May 2003 posts


Previous May 2003  

More May 2003

The Soul and Spike (why I won't enter into any Spike discussions until next year) -- lunasea, 09:29:26 05/05/03 Mon

I love Angel dearly (for those who didn't know that). He is my favorite character ever--books, plays, movies or TV. I will admit, though, that prior to Season 3 BtVS he was pretty much just a gorgeous plot device. Even the episode that bears his name isn't about him so much as it is Buffy's reactions to what he is. She is the real angel. Season 3 they have to get him ready for his own show, so he is written so that he can exist away from Buffy. He becomes much more than a plot device. "Amends" is about him, not just Buffy's reaction to him. It contains one of Joss' favorite lines "It's not the demon in me that needs killing, Buffy. It's the man." In that line, a spin-off was born and Angel became a multi-dimensional character that could exist without Buffy. All the stuff I thought I saw or wanted to see all of the sudden materialized on the screen. It was nice to know that Joss saw Angel the same way I did.

I can creatively use the backstory that was present there BtVS season 2 with "Innocence" and say all sorts of things. The truth is that Angel lost his soul because Joss wanted to do a particular story with Buffy, "I slept with my boyfriend and now he has changed." It had nothing to do with Angel or vengeance or happiness. It had nothing to do with the boyfriend. We barely saw him. I can take the vamping of Dru, shown in "Becoming," or pretty much anything from that episode about Angel and say all sorts of things. Reality is that they just wanted to show how mega-evil Angelus was and is, why he was that way and why he had agreed to help Buffy. They were just justifying actions they needed him to do so that Buffy would have something to react to.

Spike has been in the same boat until recently, as they get ready for him to possibly exist without Buffy. THAT is why I will not get into lengthy discussions about his arc. He really doesn't have one. What people see is what *they* put there, which is why these get so personal. It isn't about Spike as much as "if I was Spike." The writers stuck Spike in the basement and then had him tortured this season because they didn't know what else to do with him.

Here are Marti's words on the evolution of Spike from the CBC program Ideas, probably one of her best interviews.

Well, the whole genesis of Spike, is that we just wanted a cool villain. He was introduced as part of a Sid and Nancy set, and then he just popped up as a character, and we wanted to bring him back. We weren't sure how he would function in the group because he was evil, and more or less as a functon of story-telling we wanted to make him less so, so he could be around the gang more. So, we had him tracked by the government, and a chip is put in his head, so he is unable to attack people. So for a long time he was good by default. He was still able to hurt demons, his chip didn't stop that, but he was fighting on the side of right because he still liked to kill things. But slowly you start to have moral questions. Is this a change in conditioning? Was the active fight for good, did that start to make him seek out good? And then he becomes attracted to Buffy. I've always joked around that he became attracted to Buffy because she could hit him the hardest, that he liked to be abused. Then we discovered that there was a real heart to that story-line, and they had a real chemistry together. So a lot of times people who see this as a grand design, an opera about good and evil. It's just really a slowly evolving thing, and sometimes form follows function. And as we watched, eventually we found that Spike was a real romantic foil for Buffy. And also what we've seen is Buffy attracted to her own darkness. To her own aggression, to sex without love, to sex where love is really subdued, all of the things that she can't permit, because she is a hero.

THAT is Spike that the writers created and I really try to stick with the Buffyverse rather than just what I want to see. That is what fanfiction is for (if you want to hear something evil, ask me how Buffy will say "I love you" to Spike).

The soul was another one of those things that was form following function. They needed a reason that Angel wasn't evil. The Buffyverse soul was created. They needed Angel to go evil. Curse was created and soul was lost. The next time the soul plays a part is in "Living Conditions." That episodes is usually left out of conversations about the soul. Ryan doesn't have a soul. Gunn trades his for a truck and has to give it back when he is falling in love with Fred, thus going to give it to her. The big soul plot was Darla being affected by Connor's soul

Joss doesn't want to get into all those soul debates, so he dodges them well, like he does anything he wants the audience to answer for themselves. He is on record as saying the soul just orients the moral compass. What he leaves out is what does orient the moral compass. That is where THE story is. Instead of telling us the answer, he has shown us it, with Angel, Buffy, Darla and Gunn. He is consistent with all 4 characters, plus Ryan and vampires showing absence of the soul.

But what about Spike? He is now on the list of characters that have stories that deal with the soul. My favorite Spike episode is "Crush." Not the crap with Buffy. I wish that was all left out. The real story for me was his interaction with Dru. FFL was Spike's "Becomining" and "Crush" was his "Angel." Dru tried to redeem Spike. We think of redemption as turning good. That isn't what it is. It is gaining forgiveness for past transgressions so that we can move beyond them and follow our moral conscience more easily.

Redemption involves contrition, confession and satisfaction/penance. It was interesting seeing the redemption story played through the eyes of evil. We see the conversion to evil as the temptation of the Devil. With "Crush" it was trying to return an evil creature to his nature. It was the same thing as trying to redeem a human being. Over on AtS, Darla was trying to do the same thing for Angel.

Actually, "Crush" is Spike's "Darla." Angel tried to go back to evil and couldn't. Darla did give him a method of redemption back to evil. Angel couldn't do it. Same thing happened with Spike. BIG difference is that Angel followed his moral compass. Spike went against his. That is why I now bow out of Spike discussions. For some reason, when a human character goes against their moral compass and turns evil, they are weak and blameworthy, but when Spike goes against his, it is makes him strong and admirable.

Angel has a strong moral compass. He is strongly oriented to good and he was strongly oriented to evil. When resouled, not even his feelings for Darla could override this. When he lost his soul, not even his feelings for Buffy could override this. The soul just says what way this rather powerful compass points.

Spike has a weak moral compass. There isn't a big difference between souled and unsouled Spike. There isn't going to be. If you have a powerful magnet and you turn it around so the poles are changed, the difference is dramatic. If you have a weak one, not so much with the difference. It doesn't mean that Spike is any less interesting to watch. He is closer to the every man than Angel is.

The discussions that can stick with the idea of what is good can be very interesting, even if the writers didn't really intend to explore this. Pretty much every question about Spike is met with the same answer by the writers, he is a vampire. That can't be ignored. If a vampire has the potential for real goodness, goodness for goodness sake, then Buffy is killing redeemable creatures and it really puts what she does into question. Not a place I see ME going. Instead ME goes through great pains to give us other motives for Spike's actions. When those motives are explored instead of just his "noble sacrifices" that I will participate in. ME has written those in. Spuffy goes back to "Out of My Mind." It isn't something I see discussed often in Spuffy discussions.

So now I will stay out of the Spike debates until there is actually something to debate, when he gets away from Buffy. Spike fits all known perimeters of the show. He isn't the exception that proves the rule. He is what shows us what the rules are.

Manwitch asked me about my zen pov. That gets really complicated. The sutras are written the same way the parables are, so that people of different awarenesses can get what they need to move on. There is a lot of talk about good and evil, even though the ultimate goal is to move beyond all such concepts. In Buddhism we say that these concepts form a raft for us to get across the stream. We need the raft to get across, but once we are across, we need to leave them behind.

Sometimes I need concepts like good and evil and sometimes I really am in Big Mind and don't think about anything. My Zen POV just says that creatures should be their nature. Anything else will perpetuate samsara. Karma is formed by intent, so that is what I look at. Beneficial actions that come from negative intentions still generate negative karma. That is not considered good.
[> Sigh -- ponygirl, just sighin', 09:58:05 05/05/03 Mon

[> Oh, would you just get over yourself? -- dub, 11:07:12 05/05/03 Mon

How many times are you going to write the same post? We don't care anymore.
[> [> WW, just don't read them. It works for me. -- dream, 11:12:48 05/05/03 Mon

[> [> [> ::sigh:: I don't want to, but I keep reading. -- anniegreengables, 14:39:26 05/06/03 Tue

[> [> Don't let it get to you, my favorite Wisewoman. This, too, shall... -- Random, 11:26:02 05/05/03 Mon

[> [> Actually, I had asked her a question... -- manwitch, 14:37:08 05/05/03 Mon

...about how she was defining "good" in an earlier post and about whether or not she was priveleging the term and if so how. She had also made a statement that, I was arguing, will always bring forth the "What about Spike?" argument, and I was merely trying to explain in greater detail why that might be to see if she would reject it substantively.

In fairness, her post was a response to that, in which I also included a lot of comparison/contrast about Spike's and Angel's soul which lunasea rejects, at least in the terms it was presented.

I'm not entirely comfortable with her getting dumped on for attempting to respond to me.

My apologies, lunasea. It was not my intent to sucker you into what could be perceived as the same post about Spike debates. I am clear on where you stand there.

Thanks for the response. We will continue to disagree on the Soul issue and apparently on a basic philosophy of creativity, but I may yet try to get you to elaborate further on the definition of good.

I have little time to read everything I would like on this board, and much less time to respond or write. Frequently, if not always, I am working through my own thoughts as I write, which is a helpful and enriching exercise even if no one responds or if no one agrees.

Your earlier post caught my attention and helped me work through some stuff in response. Whether or not we ultimately agree seems immaterial. I thank you regardless for the interesting post, and for your response after it was already gone to the archives.

don't refrain from posting anything on my account.
[> [> [> It Seems There's Sometimes a Mob Mentality Going on Here... -- AngelVSAngelus, 15:41:33 05/05/03 Mon

When Lunasea posts I see all these responses that seem to dismiss or diss her, and that doesn't seem very fair or kind at all. I haven't seen her insult anyone or anything resembling that...
Lunasea, I usually find your posts pretty interesting, particularly your three tier Season 7 paradigm (faith,hope,love). I hope you continue these despite others who want to disrespect you for some reason.
[> [> [> [> I refuse to read any posts by posters whose name contains vowels! -- H'tqvbcs Xplk, 14:44:46 05/06/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> Gee I wish I had something to say -- M., 19:59:35 05/06/03 Tue

[> [> [> Don't worry about it -- lunasea, 15:59:51 05/05/03 Mon

No apologies necessary. It was actually one of your posts that brought me here and convinced me to post. I love to read your stuff. I was happy when I saw that you had responded to something I wrote.

The writers tend to shy away from defining good and just use the word. I don't blame them. 1) there are so many different definitions about what constitutes it, just about as many as there are for love, for which good could be considered a synonym. 2) it leaves it up to the audience to decide. ME presents many scenarios that lead the us to ask the question--was that good.

Spike has made me take a look at the more subtle forms of evil, things that look good on the surface, but whose motives aren't necessarily pure, so when the circumstances change, the actions that result are not so nice. "Ask me again why I could never love you?" Parabola did an issue on evil Winter 1999 (for those unfamiliar with this wonderful magazine about "Myth, Tradition and The Search for Meaning" I highly recommend it). On the cover is a picture of Darth Maul. He looks evil. His sort of evil isn't the dangerous kind. It is the subtle forms of evil that lead us into true peril.

What is good isn't nearly as interesting to me as what is evil. The Fall. It resulted by Man exercising our free will. Some interpret the myth to say that the Church thinks Free Will is bad. Wrong. I've been spending a great deal with the Catechism. That is the official Vatican Position on most things. There are other denominations that believe other things and it is inaccurate to paint all of Christianity with one brush, but I am trying to get at THE story behind all the stories.

The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil should be called the Tree of Human Arrogance. In all of us is something that tells us what is good and what is evil. It is called the Conscience (soul in the Buffyverse). Man had choice since we were created. It is what makes us in the image of God. We already had that knowledge. What eating from the tree did was say that *I* know better. It is saying that I can "know" this rather than feel it in my heart. It separated us from God.

This may seem to have nothing to do with what would be original sin in Buddhism, but behind them both lies the same story. Original sin would be called "avidya" (ignorance), the first link in the chain of dependant co-arising. In the story of the Garden of Eden, Man is living in complete harmony with everything. In Buddhism, we are all in vidya. This is a primordial intelligence connected with space and oneness. Not much difference there.

What happens is that Man begins to get confused and think that we are separate from things. We see ourselves as I. I wrote about this in a thread where I talk about what the First is a while ago. God tells Man that when they eat of the tree we shall die. In Buddhism, avidya is what ultimately leads to Samsara and death.

Avidya/ignorance and the tree of knowledge don't look like they are analogous. They are if you realize the knowledge gained from the tree isn't Truth. It is really ignorance. Man is now afraid of God and is ashamed of their body. That is not Truth. The union of man and woman is shattered and lust and power becomes a problem. Not Truth. The tree of knowledge actually masks an incredible ignorance. We think we are knowledgable, but really we are incredibly ignorant, because we think we know things we cannot know.

What is good? Anything that promotes vidya, that sense of oneness that is often called love. Whether a particular thing does this or not is up to debate. That is my broad overall definition. It fits with both the Catechism and Buddhism. Good is using our divine image (reason and free will) and freedom towards this end. That is why Angel is considered not a lower being. That is what Buffy needs to learn in order to beat the First.

I hope that answers your question.
[> [> [> [> I think... -- LeeAnn, 03:41:21 05/06/03 Tue

I think you write well and your essay was interesting.
[> [> [> To clarify... -- dub, 16:11:49 05/05/03 Mon

My comment was not in any way related to lunasea's answer to your specific question.

What I and those who posted in support of me are tired to death of is lunasea's constant, unremitting Spike bashing--that is what we have seen far too much of, and have come to resent. It's not even so much the attitude...everyone is entitled to their opinion...it's that it is reiterated in virtually every post.

I cannot be excused from dumping on lunasea...I lost my temper and I did indeed dump in my previous post...but I did want to be sure my underlying message was clear.

