November 2001 posts
My thoughts for Lullaby
(spoilers) -- Slayrunt, 01:17:25 11/20/01 Tue
Darla is gone and I for one will miss her. If you knew my personal
history, you would understand that I have a soft spot in my heart
(and in my head) for the bad girl. You know the type, the crazy
psycho that if you knew the truth, you would run screaming far
away from her.
The beauty of a TV show is we, the viewers, get to see the truth
and watch the guy get sucked in to her world.
Darla is the quintessential bad girl. Never loving, never caring,
the perfect raw material for a vampire.
I have been in Angel's shoe's in the sense of having done things
I was deeply sorry about. Granted I never massacred a village,
or a convent or my family or.... I have done things that have
hurt myself and others that I care about.
Yet, I am still drawn to the Darla's of the world, beautiful and
bad, hot enough to burn you and they usually do. I try to avoid
these girls in real life, but I do enjoy the view from the safety
of my living room.
I would love to know the full story of her life. What happen,
if anything, to cause this lovely creature to reject the world
in such a way? What sad, terrible thing could create this monster?
We may never know.
Darla was unpredictable. Darla was exciting. Darla was fun, Yes,
in a homicidal way, but fun.
Darla was also sad and pitiful. I truly felt sorry for her. No
love, no family, no real friends. No redeeming qualities, but
did she redeem herself?
In the end she realized that she was wrong in the things that
she did and that she could never make up for them. She found something,
someone to love. Someone worth living for or more precisely dying
for. Did she redeem herself? If you are asking me, yes.
I now have hope for all the bad girls of the world. It's time
for me to leave the safety of my living room, run out and find
myself a bad girl and ... What am I thinking? I'll stay here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: My thoughts for Lullaby (spoilers) -- Wisewoman, 08:19:28
11/20/01 Tue
First, I agree with you that Darla has redeemed herself.
Second, does this mean that you now have empathy for those of
us who are Spike-obsessed?
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I've always had empathy... -- Slayrunt, 17:21:10 11/20/01
Tue
for those Spike-obessed.
I justed realized my Willow obession is an other bad girl thing.
Boy can I pick um!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guardian Angels God will lend
thee.....spoilers for Lullaby..... -- Rufus, 03:02:29 11/20/01
Tue
First I'd like to get out of the way the idea of Christian redemption
versus redemption in Fairy Tales which seem to be a theme in the
Buffyverse. Redemption isn't something owned by one religion or
culture but the tales told in Fairy Tales tend to show a different
idea of redemption......
"The word redemption should not be associated with Christian
dogma and theology, where it is a concept with so many connotations.
In Fairytales, redemption refers specifically to a condition where
someone has been cursed or bewitched and through happenings or
events in the story, is redeemed. This is a very different condition
from that in the Christian idea." The Psychological Meaning
of Redemption Motifs in Fairytales by Marie-Louise Von Franz
Why did I mention this, because of tonights Angel episode where
I think Darla became redeemed, not because she deserved it if
you weigh her deeds to her one act of sacrifice, but because something
happened that was beyond her control.
At a time when Angel and Darla had most to lose, Holtz appears
in their lives to remind them that they can do nothing to make
up for all the destruction they have done over so many years.
Holtz may eventually be proved to be evil, but he didn't start
that way. This man sang lullabys to soothe his daughter before
he cast her from the porch.
Sleep my darling Let peace attend thee All through the night
Guardian Angels God will lend thee All through the night
No forboding Will alarm thee All through the night
They will keep the peril from thee All through the night.
An Angel visited the family of Daniel Holtz bringing death and
torment. Darla and Angelus destroyed these people and caused Holtz
to make a deal with a demon. Except the demon hasn't been forthcoming
with the facts of the new world or new Angel.
Something has happened that could bring great joy or destruction
to this earth in the form of a child. Darla a prostitute facinated
by the painting of the Temptation of Christ, focusing on the Leper.
Could this be part of a woman who once was longing for a cleansing?
Or is it just her sick sense of humor?
The Darla of tonight was about to become a mother, she still didn't
want this child but for a reason that betrays her initial disgust
of her pregnant condition. Darla has been given the gift of love,
the ability to love.
Angel: You love it.
Darla: Completely...I love it completely.....I don't think I've
loved anything as much as this life that's inside of me.
Angel: Well, you've never loved anything, Darla.
Darla: That's true....400 years, and I never did....til now.
Darla, the prostitute that loathed men, families, the living,
has fallen in love with the life she carries. She says that it's
soul is what has caused this change in her and she doesn't want
to forget the love she has finally found, not in sex, but in Motherhood.
The translator Lilah used found a passage that says one thing......there
will be no birth.
Translator: For surely in that time....When the skies open....And
the heavens weep.....There will be no birth...only death.
Sleep my love And peace attend thee All through the night
Guardian Angels God will send thee All through the night.
Darla: Some mother...I can't even offer life.
Is this a Fairy Tale, a Passion Play? Darla wasn't deserving of
any breaks from life or Holtz, but for some reason the mystical
forces saw fit to grace her with a child, a child to this killer
of children. A soulless monster who only knew how much joy she
got from the pain and suffering of others. Her last moments bring
a light to her unlife, in the despair of being able to feel regret
and empathy for her victims Darla seemed to find a solution that
was unexpected.
Darla: This child....Angel.......This child is the one good thing
we did together.....The only good thing.....You make sure you
tell him that.
Darla no longer had to fear the loss of the memory of loving her
child as she thrust a stake into her heart to save her child and
die loving someone she would never meet. She did what a loving
mother would do, save her child.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Guardian Angels God will lend thee.....spoilers for
Lullaby..... -- Cactus Watcher, 05:28:48 11/20/01 Tue
Beautiful post Rufus; well structured, says a lot, makes an impact,
and doesn't waste verbage doing it. Thanks for sharing!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> nice job -- cknight, 06:10:27 11/20/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> WELL PUT RUFUS, WELL PUT!!! -- vulpes, 07:20:21 11/20/01
Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Beautiful, Rufus...*sniff* -- Wisewoman, 08:13:53 11/20/01
Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> That's lovely! Is it a direct quote from the episode?
-- Marie, 08:33:06 11/20/01 Tue
If not - where is it from?
Marie
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Do you mean the song lyrics? -- WW, 09:12:21
11/20/01 Tue
Are you the Welsh Marie, or the other Marie?
Those are the English lyrics to an old Welsh (I think) hymn, called
"All Through the Night."
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> full lyrics to this "popular variation"
of "ar hyd y nos" (still spoilers) -- anom, 12:11:10
11/20/01 Tue
There's more to each verse of the lyrics in Rufus' (amazing, Rufe!)
post. I knew the music but not the words, which I found at this
page. It has the original Welsh lyrics, English & German translations,
& several other versions, incl. the one Holtz sang, which it calls
a "popular variation":
Sleep my love, and peace attend thee All through the night; Guardian
angels God will lend thee, All through the night, Soft the drowsy
hours are creeping, Hill and vale in slumber steeping, I my loving
vigil keeping, All through the night.
Angels [hmmm...] watching ever round thee, All through the night,
In thy slumbers close surround thee, All through the night, They
should of all fears disarm thee, No forebodings should alarm thee,
They will let no peril harm thee, All through the night.
My take on the ep's use of this song is that Holtz' singing it
in Caritas implies that he thinks what he's about to do will in
some way bring peace to his daughter's spirit, or at least put
to rest the last memory of her as a vamp that he carries with
him--"it's all right, papa will take care of it." And
of course, it gives the writers a way to clue Lorne in to what's
about to happen so everyone can "Run!" Nice dovetailing
there. Also a good parallel btwn. what Holtz had to do to his
"daughter" & what Darla did to save her baby.
For anyone interested, the page w/the lyrics (& links to the melody)
is on an international folk song website (which says "All
Songs are Y2K Compliant many areY1Kcompliant"--click on that
& check out the cartoon at the bottom of the Y@K rant).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Oh, hide my head in shame!!!! --
Marie, 01:55:35 11/21/01 Wed
Or should I say "Shoot me, mount me, stuff me!"?
