beauty while wearing the blinders that are so prevalent
on Television Without Pity as well.
-- Laura Adelmann
I just wanted to express my support for Jaime J. Weinman's article
about the rise of Spike-decline of "Buffy" correlation.
I can imagine he has been besieged by abusive and incoherent rants
that berate him for daring to question the presence of this hunka
hunka burning love and redemption figure on television.
The presence of Spike on the show has been, from the end of Season
2 on, an obvious manifestation of the desires of the producers
to work with sexy James Marsters and his willingness to work shirtless.
I grudgingly admit, over the years, the use of Spike has had some
interesting results. The sexual relationship with Buffy in Season
6 was well portrayed by Sarah Michelle Gellar as a symptom of
deep self-loathing and depression. It was heartbreaking, but I
felt like I was supposed to think it was H-O-T.
Spike's had some funny lines over the years, but I'd sacrifice
them all to keep the focus on the core-four cast members, whose
characterizations in the present season have been reduced to agents
of plot movement and ridiculous exposition. Buffy's focus on Spike
in the face of his conscious and unconscious decisions to hurt
and kill, blindly supporting him against the wary protests of
her closest friends, has made her a completely unlikable character
to me -- something unthinkable for me before this season.
And I feel better knowing that I'm not alone in blaming Spike,
because he ruins everything he touches.
-- Nora McGunnigle
I have watched "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" from its beginning
and have read thousands of articles written about the show. NEVER
have I been so upset about what someone, who is obviously so one-minded,
that I've actually seen red!
The character of Spike is so much more than what the writer of
this article states him as. I have watched Spike's development
over the years and if anything, he HAS proven that a soulless
evil demon CAN CHANGE. There was no reason for this change, other
than his love for Buffy. He has repeatedly gone completely against
his nature (evil souless creature) and proved himself in more
ways than one.
Spike has ALWAYS showed more humanity than any other vampire on
the show or of any mentioned. He has shown his ability to love
and has worn his heart on his sleeve countless times. That fact
alone sets him apart from all the others.
The quest to regain his soul was in itself an act that goes against
everything he is. An evil soulless creature that "should
not" care one way or the other, but he did and does. Why?
Because of the love for a woman who cannot return his love because
of moral issues. He did not regain his soul for any other reason
than to prove to Buffy that he does indeed love her. To show her
he CAN be a good man despite what he is.
James Marsters is a brilliant actor who has created a character
with more depth than any other on the show in my opinion. He cannot
be faulted for his ability to bring a character to life and to
create a fan base for that character. There are people who hate
Spike, and that is their right to do so, just as it is mine to
love the character. For the author of your article to personally
attack James Marsters for his ability to "act" and bring
his character to life is a low blow.
The development of Spike over the years has been what kept me
interested in the show. I doubt very seriously I would have continued
watching if it weren't for the Spike story line. The chemistry
between James Marsters and Sarah Michelle Gellar was amazing to
watch and I will miss it. And as for Spike ... I'll be tuning
in each week to catch him on "Angel," to see where he
goes and what happens next. A character like that won't be forgotten
and I'm sure thousands will agree with me.
-- Rhonda Hefner
Jaime J. Weinman makes some very interesting and valid points
in his article "Why Spike ruined 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer,'"
and this is not a letter calling for the "all shirtless Spike,
all the time" show. However, I think she misses one central
issue that Spike's back story has brought out beautifully: Spike
was a geek and he retains a good part of that geekiness inside
his sleek, platinum exterior.
When he was mortal, he wrote bad poetry, doted on his mother,
and generally had no clue how to act around women. Hell, the "cool
kids" made fun of him and his nickname "William the
Bloody" originally referred to his writing being "bloody
awful." When Spike gets to join the popular gang (Angel,
Darla and Drusilla), he tries over and over to prove himself worthy
-- he affects his cockney accent, starts smoking, dresses better,
has lots of sex with Dru, but it doesn't, truly, make him fit
in. He's with the popular gang because the beautiful psycho girl
likes him, not because he, himself, is cool.
If Spike really were a jackass who hated the nerds, would he have
felt genuinely sorry for Anya when Xander (in a fit of horrid
cowardice) left her at the altar, or found Willow hottest when
she wore the "fuzzy pink number"? In many ways, Spike
is the outsider among the in group. He speaks the truth when no
one wants to hear it, he ineptly, and, at points, disturbingly
demonstrates his obsession with Buffy, and he plays on every "cool
guy" cliché without ever making it work out exactly
right.
Don't blame Spike for the decline in the show. Underneath the
leather and the tight pants and the punk rock, he's still the
sad, bad poet trying to win the girl.
-- Alice Stanulis
I agree with much of your article -- but you are forgetting how
Spike began -- as a poetry-reading, mouth-breathing Mama's boy,
universally humiliated by women. (He still has a twisted addiction
to being beaten on emotionally and physically by women, Buffy
and Drusilla being cases in point.) He is as much of a reinvented
character is Willow is -- the leather jacket is a facade. The
difference is, we got to witness Willow's transformation firsthand.
And therein lies the problem -- we don't get to witness anything
firsthand anymore. Anything that passes for human interaction,
we are told about, not shown, and there's no growth, just repetition
(Willow's Kennedy "thing" -- I can't call it a relationship
-- for starters). We are hit over the head with anything the writers
want us to know through the characters' exposition rather than
watching it unfold ourselves. They've begun talking everything
to death on "Buffy" even worse than on "Charmed."
(Not to mention the gross errors of continuity the writers have
allowed through -- sending characters traipsing through an Initiative
that was supposed to be "destroyed and filled with cement.")
The show has suffered dreadfully and perhaps irredeemably the
past two seasons, but I can't blame Spike all alone.
-- C. Lofters
Mr. Weinman, I imagine today's e-mail bag is stuffed fulla unfriendly
messages from folks who just can't bear you shedding the harsh
light of day on beloved "Buffy." The show, they'll argue,
is just like it was -- no, better! Well, take heart, Mr. Weinman,
this isn't one of those letters. I think the show has changed.
Praise for uncool kids, meant to counterbalance their constant
denigration, is almost always founded on some expectation of future
retribution and assimilation: When you're rich and handsome, oh
spotty nerd, then you'll show 'em. And sure enough, some of those
geeks grow into handsome lawyers and swanky socialites. But what
about those that don't? What happens to the poor saps who didn't
fit in then and can't fit in now? Well, I suppose they write articles
like yours.
You're right, "Buffy's" characters have changed. Joss
Whedon's famous theme for the sixth season was "Oh, grow
up!" By then, the Scoobies had literally and metaphorically
overcome social isolation and needed to move into adulthood, which
may be less romantic and more ambiguous, but no less terrifying.
Appropriately, that season's big bad villains were three boys
who couldn't face these challenges, who still dreamed of fighting
high school battles for high school fantasies. Should the show
have defended the left behind? That would've justified the chronically
uncool, but would it have been right, for its characters or us?
Don't we ever get to grow up?
"Buffy's" greatness never rested in its allegiance to
those that don't fit in; rather, it constantly delighted because
it forced its characters to grow, and allowed them to fail. Even
in its final seasons, the show presented choices we'd rather ignore.
And between change and stasis, I'd choose change. Because we have
no choice.
-- Jeremy Eric Tenenbaum
There is a whole faction of Buffy fans who hate Spike. I don't,
because except for Xander, Spike is the only character who can
make me laugh.
Spike didn't ruin the show. We have the lack of an engaging plot,
the lack of an interesting villain, an overcrowding of faceless
girls who are simply there to be killed off, and an unlikable
heroine; but it's all Spike's fault?
Willow's character was neutered in Season 6 with her ridiculous
"addiction to magic," which in Season 7 became something
else entirely, but with the same result -- she's afraid to help
out. Seriously, if Willow wasn't afraid to use her magic, she
could solve all the problems Buffy is having in one episode. So
just to keep the plot going, Willow's sidelined.
Xander has always been the bravest person on the show. He has
no special powers and doesn't have a vampire's strength and agility,
yet he throws himself into every battle without hesitation. This
is still the case, but when they focus on Xander's personal life
it's all Anya, Anya, Anya. How is that Spike's fault, again? And
speaking of mass murderers ...
Don't forget that Anya and Andrew are both killers. Andrew is
a personal favorite of mine, but he had a very important episode
this season in which he faced the reality of his deeds. He's not
just some brave geek whom people unfairly scorn. They don't trust
him because of his past. At least that story line came to some
kind of resolution when Buffy suspended him over the hell mouth!
Anya, just one season ago, killed a houseful of frat boys. She
faced no comeuppance other than the death of a friend and the
loss of her demon status, and nobody has forced her to face anything
except that she has friends.
I, too, am upset about the scene that was cut from "Beneath
You." But it's the least of the problems the show has this
season. The show hasn't done the most it could do with any of
the characters, including Spike.
And one last thing. Spike was also a misfit -- before he was a
vampire. This was established in Season 4 or 5. The revelations
in recent episodes concerning Spike's past do not necessarily
contradict what came before. I wouldn't be surprised if Joss Whedon
planned a lot of the current Spike story line from the very beginning.
-- Helen Mazarakis
[> Thanks for posting these,
Rob -- Scroll, 12:04:21 05/16/03 Fri
I find myself teetering back and forth on this issue. Reading
everybody's defence of Spike, I remember how much I've always
loved his fun and his snark, the way he was an outsider and a
"self-made man". On the other hand, I agree that the
writers haven't written Spike as wisely as they could have, to
the detriment of Spike, the other characters, and the show itself.
(Also agree Willow was written fairly haphazardly in S6 as well.)
Granted sometimes a break-out character will simply capture the
imaginations of the writers, and the creative flow just can't
be stopped. But I admit (my own personal opinion) that
I've found Buffy's focus on Spike in the middle part of this season
quite tiresome. So yes, I do wish the "core-four" could
interact more, and that Dawn or Anya could have more to do.
As for Spike, Weinman sees him all wrong. Spike has never been
the "cool guy" as she claims. He's the uncool guy trying
to BE the cool guy. In life Spike was William, a pathetic milquetoast
who couldn't have gotten laid in a whorehouse. His afterlife has
been spent trying to reinvent himself, and after he regains his
soul we once again see the insecure man he once was, now trying
to live with his carnage. Sure he has his James Dean moments,
but that's clearly not who Spike is. [...]
-- Todd Prepsky
I agree with this assessment entirely. Spike's (perhaps unconscious)
desire to reinvent himself, to move away from William the Bloody
Awful Poet, has been one of the highlights of his character. I
love him for it. JM has brought a lot of depth to Spike by showing
glimpses of the nerd beneath the cool guy exterior. (Though sometimes
I wonder if Spike even remembers how to be that nerdy poet anymore,
or if the manufactured image has become the real thing.)
I also agree with C. Lofters:
And therein lies the problem -- we don't get to witness anything
firsthand anymore. Anything that passes for human interaction,
we are told about, not shown, and there's no growth, just repetition
[...]. We are hit over the head with anything the writers want
us to know through the characters' exposition rather than watching
it unfold ourselves.
Granted, some episodes/characters are better than others when
it comes to showing, not telling. But still, I feel a little uneasy
whenever I hear Buffy saying how it's a war, girls are going to
die, blah, blah. Because for the longest time, nothing really
happened. They kept preparing and preparing for war, but there
was no enemy to fight. The evil was so intangible (that's not
a pun) which, granted, might have been the point. Okay, Caleb
has now come and gone, and there were fights. But there was definitely
a stretch in which I kept scratching my head and thinking, "Um,
please show me this big war you're fighting, and stop talking
about it please?"
But no, I don't think Spike has ruined Buffy. I don't think
Buffy has been "ruined" at all. I do, however,
feel the pacing has dragged a lot and that some characters were
neglected in favour of not-so-interesting story-lines (IMHO).
I also found the resolution to "Lies My Parents Told Me"
rather controversial, and the fandom reaction even more controversial.
Still, Buffy was my first love, and my first fandom. I'll
always be grateful for the six years/seven seasons we've been
given.
[> [> Proving my "Buffy"
love -- Scroll, 23:32:32 05/16/03 Fri
Reading my above post, I realise that while I did defend Spike
against the accusation that he's ruined Buffy, I didn't
really balance out my comments on why I don't think Buffy
has been ruined at all. Don't know if anybody will read this but
I'll do this anyway for my own sake. So in no particular order:
- Willow: her confrontation with Warren's "ghost", and
her break-down over being the cause of Tara's death (as she believed)
was very touching and real. Kennedy may be the total opposite
of Tara, but I rather like her anyway. It's taken Willow a while
to trust herself and her power again, but I think mastering herself
will be key to winning the day.
- Dawn: has quietly grown up and proven her worth. She may not
have any super-powers, but she has been working hard to help Buffy
and the Potentials, without any desire or expectation of recognition.
Her love for her sister and friends is inspiring.