And lunasea, by all means, post away to your heart's content, but please recognize that some of us wish fervently that you'd give the whole issue of Spike a rest, as you promise in the title of your original post to this thread.

dub
[> [> [> [> What lunasea is tired of -- lunasea, 17:03:06 05/05/03 Mon

Is any post that doesn't praise Spike as the second coming is considered Spike bashing. Most of the stuff about Spike was from Marti. I tend to agree with her. Can't think of anything we disagree on, except for chocolate.

If anything, I talked more about Angel and how they didn't center things around him than I did Spike. Why aren't I accused of Angel bashing?

What did I say about Spike?

1) that he is form following function, not some grand arc
2) Spike's redemption was actually what Dru attempted in "Crush" bringing him back to his moral compass, evil (and I found this interesting)
3) that Spike goes against him moral compass pre-soul
4) that his moral compass is fairly weak, especially compared to Angel
5) Spike is a vampire
6) Spuffy starts with "Out of My Mind."

Why does every character have to be the ultimate hero? Why is calling one less than this considered bashing? I will be doing a post on Xander in a while. It goes over what his function on the show is, not support but to voice things that Buffy cannot. Is stating his refusal to see Angel as anything more than just a vampire going to be considered bashing? How about all the really mean things he says to Buffy?

They are characters, not people. They have functions on the show. The important thing is the story. Does the character serve the story? Yes. Then he is a great character. Spike fits this criteria and is a great character.
[> [> [> [> [> What might help... -- Dariel, 20:29:22 05/05/03 Mon

Is to stop making little swipes at Spike's fans/other posters who disagree with you. Here are some examples (from your original post) of the kind of statements to avoid:

What people see is what *they* put there, which is why these get so personal. It isn't about Spike as much as "if I was Spike."

THAT is [the] Spike that the writers created and I really try to stick with [in] the Buffyverse rather than just what I want to see."

So now I will stay out of the Spike debates until there is actually something to debate.

You can bash Spike all you want, as far as I'm concerned. Just don't tell folks that, if they disagree, it's because they're projecting. That's not a proper way to make an argument, or address people that you don't know. If you can't support your own arguments without getting personal, then be quiet.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Thank you. Yes. -- dream, 06:58:44 05/06/03 Tue

I just deleted the long response, which got into all sorts of issues in which I had felt a distinctly disrespectful attitude toward other posters's beliefs, not just regarding Spike. I decided it was unduly inflammatory. But I will say that, for the reasons you describe, I had been frustrated with her posts (on many topics). I was glad to hear someone expressing what I so often felt, and so I joined in. I wouldn't call it "mob mentality," that seems a little extreme. But it's true that there are better ways of dealing with these sorts of problems than complaining en masse. I generally try to be very respectful of other's beliefs. I also don't read posts with very negative titles, and I skip lunasea's posts as much as possible. No need to set myself off. I was actually making a genuine suggestion to WW, though the tone was obviously smug and a little nasty, and that's pretty inexcusable. I am sorry that I joined in in that way.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> must .... not ..... push .... 'next message' .... must .... escape ... thread -- Egretfullness, 14:53:41 05/06/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: What might help... -- lunasea, 08:46:04 05/06/03 Tue

So what? It is the way humans function. We project the hell out of anything and everything. What we are seeing on TV is the writers issues and questions projected through the Transcendant Function. That doesn't make it anything less. If anything, it makes it more IMNSHO.

Parabola is subtitled "Myth, tradition and the search for meaning." I find boards like this and magazines like that to be incredibly interesting. They search the meaning of other things that search for meaning. Projection is going to happen. It is a fascinating study in human behavior.

It was illustrated wonderfully with Spike. Spike has certain needs that cannot be met. He projects all of that into a dream, a dream that cannot be taken out of context. ME has explored this with all sorts of dreams, including the bizarre ones in "Restless."

I said that I "really try." I didn't say that I always succeed. I have had to re-evaluate my interpretations as new data is obtained, especially this season with AtS. As I do this, I learn how much of myself actually goes into my analyses and learn a lot about myself.

The search for meaning. Figuring out a show is great mental masterbation. Figuring out how that applies to THE story or myself is true meaning.

If you don't like what I say, don't read it. I find people who are telling me not to get personal that are themselves getting rather personal to be an interesting study in human paradox. Enough people have remarked that they enjoy this sort of thing, so I will continue to post in the manner I do, which makes comments about Man (not specific wo/men). It won't hurt my feelings if you don't read them. I won't even know about it, unless you feel the need to tell me. I would wonder why you would want to do this though.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Request for expansion -- Tchaikovsky, 08:53:56 05/06/03 Tue

The search for meaning. Figuring out a show is great mental masterbation. Figuring out how that applies to THE story or myself is true meaning.

I find this view disconcerting- masturbation is about fulfilling physical instincts for pleasure. Trying to figure out a show can be more than that. In providing insights not only into itself but also into one's own life and other people's around one, it opens up channels to ultimate and primal questions, the exploration of which must be the most pressing concern of any enquiring mind- someone who will not work entirely on a principle that 'Ignorance is Bliss'.

Hope I didn't just pounce on an incidence of pretty alliteration over-zealously, but would value an explanation of this assertion.

TCH
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Request for expansion -- lunasea, 09:41:28 05/06/03 Tue

Trying to figure out a show can be more than that.

I believe you just reiterated what I was saying. I said it was in applying the show to one's own life and primal questions that meaning lies.

It can do all those things you mentioned. That is what is valuable. That is what has meaning. Just talking about this character or that, if it doesn't go any further than that has value as entertainment or release. Nothing wrong with that either.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: What might help... -- Dariel, 11:03:05 05/06/03 Tue

So what? It is the way humans function. We project the hell out of anything and everything.

Then why bring it up to belittle other people's ideas? I've seen people who are interested in what you have to say, who are interested in having a discussion with you, get turned off by this very thing.

Despite sounding pissy, the "What might help" was an attempt to give you some advice. Namely, that people don't like to be told that they're projecting when they're trying to have a conversation. What exactly is the point of bringing it up, other than to stop that conversation?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Because that isn't its function -- lunasea, 11:15:57 05/06/03 Tue

Then why bring it up to belittle other people's ideas?

Because that isn't its function. If your perception and the writer's disagree, there has to be a reason why. Why not explore that?

Greenwalt agrees with a lot of people about the immaturity of Buffy/Angel (luckily for me Joss doesn't). Greenwalt doesn't have the most success with relationships and compares Angel going back to Buffy with Greenwalt going back to his first wife. Joss has Kai. I love hearing him talk about her. These different perspectives on Buffy/Angel are driven by their different experiences.

We could do Jane and Marti on Spike. Jane doesn't want kids and again not with the luck when it comes to guys. Marti is married to Riley and has a new baby. They have vastly different experiences which drive their perceptions. (Again luckily for me Marti was the one in control and the one that Joss relies on).

Me? I am married to my own Riley and have two wonderful daughters. This colors my own perspective, but it puts me in line with Joss and Marti. That is why I love the show and am pretty good at predicting what will happen.

Don't take it as an insult or belittling. It is a recognition of why there are differences. It is an invitation to even share where those differences come from. Those tend to be the most interesting discussions. Not just what I see, but why, as I have shared above.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> ARGH!!!! -- dream, 11:30:20 05/06/03 Tue

Why am I even reading this?

So the writers who (supposedly) think the way you do are the ones that have successful relationships and children, and the ones that don't, well, don't? Who the heck are you to judge other people's relationships?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Get over it -- lunasea, 11:48:21 05/06/03 Tue

Do you want the specific interviews?

Joss and Kai are incredibly happy and do have a new baby. Hearing him talk about her is wonderful. Same thing with Marti. Not really a subjective opinion (other than the wonderful. Maybe that sort of love is offensive to some)

David Greenwalt and Jane Espenson are also on record with their relationship difficulties. They both can laugh about them, much the same way that Joss can joke about high school. Again, not so much with the subjectivity. It is their own perceptions of their own lives.

These different experiences drive different perceptions. There is nothing wrong in saying that. It isn't a judgement of them. As Sam said "Yeah, better no guy than the wrong guy, that's for sure." Not everyone has to have children either. It is a life-altering experience that changes your perspective forever, though.

It is interesting to see where the different perspectives come from.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Love isn't offensive to me. Your condescension, however, is. -- dream, 11:54:58 05/06/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Amen! -- ponygirl wishing this was the end, but doubting it, 12:19:58 05/06/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I just can't keep reading and posting here. Voy is forcing me, weakening my resolve. -- Exclaberous, 14:03:56 05/06/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> stop me before I read another one of these posts! -- Camdinablortus, 14:21:21 05/06/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Glad to...Hand me that can of Troll-B-Gone, wouldya? -- ;o), 15:09:09 05/06/03 Tue

[> Great Insight! -- Lot's Wife, 11:37:47 05/05/03 Mon

Hi Lunasea,

Another insightful post. You always leave me with something else to ponder. Thanks.

Regards,
Lot's Wife
[> [> though I promised myself never to post again... -- Tremulousity ::keeping my word::, 14:43:20 05/06/03 Tue

[> I'm not sure, but did you just say..... -- WickedBuffy, 13:51:46 05/05/03 Mon

Ok, first, I have to admit, except for Tch's posts and Masq's reviews, I don't have the attention span to read those really long ones. I'd love to, but am more of a haiku person than a tome one.

But, were you saying at the end, there, that you realize that sometimes you see things (like the soul discussions) from one pov and you also recognize there are other times you can see it from another?

I think it's great when someone can stand in many different pairs of shoes and not feel their toes get so pinched they have to grumble at the original owners of them.

Being unattached to a point of view really allows all kinds of thoughts, ideas and people to join and take part in a respectful, stimulating discussion - all beginners and willing to bend.

If that's not what you said, then ::blick::
[> [> Thanks -- lunasea, 14:37:12 05/05/03 Mon

The ultimate perspective actually encompases all perspectives. Most people think theirs is that and what doesn't fit in with theirs is "wrong." I am more interested in what drives the various perspectives than the perspectives themselves. In these drives what I have been calling THE story lies. All perspectives are right and wrong. They are right from that perspective, but they are wrong in that they aren't the ultimate perspective.

My Aunt Patty said the funniest thing this weekend. She said that she doesn't like things that have messages or deep meanings. She is one of the biggest Buffy fans there is and she absolutely adores Spike. She watches the show for pure entertainment. That is one perspective, no less valid than what we do here. The show can be really fun and it is great to watch it from that perspective sometimes. "Magic Bullet" viewed as just a conspiracy theorists worst nightmare is great.

I can give many different perspectives on any number of topics. In Jungian speak it is like a bird circling a tree. I'm sure many here can do that. I tend to give the one that doesn't get a lot of bandwidth to it. I got tired of the atheist perspective, so I went to the Catechism and gave the Catholic one. I'm not Catholic any more. I was just using it to show THE story through another perspective, one that few see. Maybe it even showed a bit of the beauty in a religion that gets trashed.

For this thread, I was just saying that there is no overall grand scheme to either the soul or Spike. Marti said so about Spike, so I will go with that. Joss has said what the soul is and I will not argue against what he says. I find what they say interesting. Any perspective which is offered as valid should encompass what these two people say. Otherwise it is just another personal perspective, a part of the ultimate perspective which would encompass everything. It is "wrong" when offered as THE perspective. It is "right" when it is offered as what someone sees. The more you can see these personal perspectives, the closer you can come to the ultimate.

Now if people want to say how the soul orients a person to good or the absence of it orients them to evil, THAT is an interesting discussion.
[> [> [> Re: Thanks -- manwitch, 15:09:18 05/05/03 Mon

This is where I would say we differ on a theory of creativity.

"Any perspective which is offered as valid should encompass what these two people say."

In my opinion, and that's all this is, this statement assumes a lot about the creative process that I don't agree with. I think encompassing what they say is completely valid, but restricting interpretation to what their statements appear to allow doesn't work for me.

Imagine restricting interpretations of Shakespeare to what the author said he intended. We would then have nothing.

And even if we were to find written statements of what he intended, while it might inform interpretation, it would not and should not reign it in.

The work is what matters. If a painter has to stand next to me and tell me what colors he intended, well, who has time for that. I can see what the colors are. And if the artist wanted them to be different from what I see, well, such is the risk of creating art. Something more substantive than the artist's claim of intent is required to negate or refute what I see.

Furthermore, artists and writers are not always aware of what they are putting into a creation. Consciousness is not always the final arbiter. Also, artists and writers are not always reliably forthcoming about what they intended.

And even if they are, once the work is created, they become just another interpreter, with interesting things to say, obviously, about the history of the creation, but not with any right at all to correct or authoritative interpretation.

I hold this view regarding all creative endeavors that require an interpretive function on the part of the viewer.

The rejection of the absolute authority of the artist or writer should not be mistaken as a claim that my interpretation is authoritative, correct, or even valid. It may work for me, but I may not be mature enough or experienced enough or educated enough to grasp the work. Or I may be seeing, as you say, what I want to see, which is not altogether objectionable. But where there are two competing interpretations, I will require a certain level of persuasion to choose between the two. "Because the artist said that's what they meant" will never be a persuasive argument to me. I've known too many artists.

So my views on Spike and the Soul could well be very wrong. They clearly are not persuasive to you. And your response that Marti and Joss have indicated that it is otherwise from what I suggest will never convince me. Because from my perspective, that is no argument at all. Its a fundamental divide that, to my imagining, is based on views of the authority of an author or artist over the work they create. I have always been a harsh critic of such claims to authority. It appears that you would be a strong supporter of them.