Ar hyd y nos! I can't believe I didn't twig! My only excuse is
that I've never heard it sung in English, and when I sing it in
Welsh, er, well, it's in Welsh, and you don't translate as you
sing, do you?
It's a beautiful hymn, though, in any language!
M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Sorry -- Rufus, 11:03:27 11/20/01 Tue
Almost all the quotes were from taking notes from the show using
the closed caption and my ears when the cc was wrong.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Just reading your post made me well up again! -- Dichotomy,
11:43:11 11/20/01 Tue
Great post Rufus! I just moved and was offline for a while. I
couldn't wait to get back on so I could read all the thought-provoking
insights on this board, and yours was a nice way to come "home."
That Darla chose to stake herself to save her baby was surprising,
heartbreaking and touching. And the fact that I felt this way
about a character I never had much sympathy for or attraction
to speaks highly of the writer, methinks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Just reading your post made me well up again! -- Dichotomy,
09:35:42 11/21/01 Wed
Great post Rufus! I just moved and was offline for a while. I
couldn't wait to get back on so I could read all the thought-provoking
insights on this board, and yours was a nice way to come "home."
That Darla chose to stake herself to save her baby was surprising,
heartbreaking and touching. And the fact that I felt this way
about a character I never had much sympathy for or attraction
to speaks highly of the writer, methinks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Lighter Side of No Mercy
(spoilers for Lullaby) -- Cactus Watcher, 06:18:21 11/20/01 Tue
OK, I'll miss Darla a little. But, honestly, when she stakes herself,
my instant reaction was surprise over the plot twist, "Oh,
that's what the prophecy means," and certainly not sympathy
or shock that she'd died. People will disagree, but for me Darla
(as many people feel about Riley) was a fairly weak character
played by a weak actor.
So what does 'no mercy' mean? Obviously, Holtz wants to wait until
Angel fully appreciates what it means to have a child, then take
it away from him. But, last night in the glow of having a charcter
I wasn't fond of removed from the show, I was thinking other things
'no mercy' could mean:
Holtz will wait until Angel has spent a couple of years changing
poopy diapers, then stake him.
Holtz will wait until after the kid has spent his teenage years
back-talking Angel, and is within minutes of the realization that
his father knows something after all. Then Holtz will stake Angel.
Holtz will let Angel fall in love with Cordy, then let him live.
Holtz will encourage Wesley, to give Angel long narratives on
translation as the the W & H translator wanted to do with Lilah.
Holtz will encourage Loren to insist Angel sing more.
Holtz will encourage Gunn to bring his old friends by the hotel
more often.
Or worst of all, Holtz will bring back Darla... again!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> LOL. Agree with you on Darla esp -- Rahael, 07:23:05 11/20/01
Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Lighter Side of No Mercy (spoilers for Lullaby)
-- Metron, 07:54:51 11/20/01 Tue
heh sorry, couldn't disagree with you more in terms of Darla and
the actress behind the fangs.
:)
But hey, that could be just me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Oooh! Mean! -- Marie, 08:04:53 11/20/01 Tue
Holtz will let Angel fall in love with Cordy, then let him live.
But it made me laugh, anyway! Guess our Cordy isn't a favourite
of yours, huh? Why? I love her!
M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Oooh! Mean! -- CW, 08:08:55 11/20/01 Tue
I do like Cordelia. But, I wouldn't want to date her!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Oooh! Mean! -- Marie, 08:18:45 11/20/01
Tue
If I was male, I would, these days - not High School Cordy, certainly,
but the Cordy we have now - absolutely!
M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Lighter Side of No Mercy (spoilers for Lullaby)
-- Calluna, 10:52:41 11/20/01 Tue
Let's just hope that AtS doesn't turn into "Two guys, two
girls, a demon, a vampire and a baby."
And, off subject, has anyone else noticed that the supposed) background
noise in some scenes of AtS is so loud that you can't hear the
dialog? Especially just before Darla staked herself. I don't think
I heard a bit of the dialog because the sound of the rain was
so loud. Is this the same all over or is it just my TV or my WB
affiliate?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Yes! Hearing problems! -- Shiver, 12:38:53 11/20/01
Tue
It isn't just you. I miss half of the dialogue on Angel - don't
know if it's bad editing, or what, but the audio production SUCKS.
I have to wait until the scripts come out to find out what I missed.
Let's write letters!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Yes! Hearing problems! -- Calluna, 14:10:29
11/20/01 Tue
Yeah, I'm not nuts. I usually end up turning on the closed captioning
to see what people are saying. You would think that if it were
audio production problems, then there would be similar problem
on Buffy? Maybe it's a conspiracy by the WB.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Yes! Hearing problems! -- Cactus Watcher,
14:33:23 11/20/01 Tue
There is a problem on Buffy! Since season 1 ep. 1. everything
has been consistantly high-quality with Mutant Enemy except one
thing... diction! Scarcely an ep. goes by without something being
said that's incomprehensible without watching over and over or
resorting to the scripts. It was especially bad in the beginning
when Joss Whedon was literally inventing highschool slang on the
fly. My biggest gripe about Emma Caulfield, an otherwise fine
actress, is that she is frequently the Scooby Most Difficult to
Understand.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Yes! Hearing problems! -- pagangodess,
19:56:37 11/20/01 Tue
I agree with you about bad audio, and it goes for both shows.
I always found Giles the most difficult to understand and not
just because of his British accent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
My perspective, and an announcement
(spoilers for "Lullaby") -- dsf, 10:52:44 11/20/01 Tue
I may never be quite this vulnerable to a story again.
First, I have a happy announcement (for anyone who read my comments
on Darla and that pregnant glow): my twins, Brian Nathaniel and
Naomi Starr, were delivered by c-section a week ago (6:43 PM and
6:42 PM respectively, and I was back in recovery to watch "Tabula
Rasa" with my husband at 8 PM!) They're doing very well,
though they have to stay at a special-care hospital nursery for
another couple of weeks. They were delivered at 33 1/2 weeks because
Brian was showing heartbeat decelerations when I had contractions.
These days that's early but not super-early. They each weighed
about half what a full-term baby would weigh, and so far there
have been no problems.
But can you imagine how grateful I was last night, watching "Lullaby",
that they'd already been safely delivered? I think if I had still
been carrying them, worrying constantly that something would go
wrong (I'd been on bed rest to prevent preterm labor for a month),
I'd have fallen apart when it looked like the baby was doomed.
As it was, I cried through most of the episode. I think I started
crying for Darla, rather than Holtz, with the scene where she
reveals that the baby's soul within her is acting as her soul.
(Remember how she held on to her anger at Drusilla for turning
her, even though her soul was already gone, until the vampire
instincts and Dru's tears sank in? I cried then too.) At about
3/4 through the ep I thought, "What if someone staked her
-- would that save the baby?" Normally I keep thoughts like
that to myself, because I watch with my husband and neither of
us wants to be spoiled. This time, I was so upset about what was
happening that I blurted it right out. Oh, well.
I saw Darla look at the fire filling the room and felt sure that
she'd figured it out too. I thought she might run into the fire,
but that wouldn't have been safe for the baby. ("Uh, guys?
I just thought I'd dash in there and burn up; could someone come
in with me to grab the baby if this works?") I was proud
of her for doing it herself, asking for no help or comfort except
giving Angel the message to her child. There's a personality trait
that Darla had in all incarnations.
And I've never much liked the character, though I thought both
character and actor were about twenty times better on =Angel=
than they'd been on BtVS. But I couldn't resist any aspect of
the story or the performance last night.
I had no idea whether other viewers would be as blown away by
the emotional impact as I was; I knew I was about as un-objective
as I could be. So I've been reading here, eager to find out: was
that episode brilliant, or was it just the right story at the
right time for me?
dsf, now a mom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Congratulations! And its not just you, that ep was brilliant
:) -- vandalia, 11:08:41 11/20/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: My perspective, and an announcement (spoilers for "Lullaby")
-- Kimberly, 11:08:48 11/20/01 Tue
Congratulations and good luck with your twins. I'm still assimilating
last night's episode, but I agree that parenthood makes it more
poignant. I was more emotionally impressed by Holtz, but that
may be because my son is six, and memories of labor no longer
have the immediacy you will.