- Xander: has been a highlight this year. A calm, steady, loyal
presence that reminds me exactly why Buffy has managed to survive
being the Slayer these seven years. Watching him lose his eye
was the single-most shocking, disturbing, and ultimately painful
Buffy experience for me, even more so than Buffy, Joyce,
Jenny, or Tara's deaths.
- Spike: his desperate cry for forgiveness and understanding in
in the church moved me to tears, and his dedication to training
the Potentials, to being a source of emotional support to Buffy,
and to being a warrior for the side of Good are all reasons why
redemption is also about actions, not merely words.
- Cassie: She was one of the best one-off characters I've seen
on Buffy. I cried when she died, and felt bad for Buffy
when she felt guilty for being unable to save her.
- Andrew: his geeky self-delusion made me want to shake him hard
at times, but in the way that I sometimes want to do to myself.
I recognised something of myself in him. His sorrowful acceptance
of his actions and their consequences was one of the most poignant
moments for me this season.
- Faith: returning to the place of her downfall took courage.
She doesn't expect to be welcomed back, to be forgiven, or to
become friends. She only wants to help. Having walked a mile in
Buffy's shoes, she's learned that while she had felt alone way
back in S3, Buffy also feels alone, even while surrounded by friends.
- Buffy: poor girl, she's had it tough all year. Behind every
one of her speeches, I could feel the misery and pain she was
experiencing over the knowledge that people were going to die.
She has recognised her own failure to connect with others and
has made some steps to reach out, which I believe (I don't know
for sure, since I'm not spoiled) will lead to her uncovering the
key to her power.
So therein lies my Buffy love.
[> [> [> Thank you
for that Scroll. Lovely post. -- shadowkat, 20:19:06 05/17/03
Sat
[> [> [> [> Very
welcome, s'kat! -- Scroll :o), 16:56:21 05/18/03 Sun
[> Oh Kelly Link, how could
you? -- ponygirl, 12:06:20 05/16/03 Fri
My new favourite author of the moment, too, alas! Read her book!
Ignore her hate-on for Marti Noxon!
[> [> Re: Oh Kelly Link,
how could you? -- MaeveRigan, 14:43:53 05/16/03 Fri
You said it, ponygirl. I read the letters, missed Kelly Link's
authorship of this particular one. It's not worthy of her. Or
maybe it is--shall I rethink my assessment of her writing?
[> [> [> Naw, I still
love her stories -- ponygirl, 16:46:14 05/16/03 Fri
Though this is the second interview I've read where she's bashed
Marti. Maybe she's fallen in with a bad crowd. We should do a
cyber-intervention to get her to come by the board. She'd come
to re-evaluate season 7, and possibly let us hang out at her house.
Then she'd dedicate all of her books to us. Yeah, that'd be cool.
[> Succubus Club interview
response -- Anneth, 12:46:47 05/16/03 Fri
The most recent Succubus Club interveiw, with David Fury and Tim
Minear, responded to the Salon article also. Both Fury and Minear
spoke at length about the author's claims, and basically concluded
"oh, please!" - but it seemed that for Fury, in particular,
the article hit a raw spot.
[> [> s'kat's transcript
below. -- Anneth, 13:27:25 05/16/03 Fri
note to self - next time, read entire board before posting!
[> Thanks, Rob. Good to
see this. -- Dariel, 12:49:01 05/16/03 Fri
Glad to see such articulate defense of Spike the character (except
for the Marti-bashing). While agreeing that he wasn't so well
written this season, that Buffy has been too focused on Spike
and ignoring her friends, and that we didn't get enough of the
other core characters this season.
Jeremy Tenebaum's snark at the reviewer, about "poor saps
who couldn't fit in then and can't now," was dead on. Adults
should know better than to be antagonized by the "cool guy
in the leather coat." "Cool" is just a facade used
to hide one's weaker, but essentially human, traits. I know it's
sacrilege, but I bet even Oz was hiding something behind his cool!
[> [> Re: Thanks, Rob.
Good to see this. -- Rob, 13:16:14 05/16/03 Fri
"I know it's sacrilege, but I bet even Oz was hiding something
behind his cool!"
...Which is one of the reasons the werewolf metaphor worked particularly
well for his character. If you haven't checked out my annotated
Phases,
there are quite a few notes that delve into detail about werewolf
mythology and how it could be seen as the metaphysical price Oz
had to pay for his otherwise outwardly cool and calm exterior.
His innermost angers and frustrations manifested themselves externally.
Rob
[> [> [> Wow. Very
interesting! -- Dariel, 17:33:29 05/16/03 Fri
I didn't start watching BtVS regularly until S5, so I'm still
catching up on some things. Thanks for the insight on Oz.
[> Nice place to put this
("Lies" revisited) -- KdS, 14:10:46 05/16/03
Fri
Note: the following was originally posted on Rahael's Live Journal,
and linked to from my review of last night's eps. To avoid invading
the privacy of some third parties, I've decided to post it on
the board. It should be noted that it contains some comparisons
between Angel and Spike, which I know are usually discouraged
but are vital to my points.
I won't go into much detail about my specific problems with the
episode, as I've explained them fairly clearly in the original
post in my thread "I Spit on Your Grave" on the ATPO
board, and my subsequent responses. Rather, this is meant as an
explanation of what I subsequently realised were my underlying
feelings, and what that says about choices ME have made in portraying
Angel and Spike since their mutual soulings.
A few days ago, I was reading a collection of essays by the American
pop culture essayist Greil Marcus (In the Fascist Bathroom, if
you want to chase it up yourselves) when I came across a piece
that seemed to speak very clearly to my uncomfortable feelings
with Lies. As preamble to a review of a John Cale gig, Marcus
talked about seeing a television documentary which included an
interview with an American former soldier who had murdered civilians
in an atrocity during the Vietnam war. The soldier was very clear
about admitting his guilt for these appalling crimes, and seemed
genuinely contrite, but felt the need to constantly explain how
horrible his own earlier experiences during the war had been,
how he'd been brutalised, and how he'd come to be capable of committing
this massacre. And it seemed to Marcus that, as these explanations
poured out, unchallenged by the interviewer, the soldier himself
came to be reinvented as the main victim of the situation, and
the nameless Vietnamese people who he had slaughtered disappeared
from view. That essay was written in 1980 or so, but the same
criticism has been made of many later Vietnam films, novels, TV
shows and so forth, even those unambiguously opposed to the war.
We are so much in the point of view of the American soldier that
the war, the Vietnamese nation, the people themselves, seem to
be a backdrop to tell stories about American suffering and moral
ambiguity and personal growth. And while this comparison in itself
may seem a little tasteless, that's my discomfort with Lies, that
the focus on Spike's past life and psychological pathologies,
and how he overcomes them, blots out Nikki herself, who only gets
to appear in a few brief moments in the teaser, and whose skin
Spike reclaims as armour against the world, and Wood, who Spike
celebrates this break-through by defeating and emotionally demolishing.
Here's where the comparisons with Angel begin. Before I start
properly, I want to make clear that Angel has done some quite
monstrous things with a soul during the 20th and 21st centuries,
and that I feel that Buffy needs to be told some of the lowlights
if any final reconciliation between them that ME might be planning
isn't to insult her character. But one thing that Angel has never
done is to speak about his past victims with contempt, and it
has never been implied that those crimes are being portrayed primarily
as a means to his personal development. The only line from Angel
which approaches Spike's in Lies for callousness is the regrettable
"chicken" line in Sense and Sensitivity, and nothing
like that has been repeated. Daniel Holtz manipulated and sacrificed
other human beings as collateral damage in his war against Angel
with a callousness and cold blood which makes Wood's actions pale
into insignificance, but Angel never allowed himself to dismiss
Holtz's motivation. In a way, Lies proves why Angel does feel
guilty about his actions without a soul, which has puzzled some
viewers. If he didn't, even though he may not be fully morally
responsible, the fact of hearing a crude dissociation from the
same mouth that committed those crimes seems viscerally, emotionally
indecent, however you may intellectually understand it. What if,
after the events of Revelations, Angel had told Xander that Buffy
would never love him as much as she did Angel, and that he (Angel)
didn't give a shit about Jenny because she picked the fight with
him and he wasn't that person any more?
It's now almost a full week since I saw Lies, I've heard the defences,
and my opinions really haven't changed. I'll probably be getting
the season on VHS or DVD, but I think instead of Lies, I'll skip
back and watch Storyteller a second time. Just for that perfect
ending, in which Andrew Wells coldly faces and states his guilt
for murdering Jonathan, and then finds himself utterly lost for
words, because short of a total change of subject, what words
can meaningfully illuminate such an admission without devaluing
it?
[> [> Re: Don't Buy It
-- Rina, 15:11:48 05/16/03 Fri
I'm sorry, but the main problem I see with your argument is that
you're judging Spike by what he said; not by what he did.
He said that he couldn't care less about Nikki Wood's death. Yet,
he spared Robin Wood's life, because of the latter's mother. Why
is it that so many people who are either anti-Spike, or who didn't
care for his actions in LMPTM, fail to see this? It's as if they've
forgotten the old axiom: "Actions speak louder than words".
Angel can moan to the stars all he like. Words are empty. Actions
aren't. Angel should be satisfied with his decision to get on
with his life and help others.
And why should Spike openly express remorse to a man who had just
tried to cold-bloodedly kill him? You say that Wood was thinking
of his mother. Sorry, I don't think that revenge is a good reason
to attempt murder.
[> [> [> Actions
-- Grant, 11:30:56 05/17/03 Sat
About the only positive action Spike did is letting Wood live.
But he let him live only after beating him to within inches of
his life and telling him that his mother never actually loved
him. He basically left Wood shattered and broken both inside and
out. That seems more like the actions of a vampire, leaving someone
alive so that they can suffer, than someone with a soul.
And Spike's decision not to kill Wood was not exactly a very moral
one. It was not that killing is wrong or I'm going to show you
that the monster that killed your mother is finally gone by letting
you live. It was, I liked your mom, so in her memory I'll let
you live. But I have nothing against killing you again at any
moment, so don't make me angry. In that context, it certainly
does not seem like Spike is acting like someone in touch with
their soul.
I usually avoid the Angel comparisons myself not so much because
they are controversial but because Angel had a lot more time to
get his act together. However, in this case I think the comparison
is useful to show how far Spike still has to go before he truly
becomes a good person rather than a vampire who happens to have
a soul. Holtz certainly led a lot more serious attacks against
Angel and all of his friends during a much more tense and critical
time for Angel, but Angel responded by acknowledging that Holtz
had a valid reason for wanting revenge and by constantly attempting
to save Holtz and bring him back to fighting for the good guys.
He did not tell Holtz that his daughter did not love him and wanted
to be vamped and then proceed to be beat him to within inches
of his life and then walk away, saying, "See, I let you live.
I truly am a good person now."
For Spike, meanwhile, the only moral he seemed to learn from the
Nikki Wood situation from a newly ensouled perspective is, "She
was a Slayer, I was a vampire, that's how it works." Essentially,
he was saying that it was acceptable that he killed Holtz's mother
because that's the way of the world. While he certainly has a
point that soulless vampires tend to kill people and Slayers are
there to stop them, the problem arises in that fact that his soul
has not seemed to change this perspective for him. To be a champion
he can't be someone who does the easy and wrong thing with the
justification that that is the way the world works. He needs to
be someone who acts like the world is a better place than it is
and does the right thing accordingly. That is a lesson that he
still apparently needs to learn. I only hope it takes him less
time than Angel to learn it.
And, as a bit of aside for actions versus words, actions are important,
but words tell us what a character wants us to know about them.
So when Spike says things that sound unredeemed, that means that
he either is unredeemed or that he wants everyone to think that
he is unredeemed. In either case, him talking in an unredeemed
manner show that he is not really willing to fully face up to
redemption no matter what his actions are. It only makes the case
more damning when his actions themselves are questionable.
[> [> [> [> Thanks
for the post -- oceloty, 21:00:47 05/18/03 Sun
Thanks for articulating the issues that bothered me about the
episode.
Some early ATS S4 stuff follows -- not sure if that counts as
spoilery.
I definitely agree that words, or their absence, have power, especially
when motives are ambiguous. Look at Wes in ATS S4 -- his rescue
of Angel (in Deep Down) says one thing, his words (in Ground State)
say another. Why did Wes find Angel, and how does he really feel
about him? We might or might not believe the reasons he gives,
but without that articulation, it's hard to say what's going on
in his head.
[> [> [> Speech is
an action...if you don't think so, study Hitler, or the concept
of verbal domestic abuse -- Random, 08:50:54 05/18/03 Sun
[> [> [> [> Now
that's a really complex issue. -- Sophist, 14:59:26 05/18/03
Sun
Legally speaking, anyway.