I have no problem with that. Perhaps one day I will see things differently from the way I do now.
[> [> [> [> Re: Thanks -- lunasea, 16:37:44 05/05/03 Mon

I have no problems with perspectives that expand on what the authors say. I just will not accept one that contradicts them without explaining why the artist is wrong about his own work. Because I see X isn't persuasive to me.

After the incredibly interesting idea about Buffy and Angel listening to music together, I though about other ways those two would broaden each other's horizons. Art is a big one. I envisioned the below scenario. I would have to pick another artist because the dates don't fit.

Angel finds numerous paintings in Wolfram and Hart's vaults. He tries to get the ones he can back to their rightful owners. Others he donates the the museums where that particular painting would enhance their collection (he loves being a patron of the arts). One he keeps for himself. He shows it to Buffy when she is over at his house one day.

Buffy: it's pretty

Angel: do you know what it is?

Buffy: Looks like pretty purple flowers to me.

Angel: close, look again.

Buffy: A field of pretty purple flowers.

Angel laughs: Close you eyes

Buffy: I can't see the painting if I close my eyes

Angel: sometimes the best way to see is if you close you eyes

Buffy closes her eyes and shrugs: Ok

Angel: Now remember the painting. What do you see?

Buffy: pretty purple flowers. I'm not good at this sort of thing. (she opens her eyes)

Angel: Close you eyes again. Imagine you are there. What do you see?

Buffy: Pretty purple flowers

Angel: What do you feel?

Buffy: What do you mean? (opening her eyes again)

Angel: Fine, keep them open. Look at the painting, what do you feel.

Buffy stares at the painting: Warm, I guess

Angel: Why?

Buffy: It is a nice day and I can feel the sun on my skin. It feels good.

Angel: Exactly. Monet wasn't painting pretty purple flowers. He was painting the sunlight on those pretty purple flowers.

The scenario continues (which I will finish if anyone wants. Angel is actually the original owner, which is why the dates is off), but the point is that we can see the pretty purple flowers or we can go a bit deeper and see what the writer/artist was trying to do. Monet can be seen as beautiful paintings, which they are, but he wasn't painting water lilies or Parliment or any number of subjects. He was exploring what light did to those subjects.

I tend to quote the writers because they agree with what I see. I think I live in Joss and Marti's head or they live in mine. Any perspective that really digs should encompass what the author says about their own work. If it disagrees with what the author says, it should say why the author doesn't know their own work. Knowing what Monet was doing adds a whole other layer to the painting. The more layers the better.

When we are looking at something as complicated as the Buffyverse, these interviews form the Catechism. The show is the Bible and someone can restrict their interpretation to that Bible. I like to go beyond this.
[> [> [> [> [> yer welcome -- WickedBuffy, 21:22:50 05/05/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> light and movement on pretty purple flowers -- pilgrim, 07:19:29 05/06/03 Tue

Yeah, I agree with you. The more layers the better. But of all interpretive helps, the artist's intent is the one I usually find the least interesting. I find it more fruitful to examine the text itself to see how it works, to look at the way the text talks to other texts, to notice its cultural setting.

Knowing that Monet intended to paint light is interesting--that intent places him in a school of painters who experimented with various techniques of painting light. But I've got a copy of that painting hanging in my bedroom where I can contemplate it at leisure, and I find myself most drawn to the illusion of movement in the painting and to the chaotic crowdedness of the leaves. Go figure. If I was going to analyze that painting, I'd probably start there, and see if I found those elements in other paintings of the period, and consider the social factors that may have led an artist to that representation. And I'd probably be pretty irritated if Angel told me my interaction with that painting was wrong because I was ignoring the artist's intent.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Not wrong -- lunasea, 10:42:48 05/06/03 Tue

And I'd probably be pretty irritated if Angel told me my interaction with that painting was wrong because I was ignoring the artist's intent.

Not wrong. You went beyond pretty purple flowers. The scene is actually much longer and there is a reason that he wants her to see the light aspect to the painting (or a reason that I want her to so they can discuss it). The point of the part I gave was to show that there is often other layers that we miss.

I took a great art class that showed me how to see the various elements of a work of art. It opened up an entire new world to me. It has changed how I not only see art, but the world. Developing my eye has been vital in my photography. As an artist (with photography), I like seeing if my eye matches their eye. I like learning from their eye to broaden my own. Artist intent is very important to me.

It really depends on what you are looking to do.
[> [> [> [> [> Authorial Intent vs. One billion ninjas of viewpoint (pink ninjas optional) -- fresne, 10:35:08 05/06/03 Tue

Well, in the way of a tangent, this morning as I was waiting in line for my bagel, I was contemplating the symbolism of Jack Skellington wearing his pin stripped suit under his Sandy Claws suit in the Nightmare Before Christmas. And (I hope I'm not spoiling anyone on this ten year old movie) that when he rips off the Sandy suit, his bow tie springs free as if by covering it under an someone else's clothing/identity, he has constrained and compressed his own identity. And yet by trying on another's tiny boots, he rediscovers and reinvigorates that identity.

I am probably reading into things. Maybe I'm not. Maybe it was the desire for a bagel talking. I could do some research into authorial intent, which might enrich my understanding. However this might limit my ability to make a parallel between Jack, something shape changing Mystique says in the latest X-men movie about identity and Buffy's current situation.

I know I'm reaching.

I'm an introvert, so everything is about my inner world anyway.

It's an eternal argument really. More fundamental than Angel/Spike. Star Wars/Star Trek. Sugar/Spice.

Primacy of Authorial Intent vs. errr...un-primacy.

Personally, and I know this view will shock everyone, I favor analysis that allows a multiplicity of views.

The writer is simultaneously a primal god and flotsam towed bobbing by their creation. Characters demanding new places and roles and views. Audiences pulling unexpected meanings. Because that's where I view success. When the audience cares enough to weave their own roots into the text.

By way of other tangent, although I've read a number of Hemingway's novels, I've never been able to read anything into them. Or more current, watching Fight Club. Works of fiction that others have spent time and key stroke to discuss. I suppose there's stuff there. I have the mental tools to dissect, blah, blah, blah, but I don't care. In this I find myself unexpectedly a girly girl. So, I'm more than willing to accept, oh, the author meant this or that. Good. Great. Are we done? They're about to do the reveal on Trading Spaces.

Reveal. What the designer with a tight budget and time intended. What the home owner who will then live with the work perceives. Whose perceptions are different from my own, because that's their identity and not mine.

Although seriously, spray painting furniture black and then wee, oh so colorful, little flowers on it. Oh, the humanity.
[> [> [> [> [> [> I liked this -- lunasea, 11:03:51 05/06/03 Tue

Reveal. What the designer with a tight budget and time intended. What the home owner who will then live with the work perceives. Whose perceptions are different from my own, because that's their identity and not mine.

I loved this. We have reveal, what the writers say in interviews and commentary. We have what each home owner here perceives. These perceptions are different from my own, because they are based on their identity (projections) and not mine.

I don't think the author has to limit our perceptions. Marti's words have gotten me to think so much that I had to go off-line for a few days. She hit me somewhere deep inside more than once. Maybe if I disagreed with the writers, I would dismiss what they said and just look at the Buffyverse from my perspective. I tend not to. They show me things that I may have missed and I feel their words enrich my understanding.

Last year, Greenwalt had DB saying that Buffy was just a crush. I am glad that they have since fixed that. That was something that was so different from my own perspective, I would analyze on two different levels. There would be Buffyverse canon and there would be what I wished it was. Now I try to stick with Buffyverse canon and say when I am not (such as the Catechism stuff). In that I tried to give the Catechism and what I thougth it meant.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Good as the day slowly to episode creeps -- fresne, 14:56:55 05/06/03 Tue

I'm glad. Trading between the empty spaces of meaning.

Perhaps, restrict isn't so much the best word as, hmmm...is there even a word for it.

Something that I enjoy expressing in print, since it's practically impossible in person, is the multiplicity of my views on any one thing. Just because concepts are diametrically opposite, doesn't mean I don't' simultaneously believe them.

Thus I can believe a writer when speaking about their own work and simultaneously think there is more than one truth. The writer's interviews being capable of granting equal parts insight and irritation into their works.

Even all the better when discussing a body of work that involves one god as it were Joss, who BTW I am in the little quiz, with a multiplicity of free will writers, clothing designers, actors, set designers, directors, etc.

Taking your example of the painting, but using a different one for my own purposes. My grandmother was very fond of painting.

At one point, for a class she painted a desert scene which was intended to depict the concept of perspective. So, mountains. I happen to know that this one bit of brown on the painting is actually dirt from where grandma dropped the painting while trying to avoid a flash flood that occurred while she was painting. The perils of painting in the outdoors. I know that the slovenly wretch sitting by the dilapidated shack represents my father, who was supposed to pick my grandmother up two hours before the flash flood. I also know that as I look at it, I am personally reminded of many fond expeditions with my father into the same desert. The same spot even. All co-mininged in my brain.

In another painting, my grandmother painted my father herding cattle, which she entered into a competition. Someone at the exhibition said something like, "Nice painting of an Indian." (yeah, yeah, First Nations. This was the 50s.) To which my grandmother responded, "Oh, that's not an Indian, that's my son." And my grandfather, who was standing there, said, "That is an Indian. That's my son." Funny the things you can learn after twenty plus years of marriage.

Not that either of these examples have any sort of sharp edged point, nor should they or could they sway you or anyone else from the scalpel that helps you peel the text.

Possibly it is in part a difference in objectives. Since I am the only person that I will ever truly know and even then only in part, as through a glass darkly, my exploration is an internal one.

Far from trying to divorce myself from conception, perception, I am the Ptolemaic center, while simultaneously (see what I mean) comprehending that it's a Copernican universe and in such I am but a dust mote on the eye of, non-specific and therefore PC, deity.

That or I'm really ornery and contrary.

And germane to nothing, the other night I was trying to have a nightmare about vampires, but I decided that it was June and caught a plane to Iceland and went dream hiking instead.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Beautiful Fresne, beautiful -- Rahael, 15:11:14 05/06/03 Tue

You know your prose often purports to circle, to wander, to follow imagery and ideas - often (seemingly )randomly.

But damn! it's real purpose is to bring incredible clarity and directness and sanity to the board.

Thanks.

< admires Fresne >
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Joining the fresne admiration society -- ponygirl, 15:36:42 05/06/03 Tue

Fresne, if ever you're in need of a vacation spot please consider taking up an artist-in-residence position in my brain. The pay's not good, but you'll have lots of space and all the poetry, prose and snacks you can force me to consume.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Elbow, elbow, wrist, wrist, wrist. Wave the feather boa -- fresne, 17:25:54 05/06/03 Tue

Blushing softly, she ducks her face gently lotus kissed at these gracious and encomiums and...what am I saying? I'm a total attention queen. Fluffs feathers of my immense net-boa, which should be tacky, but is a lustrous vision of raven's feathers and therefore is not.

As I surreptitious glance to see that my boss does not see me not typing the minutes to yesterday's talk about repetitive meeting.

And right back at y'all.

While the board can get at times tetchy and downright carnivore-iptious, herein I have the opportunity to read a rainbow's palette of ideas and life experiences. Consider the lines of empty space that lead to this intersection. The actual opportunity to discuss authorial intent. Why we read fiction. The power of creativity in art, in families, in ourselves. The Jack Skellington bobble head on my car dashboard.

And to completely and totally lower the tone of this post, when we aren't cranky, then what we engage in is not masturbation. It's an orgy. But a tasteful one. With scones. And tea cozies.

Alas, ponygirl I have already taken my vacation this year, in early April (ah, pictures of swans molested by coi and highly decorative manhole covers) and thus my board silence. However, I hereby give notice that finances permitting, next year, June-ish, England. Eyes that side of the planet significantly. My housemate and I are already planning our wardrobes.

And then shifts gimlet gaze to this size of the pond, so this June. Vancouver. Waves boa significantly at those who have not yet decided to attend.

Although, ahem, in person, I am by no means this, errr...linear.

I'd say more about WickedPatheticFallacy's (you change names like I change costumes) lovely post, very fine, but I have to go home because NEW BUFFY. Ahem, glances, around to see if co-workers heard that bit of callu callaying and sets about going home.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> A literary orgy. -- Arethusa, 18:47:14 05/06/03 Tue

Thanks, fresne.

I'll bring the scones.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Completely tangental -- lunasea, 19:29:30 05/06/03 Tue

Something that I enjoy expressing in print, since it's practically impossible in person, is the multiplicity of my views on any one thing.

But most humans think linearly and have trouble reading such stream of consciousness that can be generated by this multiplicity. They have enough trouble grasping conflicting view points from one poster, unless that poster changes names for the posts. Nice neat little pigeon holes. That is what people want to feel secure and that their world is ordered (and people is a generalization. I would say present company excluded, but if what I said offends someone, chances are they aren't excluded)

Words themselves are the problem. How many words have one denotation even? Then we through all the various connotations that depend so heavily on our perceptions and experiences and it is amazing that people can talk to each other at all.

When I started learning Buddhism, I could have used english words for various things. Problem was these words already had meanings to me. When I heard them, I thought of various definitions. I was having to retrain myself as to what those meanings were. Then I started using the Pali and Sanskrit terms. Nirvana is one that is common usage and is typically wrong, but things like anitya, duhkha and anatman were completely new concepts to me. I could skip the retraining phase and move onto thinking in these new terms.

I am trying very hard to look at the Buffyverse the same way I learned Buddhist psychology. It was one of those moments that changed me forever. I just couldn't understand the whole concept of the development of ego. As a former Jungian, the word means certain things to me and is very important. I had to divorce myself of those things in order to learn what Buddhist psychology was even saying. When I did this, I actually was not learning Buddhism, but practicing it.