Good luck on avoiding sleep deprivation and enjoy the kids. :-)))
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: My perspective, and an announcement (spoilers for "Lullaby")
-- VampRiley, 11:11:51 11/20/01 Tue
I thought the ep was brilliant. Extremely moving. Congrats on
the kids.
VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Blessed be both your babies, and congratulations. -- Wisewoman,
11:31:21 11/20/01 Tue
And as others have said, many of us cried along with Darla. It
was indeed a brilliant episode.
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Congratulations! You now hold the title... -- Dichotomy,
11:54:52 11/20/01 Tue
..that comes with more challenges, heartbreak, joy and importance
than any other---Mom! (That goes for Dad, too, although you get
bonus points for the physical challenges part.)
The episode was great, but I think you'll find that anything that
has to do with children will touch you a bit more deeply now,
even if it's a stupid sitcom or 30-second Kodak ad. It's okay,
here's a box of e-tissue to get you started. Ah, parenthood!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Quik question -- vampire hunter D, 12:01:30 11/20/01 Tue
If you had had to stake yourself to get the kids out alive, would
you have done it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Quik answer -- Kimberly, 12:49:44 11/20/01 Tue
At least in a normal delivery, there comes a point at which you
would do ANYTHING to get that thing out! (Including normally shy
and retiring women threatening murder and mayhem to get approval
to push.) (I may not be speaking for dsf, just another woman who's
been through the process.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Quik question -- dsf, 13:07:07 11/20/01 Tue
Yes, if (1) I knew I'd lose my soul if they died or were born;
and (2) I had no one who would love me even without my soul.
So if it had been Drusilla, with a Spike who still loved her,
soul or no soul... I wonder what they would have done.
dsf
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Quik question -- Kimberly, 13:13:26 11/20/01
Tue
Actually, I think Darla's case would be the harder: to sacrifice
everything for love without ever having received it? I would think
it would be easier to make that sacrifice having known love.
I do think that knowing that Angel would be there for the baby
and would love and raise it made it easier for her.
And that in no way desecrates her sacrifice. The one, truly good
thing she's ever done. And that was a salvation for Darla.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Congratulations and all the best! :) -- RabidHarpy, 12:32:44
11/20/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> wow. wow. and Wow! mazel tov! (spoilers for lullaby) --
anom, 13:40:07 11/20/01 Tue
I hope you & the babies (& your husband!) are all OK & recover
well. (They'll probably be fine--I was a preemie & spent my 1st
2 weeks in an incubator, & have had no major health problems.)
I can't even imagine what it must have been like to watch "Lullaby"
at a moment like that. I'm so glad your twins had already been
born! And y'know, I hope somebody from ME reads your post.
Yes, the ep was amazing. I never saw it coming. I had done some
speculation here on the effect of Darla's having a soul (though
not her own) in her, but the staking--outta nowhere for me, but
it made perfect sense. And only now does it occur to me, what
might having had its soul serve as the soul of a vampire do to
the baby?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Talk about perspective! Good health to you and the twins!
-- Cactus Watcher, 14:00:57 11/20/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Congratulations.....:):):) -- Rufus, 15:13:57 11/20/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Congratulations!! -- LadyStarlight, 15:41:23 11/20/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Llongyfarchiadau! Congratulations! (from another Twin) --
Marie, 08:50:14 11/21/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Congratulations and best wishes to you all. :) -- Isabel,
16:46:49 11/21/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justification for Darla's Miracle
Baby and Darla(Spoilers) -- LoriAnn, 13:12:51 11/20/01 Tue
Seems to me that someone has mentioned a cheesiness level regarding
Darla's miracle baby. I started thinking about this, and there
is a precedent for what has happened, at least, up to now. We
saw on Buffy that one night the sky opened and an Angel fell to
Earth. There was a great question about why this would happen.
The PTB took a hand and returned Angel to his life for their own
purposes. Why? Angel had repented of his evil, was working for
good, and was then, after losing his soul in an act of love, sent
to Acathla's hell by Buffy. He was returned to complete or solidify
his redemption and to be the hands of the PTB in working good.
So the PTB retrieved him from hell because he had begun an act
of redemption, but through no fault of his own, wound up in hell
anyway. Darla, on the other hand, was dead and brought back to
vindictive life by W&H. However, she eventually was willing
to die to save Angel("Trials"), and she even resisted
when Dru re-vamped her. Of course, then in her re-vamped state,
she was a real plague of evil. But when given the chance, when
she had a soul, she had, eventually, tried to do something to
redeem herself. Like Angel, she deserved another chance, but she
wasn't dead, but rather undead, soulless. To allow Darla to complete
her act of redemption, the PTB acted and caused Darla to conceive
by Angel. The baby's soul acted as Darla's own soul and gave her
the opportunity to perform a loving, selfless act, an act of redemption.
In loving the baby and ending her undead existence to save it,
Darla achieved, at least minimal, redemption. The baby is no more
or less a miracle than Angel dropping from the sky. The PTB, in
both cases, intervened to change the natural course of things.
Moreover, clearly,the baby has other things to do in the plot
and will serve other purposes, perhaps to catalyze Holtz's redemption
or damnation. Why Angel must continue to toil on in the vinyards
of the PTB is certainly a question brought up by Darla's "death
bed" conversion. The only answer is that his work, whatever
it exactly is, is not finished. How do these ideas affect Spike's
situation? That Spike loves Buffy seems clear. However, that isn't
entirely selfless, but being willing to protect Dawn at the potential
cost of his undeadness is selfless. At present, Spike has not
had the opportunity or the provocation to regret his vampiric
ways. He still doesn't have a soul, yet if we consider Angel's
and Darla's miracles as indicative of the way the PTB operate,
even if Spike backslides a bit in the meantime, eventually, the
PTB might very well give him that miracle opportunity to follow
up on a selfless act in a way that could mean his redemption.
A small PS: I was very impressed with Julie Benz's acting and,
of course, the writing in "Lullaby". I cried the first
two times I watched the ep and mist up every time I think about
it. It may be the demands of the role on her were less earlier
in BtVS and AtS, or perhaps her acting has impooroved, but in
last season's "Trials" and now "Lullaby",
she has been very impressive.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Justification for Darla's Miracle Baby and Darla(Spoilers)
-- ANON, 15:47:28 11/20/01 Tue
Simple explanation, cheesy or not: Archetype of the miracle birth
= birth of a hero
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just saw Buffy -- phoenix, 18:15:43
11/20/01 Tue
and all i can say is WOW. JOSS GETS BETTER AND BETTER EVERY SHOW.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Just saw Buffy -- zilla, 18:25:24 11/20/01 Tue
Could it have been much better! I think Joss did a great job in
building up to it. What will happen when the rest of the SG finds
out?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Just saw Buffy**spoilerish** -- Restless, 18:25:27 11/20/01
Tue
Do you think B/S shippers will be happy, or disturbed?!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Just saw Buffy**spoilerish** -- DEN, 18:52:57
11/20/01 Tue
A good point. Apart from the Playboy-channel explicitness, coming
close to the line between erotic and pornographic, the link between
sex and violence couldn't have been more obvious. It was a LONG
way from Buffy/Angel and Buffy/Riley! But it's great to see Spike
back! Enough of Brad--let's have our vamps vicious!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Just saw Buffy**spoilerish** -- maddog,
08:08:36 11/21/01 Wed
I'm sure we can thank UPN for that erotic final scene. Cause you
can bet we don't see even half of that if the show's still over
on family friendly the WB. UPN lets him do what he wants...I think
the writers took that to heart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Just saw Buffy**spoilerish** -- Mari_star_99,
19:15:43 11/20/01 Tue
WOW!
Joss is unbelievable! Forgive me if I'm not very coherent tonight,
I had to de-lurk. Wow! As a B/S shipper I want to say I thought
this was an obvious next step for them. Violent? Yes, but this
is The Slayer. Violence is passe for her. Remember she is "just
going through the motions". Unless Spike is involed. Then
there is passion.