At the risk of simplifying way too much, let me give some generally
accurate statements as "rules":
1. The content of speech cannot be regulated by the government.
2. Actions which are purely communicative (e.g., holding up a
sign or making an obscene gesture) qualify as speech and are therefore
protected.
In these general senses, the concept of speech works just the
opposite of that suggested by your post. In other words, not only
do we not punish speech the way we do actions, we go so far as
to protect certain actions the way we do speech.
This is all speaking legally, not morally. Nevertheless, I do
believe we make a moral distinction between even abusive speech
and abusive actions. I wouldn't take the concept of abusive speech
quite as far as your post suggests.
[> [> [> [> [>
Heheh, didn't suggest too terribly much, seeing as it was a
NT post. But... -- Random, 16:29:23 05/18/03 Sun
While you're quite right, I certainly wasn't talking legally,
since the context was non-prosecutable, i.e. Spike and Wood. Hence,
the speech must be judged on moral grounds. Spike's barbs at Wood
were hardly a harmless insults -- he knew perfectly well that
suggesting that Wood's mother didn't love him enough and then
the "don't give a piss about your mum" line were both
inflammatory and cruel. They were deliberately geared to incite
a reaction in Woods, cause him pain. And verbal abuse, while not
considered legally as culpable as physical abuse, is nevertheless
a very real, very damaging phenomenon.
While we're on the subject, inciting through speech is legally
punishable. Working a lynch mob into a murderous frenzy, like
helping plot a murder and staying home while it is actually being
carried out, is a crime, both legally and morally. Another example
can be seen in international war crimes law -- leaders who never
sully their hands are held responsible not only for their actions
but their speech. Hate speech is likewise subject to punishment
in certain environments. Assault, for instance, can be purely
speech, and is punishable, even if battery is considered worse.
And, of course, there's the old "fire in the crowded theatre"
principle.
But all this is extraneous. I am arguing for a moral standard
here, and if one judges the moral progress of a character, one
can hardly exclude examination of how that character treats others,
not just physically, but verbally. A taunt, in essence, is a deliberate
act of opening one's mouth and articulating the words in order
to harm or incite another. Sticks and stones versus words may
work in elementary school, but the real world is much more complex
in how cause/effect are examined.
[> [> Re: Nice place
to put this ("Lies" revisited) -- Sarand, 16:35:51
05/16/03 Fri
I don't know whether to get into this again. I read the previous
thread where this was discussed at length by people who are far
more articulate and philosophical than I am. I understand your
problems with "Lies," and, indeed, there were some aspects
of the episode that trouble me. But I find your analogies here
to be inapt. You are comparing the machine-gunning, apparently,
of unarmed civilians in Vietnam, who had no way of fighting back,
and Angelus's murder of ordinary people (Holtz's family, including
small children, and Jenny) who could not hope to match Angelus
in strength or speed with Spike's killing of a Slayer who was
stronger and faster than him. It's been shown many times that
Buffy is stronger and faster than Spike and there is nothing to
indicate that previous Slayers were any less powerful than Buffy.
The fact is neither Nikki nor the Chinese Slayer were Spike's
"victims" in the same sense as Holtz's family or Jenny
were Angelus's "victims." Spike indeed may not feel
remorse for killing Nikki as he might for his unarmed or defenseless
victims. But in Spike's mind, and as we were shown in "Fool
For Love," Spike bested both Slayers in fair fights. They
fought, he won; but for fortuitous events (the explosion that
distracted the Chinese Slayer the subway blackout that appeared
to distract Nikki), he could just as easily have lost. I'm trying
to understand your point of view but I just don't think you make
your case with grossly disproportionate analogies.
[> [> Since you mentioned
Angel -- Dariel, 18:36:57 05/16/03 Fri
Angel's current sense of morality didn't spring fully grown with
his ensoulment; it is a result of long years of development, with
some notable slip-ups along the way. He was, for example, still
feeding after the soul, although only on "evildoers."
(He obviously repented of this later, since he lies about it to
Buffy). With all of his guilt and aversion to killing, he still
tried to get back with Darla, as vicious a killer as one could
imagine.
I agree with Sarand's points about your comparisions; fighting
and killing a powerful slayer is not the same as machine gunning
innocent civilians in wartime. I think that Spike has come a long
way--he may not feel bad about killing the slayers, but he clearly
feels bad about the innocents he's killed. That's a huge step
from "I'm not good, but I'm okay" (Tough Love).
Should he feel bad about the slayers? Yes, he should, but not
because he personally took their lives. They were victims of their
calling, of a life they didn't choose but couldn't run away from.
He respects and loves Buffy for what she is; sooner or later,
he will see the tragedy of those two slayers.
I agree also with Rina about watching what Spike does, not what
he says. And what he is not doing--feeding--despite the
lack of a chip. I think he was chipped so long that viewers have
forgotten what he's capable of (something he tries to remind Buffy
about in BotN). Spike is controlling himself now, choosing not
to feed. That's an important moral choice, far more important
than what he might say about a slayer's death.
[> [> [> Who's Responsible?
-- Malandanza, 22:13:39 05/16/03 Fri
I think it's interesting to look at the way the characters deal
with guilt (leaving aside whether the characters really are responsible).
In the cases of Angel, Buffy, Faith, and recent addition Andrew,
the character says "I am responsible."
In Willow's case, it's "I feel responsible." The implication
is clear: she does not believe she is responsible, yet she feels
some sympathy for her victims (except Warren, of course -- she
"killed him for a reason").
For Giles and Wesley, "I am not morally culpable, since I
did what I did for the greater good of mankind." I'd put
Wood in this category as well, although he was really serving
vengeance rather than mankind.
For Xander and Anya, "I am not responsible." Xander
professes ignorance when he summons Sweet while Anya blames Xander
for leaving her at the altar, driving her to become a vengeance
demon again. Anya momentarily joins Angel's group, but we haven't
seen much remorse or regret from her since. I'd put Fred here
too.
I don't believe that Spike fits into the final category. He claims
responsibility for the deaths of lots of peoples' mothers. He
exults in the death of Wood's mother. He puts the trophy coat
back on before leaving. His attitude is: Yeah, I'm guilty -- what
are you going to do about it?
I agree with Sarand's points about your comparisons; fighting
and killing a powerful slayer is not the same as machine gunning
innocent civilians in wartime. I think that Spike has come a long
way--he may not feel bad about killing the slayers, but he clearly
feels bad about the innocents he's killed. That's a huge step
from "I'm not good, but I'm okay" (Tough Love).
I don't think a Spike defender should excuse his attack on the
slayer simply because the Slayer isn't as defenseless as his other
victims. Using the same logic, we can excuse the Wood/Giles treachery
by saying Spike was more powerful than a human, so Wood was just
playing the game. No harm, no foul. And it's more than just not
feeling bad -- he relishes the memory of killing Wood's mother
-- he keeps the coat as a momento.
I don't think the comparison between newly souled Angel and newly
souled Spike is particularly apt. Spike had two years of being
neutered to get used to the idea that humans aren't just happy
meals with legs -- Angel had a crash course. Next, Angel was cursed
with a soul -- of course he fought against it. Spike sought a
soul so he could be good. There just isn't a good excuse for Spike's
lack of empathy for his victims. (Yes, I know we saw early in
the Season that he felt some remorse for the little girls he killed,
but I sure haven't seen anything resembling regret recently).
If Spike wants to grow up and be responsible, he can start by
apologizing to Buffy for his part in the nightmare that was Season
Six. I am so sick of hearing the words "you used me!"
come out of his self-righteous mouth.
I think we've seen some real growth in Angel, by the way. This
last time Angelus was on the lose, Angel didn't immediately slip
into brood mode. He recognized that he wasn't responsible. It
wasn't his idea to become Angelus and it was his friends' fault
for losing the soul and letting him out. He's still sorry for
what he did as Angelus, but at least he isn't doing penance for
something beyond his ability to control.
[> [> [> [> Thanks
Mal... -- KdS, 03:03:45 05/17/03 Sat
We were feeling very alone on this side of the Atlantic in our
responses to Lies :-)
I 100% agree with what Mal said about Nikki's strength not mattering,
but I also see motivation as key here. Nikki was conscripted into
a fight with no choice. Spike was killing people, including Nikki,
because it was fun.
In response to Rina's post, I don't see why I should view anyone
as a hero just because they didn't kill someone they'd already
beaten to a pulp. That just puts you at the baseline for human
morality - the bare minimum someone can do and claim to be moral.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Thanks Mal... -- Malandanza, 06:43:31 05/17/03 Sat
"I don't see why I should view anyone as a hero just because
they didn't kill someone they'd already beaten to a pulp. That
just puts you at the baseline for human morality - the bare minimum
someone can do and claim to be moral."
As Buffy says in Triangle:
"You want credit for not feeding off bleeding disaster
victims?"
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Boy do I agree with you Mal (how suprising eh?) --
Dochawk, 13:45:34 05/17/03 Sat
[> [> [> [> Re:
Who's Responsible? -- Dariel, 11:55:01 05/17/03 Sat
I don't think a Spike defender should excuse his attack on
the slayer simply because the Slayer isn't as defenseless as his
other victims.
I didn't "excuse" Spike's attack on Nikki, as you well
know from reading my post. I said that it was not the same as
killing innocents who could not defend themselves, and that Kds's
Vietnam analogy didn't hold. I also said that Spike should
feel bad about it, which you also seem to have ignored.
I am so sick of hearing the words "you used me!"
come out of his self-righteous mouth.
Well, then maybe you should stop watching BotN over and over,
because that's the only time he said it.
I don't think the comparison between newly souled Angel and
newly souled Spike is particularly apt. Spike had two years of
being neutered to get used to the idea that humans aren't just
happy meals with legs -- Angel had a crash course.
Hmm. Now, didn't you maintain in S6 that chipped, unsouled Spike
was not one iota better than the prechip version, but only restrained
by artificial means and his desire to please Buffy? If this was
the case, then his getting used to not feeding on humans had no
moral dimension whatsoever, and has nothing to do with how he
feels about this with a soul. Plus, the FE had him killing again--he
seems to go through some kind of withdrawal in BotN--so that pretty
much wiped out the two years off the juice.
Next, Angel was cursed with a soul -- of course he fought against
it. Spike sought a soul so he could be good.
Now I'm really confused. If a person wants to be good, but has
to struggle with it, he's morally inferior to someone who never
wanted to be good and also has to struggle with it?
Compare:
I think we've seen some real growth in Angel, by the way. This
last time Angelus was on the lose, Angel didn't immediately slip
into brood mode. He recognized that he wasn't responsible....
He' still sorry for what he did as Angelus, but at least he isn't
doing penance for something beyond his ability to control.
to:
There just isn't a good excuse for Spike's lack of empathy
for his victims. (Yes, I know we saw early in the Season that
he felt some remorse for the little girls he killed, but I sure
haven't seen anything resembling regret recently).
The things Spike did as an unsouled vamp were beyond his ability
to control also. But for some reason, Spike needs to do some more
brooding, maybe pound on his chest to show growth, whereas Angel
shows growth by not doing these things. Sounds like a double
standard to me.
[> [> [> [> [>
Never Leave Me not BoTN ;-) -- sk (just helping to clarify),
12:16:12 05/17/03 Sat
And yes you are right he's only said "you used me" once
and it was not self-righteous in the context that it was used,
which is - her asking him questions. And she TOLD him that she
USED him, so he was merely acknowledging that their relationship
was abusive on both parts and she NEVER loved him. It was an acknowledgment
NOT a condemnation of her. If anything it was a condemnation of
himself.
Also bad form Mal - "Spike apologist?" you know better
than to attack the poster not the arguement. I expect better from
you. Don't make me eat my words that you are one of the best Spike
critics out there. That's like someone saying I should know better
from a Spikehater...see get into name-calling, lose the arguement.
sk ;-)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Thanks, SK, for the correction and the defense --
Dariel, 13:50:39 05/18/03 Sun
I get those mid-season eps all mixed up in my mind!
It seems, from Malandaza's follow-up post, that I'm now an official
"Spike Girl." Do you think that comes with a recording
contract?
Dariel
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> LOL!Ahh...the hazards of getting too emotional..and
name calling -- sk, 21:02:19 05/18/03 Sun
You're welcome, though I doubt anyone paid much attention.
A bit of advice I learned in law school - the moment you give
in to emotion and allow it to rule your argument, is the moment
you lose the argument - because the name-calling and button pushing
and low blows make you look like a fool. Best to jump off line
or back away when that happens. Stop arguing. So when someone
starts name-calling? It feels as if their argument basically is
dead and they are operating on emotion not intellect at the moment
- probably got a button pushed and believe me nothing can push
peoples buttons more than our two vampires and the topic of redeeming
them. And when you push someone's button? Immediate response is
to try and push yours. That's when we leave the field of debate
and enter the field of one-upmanship and troll logic.
This is nothing - I've seen screaming matches erupt on other boards.