As a former Jungian, symbols, mythology and such were incredibly important. I know these well enough to say that what is on Angel's back ISN'T a Griffin as ME says it is. A Griffin would never be used in the Tetramorph. It is a winged lion, big difference. It is so easy to get lost in the symbols that ME uses to tell its story. It is so easy to get lost in how this episode reminds me of this story or what new twist they put on something. I got so lost.

I am trying to do what this season supposedly does, go back to the beginning. Not the bang, not the word. The idea. Before we have anything, there is an idea. That idea gets elaborated on and lost in that elaboration. I gave a scene with Buffy and Angel and a Monet picture. Angel would have just said that Monet was painting the light. Buffy said warmth. She FELT the light. That feelings is what generated that painting. That feeling is what is being conveyed.

(actually the scene continues that Angel was drunk one night talking about how important the sun is and how he missed it. This is what inspires Monet to start exploring light)

Line, shape, color, etc just convey those feelings. They are the tools that the artist uses. If I want to paint like Monet, I need to see like him. Anyone can learn how to use the tools. What separates an artist, such as your grandmother, from others is their eye. It is being able to see something and see the feeling it has.

That is what I have been trying to get at. Not the feelings that others have. I want to see what feelings the writers are trying to convey. Then I can see if they accomplished that. This will show me what works and what doesn't.

Spike is great for this. David Fury had been rather vocal in his frustration about how this character is perceived. The perceptions that I tend to post against aren't the feelings the writers were going for. Does that make them a failure? I got what they wanted me to. I am a good Buffy watcher. I fall in love with who they want and I cry when they want me to. I think they are very effective. That is why I study them.

I used to say that dogs were vampires with four feet (goes back to a childhood trauma). I feared and hated dogs. Recently I am not so scared. I decided that it wasn't my opinion of dogs that changed, but that of vampires.

That rambled and there might be a point or two in there somewhere.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> No comment on tonight's ep? **SPOILERS** for 7.20 -- dub, 19:56:11 05/06/03 Tue

lunasea wrote: But most humans think linearly and have trouble reading such stream of consciousness that can be generated by this multiplicity. They have enough trouble grasping conflicting view points from one poster, unless that poster changes names for the posts. Nice neat little pigeon holes. That is what people want to feel secure and that their world is ordered

Ah, misanthropy, thy name is lunasea. Well we have misspelled Buddhist, why not a misanthropic Buddhist?

(and people is a generalization. I would say present company excluded, but if what I said offends someone, chances are they aren't excluded)

Yep, there's a good objective measure of someone, whether or not they're offended by your arrogant claims to being one of the select and elite few who really "get" what the writers are saying.

I am trying to do what this season supposedly does, go back to the beginning. Not the bang, not the word. The idea. Before we have anything, there is an idea. That idea gets elaborated on and lost in that elaboration.

The idea according to Joss, is:

The basic idea that I think we're very true to, especially in the last episode, of the empowerment of girls and the toughness of this life, was always there, but it grew beyond my best imagining.

Empowerment. Where did I hear that before? Oh yeah, in my earlier post today.


And, back to lunase: That is what I have been trying to get at. Not the feelings that others have. I want to see what feelings the writers are trying to convey. Then I can see if they accomplished that. This will show me what works and what doesn't.

Y'know what worked? Y'know what empowered Buffy this evening and turned her into a kick-ass Matrix-type pink ninja? Spike's speech:

I'VE BEEN ALIVE A BIT LONGER THAN YOU... AND DEAD A LOT LONGER THAN THAT. I'VE SEEN THINGS YOU COULDN'T IMAGINE AND DONE THINGS I PREFER YOU DIDN'T. I DON'T EXACTLY HAVE A REPUTATION FOR BEING A THINKER. I FOLLOW MY BLOOD... WHICH DOESN'T EXACTLY RUSH IN THE DIRECTION OF MY BRAIN... SO I MAKE A LOT OF MISTAKES. A LOT OF WRONG BLOODY CALLS. A HUNDRED-PLUS YEARS... AND THERE'S ONLY ONE THING I'VE EVER BEEN SURE OF: YOU.

HEY, LOOK AT ME. I'M NOT ASKING YOU FOR ANYTHING. WHEN I SAY I LOVE YOU, IT'S NOT BECAUSE I WANT YOU OR BECAUSE I CAN'T HAVE YOU. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ME. I LOVE WHAT YOU ARE, WHAT YOU DO... HOW YOU TRY. I'VE SEEN YOUR KINDNESS AND YOUR STRENGTH. I'VE SEEN THE BEST AND THE WORST OF YOU, AND I UNDERSTAND WITH PERFECT CLARITY EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE. YOU'RE A HELL OF A WOMAN. YOU'RE THE ONE, BUFFY.

One of the writer's wrote that for Spike to say to Buffy. Then they wrote that he held her and comforted her all night. Then they wrote that she was empowered to rise above everything and get it done. Back to the beginning. Right back to Buffy striding out after the Master, wearing her prom gown and carrying a crossbow, right after she died for the first time.

It's not about good. It's not about evil. It's about empowerment.

The perceptions that I tend to post against aren't the feelings the writers were going for. Does that make them a failure? I got what they wanted me to. I am a good Buffy watcher. I fall in love with who they want and I cry when they want me to. I think they are very effective. That is why I study them.

Gee, can't wait to hear what you thought they were going for tonight...'cause I just know the perceptions I've noted above are the one's your gonna post against. I mean, by your definition, I'm a bad Buffy watcher, right?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> No comments for you, period -- lunasea, 20:45:51 05/06/03 Tue

If you can't let this go, I can.

For others, the idea isn't the mission. It is the feelings that Joss had for all those blond girls that got offed in horror movies. What sort of man would feel so bad for them that he would write a show where they could take back the night? That is what he puts into his heroes. That is the feeling he is artistically manipulating us all to feel. He makes us love more.

Empowerment is just the vehicle. The idea is the heart behind it. It isn't just about power, but what that power is for.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yep, that's letting go alright...LOL -- ;o), 22:33:53 05/06/03 Tue

Y'know, in some ways I suppose I should feel cheapened, somehow, that the only way to get through to you is by lowering myself to employ the same tactics that you employ but...what the hell...I think I feel empowered. Yeah, that's it!

Have I gone too far? Hell, probably. It's like it's suddenly okay to belittle other posters (as long as they don't agree with my interpretation). It's okay to single-mindedly bash one character in order to sing the praises of another, as if appreciating both were mutually exclusive. It's okay to ignore any point in any post, no matter how pertinent or well-stated, if it tends to detract from my personal worldview. I've been freed from the shackles of polite discourse and reasoned discussion that previously tethered me to this board. Wow, I was so stifled by the atmosphere that used to prevail here, I actually used to erase negative, argumentative posts before approving them. Not anymore. I have seen the light.

Not that I believe you'll let this, or anything else go. But that's okay. My next personal challenge is to perfect the art of the filibuster post. The sky's the limit.

;o)
[> [> [> [> [> [> More of the same and yet not -- WickedPedantic, 13:54:51 05/06/03 Tue

"... when he rips off the Sandy suit, his bow tie springs free as if by covering it under an someone else's clothing/identity, he has constrained and compressed his own identity"

Yet as I viewed that scene, several times, I saw the bowtie NOT as being constrained under someone else's identity and springing free, decompressing Jack Skellingtons own identity at all. The bowtie represented Jacks soul - which had been held safely and securely beneath a suit of good gone bad, appearing to have been tainted to the casual eye of the observer.

But No. For the soul is untouchable by either silk or polyester materials. As it sprang free, it revealed itself as neither good nor bad, it simply "was". Much like Casper The Friendly Ghost (Movie Version), when Casper becomes a "real" boy for a few moments and enjoys a brief taste of humanity dancing on air with his true love and best friend. Though he was a souless ghost, he had always been good, without having to even bother his fluffy little head with thoughts of redemption. And when he became human, was he resouled. Was it his original soul or was it a loaner? Or had it been with him even as he was a ghost? It really didn't matter if he was good or bad - he just was. And by just "wassing", he had a soul. Just as Pinnochio fought the good and evil within himself, was he constraining and compressing his own identity within a wooden puppet frame? Or was the puppet frame constraining him? Was his soul present from the moment Geppetto knicked the wood or was he souled when he became a"real" boy? Was Jacks bowtie really held against its will beneath the Claws suit or was the Claws suit being held to Jacks body against its own will by the bowtie?

Tomorrow I will post my thoughts on "Promethean Journey of The Velveteen Rabbit: Sickened, Soiled and Souled or Just an Innocent Unwillingly Toy of the Gods".
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: More of the same and yet not -- Tadger, 14:48:04 05/06/03 Tue

The Velveteen Rabbit was resouled, right?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Your post was thoughtful, inspiring & completely insane. -- Whited Sepulcher, 15:03:05 05/06/03 Tue

.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> And still more -- fresne, 14:53:54 05/06/03 Tue

Excellent. I, in yet more surprises, have no problem with Jack's bowtie being simultaneously his identity and his soul. Although, I wonder if it is his ba or his ka or some other slice of his soul. What with since he is dead, he can take off his head to recite Shakespearean quotations. I love a man that quotes literature.

And even further, Halloween land is a landscape that is infinitely responsive to Jack and his moods. Hills bending and curling to allow him passage. It's every denizen, with one significant exception, doting on his every gesture. Thus I wonder if, as the Buffyverse is Buffy, so to is Halloween land Jack? Who then is Zero? His ID? His conscience? That portion of himself that shines light and always sees Jack's picture as himself? Sally with her vision? Removable limbs? Oggy Boogy, voracious appetite suppressed into the subterranean, who threatens to devour the identity that Jack has momentarily put on? Fat to Jack's thin. But a cloth sack, barely holding together the mass of the devoured. Whereas, when Jack peals back the layers of garments, both the Sandy Claws suit and the initial Pumpkin King outfit, which is so Samhain festival burned, Jack reveals natty pinstripes and irrepressible tie. To undo Ooggy's costume, it's string pulled, is to find a bug easily crushed under a tiny booted foot.

What then would the final snow represent? Does it parallel the snow that the Powers sent to save Angel from his own brush with the First Evil?

As to, "Promethean Journey of The Velveteen Rabbit: Sickened, Soiled and Souled or Just an Innocent Unwillingly Toy of the Gods." Oh, yes. Please.

Perhaps, along with, "Green Eggs and Ham, journey to the House of Memory or behavioral conditioning."
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> And even less -- WickedPatheticFallacy, 15:53:37 05/06/03 Tue

My Grandmother, too, loved to paint. I fondly recall her carefuly choosing her brush and giving it a ritual twirl before she dunked it into the paint. I've always believed that my brother was represented by that brush, with his wild and twisty ways - and he too could never be washed completely clean of the colors life chose to cover him in.

Sometimes I sat across from her, watching and wanting so badly to be able to paint like that. The sound of soft sable softly sweeping the scene... the pungent odor of turpentine tweaking my nose, causing me to cough .. and the magic she created onto blank canvas, the likes I've never seen since.

I wanted to paint so badly, to be like her. Was it the warm approval she got when a finished painting was proudly displayed for all to enjoy? Did I want that approval, too, to be her, the Creator? Or was it that I wanted to be the painting itself, absorbing the love of others simply by being, without having to do anything, just being The Created.

It could have been both, I see that now. I was not only my grandmother with those bright bits of paint freckling her lined and cheery face, I was also the the wild rivers and mountains, the lone farmhouse and setting sun - I was one and I was all at the same time. I was The Creator and The Created.

I know I am no diety, though popular culture might claim that one is in all of us. I know I am not an all-powerful force of nature either. Yet, back then, in my naive, preschool universe of joy, I was all.

I was souled and souless at one time. And many times existed at once, simultaneously. As simultaneously as the many different perceptions I had of a single object. One person who could create worlds and be the worlds she created, just as my Grandmother did.

A few years later, when I learned to count past 118, I too began painting. Tediously matching each paint color to the number it corresponded to on the stiff white paper. I was no longer the carefree child with large blue eyes admiring my Grandmothers skill from across the table. I now sat in her place, a prisoner to the red-nosed clown or prancing spotted pony that lay outlined before me.

I felt her pain and even agony at the tediousness spread out before her. Destiny already demanding where everything must go. No freewill, the brush no longer a magic wand of colors and freedom. Choice just a whim of people never seen or knew. A pot roast simmering in the oven awaiting my grandfathers return from a long day of selling used cars.

I found I was not only The Creator and The Created.

Knowledge, ever the wormy apple of Eden, had also made me The Prisoner and The Puppet.

I miss those early days.

But not those clowns.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> The Promethean Journey -- Tchaikovsky, 03:53:35 05/07/03 Wed

That better not be a joke WB. I'm in eager anticipation.

TCH
[> some replies, -- Anneth, 19:12:03 05/05/03 Mon

... I will not get into lengthy discussions about his arc. He really doesn't have one... The writers stuck Spike in the basement and then had him tortured this season because they didn't know what else to do with him./

Regarding the second sentence, I think you're right, in a sense. From a perspective external to the Buffyverse, the writers probably didn't know what to do with him - in that they didn't know what they'd do with his character after ending the series: hook him up with various other characters, such as Faith, or kill him off altogether, or send him off to AtS. But from a perspective internal to the Buffyverse, (by which I mean to encompass both BtVS and AtS), to deny that Spike has an arc because he's some sort of "gorgeous plot device" (which you imply) is to negate the idea that any character in the Buffyverse, Buffy and Angel excepted, can develop or have an arc. And yet we've seen time and time again that every important character develops apart from Buffy or Angel, Faith being the most recent example. Yes, Angel helped her along her trail - but it was hers and hers alone to blaze.