CRUSH (Paraphasing I don't remeber the exact qoute) Willow: Did
you do anything to make him think you were interested in him.
Buffy: Well I beat him up a lot. With Spike that's like third
base.
Buffy is in serious denial of her feelings for Spike. There was
no way she ask Spike out for dinner and a movie. Allowing herself
to be caught up in the heat of the moment lessen the guilt over
being attracted to the "Bad Guy" I admit at first glance
violent vampire sex might look like a bad way to start a relationship.
However, I think that Spike can can be good for her. A growing
experience for her. If Spike also starts to grow it may work out.
I think the real questions is weather and how much he can change.
I he is "infected with goodness". I did sense his heart
was in it when went for the little snack tonight. ...And was it
just me or did that girl bear some resemblance to Buffy. I must
go, gather my thoughts. There was so much in this episode.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Opps above. I mean His heart WASN"T in
to it. eom -- Mari_star_99, 19:20:41 11/20/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Just saw Buffy**spoilerish** -- Tillow, 19:25:24
11/20/01 Tue
Thrilled here!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Just saw Buffy**spoilerish** -- Tellab,
19:44:05 11/20/01 Tue
Still reeling. Buffy misbehaves! And Spikey gets a new nickname,
Captain Peroxide! LOL!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> DISTURBED! -- Rochefort, 20:11:29 11/20/01 Tue
Definitely disturbed. I wanted them to hook up but did it have
to be so bloody sick all the way around?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: DISTURBED! (spoilers) -- Dariel, 20:23:53
11/20/01 Tue
I found it pretty disturbing too. On the other hand, it's not
surprising that Spike would have so much pent-up rage at Buffy.
He's been her doormat for a long time. As for Buffy, she's pretty
conflicted--still wants to be a nice, shining good girl.
I do hope they can calm down a bit and be a bit nicer to each
other. A very hot sex scene, in any case.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: DISTURBED! -- Restless, 20:24:03 11/20/01
Tue
I felt same but will rewatch. Intense foreplay. Not sure what
it means yet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: DISTURBED! -- Tiger, 19:14:51 11/21/01
Wed
It means the writers have been hearing all the BS about B/S hooking
up, pro and con, and decided to upset the hopes of both sides
of the issue. You don't want Buffy to hook up with Spike? Too
bad! You want Buffy to hook up with Spike? Be careful what you
wish for! This is typical for this show, which defies expectations
constantly. Now where do we go from here?
If you were hoping for a June wedding, you are deluding yourself.
It is obvious that this is not a healthy relationship. The only
question I have is how final the divorce will be. I'm betting
not too final, if only because Spike is the most complex character
on the show and one the writers obviously like to write for -
and I don't see them going the other way and renaming the show
"Spike the Vampire."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Just saw Buffy**spoilerish** -- sl, 22:11:15 11/20/01
Tue
what else could it be with Spike, happy and disturbed!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Just saw Buffy**spoilerish** -- Talia, 22:46:16
11/20/01 Tue
Mostly disturbed, but still hopeful. I suppose we shouldn't be
surprised at the violence; Spike's previous girlfriends were Drusilla
and Harmony, for heaven's sake! Plus Buffy's behavior towards
him hasn't done much to bring out his gentle side. Buffy meanwhile
still has divided feelings on Spike. Being a B/S shipper I feel
that the side of love is stronger, but she doesn't realize that
yet. Also, for the first time since Angel she has a guy that she
doesn't have to watch her slayer strength around. Spike can take
a beating. How much do I love the visual metaphor of the house
collapsing around them? I would not have chosen for it to happen
this way, but the air of desperation and doom that has surrounded
the B/S moments this season rings true to the characters and situation.
Beautifully done, Joss and Co. The hopeless romantic in me is
angry (I'm a sap: when I see William the Bloody Awful Poet I just
want to give him a big hug. I'm rooting for Spike's road to redemption,
not a slide into renewed violence), but as usual this show is
so good I have to put aside my opinions and give it a big ol'
WOW!! Where do we go from here? There's a long way down to slide,
but a lot of up to climb as well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Is it possible to give the actual writer credit? Joss doesnt
do every show. 9(nt) -- Bilbo Bagins, 01:28:47 11/21/01 Wed
ss
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Absolutely! :) -- RH, 07:42:43 11/21/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Is it possible to give the actual writer credit?
Joss doesnt do every show. 9(nt) -- Q, 21:01:58 11/21/01 Wed
I've heard that Joss pretty much develops the entire story and
where he wants it to go all on his own. He then assigns writers
certain episodes--there job is to add dialogue, cute jokes, and
basically all of the fine brush techniques that bring Joss' vision
to the screen. If this is the case, he does deserve most of the
credit, unless your complimenting a certain exchange of witty
dialogue or character quirk.
This is just what I have red somewhere though.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look Who's Talking (spoiler for
smashed) -- Neaux, 19:57:02 11/20/01 Tue
Hey! its me! Actually its what I'm titling this little piece about
communication problems / failure coming to a head in this episode.
So this is what I gather from watching Smashed. The idea of lack
of communication or failed communication takes up the whole episode.
The Biggest example of this is Spike's determination to speak
to Buffy. He wants her to acknowledge their relationship and fails
through his many confrontations. So BAM! He does the practical.
He calls her on the phone. This is the biggest scene in the episode
(besides the climax... uh sorry for puns) because it perfectly
illustrates the idea of communication failure.
Spike does the most logical, civil and polite thing (for him anyway)
by calling buffy on the phone for a date/meeting. and even then
Buffy will not hear what he has to say and ignores the date. The
only way Buffy GETS the message is through a severe beating....
but on to the other examples with the rest of the scoobie gang...
Buffy (1) fails to tell Willow of her feelings in Willow's bedroom..
she puts it off for another time
Buffy (2) refuses Spike throughout the whole ep.
Buffy (3) refrains from calling Giles..
Buffy (4) only speaks to Xander and ANya about Willow's magic
problem and still wont confront willow yet.
Tara (1) wont speak to Willow, only to DAwn.
Willow (1) wont speak to anyone really For example, when you think
she is going to email Giles.. she doesnt.. she starts searching
the web through Magik.
Amy (1) misunderstands Willow's feelings about Tara and tries
to conjure a date at the bar.
Amy (2) wont talk to her dad yet.
Xander (1) only speaks about Willows' magic problem to Buffy ..
for the first time you get his opinion about the situation.. but
it is only after Anya speaks publicly about it.
anya (1) gets the importance of communication.. but still doesnt
get the Tactfulness of it.. heh..
I'm sure there are many other examples and more significance..
but its late for me and I couldnt sleep until I typed this all
out...
Anyone please feel free to elaborate on this or add more examples..
or give a deeper meaning to my ramblings..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Good points -- Traveler, 20:30:35 11/20/01 Tue
I hadn't thought about the "lack of communication" theme.
I think you're definitely on to something there.
Another theme might be, "give yourself to the dark side!"
Muhahaha. Sorry. Anyway, Willow seems to have lost all moral bearing
and casts magic wantonly. Buffy is also pretty wanton with Spike.
Both really give no thought to the consequences of their actions.
Nor do they take responsibility for them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Good points -- DEN, 20:47:15 11/20/01 Tue
Both of the above postings are extremely perceptive. And the aabsence
of communication facilitates the "wanton" (excellent
word choice) behavior of Willow and Buffy, whose deep friendship
has been a lodestone, one of the major stabilizers in a situation
always on the verge of entropy. Now, no one is minding the store.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Good points -- Tellab, 21:06:13 11/20/01
Tue
Nor Dawn, save for Tara.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Communication 2 way street -- Neaux, 05:02:02
11/21/01 Wed
That is one of the major problems... It is that communication
is a two way street. One of actually talking and the other of
Listening.
and Listening is the Key.
The problem is that after OMWF.. everyone was able to hear what
everyone else had to finally say... and I think that frightened
the gang... so NObody wanted to listen to anything the others
had to say after that episode.
Hence the continued lack of communication.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Communication 2 way street -- RH,
07:55:21 11/21/01 Wed
"The problem is that after OMWF.. everyone was able to hear
what everyone else had to finally say... and I think that frightened
the gang... so NObody wanted to listen to anything the others
had to say after that episode."