During SR last year? People stopped arguing and just resorted
to calling each other and the characters names. The board mistress
got fed up and started deleting threads... and called a moratorium
on the episode - if you discussed it? You were deleted and banned.
Can't say I blamed her. That has never happened at Atpo. Usually
people just back away and go on to something else, hence the reason
I really only post on it, that and the fact that this board is
the least shippy of all the boards out there and the least prone
to character bashing. You bash a character here? Watch out. Regardless
of the character. Bronze Beta, isn't that shippy either, but it
is more like a chat room than a posting board and really hard
to follow. But until I came onto the fan boards - I didn't understand
what flame wars were or believed it was possible to scream in
writing. Now I know. ;-)
At the Atpo..the worst I've seen is a little name-calling and
snark. And heck I've done the snark myself, I have a really sardonic
sense of humor and when I get irritated the snark comes out big
time. I can be brutal with it. So usually I jump off line before
I get myself into too much trouble.
At any rate, after seeing LMPTM being discussed five different
times since it aired in five different rigorous and brutal debates...one
that caused a poster to leave the board, I'm wondering if we should
just table it, clearly we're never going to agree on this. And
in a way the whole thing amuses me greatly - since I predicted
this would happen way before LMPTM aired. I knew it the moment
I found out ME decided to make Wood Nikki's son. I even knew all
the arguments people would make and who would make which argument.
And was dreading it. Loved the episode. Dreaded the reactions
to it. Dang writers.
I may never forgive Jane Espenson for this idea. HEck I think
LMPTM may come close to SR as the most controversial and debated
episode. Even if I much preferred LMPTM.
That said - I really really hope that somewhere in Tues's finale
we address that damn jacket. Can we have him burn it or get rid
of it? Or just something? Sigh. Doubt it. But one can hope. OTOH
since he is joing ATs - there is more than enough time for them
to re-address the issue.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Who's Responsible? -- Malandanza, 21:42:25 05/17/03
Sat
"I didn't "excuse" Spike's attack on Nikki,
as you well know from reading my post. I said that it was not
the same as killing innocents who could not defend themselves,
and that Kds's Vietnam analogy didn't hold. I also said that Spike
should feel bad about it, which you also seem to have ignored."
I'm pretty sure not every civilian in Vietnam was innocent. Some
were Viet Kong, others supported the Viet Kong (so I think KdS's
analogy is better than you give it credit for being) -- but it
doesn't make much of a difference to me that there were a few
less innocent victims in the massacres. Innocent or not, defenseless
or not, the massacres were still massacres. What I intended to
do with the Wood/Spike analogy was draw your attention to the
double standard of the near universal condemnation of the Wood/Giles
plot (which I also condemn) but the defend Spike's attack on the
slayers with claims like "they were victims of their calling".
No, actually they were victims of Spike. It would be like excusing
a cop killer by saying, well, the cops know what they're getting
into. They're really just victims of their own calling. The double
standard is clear to me -- by that logic, Spike is also a victim
of his own calling. He chose to become the "Big Bad"
and that decision put him up against other in "the game,"
like Wood and Giles. So let Wood and Giles plot away -- let Xander
get in on the action. They wouldn't be murderers because Spike's
a big boy and can defend himself. I don't buy it for Wood and
I don't buy it for Spike.
"Well, then maybe you should stop watching BotN over and
over, because that's the only time he said it."
Well, perhaps I'm just sick of the endless repetitions of his
line here at ATPoBtVS where Spike apologists the Spike-eteers
berate Buffy for exercising her free will and defend their Gothic
Hero against all charges, legitimate and otherwise. But I'm pretty
sure he said it last season as well -- and, based on his actions,
I'm pretty sure he still believes he being used.
"Now I'm really confused. If a person wants to be good,
but has to struggle with it, he's morally inferior to someone
who never wanted to be good and also has to struggle with it?"
If a person claims he wishes to be good, then doesn't do good,
I think he is morally inferior to someone who wished to do evil
but ends up doing good.
"The things Spike did as an unsouled vamp were beyond
his ability to control also. But for some reason, Spike needs
to do some more brooding, maybe pound on his chest to show growth,
whereas Angel shows growth by not doing these things. Sounds like
a double standard to me."
Vampires have free will. Joss has said that the soul acts as a
guiding light, making people want to do good, while demons have
a guiding light that makes them want to do evil. Yet, we've seen
demons (like the Kamal, the Prio Motu demon gone good) choose
to do good -- just as we've seen souled creatures choose to do
evil. The things Spike did while under the control of the First
were beyond his control -- the things he did as a vampire were
not. Vampires are not mindless automata. Isn't that the point
the Redemptionistas persons interested in Spike's spiritual
odyssey made last season? That he chose to get a soul?
In any event, I do not believe that the souled entity is actually
responsible for the crimes of the previously unsouled entity.
I don't believe than Angel is really responsible for Angelus and
I don't believe that new-Spike is really responsible for old-Spike's
crimes (as I have said previously in posts this season). So why
do I care if new-Spike feels guilty about the crimes of old-Spike?
I don't. Angel shares the memories of Angelus and those memories
repel him. New-Spike shares the memories of old-Spike and he exults
in them (as is evident in the joy he took in abusing Wood). Essentially,
my problem with new-Spike comes down to this: he still wears
the trophy coat taken from the slayer he murdered. (I think
you'll find I have been consistent in this opinion this season).
But I think KdS really put what's wrong with Spike into words
better than anything I could say:
"If he didn't, even though he may not be fully morally
responsible, the fact of hearing a crude dissociation from the
same mouth that committed those crimes seems viscerally, emotionally
indecent, however you may intellectually understand it. What if,
after the events of Revelations, Angel had told Xander that Buffy
would never love him as much as she did Angel, and that he (Angel)
didn't give a shit about Jenny because she picked the fight with
him and he wasn't that person any more?"
If there is a problem with KdS's analogy, I think it is that Jenny
was less a victim than Nikki. Jenny was part of a plot to keep
Angel suffering -- she really did know what she was getting into
and she chose to be a part of it. Jenny sought out Angel and her
death has a poetic tinge about it. Nikki did not have a choice.
Spike sought her out, stalked her, and killed her. For fun. It
doesn't seem to me that Spike's attitude shows much personal growth.
He still doesn't care about anyone but Buffy and himself.
Now, I do believe that Angel's guilt serves a function. Angelus
lives in Angel's subconscious and can (and has) take control on
occasion (and, I believe, influence his decisions to some degree
-- like Angel's noir period). Angel is constantly vigilant because
he never forgets what Angelus is capable of.
I know the Spike Girls Spike Aficionados like to think
of him as the consummate outsider. The poor, persecuted Romantic,
defeated in love, belittled by the brutes of society, who risks
everything for his one true love. Then tries to control her when
she rejects him -- control culminating in a rape attempt. Finally
he realizes his mistake and desires to reform, to be punished
for his crimes, but before he can, he has his skin ripped off.
Ummm... actually that was Warren -- but getting back to Spike:
Warren and Jonathan have acted as foils for Spike. They were both
in the same condition he was -- abused and berated. The lowest
echelon of all the castoffs and pariahs. When Jonathan gets power,
he uses it to help people -- he treats them as he wished he had
been treated. For Warren, it's different. He gets the orbs of
power and becomes the bully he always hated. So, too, for Spike.
He's the "Help me out, Spock, I don't speak loser" guy.
Old-Spike was a nasty piece of work, and I have seen little to
suggest that new-Spike is much of an improvement.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Who's Responsible? -- Dariel, 18:23:36 05/18/03
Sun
What I intended to do with the Wood/Spike analogy was draw
your attention to the double standard of the near universal condemnation
of the Wood/Giles plot (which I also condemn) but the defense
of Spike's attack on the slayers with claims like "they were
victims of their calling".
Not gonna argue when I didn't defend the attacks in the first
place; just said they were different. The idea of Spike killing
a slayer in a fair fight does not turn my stomach in the same
way as Spike killing the helpless teacher in School Hard, or Spike
shoving a broken bottle in Willow's face in Lovers Walk. That's
not a claim, it's not even a statement of a certain philosophy,
but that's how I feel about it.
It would be like excusing a cop killer by saying, well, the
cops know what they're getting into.
No, because the cop killer is a human with a soul who chooses
to go against his own kind.
They're really just victims of their own calling. The double
standard is clear to me -- by that logic, Spike is also a victim
of his own calling. He chose to become the "Big Bad"
and that decision put him up against other in "the game,"
like Wood and Giles. So let Wood and Giles plot away -- let Xander
get in on the action. They wouldn't be murderers because Spike's
a big boy and can defend himself. I don't buy it for Wood and
I don't buy it for Spike.
Doesn't follow--Spike is no longer a Big Bad; he's a vampire with
a soul. As for him being a "big boy who can defend himself,"
Giles and Wood tried to set things up so that Spike could not
defend himself, what with the room full of crosses, the metal
gloves, and the trigger.
Well, perhaps I'm just sick of the endless repetitions of his
line [about Buffy using him] here at ATPoBtVS where Spike apologists
the Spike-eteers berate Buffy for exercising her free will and
defend their Gothic Hero against all charges, legitimate and otherwise.
I guess we're reading different posts, because I haven't seen
much berating of Buffy on this board. Not a member of the Buffy-bashers
club myself, although she does piss me off occassionally. I've
never thought that Buffy should love Spike, and I felt
a lot of sympathy for her in S6. I know it's hard to believe,
but some of us like both Buffy and Spike. And Buffy herself said
that she was using him in S6--to Tara and to Spike himself when
she broke up with him.
But I'm pretty sure he said it last season as well -- and,
based on his actions, I'm pretty sure he still believes he being
used.
Hard to know what a TV character "thinks" if we're not
shown. I think Buffy may be using him, in some sense. However,
I can forgive her if that's what she's doing. That doesn't mean
I'm bashing Buffy; she's a young woman in a very tough spot, and
is trying to save the world, after all.
If a person claims he wishes to be good, then doesn't do good,
I think he is morally inferior to someone who wished to do evil
but ends up doing good.
I don't follow your reasoning here. Doesn't matter-I think where
you end up is the most important thing. Spike has a ways to go-what
of it?
New-Spike shares the memories of old-Spike and he exults in
them (as is evident in the joy he took in abusing Wood).
Nothing about Spike's manner or tone indicated that he took joy
in abusing Wood; he was angry at being beaten, so he beat Wood
in return. Not the most mature reaction, but one I easily imagine
coming from Giles in his Ripper days, or even Angel, who took
pleasure in knocking out and scaring Xander a time or two.
Essentially, my problem with new-Spike comes down to this:
he still wears the trophy coat taken from the slayer he murdered.
(I think you'll find I have been consistent in this opinion this
season).
I agree that the coat is problematic; I don't like seeing it on
him either. However, I can't say I know exactly what it means
because ME hasn't yet shown me. In GID, Buffy did exhort Spike
to be "the Spike that tried to kill me," the Spike that's
dangerous. The coat is part of that persona, as we saw in that
same episode. Spike thinks he has to be a certain way to help
Buffy fight the FE, so that's what he does. Whether it's wise,
whether it's a detriment to his moral development in the long
run, remains to be seen.
It doesn't seem to me that Spike's attitude shows much personal
growth. He still doesn't care about anyone but Buffy and himself.
I don't see how you can know this from what we've been shown.
We've seen very little Spike interaction with the Scoobies and
others; heck, we've seen very little interaction between anybody
who wasn't Andrew or a Potential and anyone else before End of
Days. On the other hand, Spike was kind to the monk in Empty Spaces,
the first time we've ever seen him be kind to a stranger without
Buffy around. And he certainly seemed upset when Caleb gouged
out Xander's eye; he went into overdrive to get Xander away from
Caleb.
I know the Spike Girls Spike Aficionados like to think of him
as the consummate outsider. The poor, persecuted Romantic, defeated
in love, belittled by the brutes of society, who risks everything
for his one true love. Then tries to control her when she rejects
him -- control culminating in a rape attempt.
What's with the name-calling here? I thought we were having a
discussion. And throwing in the attempted rape, as if I (or anyone
on this board) didn't abhor it?
Believe it or not, I've actually been influenced by some of your
criticism of Spike in the past. Especially when you've stuck to
the topic at hand. When you go off about what some Spike
fans might have said at one time or another, it doesn't help your
case. We're not some monolithic conspiracy, ya know.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Who's Responsible? -- sdev,
00:48:14 05/19/03 Mon
Free will is not much of an excuse for Buffy's wrong behavior.
And I'm really sick of this AR stuff. Spike stopped dead in his
tracks after his initial assault. Yes I know first Buffy threw
him off, but he did not persist.
Buffy beat him to a bloody pulp in Dead Things. Score even. Her
excuse? He asked for it. Sound familiar?
Hasn't this season been about undoing the mutual abuse dished
out by the two of them at each other?