What people see is what *they* put there, which is why these get so personal. It isn't about Spike as much as "if I was Spike."

If I recall correctly, you once mentioned that you have a negative reaction to Spike because he reminds you of a bad past relationship. I think that part of the reason some people respond negatively to your posts about Spike is because you seem to be "seeing what *you* put there" but not taking that projection into consideration when you analyze the character. It comes off to your reading audience that it's not about Spike as much as "if I were *dating* Spike" for you.

We can't view Spike, or any other Buffyverse character, outside the paradigm of our own perceptions. Yes, people get personal about Spike because they project themselves onto him - but no more or less than they do any other character. We as viewers can't totally divorce ourselves from our projections; that's the power of the show. We sympathise and empathise with the characters to an extraordinarily visceral degree. But, the point of this board, as I see that, is to take those projections and sympathies and intellectualize about them, philosophize about them, deconstruct them - and the processes that created them. (Our own experiences as well as the ME creative process.)

You go on to discuss the idea that Spike is merely an artistic device by quoting a Marti Noxon article at length, then positing that this proves your point. Her words, however, actually do the opposite. "Then we discovered that there was a real heart to that story-line" This sentence alone indicates that she believes Spike has a story-line - that is, an arc. "Form following function" doesn't mean function without form; it simply means that they created an arc for him after having introduced him as a character. You seem to be saying, however, that "form following function" means that a character's 'form' (used as a synonym for arc or at least, existence beyond Buffy the character) is completely negated if it was determined after the character was first introduced to the show. Yes, Spike was introduced with the intent to kill him off quickly, but that doesn't mean that his journey over the last 5 seasons has been completely meaningless. Which is what you seem to be saying.

Without getting into an argument about whether or not there can be different kinds of moral compasses, it seems that you've missed the idea that the soul is the moral compass in the Buffyverse. Thus, unsouled vampires are neither moral nor immoral - they are amoral. That is, unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something. (Immoral means not conforming to the accepted standards for morality, according to the Oxford English Dictionary.)

Pretty much every question about Spike is met with the same answer by the writers, he is a vampire. That can't be ignored. If a vampire has the potential for real goodness, goodness for goodness sake, then Buffy is killing redeemable creatures and it really puts what she does into question. Not a place I see ME going. Instead ME goes through great pains to give us other motives for Spike's actions.

Yes, they DID go through great pains to give us other motivations for Spike's actions - previous to Season 7. That was the entire point of Crush (Tara: No, see, it can't, it can't end like that, 'cause all of Quasimodo's actions were selfishly motivated. He had no moral compass, no understanding of right. Everything he did, he did out of love for a woman who would never be able to love him back.) and again in Smashed (the first thing Spike does when he thinks the chip's broken is try to bite someone.) But now he has a soul - a fact Buffy won't let us forget. His motivations are far murkier now than they ever have been. Yes, he still acts out of love for a woman (Get it Done) - but also for himself (In Lies, he bites Wood of his own volition, but "gives him a pass" because he killed Wood's mother.) The point being, I believe, that Spike had no moral compass before S7 because he had no soul. Now he has a soul, the moral compass, and we've yet to see its full-flowering. Who is this new, improved Spike? Hard to say. He bites, but does not bring the act to its conclusion. He fights, but has trouble killing.


To reply to your recap:

1) that he is form following function, not some grand arc
2) Spike's redemption was actually what Dru attempted in "Crush" bringing him back to his moral compass, evil (and I found this interesting)
3) that Spike goes against him moral compass pre-soul
4) that his moral compass is fairly weak, especially compared to Angel
5) Spike is a vampire
6) Spuffy starts with "Out of My Mind."

1. see above.
2. well- first off, he had no moral compass pre-S7. Secondly, one can't be redeemed to evil, they're mutually contradictory concepts. He could be returned to evil, yes, and yes, Dru was trying to accomplish that end. But there was no redemption.
3. spike has no moral compass pre-soul. See above.
4. again, see above.
5. No one is debating whether Spike is a vampire. If you mean that his only motivations for his actions are his vampirism, then I'd have to disagree with you. See above.
6. I don't think this point matters to the discussion at hand. And what does Spuffy even mean? His attraction to her? Their mutual attraction? Their sex?

Why does every character have to be the ultimate hero? Why is calling one less than this considered bashing?

First of all, I don't think anyone on this board is going to postulate that Spike is the ultimate hero - or really a hero at all. People consider your take on Spike "bashing" because you come off as refusing to see him as anything other than a device, and a device which you personally dislike. BtVS works on many levels; on one, it's all about Buffy. Every character is on this level an extension of her, or a reflection of her. But on another level, BtVS creates an entire universe (hence the term "Buffyverse") where all the (main) characters have existences of their own, and demons of their own, and journeys of their own, totally apart from Buffy. Spike is no exception to this.
[> [> Re: some replies, -- lunasea, 20:33:42 05/05/03 Mon

is to negate the idea that any character in the Buffyverse,

Not really. Willow was supposed to go evil since the beginning. There was a definate arc that led up to that. It got held off a year because Joss enjoyed the Tara/Willow ship so much. Not sure how that would have fit with "The Gift," but who knows how it would have turned out. What happened to Xander this season was another thing that has been forseen for quite a while. Faith has an arc this season because she was the original spin-off idea (Faith on a motorcycle touring the country fighting evil and looking for redemption)

If I recall correctly, you once mentioned that you have a negative reaction to Spike because he reminds you of a bad past relationship.

You recall incorrectly. I love his character. I just don't think he is appropriate for Buffy. Lucky for me, the writers agree :-) He shows some very important things about Buffy and sometimes uses screen time well.

Thus, unsouled vampires are neither moral nor immoral - they are amoral.

Not according to Joss. Vampires are evil. The demon orients them to evil. I have read some interesting discussions about vamps being amoral not immoral. It takes too pessimistic view of Man for me and I was glad when I read that Joss considers vampires actually oriented to evil. That is the verse that the Buffyverse is written from. That is what the writers think when they are writing vampires, ALL vampires. Amoral Angel wouldn't have needed a soul to help Buffy.

It might have been an interesting angle to pursue, vamps being amoral. Joss didn't go down that path. That is rewriting the Buffyverse. It was a perspective I once had. It caused me to really miss some things and add others that really weren't there.

Who is this new, improved Spike?

Not enough screen time with him remotely coherant to say yet. That is why I defer to next year when he actually becomes a self-sufficient character that will have his own arc and won't just be designed so that other characters can react to him.

All characters are points on a curve, the so called arc. With some that curve is going somewhere. They know where Buffy is going. They know where Willow is going. Xander really doesn't have an arc this season (Nick has said so). The hard part is figuring out how get a character from a known point to another known point in a believable manner. This season has been a great example of this. "Empty Places" really had to be earned.

Spike doesn't really have a curve. He has points on Buffy's curve. They aren't concerned with getting him from point to point, which is really a pity. They could have done a lot with him. It is obvious, just from watching people connect those points. People can connect them, but the show doesn't. Conversations happen off screen all the time. In the Buffyverse, those points get connected off screen. I am not talking about off screen.

People consider your take on Spike "bashing" because you come off as refusing to see him as anything other than a device,

And season 1 and 2 of BtVS Angel was the same way. Doesn't mean that I didn't root for them or feel Buffy's anguish when she had to send him to hell. That is fan girl stuff though. Not talking about fan girl stuff. Spike is an entertaining plot device.
[> [> [> my last words on the topic, I promise -- Anneth, 23:32:29 05/05/03 Mon

I went over the archives to see if I'd misremembered about the Spike/ex correlation; I had. I apologise.

I did notice, however, that you've been arguing this same point since you began posting, in January. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, that "the only real characters are Buffy and Angel" and that all others are more or less "contrivances" but I think you may be missing out on some really tasty Buffyverse analysis with this mindset. I've said it before and I'll say it again; the beauty of the Buffyverse is that it works on so many levels. You can analyse it totally in term of Buffy's (or Angel's) development - and in terms of all the central characters' developments. To deny that any but Buffy or Angel have meaningful or worthwhile arcs - or indeed, any arcs at all - is to deny that the Buffyverse is indeed a "universe" to which these different levels of analysis can and should be applied.
[> [> [> [> Re: my last words on the topic, I promise -- lunasea, 08:31:05 05/06/03 Tue

Spike has an incredibly interesting area he explores. As Marti said "Then we discovered that there was a real heart to that story-line, and they had a real chemistry together." *That* story was "I've always joked around that he became attracted to Buffy because she could hit him the hardest, that he liked to be abused." Jane put it another way on the BBC "However, there's a lot that Spike can do without redemption. He can explore all kinds of human interactions without redemption and that's even more interesting."

I agree with Jane. That is even more interesting. Spike's character gets interesting with "Out of My Mind." He misinterprets one dream (since when are dreams in the Buffyverse literal) and things snowball from there. It isn't really an arc that is going somewhere, more like an in depth exploration of human interactions.

But that isn't what is discussed. Instead that he loves Buffy is taken as a given or "proven" because of his noble sacrifices. I think what is more interesting is why he had that dream. Spike is willing to do a lot because he believes he loves Buffy. It is interesting to see how our beliefs affect our actions. He doesn't need a planned arc in order to have some really interesting points.

What I object to are people connecting those points. JM remarked at a recent convention (and I love reading his interviews) "I often felt that I was at this enormous banquet with the best food I'd ever seen in my life but my portion was always that big and I was salivating after everyone else's plate."

To be honest, I think connecting the dots takes away from the amazing exploration that ME is doing with Spike. It isn't some grand design or what is considered an arc. To just label his actions as motivated by "love" really sweeps this exploration under the table. The second that someone starts from Spike doesn't love Buffy, the discussion quickly deteriorates into "does too" "does not."

I have mentioned that I like the way ME explored redemption with "Crush." Until "Seeing Red" Spike's character didn't go anywhere. From OOMM to Seeing Red, Spike is obsessed and willing to do anything for Buffy. He is the fool for love, whether it is affection for a firl or love of a good fight, which combine in Buffy.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, that "the only real characters are Buffy and Angel" and that all others are more or less "contrivances"

Contrivances that show really important things about Man. Buffy and Angel aren't even important. The STORY is god, not any particular character, plot or ship. The other characters revolve around Buffy and Angel to give the shows structure. Each episode tends to explore something about Man using each character to illustrate a slightly different angle.

They aren't like most sci-fi/fantasy shows that are like watching a role playing game. I think some of the writers on other shows actually roll dice to come up with scripts. ME picks something to explore and writes about this using multiple (typically 3) different perspectives on it.

but I think you may be missing out on some really tasty Buffyverse analysis with this mindset.

Then we are entering into the realm of fan fiction though. It is great and has its place. I wouldn't consider it analysis of the product though. It is spackling all the holes that ME leaves. It can be debated what sort of spackle would work, but it is still spackle.
[> [> [> [> [> Okay, I shouldn't have read this...BUT! -- dub, 09:09:34 05/06/03 Tue

Anneth wrote:
but I think you may be missing out on some really tasty Buffyverse analysis with this mindset.

lunasea wrote:
Then we are entering into the realm of fan fiction though. It is great and has its place. I wouldn't consider it analysis of the product though. It is spackling all the holes that ME leaves. It can be debated what sort of spackle would work, but it is still spackle.

In effect what you are saying, lunasea, is that any interpretation or analysis that differs from yours is purely fiction. A product of the imagination. Wishful thinking.

How dare you? I find your remarks arrogant, insulting, condescending, and extremely inflammatory.

The STORY that you keep harping on about is the story of a young woman's empowerment. Buffy's ability to love Spike (and, oh yes, she does love him, just as much as he loves her), her ability to see him as a man rather than a monster, is ultimately a integral element of that empowerment. Angel never contributed to Buffy's empowerment.

Buffy was 16/17 when she "fell in love" with Angel. Most people are insightful enough to realize that the first crush is not the be-all and end-all of love, romantic though it may be. Buffy and Angel were Romeo and Juliet. The end of that story is mutual suicide. Well, Angel tried to do his part, but their separation is just a much more mature and sensible way to deal with the angst. Some people thrive on angst. Doesn't make them right, or even particularly bright.

Angel was introduced first as a character who was supposed to be quickly killed off. He earned the right to stay "undead" on Buffy, but there was nowhere for his story to go, so he earned the right to spin off. Spike was introduced first as a character who was supposed to be quickly killed off. He earned the right to stay "undead" on Buffy, and there were all kinds of places for his story to go, so he earned the right to be THE major love interest in Buffy's life.

Not fan fiction, lunasea. Not a product of my imagination. Actually, it's a product of Joss Whedon's imagination. That's the STORY that we've been watching over the last seven years. That's the STORY that we here have been analyzing and discussing in an atmosphere of mutual respect. You are incapable showing respect for any opinion that differs from yours. Why is that? What have you been watching?
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Okay, I shouldn't have read this...BUT! (mild casting spoiler 21 & 22) -- lunasea, 10:32:02 05/06/03 Tue

I am not saying that and thank you for putting words in my mouth. What I have said is that any interpretation that differs from what the writers say is fan fiction. Expand on what they say, but it can't be contradicted.

Maybe you shouldn't read my stuff and I suggest that you might want to stay away from episode 21 if you feel that way about Buffy and Angel. Probably 22, too.

There were plenty of places for Angel's story to go. They had planned on using him for two more years, but the spin-off was just too juicy to pass up.