...excellent points...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The perspective of one Buffy/Spike
shipper (Spoilers seasons 5 & 6) -- Traveler, 20:21:51 11/20/01
Tue
When Spike first started going all ga ga over Buffy, I thought
it was really funny. I had a little bit of sympathy for him, but
I didn't particularly care to see them hook up. However, after
he withstood torture on her behalf, I began rooting for him more
and more. Since then, he has saved her life and the lives of her
loved ones countless times with no expectation of reward. That
plus he's a hopeless romantic. How can you not want to see someone
like that get the girl?
So, OMWF should have been a wonderful episode for a Spike/Buffy
shipper, because we finally get to see them kiss. The problem
is Buffy's one little line, "this isn't real." In one
move, Joss gave us what we wanted most and made it almost worthless.
Buffy kisses Spike, but it doesn't mean she loves him.
Then, Tabula Rasa took things one step further. After this episode,
I was fully convinced that Spike was on the path toward some kind
of redemption and would eventually be someone that Buffy could
truly love. At this point, my biggest fear was that Buffy would
continue to abuse him.
And then came Smashed... which turned everything on its head.
Spike tries to isolate Buffy by telling her that he is the only
person for her. He immediately tries to kill a mortal when he
thinks his chip isn't working. Finally, he tells Buffy that she
isn't human and they have sex. But this sex isn't about love;
it's about lust and power and control. Once again, the writers
give us what we want and then make it worthless. No more redemption
for Spike. No love between Buffy and Spike. In fact, it is as
if the writers are telling us that Spike's love was never real.
Buffy tells Spike that he doesn't love her; he loves pain. And
Spike tacitly agrees with her! Indeed, he seems to be satisfied
with the physical relationship, just as he was with the Buffybot.
It's as if all the incredible things he did for Buffy, all the
really beautiful ways in which he proved his love for her, were
all a lie! All the growth and changes we've seen in his character
were erased in one episode. I cannot describe how much this fact
pisses me off. Someone please please tell me that I'm wrong and
there's something I'm just not seeing, because I can't stand the
way things are going. Which is ironic, considering that I am a
Buffy/Spike shipper.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The perspective of one Buffy/Spike shipper (Spoilers
seasons 5 & 6) -- Restless, 20:32:12 11/20/01 Tue
I too had exact same conflict.
But I have to believe ME would not set up all of the tender, loving
scenes where Spike demonstrates true devotion to Buffy just to
have an abusive relationship between them. I think it's their
way of reconstructing a semi-healthy real relationship by exploring
this angle first. Spike isn't completely good or evil so the relationship
will have a long way to go to become believable and legitimate.
I hope this is a detour.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The perspective of one Buffy/Spike shipper (Spoilers
seasons 5 & 6) -- Ramo, 06:17:42 11/21/01 Wed
As a B/S shipper, I was in denial for a while. I though Spike
might actually become "good", but later realized this
was probably only because of the fact that Spike is "Love's
Bitch".
Last season, the same issue arose with Buffy and Riley. Their
relationship became merely physical, and Riley had a little talk
with Spike about this. Spike's words:
"Sometimes I envy you so much it chokes me. And then sometimes
I think I've got the better deal. To be that close to her and
not have her... To be all alone even when you're holding her,
feeling her, feeling her beneath you, surrounding you, the scent
of -- no, you've got the better deal."
So Spike would like for Buffy to love him, but he'll settle. Buffy,
she needs an excape, and Spike is convieniently there, and Buffy
herself has clearly made this a lust/ hate relationship by initiating
the fighting. When Spike thought he had his chip out, he wanted
to be evil, but who knows if he really would have actually killed
that woman. This may be a very unhealthy relationship!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The perspective of one Buffy/Spike shipper
(Spoilers seasons 5 & 6) -- Spike Lover, 08:53:05 11/21/01 Wed
Have a little faith in Joss. You never know what he is planning,
but he knows that Spike is very popular.
Now, the reason why I love Spike is because he is "bad"
(or thinks he is.) Some women have a weakness for "bad".
But not a weakness for evil. He is also romantic.
What I see about the S/B relationship up to this point was, as
she told Spike, "What are you going to do, walk 2 steps behind
me?"
That is exactly what has been going on. They were not equals.
She was on a pedestal and she knew it. (Like when she was going
up the stairs in the final episode of last season, and he say,
"I know you could never love me.") Or in the alley scene
when she tells him that she does not want to "dance"
because he is beneath her.
By making it possible so that Spike could hit her into next week
when she beats up on him, they have made him an equal. That was
what he was getting at. Outside the museum, she told him that
he was an evil thing, and his reply was that (he) could change
and had, and was she successful in making herself believe that
he was a thing.-
Last night when he was telling her that she came back wrong, he
was not trying to isolate her (or maybe he was,) but mainly he
was saying, if I am a thing, so are you. Again, this puts him
as her equal. Healthy relationships must be based on equality.
Don't be depressed!! (At least about this.) Remember, as they
were explaining last week, if Spike "turned" completely
good and started trying to seek redemption for years of evil,
he would no longer be Spike, but a carbon-copy of (boring) Angel.
I too don't know if he really would have gone through with killing
that girl, I think he just wanted to test the chip.
I too fear that Buffy is only using Spike, though there is a chance
that at some point she will reveal a little feeling she has hidden
deep within her. I fear that Spike will get hurt. I continue to
wonder if Buffy is capable of loving anyone, (I have wondered
this for years) and now that she is back from the dead, I wonder
even more.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Yeah, but what about...(Spoilers, Smashed) -- Dariel, 20:33:45
11/20/01 Tue
...the look on Spike's face when she, ahem, let's him in. He looks
totally surprised and adoring, and pulls her in to a kiss. In
fact, as soon as she started kissing him, he stopped with the
violence, while she was still throwing him around a bit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The perspective of one Buffy/Spike shipper (Spoilers
seasons 5 & 6) -- pagangodess, 20:57:47 11/20/01 Tue
'She needs a little demon in her man'. Lets face it, otherwise
we'd end up with another Buffy/Riley rerun. I'm a huge Buffy/Spike
shipper, but I certainly would not want to see them all mushy
(eg.Something Blue). Besides, I remember Dracula saying that her
power was rooted in darkness (5x01). It may be they have found
some common ground.
And lets not forget, that Joss always has something up his sleeve.
He'll thow us for another loop again, before we even have the
time to recover from the previous numerous spins he's given us
this season alone.
Can't think any more, still reeling from the episode. Bravo, Joss.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The perspective of one Buffy/Spike shipper (Spoilers
seasons 5 & 6) -- sl, 21:23:03 11/20/01 Tue
great post!! I so agree.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The perspective of one Buffy/Spike shipper (Spoilers
seasons 5 & 6) -- sl, 21:30:43 11/20/01 Tue
oh yea I forgot about the look on Spike face, it was adoration
and making sure she wanted to. He stope being violent. But she
through him against a wall. He didn't know what to do , he was
so overwhelmed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The perspective of one Buffy/Spike shipper (Spoilers
seasons 5 & 6) -- Deeva, 22:43:23 11/20/01 Tue
I can't say that I was disappointed with the outcome. Delightfully
surprised, maybe. I'm a huge B/S shipper, too. But it's not all
about the "mush" and oogly eyes (Yuck! That makes me
nauseous.)
Ahhhhhh, the genius of Joss. How when all us shippers out there
clamor for "Spuffy" and he gives us OMwF and that throw-away
"This isn't real" kiss. I can just see him now. "Yeah,
I'll 'em what they want and THEN some! Mwahahahahahaha!"
As for the sex, I agree that it was about the physicality of it,
the control, lust and power, too. But it could also be about testing
each other. The "We're already pushing it, why not see how
far this/you will go?" The pain/pleasure/love seem to go
hand in hand for vamps. At least with the relationships that we
see of Darla/Angelus/Drusilla/Spike/Harmony (Well, love seems
to only really apply to Spike and Dru, in this case.) Sadism is
a big part of how they all relate to each other. What other show
has so many references to S&M ? Maybe the sex was also about eliminating
an element to see what is truly there behind all the "dancing".