I also have the sense that Angel is by far the greater danger
and a morally devoid character. How is he held in check? A curse.
Put on him by others. What is he like sans curse? Totally despicable.
The Judge said there was no humanity in him.
Spike, read free will, acquired a soul with great physical pain
and endurance. Actions again over words. I believe his motives
are irrelevant. Again actions over words. He is just growing into
his soul. Prior to ensoulment he had many vestiges of humanity
which is probably what enabled him to have any relationship with
Buffy and subsequently elect to reclaim his soul.
[> [> [> [> I think
that is called a selective reading of the text -- Caroline,
14:21:28 05/17/03 Sat
I wrote a post last week where I systematically went through the
first 10 episodes of the season and looked at exactly what Spike
said about how he now feels about his past actions. I will reproduce
it below. I think the point is that Spike is the one having a
crash course in soulfullness, unlike Angel's 100 years of solitude.
But it doesn't mean that the guilt is no less intense and it doesn't
mean that Spike didn't grow. It took Angel a 100 years to become
the person who could help Buffy in S1. It has taken Spike 15 eps
in S7 but that is a dramatic convenience that should not speak
for or against either soulled vamp. And while Spike with a soul
looked like he wanted to go back to being wussy William, he was
called on it by Buffy - who basically said to him that she wanted
him to be a warrior for good, not a warrior for evil or a wuss.
Spike may not have expressed explicit remorse in the last couple
of eps about everyone he has killed but neither has Angel - don't
you think it would be a bit boring if both of these vamps did
it every single show? We get the message and we move on! Or maybe
you are trying to say that Angel's soul is a better model than
Spike's and the remorse Angel feels is somehow better?
I'd also like to add that I am seriously displeased with the tone
of your post. I like both Angel and Spike and I hate to see one
raised by stepping on the other. Both can be criticized and praised
for various words and actions in their lives. But if you expose
your own prejudices and biases in such a blatant manner and use
the language you use (e.g. Spike defenders) you risk having your
arguments being nullified and dismissed for entirely the wrong
reasons and with good cause. Let's try to keep it respectful -
for the supporters of Angel, the supporters of Spike and the supporters
of BOTH characters.
My previous post:
The persona of Spike appears to be quite similar in S6 and 7 but
there are significant differences in the underlying character.
The main one that I would bring up is the effect that the soul
has had on Spike. He feels such an incredible level of guilt and
remorse for what he has done, not just to Buffy but to all his
victims and he wants to atone. I'll give a few examples:
In Lessons, he says that he is 'sure to be caned'. He tried to
cut out his soul.
In BY, he shows that he has no expectations of a relationship
with Buffy, he just wants to help. He feels incredible remorse
for his actions not just towards Buffy but to all his victims.
In STSP, Spike realizes that just getting the soul is not enough:
SPIKE
You go off and try to wall up the bad
spots, put your heart back in where
it fell out, and you call yourself
finished, but you're not. You're
worse than ever, you are.
SPIKE
William's a good boy. Carries the
water, carries the sin. It's
supposed to yet easier, in'it? It's
s'posed to help to help. 'Cept it
doesn't. And it's still so heavy...
It's what you do with it that counts. There is more work to be
done.
In Help, he's tormented by 'hurting the girl'. Is this Buffy or
is it the victims that we later learn he has been triggered to
kill? Later, he helps Buffy to save Cassie, to stop anyone from
'huring the girl'.
In Sleeper, Spike tells us how things are different:
SPIKE
And everything I felt, feel - it only
cuts deeper now....
He is horrified that he may have hurt someone and goes out to
investigate. Once he learns the truth, he confesses immediately
to Buffy and then asks her to kill him. When Buffy refuses to
stake him he says:
SPIKE
No, please... I need it. I can't cry
this soul out of me. It won't come.
And I... killed... And I feel it...
I feel every one of them...
In Bring on the Night, he asks to be tied up so that he can't
be triggered. In NLM, he reveals the depths of his self-loathing
and connects it directly to his soul.
I could go on. But I think the point has been made. The impact
the soul has on Spike's moral perspective, his judgment of his
own behaviour and character as well the emotional toll this has
taken on him distinguishes Spike in S7 from S6. In S6 he tried
incredibly hard to be good for Buffy but we did see behaviour
that stemmed from lack of a soul - trying to bite the girl after
he discovered he could hit Buffy, hiding Katrina's body, the demon
eggs, sex with Anya, the attempted rape. He felt remorse for the
AR, and had to psych himself up for the biting but most of his
behaviour is a sign of lack of moral compass. It puts into stark
relief the agonies that he goes through in S7. These agonies are
not just associated with Buffy or things linked to Buffy - he
has a broader, deeper notion of morality, something that the conditioning
of the chip could not give to him. In S6 he had the moral understanding
of a child, in S7 he has the understanding of an adult. And that's
not only because he acquired a soul, it's because he's learning
what to do with it. I don't think that the question should be
why isn't Spike very different after he acquired his soul - I
think the question should be why a vampire would go out and seek
a soul in the first place.
[> [> [> [> [>
Interesting post. Oh what JW says...to add a twist -- s'kat,
16:08:17 05/17/03 Sat
In Bring on the Night, he asks to be tied up so that he can't
be triggered. In NLM, he reveals the depths of his self-loathing
and connects it directly to his soul.
It's Never Leave Me.
In Bring On the Night - he's being tortured by Drusilla as the
First Evil. Then he gets rescued in Showtime. And he gets really
tortured.
In Killer in Me - he has handcuffed himself to the wall in the
basement. Buffy questions him on it and he says that he feels
its safer this way. He can't trust himself.
So he basically is holding back - all the way up to Get it Done...
On the whole soul thing? Here's what Joss Whedon says:
The soul and my concept of
it are as ephemeral as anybody's, and possibly more so. And in
terms of
the show, it is something that exists to meet the needs of convenience;
the truth is sometimes you can trap it in a jar; the truth is
sometimes
someone without one seems more interesting than someone with one.
I
don't think Clem has a soul, but he's certainly a sweet guy. Spike
was
definitely kind of a soulful character before he had a soul, but
we made
it clear that there was a level on which he could not operate.
Although
Spike could feel love, it was the possessive and selfish kind
of love
that most people feel. The concept of real altruism didn't exist
for
him. And although he did love Buffy and was moved by her emotionally,
ultimately his desire to possess her led him to try and rape her
because
he couldn't make the connection -- the difference between their
dominance games and actual rape.
With a soul comes a more adult understanding. That is again,
a little
vague, but... can I say that I believe in the soul? I don't know
that I
can. It's a beautiful concept, as is resurrection and a lot of
other
things we have on the show that I'm not really sure I can explain
and I
certainly don't believe in. It does fall prey to convenience,
but at the
same time it has consistently marked the real difference between
somebody with a complex moral structure and someone who may be
affable
and even likable, but ultimately eats kittens.
and here's what Caroline says:
The impact the soul has on Spike's moral perspective, his judgment
of his own behaviour and character as well the emotional toll
this has taken on him distinguishes Spike in S7 from S6. In S6
he tried incredibly hard to be good for Buffy but we did see behaviour
that stemmed from lack of a soul - trying to bite the girl after
he discovered he could hit Buffy, hiding Katrina's body, the demon
eggs, sex with Anya, the attempted rape. He felt remorse for
the AR, and had to psych himself up for the biting but most of
his behaviour is a sign of lack of moral compass. It puts into
stark relief the agonies that he goes through in S7. These agonies
are not just associated with Buffy or things linked to Buffy -
he has a broader, deeper notion of morality, something that the
conditioning of the chip could not give to him. In S6 he had
the moral understanding of a child, in S7 he has the understanding
of an adult.
This is in keeping with the writer's own concept of the soul.
When interpreting the show - I think we have to keep in mind that
it is not a moral show like say Seventh Heaven so the morality
isn't going to be black and white with very clear moral at the
end. It's more ambiguous. Also the character we are discussing
is a vampire NOT a man, a metaphor in effect for the ravages of
addiction on the human soul/spirit/heart as well as a metaphor
for arrested development and growing up.
Whedon as a writer is obessesed with two things growing up and
redemption. Here's what he says:
Redemption has become one of the most important themes in my
work and
it really did start with Angel. I would say probably with the
episode
"Amends," but even with the character itself and the
concept of the
spin-off was about redemption. It was about addiction and how
you get
through that and come out the other side, how you redeem yourself
from a
terrible life. I do actually work with a number of reformed addicts,
if
that's what you call them. I call them drunks. But my point is
a good
number of people that are most close to me creatively have lived
that
life, and it informs their work. I never have, and so I'm not
sure why
it is that redemption is so fascinating to me. I think the
mistakes I've
made in my own life have plagued me, but they're pretty boring
mistakes:
I committed a series of grisly murders in the eighties and I think
I
once owned a Wilson-Phillips Album. Apart from that I'm pretty
much an
average guy, yet I have an enormous burden of guilt. I'm not sure
why.
I'm a WASP, so it's not Jewish or Catholic guilt; it's just there.
Ultimately, the concept of somebody who needed to be redeemed
is more
interesting to me. I think it does make a character more textured
than
one who doesn't.
I can't think of anything, off hand, that I am a big fan of that
contains that kind of thing. My favorite fictions are usually
the kind I
make, which is sort of adolescent rites of passage, which is what
"Buffy" is about. It's about the getting of strength
and that's probably
the most important theme in any of my work, but I would say coming
a
close second is the theme of redemption. I think as you make
your way
through life it's hard to maintain a moral structure, and that
difficulty and the process of coming out the other side of a dark,
even
psychological time is to me the most important part of adulthood.
I think to an extent every human being needs to be redeemed somewhat
or
at least needs to look at themselves and say, "I've made
mistakes, I'm
off course, I need to change." Which is probably the hardest
thing for a
human being to do and maybe that's why it interests me so.
This is what Caroline states:
I don't think that the question should be why isn't Spike very
different after he acquired his soul - I think the question should
be why a vampire would go out and seek a soul in the first place.
So what I wondering is after reading both - is it possible that
Whedon had Spike go after the soul as a means of exploring that
journey - that decision making process of the drunk/addict or
the adolescent who thinks it's all fun and games - to realizing
it's not and wanting redemption but not sure how to go about it?
How do we find redemption?
Is it possible?
Whedon wrote a script called Suspension ages ago, according to
an SFX interview - in that script, was a man who was recently
released from prison, he'd gone to prison for killing a cop. Basically
a him or me scenerio. The man is traveling from NJ to NYC and
to get there he must cross the George Washington Bridge - he gets
to the middle of the bridge and it's taken by terrorists. He is
forced to work with cops -whom he hates - to get across the bridge.
He also is forced to deal with the other innocent people stuck
on the bridge. Whedon is fascinated with what it would take to
redeem this man. A very hard thing to convincingly pull off in
fiction and one he as a writer is clearly obsessed with. The script
was never picked up. Shelved. So I think in a way he transfered
it to Spike. Spike is the man on that bridge.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Oh, my Joss!! -- Caroline, 17:02:41 05/17/03 Sat
Does having written a few sentences similar to those written by
a genius make you a genius? [sigh]. Sadly not. Joss creates, I
praise and criticize. Even though I tend to not really think authorial
intent matters that much, it is gratifying to know that I'm grokking
Joss. Thanks so much shadowkat for putting that together. I agree
with your take on the following:
So what I wondering is after reading both - is it possible
that Whedon had Spike go after the soul as a means of exploring
that journey - that decision making process of the drunk/addict
or the adolescent who thinks it's all fun and games - to realizing
it's not and wanting redemption but not sure how to go about it?
How do we find redemption?
Is it possible?.
I've always thought of Spike's journey as a child interacting
with the world, having life just beat you down until you get to
where you are supposed to be. I have many times used the psychology
of child development to discuss Spike's journey. I felt a great
deal of pain for Spike in S6 - he was getting beat down and when
he fell back on his old vamp modes of behaviour, he kept getting
smacked down by life. His way out from that was getting his soul,
but then he began another journey - dealing with his actions as
a soulless being. At each change in our lives occurs, we have
to rethink and reevaluate our identity, our Self, and come to
a new accomodation of our new understanding of ourselves. It is
a painful process and we don't know how to do it until we've done
it.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Ah...I grok that completely -- s'kat, 20:10:30
05/17/03 Sat
Yes...this in a nutshell is why Spike moves me so and why I think
I've been so obsessed with the character.
I've always thought of Spike's journey as a child interacting
with the world, having life just beat you down until you get to
where you are supposed to be. I have many times used the psychology
of child development to discuss Spike's journey. I felt a great
deal of pain for Spike in S6 - he was getting beat down and when
he fell back on his old vamp modes of behaviour, he kept getting
smacked down by life. His way out from that was getting his soul,
but then he began another journey - dealing with his actions as
a soulless being. At each change in our lives occurs, we have
to rethink and reevaluate our identity, our Self, and come to
a new accomodation of our new understanding of ourselves. It is
a painful process and we don't know how to do it until we've done
it.