Major love interest in Buffy's life? You honestly think that the ardent feminist is going to put the attempted rapist with his heroine. Spike crossed lines Angelus didn't. Angelus even killed Jenny in vamp face so that Angel and Buffy could get back together. Buffy will show compassion to Spike. Major love interest? Hot, steamy, nasty sex partner was more like it.

Also, characters don't "earn" anything. The story is whatever Joss says it is. The character is a product of Joss' imagination, not some independant creature. If Joss wants to develop Dawn, it isn't because she "earned" it. It is because she represents something he wants to explore. Should his life be any different, he would explore something else, maybe through Anya. It has more to do with the creator than the creation.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> What makes you think I haven't already read ep 21 and 22? -- dub, 12:02:01 05/06/03 Tue

Once again, the only thing that seems to rile you up as much as you rile just about everybody else up is any negative comment on Angel. You can dish it out, but you sure aren't prepared to take it!

At least I admit that I've read the scripts...some people try to make us believe they're so in tune with the writers that they just "know" what's coming next...

And remember, things often change between shooting script and transcript.

;o)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> BTW -- dub, 13:53:52 05/06/03 Tue

lunasea wrote:
There were plenty of places for Angel's story to go. They had planned on using him for two more years, but the spin-off was just too juicy to pass up.


Joss Whedon said:
It became difficult in the third year to truly bring change to Buffy and Angel. People want to watch change. Growth. They want climax.
(May 3, 2002)

Well, some people do...

;o)
[> [> [> [> [> [> i can't keep myself from reading all these. i hate myself for it. -- obtusilferous, 14:02:47 05/06/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> Breaking my promise; or, beating a dead horse. Again. -- Anneth, 09:27:21 05/06/03 Tue

Look, I see we're arguing at cross-purposes here, but I'd really like to reply to a couple of things you wrote.

But that isn't what is discussed. Instead that he loves Buffy is taken as a given or "proven" because of his noble sacrifices

First off, the writers write him as being in love with Buffy. (See, eg, the magazine SFX's S6 overview-interview with Marti Noxon: "... Oh my god, he loves her so much.") Secondly, JM obviously plays Spike as loving Buffy. (see below) Third off, - no, forget it. Moving on.

Who is calling anything Spike does either a sacrifice or noble? In my first post to this thread, I explained that ME doesn't, and gave examples (the major one being Tara's line in Crush.) Please point to examples of people calling what Spike does either "noble" or a "sacrifice" or both, and I'll respond.

What I object to are people connecting those points. JM remarked at a recent convention (and I love reading his interviews) "I often felt that I was at this enormous banquet with the best food I'd ever seen in my life but my portion was always that big and I was salivating after everyone else's plate."


I read this interview too, Lunasea. He was talking about not having as much dialogue as the other characters, not his lack of story-line or arc.

The full text is at http://www.atnzone.com/tvzone/features/buffycon_1.shtml

and the portion you're referring to is:

Q: I've always felt Joss had a Machiavellian idea about how he wanted the show to go but then you came in for a few episodes and ended up staying for all these seasons and evolving with the show. How do you feel about Spike being his wildcard?

YA: Yeah, it was really satisfying because it was so obvious that Spike did not fit into the pegs of this story at all. But in a way, that's what made it great. He was able to take the theme and put it on its head because the theme is how does one grow up. How does one become one's best self? I mean it was frustrating a lot because I really would get just two to three pages of dialogue a script. I often felt that I was at this enormous banquet with the best food I'd ever seen in my life but my portion was always that big and I was salivating after everyone else's plate. But that is a glorious place to be as an actor because what it is not, is having to mumble a bunch of crap - which is death. So, both frustrating and rewarding. Actors are so greedy - we want everything.

This dialogue does not indicate that Spike is a) only a glorified plot device and b) JM knows it or c) he's jealous of the other actors having plots and arcs. Rather, it merely speaks to the idea that the actor has been frustrated when he's only had a few lines of dialogue in a given episode. In fact, that same Q&A session indicates that JM plays Spike as a character who can and has developed - which a plot device cannot. (For example, his words about BY: "I was playing a man who was riddled by the guilt of all these murders..." About playing Spike: "Every year, I felt like I was playing a new character. I started as the Boy-Toy for Dru. I was cannon fodder and I was going to be done away with and Dru was the main thing. Then I graduated to villain then I guess I was the wacky neighbor for awhile. [Audience laughs] Then I was the forlorn man in the corner loving the woman who didn't give anything back, then I was the lover, then I was the unhealthy boyfriend. In this final season, I was the redeemed man or the man in search of that. In a way every year I feel, what am I going to do? He is so completely different!" etc.) The difference between a plot device, which you argue Spike is, and a fully realized character, which I argue he's at least heading towards, is that a plot device, by its very nature, cannot develop or change. If it does, that's poor, inconsistent writing.

Note, he refers to his character as "loving" Buffy and as "a man in search of [redemption]."

And so on and so forth. I'm certainly not going to be able to convince you that you might possibly be taking too narrow a view at this time in the game.

One final point: You respond to my suggestion that viewers should attempt to view Buffy on many levels as being akin to fanwanking: Then we are entering into the realm of fan fiction though. This is absurd. Deconstruction is not fanfiction. Deconstruction is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as:

"a method of critical analysis of philosophical and literary language which emphasizes the internal workings of language and conceptual systems, the relational quality of meaning, and the assumptions implicit in forms of expression. Deconstruction focuses on a text as such rather than as an expression of the author's intention, stressing the limitlessness (or impossibility) of interpretation and rejecting the Western philosophical tradition of seeking certainty through reasoning by privileging certain types of interpretation and repressing others."

Okay. I don't mean to come off as snarky, and apologise if I do or have. We're not going to agree about this or anything else.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Maybe we should start to make glue or dog food -- lunasea, 10:17:04 05/06/03 Tue

Not going to get into anything from this season. As I have said, this season they are setting him up to be independent from Buffy. Once they take the soul and give it some screen time, there will be plenty of material to discuss (which is why I reserved my debates until next year)

Spike's circumstances have changed prior to the resouling. HE hasn't. "Smashed" showed the chip hadn't really changed him and "Seeing Red" showed that Buffy hadn't. Vampires can't change like that. That is why he went to get the soul, because he wanted to change. That is where his arc really starts. To have him changing prior to the resouling makes the resouling unnecessary.

I think they will contrast him with Angel's redemption through works and do him more as redemption through faith. It is the Calvin-Luther debates. It could get interesting.

You respond to my suggestion that viewers should attempt to view Buffy on many levels as being akin to fanwanking:

I said when people start to spackle in things that aren't there, they are fanwanking. It is a lot of fun and is a great way to play with the show. I just don't consider the spackle to be part of THE Buffyverse. I try to remove my own whenever I can. Each of the characters exist as points on a curve. Some character have more points than others. Spike has fewer points than say Willow and those points are for Buffy. It takes a lot of spackle to connect the points.

Take the Buffyverse characters and develop the heck out of them. It is fun and a tribute to the universe and its writers. The show doesn't do that to all characters equally though. To call your creation the Buffyverse isn't wholly accurate.

I liked one thing in particular about that interview. I loved JM's reaction to the guy dressed like Spike. I think JM is a great guy with a great sense of humor. "Really he is created by writers and in a way, I feel like you are just as much Spike as I am. You have the costume and the hair - just say "Bloody Hell" and you are there!"

There are millions of alternative Buffyverses. I want to get at the one that is created by the writers. I am not even interested in my own perceptions nearly as much as I am *that* particular Buffyverse. From that Buffyverse, I have been learning how to write. I have been learning how to remove myself so that I can be non-judgemental (a great Zen exercise).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Dog food and glue -- Arethusa., 11:29:01 05/06/03 Tue

Spike's circumstances have changed prior to the resouling. HE hasn't. "Smashed" showed the chip hadn't really changed him and "Seeing Red" showed that Buffy hadn't. Vampires can't change like that. That is why he went to get the soul, because he wanted to change. That is where his arc really starts. To have him changing prior to the resouling makes the resouling unnecessary.

Wanting to change is a change from his previous behavior. To not have him change prior to the resouling makes the resouling illogical. The chip forced Spike to interact with human society, paving the way for him to develop a connection with Buffy. The AR illuminated the growing dissonance between what Spike used to be and what he had become-he could not understand why he felt so bad about what he had done.

SPIKE: (shakily) What have I done?

Beat. Spike frowns, looks bemused.

SPIKE: Why *didn't* I do it? (looks up at the ceiling, sighs) What has she done to me?

SPIKE: (desperate) Why do I feel this way?

SPIKE: You know, everything used to be so clear. Slayer. Vampire. Vampire kills Slayer, sucks her dry, picks his teeth with her bones. It's always been that way. I've tasted the life of two Slayers. But with Buffy... (grimacing in anguish) It isn't supposed to be this way!

SPIKE: (angrily) It's the chip! Steel and wires and silicon. (sighs) It won't let me be a monster. (quietly) And I can't be a man. I'm nothing.
("Seeing Red," quotes by psyche, highly edited by me.)

I think they will contrast him with Angel's redemption through works and do him more as redemption through faith.

Angel specifically rejects the idea of redemption through good works. In "Judgement" AI realized that they had to stop thinking of their work as the means to an end-redemption-and just concentrate on the people they were saving. In "Epiphany," which takes place months later, Angel realizes that saving others to obtain redemption was wrong. "I never got it," he says. Saving others because he can, because it's the right and kind thing to do "now, today" is important, as are the people he meets.

You respond to my suggestion that viewers should attempt to view Buffy on many levels as being akin to fanwanking:

I said when people start to spackle in things that aren't there, they are fanwanking. It is a lot of fun and is a great way to play with the show. I just don't consider the spackle to be part of THE Buffyverse. I try to remove my own whenever I can. Each of the characters exist as points on a curve. Some character have more points than others. Spike has fewer points than say Willow and those points are for Buffy. It takes a lot of spackle to connect the points.
Take the Buffyverse characters and develop the heck out of them. It is fun and a tribute to the universe and its writers. The show doesn't do that to all characters equally though. To call your creation the Buffyverse isn't wholly accurate.


I don't understand. Are you saying that to view the show on many levels is spackling and fanwanking? Or just that to view any character but Buffy or Angel on many levels is spackling and fanwanking? Are you saying that because some characters are developed less than others that there is no logical reason behind the development, and if someone sees it they are masturbating? Mentally, that is.

There are millions of alternative Buffyverses. I want to get at the one that is created by the writers. I am not even interested in my own perceptions nearly as much as I am *that* particular Buffyverse. From that Buffyverse, I have been learning how to write. I have been learning how to remove myself so that I can be non-judgemental (a great Zen exercise).

THE writer, Whedon, says he wants audiences to project themselves into the story, mythologize it, write fanfic, play with action figures. To say one is creating a world that isn't "wholly accurate" might be missing the point. That's like saying you should read "The Wizard of Oz" but you shouldn't read "Wicked" because it isn't Baum's Oz. Which would be a very great shame, since the book is wicked cool and delves into many of the same issues explored in the Buffyverse.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Finally something interesting -- lunasea, 13:49:25 05/06/03 Tue

Wanting to change is a change from his previous behavior. To not have him change prior to the resouling makes the resouling illogical. The chip forced Spike to interact with human society, paving the way for him to develop a connection with Buffy. The AR illuminated the growing dissonance between what Spike used to be and what he had become-he could not understand why he felt so bad about what he had done

Then we get into what "we" are. It was important to Season six as Buffy and Willow went to pretty dark places. As Riley tells Buffy in "As you Were" "Buffy, none of that means anything. It doesn't touch you." This could be an interesting discussion. It gets into the three marks of existance in Buddhism.

The chip isn't what caused Spike to develop a connection with Buffy. The dream from "Out of My Mind" is. From that dream, Spike was convinced he loved her. Since he is the fool for love, that drove his behavior (behavior they needed him to have for Buffy to react to). From that point on, his behavior is incredibly consistent and he is willing to do anything for Buffy. It isn't some slippery slope where he is willing to do more and more (like it was with Angel S1). Spike gives his all to anything he wants. As Angel says in "School Hard," "He's worse. Once he starts something he doesn't stop until everything in his path is dead."

The AR shows him how much he hasn't changed. It shows him he can't change unless "If you make them." Spike does have the desire. He doesn't have the ability. It is the ability that matters. The desire isn't a change. It is based on his capacity to be such a fool. He still doesn't want to be good. He wants to be what Buffy deserves. This fits with what he has been.

ME was brilliant. They needed Spike to change in order to keep his character alive. They motivated him to seek this change because of Buffy. Now he is actually capable of real change. It is like the man that goes to Church because he likes a girl. Going to Church doesn't count as change. He is just doing it for the girl. When the Holy Spirit enfuses him with the theological virtues, THEN he changes.

Spike seeking the soul is completely in line with what he has been shown to be. It isn't a change. It is a desire to be something for someone.

Angel specifically rejects the idea of redemption through good works. In "Judgement" AI realized that they had to stop thinking of their work as the means to an end-redemption-and just concentrate on the people they were saving. In "Epiphany," which takes place months later, Angel realizes that saving others to obtain redemption was wrong. "I never got it," he says. Saving others because he can, because it's the right and kind thing to do "now, today" is important, as are the people he meets.

But what will get his redemption through? Angel can't work for redemption. That is the wrong attitude. However, it is these works that he has done, most recently especially, that will gain him merit. He generates good karma both through his attitude and his works. It is an interesting dilema. We are saved through works, but we can't work for salvation.