Is it real? Or is it just lust? I think it's more than lust but
I will go so far to say that this is "twue wuv" (Sorry,
watching too much Princess Bride and couldn't resist!)
And as for Spike's being seemingly satisfied with his physical
relationship with Buffybot. I didn't get that vibe. He was like
anybody with a new toy. You play with it and check out all of
the options. Then, when you've figured it all out and have seen
it's limitations. You start to think, "Now, why did I get
this again?" I'm not positive on how many days, if any at
all, passed before Buffybot's limitations became apparent to him
but he was not satisfied for long. In Afterlife, we see Spike
look at Alive Buffy and for a moment he mistakes her for Buffybot
and almost dismisses her. The look on his face, before he realizes
that she is the real deal, is one of disgust. Buffybot is a reminder
to Spike of his weak moments. She probably has been a walking
reminder for at least 100 some odd days. That's a tough thing
to face every day.
Spike's growth has not been thrown away, it has not been all for
naught. I've always placed my faith in Joss & ME and don't really
question what they are giving us because in the end everything
will become clear. Whether it's the ending I want or not, it always
works. You have to take the lumps of coal along with the sugar.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Arghhhhh!! I meant to say.... -- Deeva, 22:46:54 11/20/01
Tue
tha I will NOT go so far as to say that this is "true love".
Sigh.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The perspective of one Buffy/Spike shipper (Spoilers
seasons 5 & 6) -- Aquitaine, 05:32:06 11/21/01 Wed
I agree that Smashed was disquieting but I don't agree that any
of Spike and Buffy's actions in previous episodes was nullified.
Remember, it's supposed to be a bit of a dance. Two steps forward,
one step back. I also have to disagree with your assessment that
the fighting and the sex were all about lust, power and control.
I suggest to you that they were about fears and disappointments.
I saw their... intercourse (as opposed to their fighting) as passionate
and fevered but not violent. The eye contact, particularly, was
very moving. I was also greatly relieved that they got to say
some bald truths to each other. Most important of all, this may
be the only way to snap Buffy out of 'going through the motions'
mode.
As a B/S shipper, I am very curious to see how this relationship
will develop. It is certainly bringing out the best and the worst
in each of them. I think they may both need some time to recover
from this but they will come out stronger.
JMO
-Aquitaine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The perspective of one Buffy/Spike shipper (Spoilers
seasons 5 & 6) -- SpikeIsIt, 08:45:50 11/21/01 Wed
It's simple, people lie. Don't admit to their true feelings. Fail
to recognize it. Buffy lies every time she pushes Spike away.
Remember his struggle when he first realized he loved her? Now
he's not afraid to say "love" even after being kicked
around by her. If she doesn't care about him, if it isn't love,
what is it? If she really despites him so much, why she gives
in every time he's around? He knows why, she doesn't yet. And
last thing - her conversation with Willow. What was that about?
Was it about choices we make not being always right? What's her
choice? Is it denial or submission?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The perspective of one Buffy/Spike shipper (Spoilers
seasons 5 & 6) -- isis_01, 09:34:58 11/21/01 Wed
With humblest apologies-could some one tell me what a Buffy/Spike
shipper is? Also, who is ME? I'm new to this...just discovered
this site about two weeks ago and am completely impressed. The
postings on this site are fabulous!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Welcome! I really like your screen name! -- RabidHarpy,
09:45:23 11/21/01 Wed
(I've always been a big Isis fan - do you remember the Marvel
cartoon way-back-when?)
I just found out what ME was last week - it stands for "Mutant
Enemy" - the name of Joss Whedon's Company?! Something like
that - they produce both "Buffy" and "Angel".
B/S "shippers" are people who are pro-Buffy & Spike's
relationship/romance.
Hope that helps, and we hope to see more posts from you! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Welcome! I really like your screen name!
-- isis_01, 10:56:04 11/21/01 Wed
Thanks for the welcome-and the explanation. I never was into comic
books-but I've heard great things about Marvel- I'm actually a
6th grade teacher-and ancient Egypt consumes us for a while each
year. Again thanks to all that have raised my consciousness of
Buffydom!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> stupid from the start -- isis_01, 11:21:27 11/21/01
Wed
yikes! sorry about the comic book comment-you said cartoon-not
comic- that's what i get for trying to work and post at the same
time! (and no,i never did see the cartoon either)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> We all make mistakes - no problem! :)
-- RabidHarpy, 11:31:05 11/21/01 Wed
There was also a television show/movie apparently - you can download
pictures, etc. at: http://shazam.imginc.com/othermedia/isistv/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reflections on Smashed (spoilers)
-- Solitude1056, 21:52:34 11/20/01 Tue
Several things - read through the other threads, and communication
was definitely a cornerstone of this episode, but I feel like
I'm missing something. I've been thinking about the titles that
Joss chooses, and "Smashed" has so many different meanings.
I, too, heard the rumor that Spike's chip would malfunction somehow,
and figured, ah, here's our moment of truth.
If I've got the chronology correct, Buffy had just rejected Spike
yet again when he smacked her & realized he wasn't feeling pain.
His immediate reaction was that he could finally get a snack...
but as soon as he had the girl cornered, I was surprised she didn't
roll her eyes at him. I mean, it reminded me of adolescent friends
trying to talk themselves up for losing their virginity. Okay,
here I am, I'm ready, any minute now, okay, I'm gonna do this,
here I go, see, watch me going, okay... You get the picture.
So I don't think "smashed" refers to the chip, obviously,
nor does it refer to Spike's state of grace - or destruction thereof
- post-chippiness. At that point, I began wondering if "smashed"
is supposed to be in the more colloquial sense, of being drunk
or high to a point where a person is out of control. Smashed,
schnockered, slammed. But while Willow and Amy were drinking,
neither displayed an excessive drunkenness. Perhaps a little out
of control with the magick, but not to the point where they themselves
were out of control of themselves... by that, I mean, they didn't
go to a point where they could not undo what they had done (since
we did see that they undid the whole shebang). And "smashed"
in that sense usually IME denotes a point-of-no-return.
So what got smashed, anyway?
For starters, Spike's insecurity.
Hunh, you say?
Buffy's spent the past few episodes continuing on her high horse,
same as season five. Spike's beneath her, a lesser being. And
she elaborated this time, calling him not a vampire, not a man,
accusing him of confusion about his identity. Unlike previous
episodes where she's sliced him, this time he wasn't perturbed
or swayed by his emotional reaction. The chip's malfunction smashed
his perception that Buffy=good, and Spike=not-good. Buffy's non-humanness
evens the playing field. She may not be human, but she's still
good; Spike may not be vampire or human, but he's not (necessarily)
evil. He doesn't need to tell her that he's the only one she can
talk to; he doesn't need to get down on his knees anymore. She's
in as much of a quandry about her very existence as he is, and
more to my point, this knowledge has not only smashed the existing
dynamics between them, it's also smashed Spike's illusion that
Buffy is untouchable (on several levels).
Meanwhile, I was surprised to see that Joss was considerably more
subtle in the Amy/Willow development than I'd been led to believe
based on the previews. It wasn't that Amy pushed Willow into abusing
magick, but that she unwittingly said and suggested the right
things to open the door for Willow. Amy, like Buffy, seems to
be operating in a state of "this isn't real," and thus
consequences may be less of an issue right now for her. How can
there be consequences when the primary action isn't real? So in
Willow's case, her 'level-headedness' and instinctive psychic-brakes
were not applied, as Amy helped her smash through the last of
any external rules about magick and its suitable uses. Until now,
Willow has offered to use magick, and used it without asking first,
inappropriately but not maliciously (decorations, cleaning, etc)
as well as selfishly but with extreme justification (post-Oz,
Lethe's bramble, resurrection, etc). But she's never used it without
having any cause except that of her own amusement. She has acted,
in almost all situations, out of a belief that her magick was
helping someone, as a way to 'fix' a situation or hurt. Tonight,
with Amy, she wasn't using magick to 'fix' anyone else's pain
or hurt - she didn't even verbally rationalize that her actions
with Amy were to make Amy feel better, a very Willow-like and
expected behavior. Instead, Willow smashed through her illusory
self-justification and is falling head-first into self-satisfaction.