Thank you for writing that so beautifully. I've been trying to
piece it together myself for quite a while - hence all my essays
on his journey.
It's reassuring that at least two of us, from vastly different
backgrounds and experiences, feel this...even if others do not.
Gives me an odd sense of validation.
Thank you. ;-)
SK
[> [> [> [> [>
[> For more on Joss' "Suspension" -- Darby,
17:36:58 05/17/03 Sat
There's an interesting discussion of it (and another unproduced
screenplay) at
http://www.screenwritersutopia.com/script_reviews/suspension_afterlife.html
[> [> [> [> [>
I really want to stay out of it, but... -- Dochawk, 18:16:52
05/17/03 Sat
That wasn't Mal's point. I think most of us agree that Spike has
no desire to hurt humans and in fact is horrified by the fact
that he could do it even with a soul. the question Mal is asking,
is does he feel remorse for what he did in the past and the evidence
is no where near as clear. None of your points say anything about
this. he certainly feels no remorse for killing the slayers. And
the reason he is crazy at the beginning of the season? Was it
remorse or was it the FE? I think that he does not carry guilt
for what he did as a vampire, that he considers himself a different
being, which is different than the early Angel, whose guilt and
obsession with redemption make him aattempt to be a champion.
[> [> [> [> [>
No problem with his journey early on... -- Random, 09:05:33
05/18/03 Sun
But none of his earlier expressions of remorse can validate his
final expression of contempt. He has taken a major step backwards
there. If we had enough time, I'd say that this is merely a stumble,
that he will have to deal with it and move on again. That's what
the journey is all about, dealing with missteps and continuing
on. Unfortunately, sparing Wood's life isn't an extraordinary
act of saintliness -- it's what most of us would call "just
the right thing to do." So weighing that against what appears
to be a honest self-appraisal -- "I don't give a piss about
your mum" -- doesn't speak much for moral progress in Spike's
case. At best, I'd say he's holding his ground. Analogy: If a
human tries to kill one of the Scoobies -- and several have --
does the fact that the Scoobies don't kill them when they are
helpless a sign of a certain basic level of moral understanding
or a sign of their moral progress? Killing in the heat of battle
-- as Buffy does to the KoB -- is one thing. Killing someone who
one has already reduced to helplessness is quite another.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Context -- Caroline, 11:42:17 05/18/03 Sun
I agree with you that the 'I don't give a piss about your Mum'
is not completely in line with his earlier expressions of remorse.
And I agree that sparing Wood's life is not an act of saintliness,
just the right thing to do. But I find it interesting that you
think it's okay for Buffy to kill a KoB in the heat of battle
but not okay for Spike to taunt Wood as a result of battle. I
don't think that it is as damning for his moral progress as you
believe it is. I think that you are giving Buffy the benefit of
the context and not Spike.
[> [> Your analogy doesn't
work for me -- Sophist, 09:57:51 05/17/03 Sat
Let me convert your analogy to a slightly different context. Imagine
a biography of Thomas Jefferson. That book will, of course, have
to address Jefferson's complicated views about slavery. Inevitably,
the discussion will be (paraphrasing you) "a backdrop to
tell stories about American suffering and moral ambiguity and
personal growth."
Is this wrong? Absolutely not. Is it the whole story? Again, absolutely
not. The key point is that this hypothetical book is a book about
Thomas Jefferson. It's not about slaves, per se, or even about
American 1743-1826. The author is not telling those stories; she's
telling Jefferson's story.
The same is true of LMPTM. ME was not telling "The Nikki
Wood Story". Nor was it giving "A History of the Slayer
1970-80". ME was telling a story of Robin Wood and Spike.
Inevitably, we see the world through the lens of these two characters.
Not because this is "objective" or even "true",
but because it's their story.
Your post assumes a moral obligation to tell just one story (or,
perhaps, to prefer one story over others). I can't agree that
any such obligation exists. The story of slavery should be told,
but so should the story of Jefferson.
[> [> Didn't Angel just
this season say (AtS spoilers through Players) -- dms, 13:10:50
05/17/03 Sat
that he felt no guilt (or responsibility) for the crimes he committed
when his soul was most recently removed? Of course, ME skirted
the issue by not showing Angel(us) kill a single person.
[> [> [> Your right
& I think I may be getting this, addiction metaphor? (AtS spoilers
through Players) -- s'kat, 21:11:15 05/17/03 Sat
Actually he did hurt a few people. And just b/c they didn't show
it, doesn't mean he didn't kill anyone. He almost killed Faith.
And he tortured his friends.
And sucked on Lilah - causing Wes to feel the need to decapitate
her. Although he seemed remorseful for Lilah. They didn't show
more b/c unlike Btvs, where he's the fatal, he's the anti-hero
and there's only so far you can take an anti-hero without alienating
the audience, particularly considering what they pulled with Cordelia.
But yes - Angel said that he knew he wasn't responsible for anything
he committed without a soul, because that wasn't him. It's a comment
that bugged the board at the time and we engaged in endless frustrated
debates on it.
I think the writers' little convience is starting to confuse their
die-hard fans. I mean we have Angel who believes Angelus isn't
him. Spike who seems to think the soulless version wasn't really
him. Yet at the same time both admit that there's no one else
and it is them and they do feel guilty for it. So what's up?
Well, having been around reformed addicts - I know that when they
do stuff while really high or drunk - then black out and have
0 memory of it...with it coming back slowly in stages...they often
will state that wasn't me, that was the drugs or the alcohol -
the drugs or the alcohol changes me into something else. Yet at
the same time - treatment for alcoholism or drug abuse requires
the addict to take responsibility for their crimes, even those
they can't remember, and actively choose not to go there again.
It was you plus the drugs - is the view. ME tried to do this with
Willow last year with the it was Willow plus the dark magic. But
it didn't really fly. Works far better with our vamps. The soulless
vamp may in a way be the addicted teen, while the souled vamp
is the sober adult?? Problem with ME is they have at least two
metaphors going on at once, brillant, yes, but also confusing
at times for die-hard fans. ;-)
Not sure if that made sense. The addiction metaphor annoys me
personally, because it seems so old tv movie of the week cliche
or Ann Rice. But hey...it does work.
[> [> More analogies
that didn't work for me -- Caroline, 13:36:58 05/17/03
Sat
I found this piece really interesting. The main problem is that
I don't think that ME intended (and I certainly did not interpret)
Spike as the American soldier and Nikki as a brutalized non-combatant
(e.g. victims of the My Lai massacres). I would say that the woman
in the magic shop that Spike killed in Lover's Walk could be that
victim, as well as Jenny Calendar, Angelus' victim in S2. If anything,
Spike and the slayers he killed all are examples of combatants.
If you could make the analogy work to your argument this way,
then I would like to read it.
The 'choice' Nikki had to be a slayer or not I find irrelevant
- she was mystically chosen but then she 'chose' to do gladly
that which she must do. (This is that interweaving of fate and
free will that ME was giving us in Help). And I don't think that
Nikki is blotted out - even after Wood tries to kill him, Spike
spares Wood's life in honour of Wood's mother Nikki.
What if, after the events of Revelations, Angel had told Xander
that Buffy would never love him as much as she did Angel, and
that he (Angel) didn't give a shit about Jenny because she picked
the fight with him and he wasn't that person any more? .
This analogy doesn't quite hold up either - the relationships
are not the same as the Wood/Spike/Nikki trio. First off, Buffy
doesn't have anything to do with the W/S/Nikki scenario - nowhere
in that scene does Spike tell Wood that Buffy will never love
him as much as him. Second, the reason Spike isn't more guilt-ridden
about Nikki is precisely that she was a slayer and therefore could
defend herself against vampires much better than the average person
(see first para). Third, Spike didn't say Nikki picked a fight
with him and he's not that person anymore. Spike says that she
is a slayer, he was a vampire and that was the battleground. Even
now, as a being with a soul, he recognises that it was a legitimate
battle between 2 combatants, in fact one of the few honourable
battles a vampire could have, since vampires are usually so much
stronger than regular human beings. And lastly, Spike explicitly
says that he let Wood live because he (Spike) killed Wood's mother.
From the shooting script:
SPIKE
I gave him a pass. Let him live. On
account of the face [fact] that I killed his
mother.
She looks at him, begins to figure it out.
SPIKE (cont'd)
But that's all he gets.
What I get from this is that despite the fact that Wood just tried
to kill Spike, Spike has some compunction about killing Nikki
and Wood himself, thus leading him to spare Wood's life. Spike
acknowledges that he caused Wood's pain by killing Nikki and that
this is what precipitates Wood's attempt to kill him. Despite
Spike's taunting, this looks like he's acknowledging his culpability
and he is trying to atone, even though he knows that anything
he could do right now is completely insufficient. But not killing
Wood is a good way to start.
[> [> [> Wasn't drawing
specific parallels between the massacre and Spike's actions
-- KdS, 14:13:52 05/17/03 Sat
The parallel I was drawing was simply the way that Nikki was allowed
to fade into the background, in a story that was all about Spike
overcoming his problems.
[> [> [> I'm not getting
the distinction . . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:45:17 05/17/03
Sat
How is it less evil to kill someone of equal strength than to
kill someone of lesser strength? After all, Spike was the one
who started the fight and went in with intent to kill. I know
you said that it was still wrong of him to kill Nikki, but there
seems to be an implication that, since Nikki could defend herself
better than most, that the act of killing her was less evil. Part
of what you said was true (they entered a field as combatants),
but Spike was the one who initiated the confrontation. It wasn't
like an old fashioned duel where they both talk it out and agree
to the fight; Spike attacked Nikki, forcing her into combat which
might end her life.
(For anyone (not neccesarily you, Caroline) who brings up that
Buffy and Nikki force vampires into confrontations, it's well
to keep in mind that vampires are always the conflict initiators,
given their penchant for killing people; even the newly risen
will eventually commit murder)
The only possible way I can see the killing of Nikki Wood being
less wrong than than that of an "innocent" (which, by
the way, I think is the wrong term to use, since it implies that
Nikki wasn't innocent, making her somehow deserving of her death)
is your use of the word "honor". If you could please
explain your concept of honor, that would help a great deal in
understanding your side of the argument.
[> [> [> [> Re:
I'm not getting the distinction . . . -- Caroline, 15:57:24
05/17/03 Sat
I'm not sure how to explain it a different way. But I'll give
it a go. If you still don't understand, I'm sorry but that's all
I can come up with at this time.
Our society and our laws make distinctions between types of killing
and their relative 'evilness'. The point I was trying to make
is that American soldiers fighting Vietnamese soldiers in Vietnam
is considered a fair fight. American soldiers killing Vietnamese
civilians is not a fair fight as civilians are not fair targets.
(As far as I'm aware, we have ratified all sorts of these types
of rules in the Geneva Conventions about who is a fair target
and who is not. Perhaps Sophist or other legal types could weigh
in?) Who would you feel more sympathy for - the victims of the
My Lai incident or the Vietnamese soldier who died in a fight
with an American soldier? For the American soldier, the killing
if a civilian is considered honorable, whereas the killing of
a civilian at My Lai is not honorable.
[> [> [> [> [>
Perhaps Vietnam is the wrong analogy? -- s'kat, 16:21:43
05/17/03 Sat
I much prefer the idea of two hitman or snipers. One for the say
terrorists of Osma Bin Lada and one for the US goverment. Now
everyone goes nuts. Spike is the hitman for say OSMa Bin Lada
and Nikki is the Special Ops highly trained hitman for the US
governement. Neither is a civilian. The fight is fair. Spike kills
Nikki - Special Ops. But his associate, say Drusilla, takes out
the pizza parlor with kids in it. Now legally - Dru is the one
who killed the civilians. Spike legally killed a fellow solider.
But since both are "terrorists" both should be staked
by Buffy the President. But when Spike, turns states evidence
and has a bout of religion, things get murky. The son of the killed
solider wants Spike to get the death penalty.
But Spike holds the key to getting OBL, also they were fellow
combatants and under the Geneva convention - that's casualities
of war right? See murky.
Try that analogy on for size. Not sure which side of the argument
it helps. But I agree with Caroline the Vietnam one didn't work
for me either. PErsonally, I agree with Sophist - it's a bit like
being upset while reading a book on Jefferson - that we aren't
spending more time discussing the wronged slave mistress he once
had who is but a footnote in a book that is about Jefferson. Same
here, I think, the focus of the story is the President not the
Special Ops person who died 30 years before.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> I used that analogy 'cos it was in kDs' original post..
-- Caroline, 16:37:21 05/17/03 Sat
and I agree with you, it doesn't fit. Still waiting for kDs to
repond to that point.
BTW I loved your own analogy. Could make a great action movie!!