Angel's epiphany is important. As he says he was always working for a reason. He is so scared of who/what he is, that he has to find something good to believe in in order to keep himself good. When he loses all those reasons and tries to go back to being evil, he can't. His heart won't let him. The idea of that sort of freedom isn't enough to generate perfect happiness. There is more to it than that.

When Angel tries to lose his soul, he was saved. He was saved because he found his heart. He found out he did care. It is scary and the next part is finding out just how much pain that generates. After that comes how to deal with that pain. Then he is redeemed. Angel didn't get a Guide telling him that he could love, that he was good. Darla showed him that.

At least that is how I saw it. Might be tons of projection there.

I don't understand. Are you saying that to view the show on many levels is spackling and fanwanking? Or just that to view any character but Buffy or Angel on many levels is spackling and fanwanking? Are you saying that because some characters are developed less than others that there is no logical reason behind the development, and if someone sees it they are masturbating? Mentally, that is.

There is always a logical reason behind everything, the writers want it that way. The show goes to great lengths to give us motivation for the actions they desire the characters take. I like to see how the season and arcs develop. The order of the shows always fascinates me. Season 5, "Family" is right before "FFL." Season 3 "The Wish" is between "Lover's Walk" and "Amends." There is a placement that is based on plot points, but there is also a placement that is based on X has to be shown before Y makes sense. "The Wish" gives important things about Buffy/Angel before we get to "Amends." "Family" and "FFL" are both about abuse and set that up with Tara and Spike. "The Body" and "Forever" are another great set. It isn't just the plots that make these two go together. "The Body" is about loss and "Forever" is about being needy. I like logical things like that.

There are some levels that are there. There are some levels that we put there. One example is Cecily. She looks an awful lot like Halfrek (played by the same actress) and makes reference to "William" in "Older and Farther Away." One could say that Cecily was Halfrek, that the woman that William loved was such a petty bitch she became a vengeance demon. It is a wonderful twist, a twist they killed this season by having Halfrek a vengeance demon in the Crimean War.

End of Season 6, big debate was what Spike went to Africa for. I still like the idea that he consciously went to get the chip removed, but deep in his heart wanted a soul for Buffy. The demon gave him what he *really* wanted. Joss has come out and said that is wrong. I accept that and moved on. If I stick with my original interpretation, it will mess up anything that comes later. The show is built on the writers' interpretation, not mine.

We have point M and point R. When we start to put in N, O, P and Q, that is fanwanking. It is fun and a great mental exercise. When we start going into some of these levels, that is just what we are doing. A lot of the stuff about the Angelus this season fit this. What did Angel learn about himself from all of that? Pretty much nothing. Who saw that coming? We learned a lot more than he did.

To me, Spike is in the same boat. There is a lot of potential there, potential that is pretty unexplored. There are tons of logical ways to go with Spike. I could justify any number of them, since he is so sketchy a character. Because of this, who knows what is "right?" Spike is so fun because who knows exactly what he is going to do. If we could nail his character down, we could make predictions. Why would ME want to do that? They leave the characters as sketchy as possible. For Spike it is really possible. Makes him a great character.

Since he is so sketchy with many possibilities, the "correct" one would encompass the known parimeters of the Buffyverse as established previously, the writers' comments and the show itself. Leaving out any particular one might lead to some interesting options, but it doesn't seem to be anything more than fan wanking to me.

THE writer, Whedon, says he wants audiences to project themselves into the story, mythologize it, write fanfic, play with action figures. To say one is creating a world that isn't "wholly accurate" might be missing the point. That's like saying you should read "The Wizard of Oz" but you shouldn't read "Wicked" because it isn't Baum's Oz. Which would be a very great shame, since the book is wicked cool and delves into many of the same issues explored in the Buffyverse.

And I said do all that. The more the universe engages the imagination, the better. I especially liked what he said about slash-fict. There is nothing wrong with creating an non-accurate Buffyverse. I only said that on this board I am attempting to get at Joss' Buffyverse. Go at it from whatever perspective you want. My Aunt Patty just sees it as mindless entertainment.

My main contention is that Spike and the soul are pretty sketchy and we tend to fill in the details with our own projections. That is a form of fan-fict. Nothing wrong with that if we recognize it as such.

Buffy and Angel get a whole lot of screen time. Willow and Wesley are next. We have a lot more material to analyze, so there is a lot less details to fill in. It still happens and I will admit it. I don't know if my analysis of "Epiphany" above is necessarily what Tim was going for or not. Fits what I have seen, both on the show and in print.
[> [> [> [> [> 'Secondary' Characters -- Lumina, 21:59:26 05/06/03 Tue

Contrivances that show really important things about Man.... The STORY is god, not any particular character, plot or ship. The other characters revolve around Buffy and Angel to give the shows structure. Each episode tends to explore something about Man using each character to illustrate a slightly different angle.

This is the main issue I have with your interpretation of the Buffyverse, Lunasea: the idea that the show's secondary characters exist simply as plot devices or "contrivances" whose only function is to elucidate aspects of the central characters (Buffy in the case of BtVS, Angel in the case of A:tS) and "give the shows structure" by slavishly serving the interests of the storyline. By this reasoning only Buffy and Angel can be considered characters in their own right, as the heroes of their respective shows. (Please let me know if I'm not paraphrasing your point properly). What follows is the suggestion that Buffy and Angel are the only characters worth caring about - because it isn't easy to become emotionally involved in the fate of a plot device.

If we applied your thoughts on the secondary characters in the Buffyverse to, say, Othello, then logically all of the supporting players - Desdemona, Roderigo, Cassio, Emilia, even Iago - would be reduced to devices dreamt up by Shakespeare solely as a means of furthering the plot, giving the play structure and illustrating the contradictions and complexities of the tragic hero. The fact that Iago fulfills a number of different symbolic and structural functions within the play doesn't preclude his being a fascinating, subtly drawn, three-dimensional character as well. Othello isn't all about Othello, just as BtVS isn't all about Buffy. Buffy's journey is, of course, at the heart of show, and in the end all roads lead back to Buffy: there isn't a character in the series that isn't connected to her in some way. That doesn't mean that none of the secondary characters have interesting and involving journeys of their own, or that their perspectives aren't important, or that Spike, Dawn, Willow, Xander, Giles, Anya et al exist only to illustrate themes or highlight aspects of Buffy's character. (As an aside, I love both Buffy and Angel).

I'd love it if you could expand on your views on secondary characters for me. Do you see Angel as only having become a fully-fledged, independent character since becoming the hero of his own show?
[> [> Very well put, Anneth! -- Rob, 07:26:31 05/06/03 Tue

[> [> I absolutely refuse to post on this anymore! -- Redalliance, 14:00:46 05/06/03 Tue

[> Re: The Soul and Spike (why I won't enter into any Spike discussions until next year) -- Mightor, 00:36:21 05/06/03 Tue

Having read the thread to date and come back to the original post [and btw Lunasea I am "Troll" on the WD and was using Angelus here but that's already taken for membership purposes] I am focused more on what might be a new aspect of this debate.

If people really do identify with Spike more than with other characters (ie. people for whom Spike is their favorite character identify with him more than people for whom Willow is their favorite character identify with her, etc.), then the question becomes why? Conversely, is it really that people identify with him more or is it that there is something about him or the positive reaction to him that sets off other people?

I liked Spike in seasons 2 and 3 but not as someone I liked as a person anymore than I liked the Master as a buddy. I liked him as a character who, being a bit more human emotionally than your average vampire, was a bit more interesting.

I have never deluded myself that pre-soul Spike was "good" through and through. When he mistakenly thought he was free of the chip in a season 6 episode, the first thing he did was try to kill someone. So my liking of Spike pre-soul was not some "hero" delusion but a fascination with what must be going on inside this being without a soul who is experiencing these tumultious feelings. The heights and the depths he could reach without a soul were fascinating. I think that is one of the fascinations is the sheer emotional turmoil that he could go through even pre-soul. This is not an Angel cutdown but pre-soul with Angel, there is no turmoil. One could argue that that's because his moral compass is set firmly on the 'vampire setting' but it doesn't change the fact that he only becomes interesting when he gets his soul and becomes Angel. Angelus is interesting as a mirror to Angel, not in the meaning of an opposite but the literal meaning of looking at oneself. Angelus is Angel's suppressed side unleashed. As a psychological study its interesting. As drama, its more "Can we get back to Angel soon and not the arch-villain Angelus routine?" Even in "I Only Have Eyes For You" Angelus's being forced to feel love is an interesting psych study. But never the twain (Angel and Angelus) shall meet (except perhaps in that dream sequence where Angelus manages to say one of his few genuinely funny lines, "Am I the only one bothered by the fact that we're having an alterego battle here?" or words to that effect. I think what I'm trying to say is that, except as a pysch study, one feels that when Angelus is there Angel simply does not exist and vice versa. With Spike, there is the feeling that pre-soul Spike does not entirely cease to exist when he gets his soul and perhaps vice versa.

There is a feeling, rather valid or not, that I've felt and Buffy says the same thing. You are alive because you saw you were a monster and you fought back. She doesn't say his motives were "good." If anything, his motives were his feelings. But Spike's journey doesn't give one the feeling of being two different characters as Angel's does. I love Angel as a character but I admit I've always thought the whole soul business was put there as a simple way of making vamps easily killable bad guys with the Slayer needing have no moral qualms about it. You say as much yourself. I think part of the fascination with Spike is that he is more a Louis ala Interview With The Vampire (even before Lies My Parents Told Me). He is more how I think it should be done and would have been done with Angel had Angel been its own series from the start instead of a spinoff from Buffy. With Spike they push it as far as possible within the paradigm they've established almost as if they now want to ignore that paradigm but can't quite push it that far.

Let's emphasize some different parts of what Marti Noxon said:

we wanted to bring him back

But slowly you start to have moral questions. Is this a change in conditioning?

Then we discovered that there was a real heart to that story-line

So a lot of times people who see this as a grand design, an opera about good and evil. It's just really a slowly evolving thing, and sometimes form follows function.

True. But that it wasn't planned from the start I see as meaningless. Spike wasn't even a character in the show from the start. They started planning it when he was going to become a regular. Sure Willow had an arc planned earlier because she was in the show earlier. That Spike's storyline by and large was an aspect of Buffy's until recently this season I don't have any argument with either as that was true of all her boyfriends except when one got his own show. What I find interesting in Marti's statement is that the storyline involving Spike has heart- pardon the pun but Spike gives one the feeling of having 'soul' if not 'a soul'. I suspect she meant that the storyline has heart because the characters come across as having heart, as having something inside them that is real, soul or not.

As you have said, if Spike is the god of anything, its pathos. He is/ was the outcast, the outsider, the isolated one striving for something when no one believed there was really anything inside him. He's the one that appears to be a rebel on the outside but what he really wants is for what's inside to be seen and understood. That sounds like I'm describing a human being doesn't it? Not to put too fine a point on it but he is almost a personification of human need. The fact that he does not start as some Champion or Hero yet still strives while dealing with all his horrible weaknesses is a major appeal. He's wasn't some iron-willed god or invincible hero.

I could say more but to get back to the original point, what is it about Spike that so many people dislike? Or is it really not Spike the character that people dislike? Is it the fact that other people like him that makes others hate him?

Mind you though, I don't entirely subscribe to the theory that people relate to Spike more than to other characters. Sure there's a "Spike is gorgeous" contingent but every character has people who like him or her for nothing but that but those are not the reasons for everyone. And that's more than enough for now. :))
[> [> Hey -- lunasea, 11:04:54 05/06/03 Tue

I knew it was you, so no need to unmask yourself. but since you have [wave]

You bring up some interesting areas to discuss, areas that often get overlooked and areas I would love to talk about.

I would agree with your assessment of Angelus, except for "The Prodigal" (which is a great twist on the parable. Instead of being redeemed at the end, he is damned), "Dear Boy" (where the student surpasses the teacher) and "Release" (with the wonderful statement about pain that hurts to the bone). There is plenty of turmoil there. "Release" really gave me a new perspective on vampires, which I wrote up comparing vampires to rape survivors.

Vamping is a metaphor for rape. They do a good job showing this in "Becoming." They metaphor doesn't end there, though. The turmoil that does exist in all vampires was shown wonderfully with Angelus this season. There is an undercurrent of anger there that fuels them (just as it fuels the Slayer). It is a pain that hurts to the bone and can only be stopped by hurting someone else. This is why vampires lash out so much.

Perhaps I am projecting my own experiences onto this. I know an anger so violent that you feel like it (and even you) should be in a cage. Angelus' words in "Release" really resonated with me on a visceral level.

The whole mocking God was another thing that resonated with me. This shows a great deal of turmoil about something I could relate to. This was shown in so many ways--his name, his tattoo, his preference for convents, marking his victims with a cross (for those who hadn't picked up on the earlier ways, "Somnambulist" makes it clear). This isn't just about being evil. Angelus has a fight with God going on. God can't punish him any more. He has already been damned.

It is easy to write off non-Spike vampires as not conflicted. They put on a good act for everyone. They revel in their power and evilness. They get to be their shadow. Thing is even when Angel was sans soul, he was still present, just beneath the surface every bit as much as Angelus is just beneath the surface when Angel is souled. All it takes is something to trigger that.

I like in "Passion" when Angelus brushes the hair from a sleeping Buffy's face. It starkly contrasted the emotional torment he was visiting on her. In "I Fall to Pieces" we get insight into Angelus' interaction with women. Not quite as black and white, turmoil-free as we might think.

Not to defend my champion or his character. Just another perspective on Angelus. Angelus is much more than Angel's suppressed side. He isn't just Liam's shadow. He is rage and violence that results from being victimized by the vamping. He is true darkness and where it comes from.