If nothing else, at least it's more honest than her previous actions,
which gives me hope.
And perhaps, also, Buffy's illusions were smashed as well. No,
not about Spike, although thanks to him. The way I see it, she's
aware that there's lasting emotional damage from having been in
heaven, but that's emotional. As Spike reminded her in OMWF, the
only way to heal is by living. So, she slowly puts herself back
together, and starts healing. When that's done, she's back to
being Buffy. Now Spike's discovery has smashed all her hopes that
this would be true - she isn't entirely human, and she may in
fact harbor the very thing(s) inside her that it's her job to
kill. Her precious illusion that she could return in one piece
physically, and that the rest would slowly heal, is just that:
an illusion. And Joss smashed it for us, along with everyone else's
illusions.
Hm, so, think of anyone else with shattered illusions after this
episode?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Reflections on Smashed (spoilers) -- Traveler, 22:45:57
11/20/01 Tue
Very good points, Sol. You know, it just occured to me that maybe
Spike did smash some of Buffy's beliefs about him. Before he was
chipped, Spike was never a match for Buffy in fights. She cleaned
his clock more times than I can remember. After he fell in love
with her, he took her abuse without even fighting back. This was
the first episode ever that Spike stood toe to toe with her and
gave as good as he got, on every level. That's something that
niether Angel or Riley ever managed to do while they were dating
her. I wonder if Buffy respects Spike now because he was able
to stand up to her?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Reflections on Smashed (spoilers) -- mundusmundi, 05:01:10
11/21/01 Wed
Great post, and I concur. One thing about Spike: As usual, I think
he's partly right and partly wrong. He's right about Buffy being
different, about "coming back wrong." But he also appears
to believe (or hope) that she's 100% demon or something, that
she's just like him, more or less. But it seems unlikely that
Buffy is soulless. Perceptive as he is, I think even Spike's expectations
are going to be further smashed. (And, yes, I've got a theory...based
on something William P. Blatty wrote at the end of Legion, but
*heh* I'm still formulating.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Reflections on Smashed (spoilers) -- Aquitaine, 05:53:11
11/21/01 Wed
Great post.
I particularly like your commentary on Spike's fundamental insecurity,
which after all is/was his fatal flaw. His desire to be 'confident'
and 'accepted' is what got him vamped in the first place. I see
"Smashed" as an opportunity for him to grow out of that
old pattern and focus on his true strengths.
Like you, I took his little psych-myself-up speech before trying
to bite the woman as a good sign.
The playing field (and the house of cards) has been leveled. As
Spike said in 'The Gift': "Presto. No barriers". The
walls literally came crashing down. Now all we have are the foundations.
Buffy and Spike can start communicating and interacting in ways
even 'shippers never expected. I think there is much more than
sex, romance, violence, and lust going on here.
Isn't it most coincidental (not!) that all this mayhem is happening
on the heels of Giles' departure. Mwahahaha. This show is evil.
Everything either falls into place (or falls apart) perfectly.
The funny part at this moment is that I am now counting on Anya
(Anya!) to be the voice of reason.
-Aquitaine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Reflections on Smashed (spoilers) -- DEN, 06:35:22
11/21/01 Wed
Terrific post, Sol. As for Buffy, we really have so little data
that it's ALL speculation. But your take on Spike is great! And
as a careful (obsessed?)follower of the Willow thread--as most
of my postings show--you're spot-on about her use of magic(k)to
change reality substantially for her casual amusement. You're
right too about Amy's role as (dare I say it) facilitator: "let's
go out and have some fun)." BTW, Willow's taste in drinks
has changed as well as her taste in clothes. The martini was a
FAR cry from her usual coffee concoctions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Reflections on Smashed (spoilers) -- Caligo, 07:55:30
11/21/01 Wed
"Smashed" could also refer to that poor house that Buffy
and Spike got physical in. I mean that was seriously smashed to
bits...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Reflections on Smashed (spoilers) -- Malandanza, 10:08:57
11/21/01 Wed
"Hm, so, think of anyone else with shattered illusions after
this episode?"
I'd say a great many B/S fans had their romantic illusions Smashed
:)
Buffy and Spike are not a couple. Buffy isn't going to be dropping
by to watch Passions with Spike, they will not be drinking hot
cocoa together after a hard night of slaying, they will not be
moving in together with Spike as the doting, but stern, stepfather
for Dawn. Spike will not be redeemed -- he will never be a "real
boy" -- he is not on the path of redemption, nor has he ever
been. His past good works were for one thing -- to get Buffy.
Now he had her, and everything's changed. I doubt we'll be seeing
sensitive Spike any longer than we saw sensitive Parker.
(of course the B/S 'shippers will say "what about when Buffy
was dead? He still helped out" -- but that's because he's
warped. He liked dead Buffy better than living Buffy -- she was
an ideal he could worship and fantasize about without Buffy's
real hatred intruding to ruin his happy delusions).
In spite of the disturbing sex scene (which resembled Noir-Angel/Darla's
disturbing sex scene), this was a great episode for me -- finally
and end to the threatening romance between Spike and Buffy :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Reflections on Smashed (spoilers) -- mm, 11:36:26
11/21/01 Wed
In spite of the disturbing sex scene (which resembled Noir-Angel/Darla's
disturbing sex scene), this was a great episode for me -- finally
and end to the threatening romance between Spike and Buffy
Yikes! Let's hope little Spike Jr. doesn't come along.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Reflections on Smashed (spoilers) -- cat,
11:56:25 11/21/01 Wed
Yikes! Let's hope little Spike Jr. doesn't come along.
Ok, I DON'T think this will EVER happen, but had to share the
thought of a friend: "Hmmm, more unprotected sex? Maybe Buffy
will have a girl, who will grow up, hook up with Angel's son,
and the child THEY have will be the messiah."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> She IS the Quisach Haderach? ;) -- vandalia,
12:59:07 11/21/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who are the "evil"
nerdy trio? ((spoiler for smashed, season 6 BtVS, season 3 AtS))
-- JBone, 21:58:45 11/20/01 Tue
At first I thought the freakishly bad guy trio were the writer's
instrument of having a little fun at the expense of a part of
their audience. But now, I'm starting to wonder. These threee
losers are a lot like Xander and Willow in their high school years.
The whole sci-fi thing with Xander knowing a lot about Star Wars,
comic books (Spiderman and Superman), Star Trek, Babylon 5, and
so on, and so on. Xander has haphazardly moved forward with life,
while these geeks are still stuck in the basement. In high school,
Willow was Miss Science Club and novice witch. For some reason
we don't see the science side of Willow anymore, and her wiccan
powers have grown tremendously.
I'm sure I'm only seeing a portion of this, but I believe ME is
showing us how much the scooby gang has evolved by showing us
what they, in a way, use to be.
On totally different topic, first the guy who played Cain in BtVS
"Phases" shows up on AtS as Sahjhan. Now, according
to the "next week on Buffy", they guy who played Zachary
Kralik in BtVS "Helpless" is coming back to Buffy. I
also remember the guy who played Ken in BtVS "Anne"
showing up on AtS "The Bachelor Party" playing Richard
Straley. Is this like Star Trek where they keep on recasting actors
into other parts?
All said, the only way these two series could get better would
be if they poured chili on it. And maybe some cheddar and onions.
Anyone else hungry?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Come to think of it, I am kinda hungry now...........Spoilers
-- Rufus, 22:09:28 11/20/01 Tue
Jeff Kober was in China Beach and Kindred the Embraced playing
a vampire from the clan Nosferatu.......can't wait to see him
next week playing what looks like Willow's Svengali of the Dark
Side. Willow was arrogant to think that her power was the only
power.....Giles did warn her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Who are the "evil" nerdy trio? ((spoiler for
smashed, season 6 BtVS, season 3 AtS)) -- Neaux, 04:31:13 11/21/01
Wed
also of Note was that Xander was reading a D & D manual without
even realizing it...