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> I should have put it under KdS' post. Kds? Look
at my analogy -- s'kat, 20:12:18 05/17/03 Sat
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Excellent, although I responded a few points
up (for sk and Caroline) -- KdS, 03:36:36 05/18/03 Sun
Yes, your terrorism analogy works far better than any Vietnam
one, but my analogy wasn't between Spike and the soldier, so much
as it was purely between Nikki and the civilians who never got
to tell their side of the story, and were used merely as tools
to tell someone else's. I think your analogy works very well though.
[> [> [> [> [>
You are correct that the "laws of war" distinguish
non-combatants. -- Sophist, 16:29:23 05/17/03 Sat
I think your last sentence came out differently than you intended.
What you said was
For the American soldier, the killing if a civilian is considered
honorable, whereas the killing of a civilian at My Lai is not
honorable.
What I think you meant was "For the American soldier, the
killing of a soldier is considered honorable, whereas the
killing of a civilian at My Lai is not honorable."
[> [> [> [> [>
[> You are absolutely correct. Thank you -- Caroline,
16:39:50 05/17/03 Sat
[> [> [> [> [>
It depends on who started the war . . . -- Finn Mac Cool,
17:39:07 05/17/03 Sat
North Vietnam started the Vietnam War, and South Vietnam (and
its allies) had to respond accordingly. In my point of view, this
is simply a larger version of a human-human conflict. NV is the
attacker; SV is the victim. If NV kills the people of SV, they
are not justified, since they're the agressor. If SV and allies
kill the people of NV, they are justified, since they were attacked
and are only responding in violence to prevent violence being
done to them. So I'm afraid I don't really see the "honorable"
issue the same way you do.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> I wish it were that clear -- Sophist, 17:58:37
05/17/03 Sat
At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, let me use WWII as an example.
There can be no question that the Germans were the aggressors.
There's also no question that millions of innocent people were
victims of German aggression and that those innocent people were
justified not only in fighting back but in killing German soldiers
while doing so.
All that said, the clear tendency is for the victors to show respect
to the ordinary German soldiers, holding only their leaders responsible.
A good example of this is President Reagan's speech at the German
war cemetary.
I'm not saying I personally agree with this. In fact, I'm more
inclined to hold soldiers responsible for the cause for which
they're fighting than most people apparently are. But mine appears
to be the minority view and, if you accept Caroline's analogy
otherwise, I think she accurately describes the majority view.
As an aside, your description of the Vietnam War is overly simplified.
If you're interested, there are lots of good books on the subject
I can recommend.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> In depends on when they enlisted -- Finn Mac
Cool, 18:13:37 05/17/03 Sat
If they enlisted before German aggression began, they didn't really
have much of a choice, since they would probably be shot, imprisoned,
and/or tortured for refusal to obey orders. Same thing goes for
those who were drafted. However, a German who chose to join the
military after German aggression does have guilt on their hands,
since they joined a force they knew to be culpable in crimes (although
I'm not even too sure about this, since I've heard conflicting
reports about how much the average German civilian knew about
Germany's activities).
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> I pretty much agree with you, but my impression
is that we're in the minority. -- Sophist, 20:25:39 05/17/03
Sat
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> The English Patient -- mamcu, 20:53:34
05/17/03 Sat
What can we say about 12-year-old suicide bombers? what about
German soldiers at the Russian front? War makes it all totally
murky. That's why I think writers like Ondaatje who really look
at war finally, usually, come to the conclusion that it all sucks.
If you start trying to apportion the blame properly, it's impossible.
[> Actually, I have a problem
with the basic arguement -- fresne, 17:15:26 05/16/03 Fri
I thought the Fonz, shark jumping aside, leant some interesting
texture to Happy Days that the show wouldn't otherwise have had.
Thus using him as an example of a bad thing, err...is the reverse.
[> [> That's true.
-- Arethusa, 17:26:44 05/16/03 Fri
He was both a sounding board and the path not taken for the safe
suburban boys. He added a little spice to the likeable but bland
main characters. Also, one of the reasons he was so popular was
the vulnerability and insecurity gradually revealed underneath
the tough exterior. So maybe he's a good example.
[> [> [> Re: That's
true. -- s'kat, 21:56:07 05/16/03 Fri
The funny thing about Fonzi is that he was the most charismatic
character on the show. And the most charismatic actor. In a recent
E! The True Hollywood Story on Henry Winkler - the show examined
how both cast and crew of Happy Days recognized Winkler's amazing
chemistry with the camera. The camera loved him. And because of
Winkler - Happy Days went up in the ratings and stayed for as
long as it did. Winkler made it a hit.
I don't think the analogy works though since Happy Days was a
situation comedy and driven by jokes and situations not really
character or theme. Situation comedys are usually designed around
a joke format. And it was only a half-hour show. Comparing Btvs
to Happy Days is a bit like well
comparing JAne Eyre to Little Orphan Annie. Or PEanuts to
Harry Potter. Yes you can do it...but...it feels off logically.
PArticularly since the writers aren't referencing situation comedies
but rather the genres of sci-fantasy, noir, and gothic within
comic book medium. A better criticism is to compare Buffy to say
Dark Shadows or to Smallville or to Forever Knight or even DS9
or something that at least fits it's structural model.
So the author in picking Happy Days as a comparison, tempting
because Happy Days is the cliche example of jump the shark - is
showing his/her own ignorance of television style and criticism.
The logic of the author's criticism falls apart on the analogy.
It was impossible for me to take this article seriously on any
level and by extension impossible for me to take Salon seriously
as an online magazine. The publishing of this article, made me
think less of the editors. And it made me appreciate the criticism
on this board.
Again - if you want to read good criticism of Buffy? Check the
archives for the following posters:
Darby
Cactus Watcher
cjl
Malandaza
Sophist
matching mole
munmundsie (sp?)
TCH
Dochawk
Earl Allison
etc....
This writer isn't worth our time or energy or anyone elses.
sk
[> [> [> [> Are
you suggesting "Peanuts" is more sophisticated than
Harry Potter? -- KdS, 03:05:25 05/17/03 Sat
'Cos I'd buy that...
[> [> [> [> [>
No, actually I was saying they aren't comparable -- s'kat,
11:41:09 05/17/03 Sat
What I was trying to point out is that Happy Days and Buffy the
Vampire Slayer aren't comparable genres or tv shows on the level
this person is attempting to do it. Nor does the individual back
up their attempt, they assume that all tv shows are comparable
and that's simply not true.
It is unfair to both tv shows. Happy Days can be compared to Family
Ties, but not Btvs. Btvs can be compared to Smallville, Alias,
La Femme Nikita, Xena, and a host of other shows even Ds9 and
the character of GulDukat.
Same thing with comic strips - both Little Orphan Annie and PEanuts
are classics but you shouldn't compare them to novels or even
say the X-men or League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. It's not fair
to both. And when you do so - it comes down to whether you happen
to prefer reading one or the other - not their own critical structure
or form.
What I'm saying is if you want to criticize something, you have
to make sure you use a logical analogy and you back up the argument
or someone can poke tons of holes in it and it will drown.
[> [> [> [> [>
Me too. I'd even finance that. -- Random, 17:12:36 05/17/03
Sat
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Me too. I'd even finance that. -- sk, 19:59:50
05/17/03 Sat
Odd, I'd say Harry Potter was more sophisticated...Peanuts seemed
awfully repetitive after a while, not that I think they are remotely
comparable or anything. But hey, I preferred Calvin and Hobbes...yep
my wicked sense of humor even goes to comics. Aren't you glad...you
only know me on the boards. ;-)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Oh, I much prefer Calvin & Hobbes. But... --
Random, 08:41:03 05/18/03 Sun
I have enormous respect for Peanuts, historically. I agree it
got repetitive somewhere around the late 70s, but in its heyday,
it was the defining comic strip of its era. It was, at least for
its time, surprisingly sophisticated. Though we've grown a little
jaded nowadays, it addressed issues such as censorship, unchecked
urban development, existential malaise, longing (to me, the little
red-haired girl is still the perfect metaphor), religion and society
(The famous "We prayed in school today" strip), society's
treatment of misfits and outcasts (Charlie Brown's existence is
surprisingly bleak upon re-assessment), animal rights, feminism,
the struggle to assimilate and understand the world around us
(Lucy's psychiatry booth is still one of the hallmarks of modern
comicdom) et al.
Charlie Brown was a flawed absurdist hero. And the Peanuts gang
illustrated something that few other comic strips managed: the
search for security and acceptance rarely a successful one. Linus
clinging to his blanket counterpoints Charlie Brown's futility.
He never gets the girl, he never kicks the football. He wins one
baseball game in 50 years. The cartoon was usually subtle, and
the metaphors often subverted as well as subversive. Snoopy was
a brilliant example of this -- the dreamer, the materialist, the
hedonist, the canine epicure.
Peanuts was the precursor to Calvin and Hobbes. It made Calvin
and Hobbes possible. It has become a cultural icon in a way that
other brilliant comic strips may never achieve.
~Random, a enormous C&H, Bloom County and Pogo fan...but feeling
that we must give Peanuts its props.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Smock, Random.... Smock, smock smock
-- LittleBit, 09:51:35 05/18/03 Sun
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Existential Hobbes? -- oceloty, 21:07:29
05/18/03 Sun
"Don't knock my smock or I'll clean your clock."
Existential Hobbes?
[> I was disappointed in
the responses -- Sophist, 18:13:10 05/16/03 Fri
Most of them were far too defensive about the show and conceded
(or asserted) criticisms far more severe than I think are justified.
I wouldn't describe these letters as remotely similar to the posts
here -- the posts here were more analytical, less conclusory,
and free of writer-bashing.
The show deserves, and has, far better defenders than any of these.
[> [> Re: I was disappointed
in the responses -- Rob, 18:43:25 05/16/03 Fri
"I wouldn't describe these letters as remotely similar to
the posts here -- the posts here were more analytical, less conclusory,
and free of writer-bashing. The show deserves, and has, far better
defenders than any of these."
Actually, I completely agree with you, more than I agree with
my own note at the top of my post. It's funny, but I wrote out
that sentence basically referring to the fact that most of the
posters didn't agree with the idea that Spike ruined the show
but then decided, just after I clicked "Approve" that
they weren't so similar after all, for the reasons you listed
here. But it was too late. I wrote a response clarifying that
I didn't agree with the writing styles and opinions of most the
posters but for different reasons, but Voy kept saying "General
Lock Error" or whatever 10 times in a row, so I just left
it the way it was.
I do think that it's nice that so many people did rise to Spike's
defense, although, I agree, the manner in which many did (instead
tearing apart other aspects of the show) I did not like.
Rob
[> [> Completely agree.
-- s'kat, 21:59:36 05/16/03 Fri
[> I posted some comments
on the Trollop Board -- Rufus, 18:58:44 05/16/03 Fri
I just had to answer the Salon article by Jamie Weinman because
he/she sounds like someone who is more fixated on the Spike character
than any of the Redemptionist types out there. To compare a character
like Spike to "Fonzie" shows the writer is only paying
attention to the most superfical layer of the show. I like season
seven very much, but I've been doing things like look for meaning
in character development and look to the symbolism, literary,
and pop culture references in the show...the writer of this piece
seems to only see Spike.
But the problems with this season can be traced to a moment
at the very end of the last good episode, "Conversations
With Dead People." That's the
moment when Buffy found out that Spike, blond vampire, attempted
rapist, and
current possessor of a soul, had somehow been killing people despite
his
souled status. From that point on, the show has no longer been
about Buffy
and her friends, or Buffy and her mission, or anything that used
to be
interesting on this show. It's been about Buffy and Spike. And
that's about
all.
This is where the writer totally loses me. As usual we get to
see Spike (pre-soul) called an attempted rapist...a title these
types of articles and posts continue to harp on. Problem with
that is that they focus on one thing and fail to mention that
the situation was a bit more detailed than that. Spike didn't
go to Buffy's house intending to harm her.....he ended up trying
to force himself on her in desperation....it was an attempted
rape....but when Buffy fought him off he left, he then felt disgusted
enough with himself he went and sought a soul. Now, if we are
always and forever to address Spike as an attempted rapist then
what do we do with Angel, call him an attempted murderer? Angel
terrorized Buffy's friends, killed her teacher and Giles girlfriend,
Jenny Calendar, he then tried to kill Buffy, he nearly did. That
seems to be conveniently forgotten in every post or article that
bashes Spike. I don't say what he did was right, but I don't insist
that Angel is still better than Spike cause without a soul he
ONLY tried to kill the woman he supposedly loved.
Look at the record. The next two episodes after "Conversations
With Dead
People" involved Buffy trying to find out why Spike was killing
again,
following which she spent two more episodes focusing her attention
on
freeing Spike from a dungeon. Since then, we've discovered that
a new
character (Principal Wood) has a vendetta against Spike, seen
an entire
episode devoted to filling out Spike's back story, and sat through
various
other plot threads about Spike. Even when Spike isn't on-screen,
characters
are talking about him.