But Spike's journey doesn't give one the feeling of being two different characters as Angel's does

Depends on how you want to explore Angel/us. As Willow tells Buffy, somethings about Angel didn't change when he lost his soul. If you see Angel and Angelus as two different characters, I think a lot is missed. Angel isn't a human. He still enjoys his vamp dreams. He still wants to bite Joyce and kill Buffy. As dissociative, I don't see Angel/us as two separate character, but two facets to one personality.

I love Angel as a character but I admit I've always thought the whole soul business was put there as a simple way of making vamps easily killable bad guys with the Slayer needing have no moral qualms about it. You say as much yourself.

Also a way for Joss to duck the "what orients us to good" question. With Spike, Buffy wasn't his soul. She was his moral compass. The soul orients the moral compass. It isn't it. That is something that is in the creature. The soul picks which way this points. Spike tried to ignore his moral compass all together and replace it with Buffy. His moral compass became WWBD.

He is more how I think it should be done and would have been done with Angel had Angel been its own series from the start instead of a spinoff from Buffy.

AtS has had no problems ignoring things it wanted to from BtVS. In "Angel he hasn't fed off another living human since the curse. In "Darla" he feeds off of criminals. The soul has evolved since it was a plot device S1 & 2 of BtVS and so have vampires. I think they have taken Angel/us right where they wanted him to go.

What I find interesting in Marti's statement is that the storyline involving Spike has heart- pardon the pun but Spike gives one the feeling of having 'soul' if not 'a soul'. I suspect she meant that the storyline has heart because the characters come across as having heart, as having something inside them that is real, soul or not.

Typically that means that there is real emotion there. I wrote about this somewhere above. They were exploring human interactions. Spike liking to be abused had a lot of emotion to it. In the feminist/humanist story, Joss was starting to explore being abused. At the same time Buffy is starting to really abuse Spike, Tara's abuse is being dealt with. I love seeing the juxtaposition of things in the season. Joss explored both the abused and the abuser. Spike was a way that Buffy could explore this, since he wasn't human. That doesn't make it right, but it made it greyer. If Buffy saw Spike as human, she couldn't have explored that side of her.

As you have said, if Spike is the god of anything, its pathos. He is/ was the outcast, the outsider, the isolated one striving for something when no one believed there was really anything inside him. He's the one that appears to be a rebel on the outside but what he really wants is for what's inside to be seen and understood. That sounds like I'm describing a human being doesn't it? Not to put too fine a point on it but he is almost a personification of human need. The fact that he does not start as some Champion or Hero yet still strives while dealing with all his horrible weaknesses is a major appeal. He's wasn't some iron-willed god or invincible hero.

Which is where his appeal lies. Joss said that people were going to love Willow more because she is more approachable. Same thing with Spike. He is the personification of human weakness. When he is given strengths, it takes away from his character.

I could say more but to get back to the original point, what is it about Spike that so many people dislike? Or is it really not Spike the character that people dislike? Is it the fact that other people like him that makes others hate him?

Many didn't dislike him until he started to take Buffy into the dark with him. It is a best friend's job to vilify such people. It was something important to Buffy's story, but it was painful to watch. I think some get upset at those that didn't find this painful to watch (David Fury is a great example of this).
[> Who is this 'Spike' guy and why is everyone so worried about his soul? -- Character on Opposing Network in Same Time Slot, 14:59:59 05/06/03 Tue

A Voy poem! -- ponygirl, 13:19:56 05/05/03 Mon

There's a website making the rounds today that generates poetry based on information on a webpage. http://cmdrtaco.net/poemgen.cgi

Here's what I got for the board(I did it a few times to get one I liked. I edited out the numbers/dates too). I quite like the end!

VoyForums News Help a beautifully fresh
sunny afternoon outside ,
Fri So much
easier than
Caleb seemed, she be named,
Fri Storyteller Orpheus ,
no Correction
Necessary syrup Masq,
Thu I have
the fascist
parachat software Masq,

Fri talking about... being wrong Doug,
Petrie. NT Millan
Mon 19th century definition of Wood , was
giving his
real motivations in a Sublime listener, now. NT
HonorH,
Fri What it wants directly. done
that
The sacrifice of
to this Am I am now NT
deeva, who cannot
be Dawn?
Well,
I posted . . .
[> Yeah!! -- Masq, 13:49:14 05/05/03 Mon

It's so... dada-ist. Plus the syrup.
[> [> And here's some from my site -- Masq, 14:11:32 05/05/03 Mon

Pretty.Damned.Cool!

www.atpobtvs.com/lmoram.html:

Moral ambiguity . in Angel. crumbles
under her leg wax plans. without telling
her friends.
from Cordelia.

www.atpobtvs.com/a44.html:

Season Four Angel: is innocent.
Human. history, cultures,
and she lays down in Angel
and his own purposes.
The praying mantis
demon is trying
to end. There was join forces
has a choice.

www.atpobtvs.com/74.html:

Season Seven Buffy says
she steps
aside. be done
little steam, she takes the
bringers, and like before, army
manages to town, but a collar to
scare them safe. from. a group of Dirty Girls Caleb Caleb
All over
which
lure them in the attack on Buffy,
about the others point Caleb in the wait
has
tried to
keep her intuition. These girls.
[> That's pretty neat! -- deeva, who doesn't really want to be Dawn, 22:57:26 05/05/03 Mon

Strangely when I read through this and Masq's results, I heard it all in the voice of William Shatner reciting all of this poetry. Wierd, huh?
Who's gonna pay... (*spoilers*) -- Corwin of Amber, 18:27:06 05/05/03 Mon

So who pays for food in the Summers household now? Willow seems to have been a mooch at least since season 6; Xander has his construction job (gonna be banging a few thumbs until he gets used to the loss of depth perception), does Anya have a regular job? Does Giles?

I get this silly picture of the Whiners in Training voting Buffy back in because they're starving. Or maybe they'll be selling a few pints at the local blood bank.
[> Re: Who's gonna pay... (*spoilers*) -- Wolfhowl3, 20:35:56 05/05/03 Mon

In my mind, Anya's mini-crime spress during Him left her with enough money to support the Summer's Household for quite some time.

Besides, worrying about money was Sooooooo season 6. ;)

Wolfie
[> [> Didn't you see that Money Tree in the backyard the SITs were prancing around? -- WickedBuffy (The bathroom problem, now, that's a doozy.), 09:10:48 05/06/03 Tue

[> [> Ok, now that's just funny!! lol -- Kate, 10:19:04 05/06/03 Tue

It may be to my left: Xander up to the loss of Angel's soul -- lunasea, 19:36:01 05/05/03 Mon

Xander. The heart. That is what he got labeled ever since "Primeval." With his most recent betrayal of Buffy that was based on his own feelings rather than his concern for her, I decided to take a look at this "every man." Not the most supportive character on the show. He has said the meanest things out of everyone to Buffy. Support is not Xander's function. He takes this role when there is no one else there to do it. Xander's role on the show is to voice things Buffy can't or won't and sometimes that is supportive. He is "perspective guy." What follows is an exploration of that.

This starts Season 1 with "Welcome to the Hellmouth." "Why? Oh, hey, I hope he's not a vampire, because then you might have to slay him." At this point in the story, Buffy doesn't want to be Slayer. She is only doing this because her new friend is in danger. She wishes it wasn't a vampire and she doesn't want to have to slay him. She can't say that, since she has to go save her new friend.

Xander continues to say, "No. I only know that you *think* that you're the Slayer, and the reason why I know that...." It is taken as a given that Buffy accepts she is the Slayer and just doesn't like it. Xander voices something that isn't explored until "Helpless." As she tells Angel, "Uh, it's just suddenly there's this chance that my calling's a wrong number, and... it's just freaking me out a little." It is also explored much more in depth in "Normal Again." This is something that Buffy can't voice because she has to focus on what she has to do, but it is there.

This contrasts with what Angel says earlier. Angel accepts that Buffy is the one and only, accept no substitutes Slayer. When Buffy tells him "What I want is to be left alone!" he responds with "Do you really think that's an option anymore? You're standing at the Mouth of Hell. And it's about to open." Xander voices doubts Buffy can't have and Angel tries to get her to see things that she doesn't. Xander briefly fills Angel's role season 4 before Riley shows up. From that we call him supportive.

There are a few lines in Season 1 that show Xander's developing role as the voice of what Buffy can't voice. The following is just a sample. "I'm inadequate. That's fine. I'm less than a man." (The Harvest) "Look, I don't care why, I just care that you go on breathing." (The Witch) "I-I know you have feelings for this guy, but it's not like you're in love with him, right? You're in love with a vampire?! What, are you outta your mind?!" (Angel. There are plenty this episode. Xander really voices the things about Angel that Buffy can't bring herself to.)

Because of the different rolls Xander and Angel play, it is Angel who is there when Buffy finds out about the prophecy in "Prophecy Girl." Xander's role is shown when he asks Buffy out on a date. "Well, I don't want to spoil it either. But that's not the point, is it? You either feel a thing or you don't." Buffy doesn't want to think of it that way. She is feeling something, for someone she can't be feeling things for. She hopes there is more to it than "you either feel a thing or you don't." Then Xander crosses the line, but it is a line that Buffy is probably worried about. "Nah. Forget it. I'm not him. I mean, I guess a guy's gotta be undead to make time with you." Buffy does love Angel. Why? A Slayer in love with a vampire? He isn't even human. It is unnatural. Does she love Angel because she is Slayer? Is she warped some how? These are doubts that have probably crossed her mind, especially when she doesn't feel anything for a nice guy like Xander.

Xander saves Buffy because "Uh, uh, I don't care. I'm sorry, I don't. Right now I gotta help Buffy." What he doesn't care about is the upcoming apocalypse that will result if the Master rises. Buffy has to care about this. She can't care about herself. When this attitude gets together with the harsh reality that Angel represents, a more complete picture is formed and Buffy is saved. The prophecy does come true, but they tack on an addendum.

But getting Xander and Angel to work together is no easy feat. What they represent is usually at odds with each other. What unifies them is: Angel: You're in love with her. Xander: Aren't you? Before that, Xander gives what Buffy can't say again "At the end of the day, I pretty much think you're a vampire. But Buffy's got this big old yen for you. She thinks you're a real person. And right now I need you to prove her right." Buffy cannot admit that she loves Angel, that she sees him as a real person and that she needs him to prove that she is right about that. Neither can she admit that Angel is just a vampire. She basically tries not to think about him at all.

Because of their roles, Angel is the one to find Buffy and pronounce her dead. He pulls her out of her baptismal fount. Angel isn't the one that can revive her, though. It is Xander and the perspective that he offers that will repeatedly free Buffy on the show. This happens beautifully with Angel. Xander's distrust of Angel allows Buffy to love him. He says what she doesn't want to, so she doesn't have to.

Angel pronounces Buffy dead. It is perspective guy that realizes "But if she drowned, uh, there's a shot! CPR!" Xander's perspective does two things, it allows Buffy not to have to say things. It also gets people to see things a different way. This plays out most dramatically in "Primeval." Xander is the one that says "Welcome back." He is also the one at the end who actually says, "Yeah! Buffy died, and everything!" at the end. We will see how much that affected her next season.

We start that season with "When She was Bad." In it is probably the harshest line Xander has and that is saying a lot. Xander is the first one to mention the Master and tells her that they buried him. He also mentions that vamp activity was down since she has been gone. As Buffy says, "It's like they knew I was coming back."

Buffy falls for a trap, as she tends to do, not being perspective girl. That is when Xander says "I don't know. (angry) I don't know what your problem is, what your issues are. But as of now, I officially don't care. If you'd worked with us for five seconds, you coulda stopped this....If they hurt Willow, I'll kill you." That is exactly what Buffy is thinking right then, but she has to concentrate on saving them. She doesn't have time for guilt or any other feelings.

At then end we get Angel and Xander having to work together again. Xander's concern is the others and Angel is still worried about Buffy. It is Angel's arms that Buffy ends up crying into. Xander and Willow welcome her back to school as if nothing had happened, to contrast with how the season will end. Xander even manages to make a joke about the Master. It was a beautiful moment. That is the Scoobies we love and want to see again. Will we?

There are various other examples in Season 2. "How about that? I always pegged him as a one-woman vampire." as Angel walks out with Cordelia and "People want the dream. What they can't have. The more unattainable, the more attractive." (Some Assembly Required) "So, this night of St. Vigeous deal. If they're gonna attack in force, aren't we thinkin' vacation?" (School Hard) "The important thing is *you* believe that." (Inca Mummy Girl) "This ain't no tea party, princess. Sooner or later you're gonna have to fight! (Halloween, even as other characters, their roles are the same) "Care to make a small wager on that?" (Lie to Me) "Yep, yep, I knew this would happen. Nobody can be wound as straight and narrow as Giles without a dark side erupting. (Dark Age) "Y'know, with that kind of attitude you could've had a bright future as an employee at the DMV." (What's My Line Part 1) "A Slayer, huh? I knew this 'I'm the only one, I'm the only one' thing was just an attention-getter. (What's My Line Part 2) "Buff, you're lacking evidence. I think maybe we're in Sigmund Freud territory." (Ted) " Oh, right. I see a lotta hunting getting done in *that* scenario. (Bad Eggs)

In "School Hard" again Angel and Xander have to work together. At this point, Xander is a bit more comfortable with Angel. Still when Angel grabs him and pretends to still be feeding, Xander says "I knew you were lying. Undead liar guy." Xander also learns that Angel is Spike's sire and wants to know about that.

Post soul loss, Xander is taken up a few notches. I will explore that tomorrow.

Current board | More May 2003