Again the writer has simplified the situation, and further reminds
me how glad I am to have All things Philosophical to post about
the characters. The writer seems to forget that the episode after
"Conversations with Dead People", we find out that Spike
is killing again, but he isn't doing it by choice, there is an
issue of mind control that had me quoting the movie "Manchurian
Candidate" and discussing mind control and what is the responsibility
of the person controlled when they commit murder. Buffy answered
that when she didn't kill Spike. Even Xander was helpful with
all his War Movie knowledge....he told Buffy what a Sleeper was.
The characters on the show are talking about Spike because he
has done something, or something has been done to him. Being written
in as a partner of a sort to Buffy, we are going to hear about
Spike....the writer seems to forget that other characters have
gotten episodes like "Selfless" and "Storyteller".
But of course the writer can't see anything past Spike (I think
they should get a room).
In the words of "Sep," who recaps "Buffy"
episodes for the famously snarky
Web site Television Without Pity, "Watching episode after
episode about
Spike's journey when Giles has become a prick and I don't know
a goddamn
thing about what Willow or Xander are thinking, or even who they
are
anymore, and will likely never find out, breaks my heart."
Hmmm now we get to see Television Without Pity mentioned, not
because it is a site that is home to deep thinkers, but "writers"
who put together "snarky" reviews. I also disagree that
Giles is a prick because of what he and Robin tried to pull off
with Spike in Lies My Parents told Me.....seems Buffy has begun
to get over it too.
At every turn, the "Buffy" staff has copped out on
Spike's story, whitewashing his past (a flashback in a recent
episode shows that even when he was turned into a vampire, he
wasn't initially a vicious killer -- something that contradicts
all the previous vampire
mythology on the show) and making no attempt to show that having
a soul has
changed him one way or the other. By the evidence of this season's
episodes,
Spike is still a wisecracking punk who likes to hit women (he's
hit Buffy,
Anya and Faith so far this year) and isolate Buffy from her friends,
yet
we're still somehow supposed to sympathize with him, because ...
why?
Because he got a soul in the hope that Buffy would forgive his
attempt to
rape her and sleep with him again. Except for a couple of throwaway
lines,
Spike has never been made to seek redemption for his crimes; he
doesn't even
apologize to Principal Wood for having murdered his mother. The
assumption
appears to be that Spike doesn't need to atone because having
a soul makes
him a different and better person. But the writers haven't shown
us that;
all they've shown us is the same Fonzie figure from Seasons 5
and 6, only
without the viciousness that made him moderately interesting.
I don't know what show this person is watching because their focus
on Spike is beginning to make me wonder about how much attention
they pay to the other characters. I've been able to post only
making short references to Spike. I have found the storylines
this year to my liking but I don't only watch the show for Spike,
I actually pay attention to what is going on. Things don't always
happen in a linear way....and that also means atoning, or proof
that a person has changed....sometimes we only get glimpses of
change. Spike didn't apologize to Wood about his mother....I do
wonder if Spike would have behaved differently if Wood hadn't
trapped him, beat him with the intent to kill him. I think a beating,
and attempted murder makes one a bit on the cranky side. In earlier
episodes Spike has made it clear he can't take back what he has
done as a soulless vampire, but he is willing to help fight the
good fight. Neither Spike or Angel can give back exactly what
they have taken when soulless vampires, what they can do is attempt
to protect those they would formerly have tortured and killed.
Jasmine told Angel that he wasn't human and he said "Workin
on it"....I think Spike is working on it....Angel has just
had a few, well many decades long head start.
The second episode of this season, "Beneath You,"
was originally supposed to end with a scene where Spike expresses
guilt for his past crimes, admits that he got a soul
for selfish reasons (he thought Buffy would love him if he had
a soul), and
arrives at the realization that having a soul hasn't made him
good enough
for Buffy ("God hates me. You hate me. I hate myself more
than ever"). But
creator Joss Whedon rewrote this scene so that Spike talked mostly
about the
fact that Buffy "used" him for sex -- just another attempt
to create
unearned sympathy for Spike and deemphasize his past role as a
killer and
sexual predator.
I think there was a very different reason that the last bit in
Beneath You was rewritten, and it wasn't to white-wash Spike,
it was to make his status ambiguous enough that there would be
dramatic tension. As originally written it told too much, and
that would have taken away from the episode like Conversations
with Dead People and Sleeper. I got it from what I saw in Beneath
You that Spike was anguished by being able to feel the emotions
that the lack of soul took away from him, the feelings of guilt
and horror that he could be capable of such viciousness. My feeling
is that no matter what Spike does this writer is never going to
see past the label they have already decided on for the character.
The bond between these four characters was the heart of the
show for
the first four seasons, more than anything else, even romance
(there were
many episodes where Buffy's love interest, Angel, didn't appear
or was
relegated to one or two token scenes). Every week, these characters
proved
what we'd all like to believe when we're outcasts in high school:
that the
uncool kids, the ones no one takes seriously, are really the coolest
and
most heroic of all.
It seems to me that Spike has been relegated to a few scenes in
many of this years eps. Specially at the beginning. So the writer
doesn't make a great argument for a surfeit of Spike. Plus Angel
was sent off to his own series at the end of season three, where
surprisingly enough he is sans shirt in many episodes (that bastard
Spike must be to blame). The fact that these characters always
end up back together proves how strong a bond they have. Characters
like Willow have made mistakes and she has been forgiven and taken
back because of that bond. Also, Xander and Dawn had a great episode
in Potential where we got to see the good fight from the perspective
of the common man/girl. The bonds of friendship are always tested,
it's in how the characters survive the test that we see how wonderful
they are.
To make this clear, the monsters on the show were often portrayed
as the
twisted embodiment of high school coolness. In the pilot, Xander's
friend
Jesse goes from "an excruciating loser" to an effortlessly
cool bad boy
after he is turned into a vampire. Another episode, "Reptile
Boy," made frat
boys the villains. And Spike, when introduced in Season 2, was
exactly the
kind of smartass punk who makes high school a miserable place
for geeks:
Arrogant, cocky and contemptuous of anyone who wasn't equally
cool, he was a
superficial, self-confident Fonzie type who deserved to get smacked
down by
our awkward heroes.
I think the writer misses the point of this year's back to the
beginning. The characters are reliving situations that remind
us of past seasons but show their reactions to similar events
as more mature adults. Xander is never going to be that kid that
rolled to school on a skateboard in Welcome to the HellMouth.
Of course I never saw evil Spike as cool but annoying, so I guess
it's a subjective opinion on what is cool.
And it's not just Spike. Willow's new love
interest, Kennedy, is a confident loudmouth with a privileged
upbringing,
who obnoxiously admires Willow not for her intelligence but for
her power.
Spike's nemesis, Principal Wood, is described in one of the scripts
as "The
Coolest Principal Ever." And Andrew, the show's answer to
"The Simpsons'"
Comic Book Guy, is constantly mocked for his geekiness, because
a show that
was once on the side of geeks now portrays them as buffoons or
villains. And
whereas the early seasons usually showed the characters learning
how to
defeat monsters by researching them in Giles' books, they now
find
everything they need on the Internet -- a far cry from Giles'
wonderful
first-season speech about the superiority of books over computers.
It seems
that on a show where an unrepentant mass murdering monster can
be a hero,
there's no more room for a celebration of the power of book learning,
or the
nobility of uncool people.
Now, not content to bash Spike, the writer moves onto Kennedy
and Principal Wood. If the writer had their way, maybe the core
four could sit around a table every week and tell jokes. Different
characters are going to surface or the show (any show) is over.
Kennedy is nineteen years old and is drawn to Willow, but not
just for her power. She honestly is attracted to the woman. How
dare that bitch not comment about Willow's big brain. As for mocking
Andrew....notice that while Andrew is mocked the characters reveal
that they are closer to being like him than not. Xander's inner
comic book geek surfaces, Buffy tolerates him, and slowly he begins
to fit in. Then we have that turn-coat Giles who has found that
the computer can be a useful adjunct to books...what a creep.
The writer then finishes with yet another reference to Spike as
a unrepentant, mass murdering, monster....but hey, maybe he/she
is talking about Angel for a change......;)
Which brings us back to "Happy Days," and the Fonz.
Just as "Happy Days"
went on for years with Fonzie even after Ron Howard left the show,
there are
rumors that the character of Spike may go on after the end of
"Buffy" --
perhaps moving to "Angel," or perhaps to a spinoff.
The character is
popular; cool characters often are. But "Happy Days"
was a better show in
the first two years, when it was just about the uncool Richie
Cunningham.
And "Buffy" was a better show in the first four years,
before Spike fell in
love with Buffy, before Spike started taking his shirt off in
every episode,
and when the focus was on four uncool people and their quest to
rid the
world of ... well, of characters like Spike.
Again the writer longs for the good old days. Well people and
characters change, and I'm sure the writer can buy the first four
seasons on DVD if they just can't deal with the evolving nature
of the characters on the show. I love Buffy just as much now as
I did in season one....I expect change, and face it you can't
stop change. Spike is more than that Black Duster, he is more
than the amount of skin he has been forced to show. Characters
may evolve in Buffy, it's too bad that some people are incapable
of evolving as well.
With tongue firmly in cheek.....Rufus
[> [> Now that's well
done. -- s'kat, 22:22:50 05/16/03 Fri
And reminds me of why I love this board, well thought out analysis,
point by point with back up. Also a focus on other things not
just one topic.
I agree with this comment :
just had to answer the Salon article by Jamie Weinman because
he/she sounds like someone who is more fixated on the Spike character
than any of the Redemptionist types out there.
This I find incredibly ironic. If someone despises a character
- why do they spend all their time posting on it?
Particularly for tv shows that have numerous other things to focus
on? I'd think if you were tired of a character or didn't like
them - you'd post on everything else and not waste your time on
it?
Like you I prefer to post on numerous things not just one thing.
There's so much richness in these shows to write about. To focus
entirely on one seems a bit short-sighted.
Sometimes I think the anti-shippers are more fixated on the character
they hate then the pro-shippers.
Again the writer has simplified the situation, and further
reminds me how glad I am to have All things Philosophical to post
about the characters.
Ditto. When people criticize the show on this board - we do it
on a far more constructive level. Did you read matching moles
recent posts or Darbys? And we also get far more interesting posts
on literary allusions and film metaphors.
The people on this board have obviously spent their lives on more
interesting pursuits than watching re-runs of old situation comedies
on Nick at Night and TV-Land. It's sad that posts like your's
Rufus and others on this board, such as matching mole's criticism
or Masq's analysis or TCH's Angel essays - don't get the same
type of publicity and mass readership as an article such as this.
That enrages me.
Because it's so unfair and says so much about our popular/mainstream
news and entertainment media/culture.
sk
[> [> [> Re: Now that's
well done. -- Miss Edith, 08:52:28 05/17/03 Sat
I lurk on TWoP (a site which attracts Spike haters) and that is
so true. There are posters saying Xander summoning Sweet was All
About Spike. Willow's killing spree was All About Spike. Anya's
massacre in Sefless was All About Spike. Andrew having taken a
life was All About Spike. Apparently ME are using all the other
characters to make Spike's past look better, there would be no
killers among the regular cast if it weren't for Spike. Even Anya
being horny is All About Spike, and making him look noble for
turning her down. Some of the anti-Spike folk relate nearly everything
to Spike I've noticed. There are characters I depsise *coughKennedyandWoodcough*
I therefore don't waste my energy posting on them all that often.
I'm surprised that a lot of the people claiming to despise Spike,
and finding him a flat empty character with a soul, do talk about
him quite as much as they do. Just an observation.
[> [> [> [> They
all need to get a room, but it's looking to be a real big room
now....;) -- Rufus, 15:57:09 05/17/03 Sat
[> [> [> [> [>
LMAO!!! MAybe we should do mud wrestling tournaments --
s'kat, 19:57:14 05/17/03 Sat
Here's the line-up:
Spikeshippers(etc) vs. Spikehaters
OR better yet a tournament like Jbones contest:
1. B/R vs. B/W
the winner goes against
B/X
the winner goes up against
B/S
the winner goes up against reigning champ
B/A
2. W/X vs. W/O
the winner goes up against
W/K
the winner goes up against reigning champ
W/T
3. X/W vs. X/B
the winner goes up against reigning champ
X/A
and we can keep going...
Uhm I was assuming you meant shippers.
Now I think of it maybe you meant Spike and the Anti's??;-)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> I think there is room for all of them.....;) -- Rufus,
00:49:53 05/18/03 Sun
[> [> Superlative- I
love point-by-point deconstructions of gibberish! -- TCH-
genuflecting Rufus, 01:23:21 05/17/03 Sat
Current board
| More May 2003