His nerdiness is disappearing!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Any show that lasts will recycle its better guest actors
-- CW, 06:02:21 11/21/01 Wed
Especially if they keep playing characters that get killed off!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Trio(Spoilers to 'Smashed' and AtS' 'Lullaby' --
Age, 07:33:19 11/21/01 Wed
In their number I think that they represent the three characters,
Buffy, Willow and Xander, being transitional figures(the plan
they mentioned) as the three begin their journey from the parents'
basement of life, adolescence,(and in Buffy's case, the ultimate
parental figure's basement of death, heaven) to adulthood. The
first part of their plan, getting the diamond, this cold, perfect,
hard dead thing sitting in a museum(heaven) may be symbolically
a re-enactment of Willow's resurrection spell as the flame of
the blow torch and the circle it makes imply. Having gotten the
diamond, the trio then use a freeze ray which symbolically describes
Buffy this season. The scene also contains the idea of blowing
hot and cold, of going to extremes, like heaven and hell. Buffy
seems to be in this same phase of her life. The scene could equally
describe Spike's attempt to penetrate Buffy's defences, but being
left out in the cold, so to speak.(Incidentally, the aerial descent
of one of the trio in the museum scene may harken back to Buffy's
descent from heaven, with the other two of the trio representing
the Scoobies with feet on ground.)
Also, the trio's plan to take over Sunnydale has a metaphorical
component: their success would be Buffy's failure; it would imply
that the pull of remaining adolescent had won. Perhaps we will
see Xander, Willow and Buffy pulling together to fight the trio
as a symbolic representation of their movement towards adulthood?
That is speculation, not spoiler.
Holtz on AtS may be playing a similar transitional figure to Angel,
but not as the pull of adolescent life out of control, but the
consequences of adolescent life out of control, as vampires represent;
in the trio's plan and in Holtz's revenge we will see a rite of
passage, a test of these characters as they move towards adulthood.
Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Wow. Back to the Food Subject (Food for Thought) --
Kimberly, 08:28:21 11/21/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Very convincing indeed...... -- Rahael, 12:09:35 11/21/01
Wed
Along with your other post about Angel and Buffy's thematic connections.
I'm going to have to watch AtS 1&2 side by side with Buffy now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spike's chip (spoilers for Smashed)
-- bugman, 22:21:18 11/20/01 Tue
Anyone "got a theory" how Spike's chip actually works.
Spike's ability to attack Buffy in Smashed raises some questions
about the chip.
Spike was able to hit Buffy without the chips usual infliction
of blinding pain. Let's assume that Buffy is indeed (as Spike
asserts) not 100% human since she was brought back to like. How
did the chip know this, and allow Spike to act on his desires.
Initially, it appeared that the chip might have functioned by
reacting to Spike's conscious mind. In The Initiative, he was
unable to feed off of Willow, possibly since he was aware she
was human. Spike was also able to attack vamps/demons since he
knew they were not human.
In Smashed, he was able to fight with Buffy. This ability suggests
the chip has some type of power to discern the essence of external
individuals. Did the Initiative really have the ability to design
such a chip? It seems unlikely since they relied on technological
means. A chip to evaluate the essence of others, suggests a mystical
power. Given the Initiatives operations, the manufacturing of
a magical chip seems unlikely.
Let's say that the chip does really react to Spike's desires.
Perhaps Spike suspected that Buffy wasn't quite right after she
came back to life. In this case, the chip did not prevent or punish
him from hitting Buffy since he believes she is not completely
human. I think this is more plausible than a magic Initiative
chip.
Another interesting point is what if Spike is wrong? Perhaps there
is nothing wrong with Buffy. Was Spike able to convince himself,
and therefore the chip, into believing Buffy was different? If
this is true, then can Spike condition the very chip that was
meant to condition him?
Anyone have any ideas. I think these questions have some interesting
implications for Buffy and the true character of Spike.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> One problem (spoilers for Smashed) -- Slayrunt, 22:34:06
11/20/01 Tue
Spike attacked the human mugger, saying he thought the mugger
was a demon and the chip went off.
I like your theory though. I agree about the Initiative and the
magic part, so I'm stumped on how the chip works.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: One problem (spoilers for Smashed) -- Simon Agenbroad,
16:21:14 11/21/01 Wed
The chip detects SOMETHING. It is true that a "soul detector"
(actually, hasn't spike hit Angel without a migrane?) doesn't
sound like Initiative technology. However, if the Initiative discovered
some sort of detectable difference between humans and demons,
they just wouldn't CALL it that, they would have some suitable,
scientific sounding name for it. It is important to remember that
we only have the word of some Initiative technology that buffy
"hasn't come back right." This give the writers PLENTY
of wriggle room. I am curious to see how they work this out. I
was actually glad to see this development, because I am of the
opinion that if you don't make successfully raising Buffy from
the dead take more than a couple of episodes, than you radicly
devalue death as a plot device, something alluded to in "once
more with feeling" (Hey I've died twice)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike's chip (spoilers for Smashed) -- Calluna, 22:35:42
11/20/01 Tue
Does anyone actually remember Spike trying to hit Buffy after
the chip was put in? I mean, all the way back to Season 4. He's
tried to injure Willow and Xander, but i don't remember him trying
to injure Buffy. Maybe he's just assumed all this time that he'd
get a migraine if he harmed Buffy. And if you follow through with
all the "Slayers aren't quite human" theories, maybe
the chip would never have worked on Buffy anyway.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Spike's chip (spoilers for Smashed) -- Tellab,
23:13:48 11/20/01 Tue
Perhaps I don't remember it correctly, but when Spike assumed
the chip was out in OoMM, didn't he attempt to attack her then
it went off? And wasn't the resurrection ritual interrupted? It
was not completed, even Willow said so. I'm kinda leaning on Spike's
theory, that Buffy came back wrong.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Spike's chip (spoilers for Smashed) -- Leaf, 02:37:53
11/21/01 Wed
I can think of at least one time he hit Buffy and the Chip went
off when he tried to bring her out of the coma she was in.
I am thinking she is more likly to be maybe not entirely human
but not demon the anti-demon??. With the angel symbolism at the
beginning of the season (now bear in mind I havn't seen any of
season six so i'm just going on what i've picked up from this
board and reading the transcripts and wildfeeds)and the fact that
the resurection spell was interupted and from what I can tell
wasn't finished properly that maybe TPTB bought her back for a
reason as a force of good / angel. Or something this could be
the revelation that gives her 'the fire back',
Ok I'm just babbling now I think there was some sort of coherent
thought in there.
Leaf So how was that for my longest post on this board yet? Oh
and please forgive my poor spelling and grammer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Spike's chip (spoilers for Smashed) -- racoon
[long-time lurker, first-time poster], 03:11:37 11/21/01 Wed
This is my first post here but instead of the lucid and brilliant
treatise I always had in mind, it will be vague and potentially
wrong *g*. Didn't Spike slap Buffy in TWOTW? It's been a while
since I saw it, so feel free to correct me.
The chip has been an iffy plot device all along. Are there different
degrees of pain inflicted on Spike when he resorts to violence?
Is the impact from, say, hitting someone less than if he attacks
with the intent to kill? I'm also a bit confused as to the purpose
of the chip. I distinctly remember (Riley?) saying something to
the effect of "Hostile 17 can't harm any living creature".
Vampires are certainly undead, inhabiting as they do a human body
- but what about demons? They're born (or is that hatched), they
eat, they have hearts, albeit in unusual places... What would
happen if Spike tried to hurt a good demon, such as Lorne?
Ah, I like the way the Buffyverse is going grey on us - so much
to speculate upon, so little time due to atrocious pile of paperwork
on desk...
BTW this is a *wonderful* board. You should all be proud:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Spike's chip (spoilers for Smashed) -- Aquitaine,
06:10:35 11/21/01 Wed
Welcome to the board, racoon. Hope you post again soon.
I just want to add here that Spike doesn't say anything about
her being a demon. He says: "You came back wrong". Remember
how, in Afterlife, he slammed Xander into a tree and told him
Willow had kept the resurrection a secret from him because she
didn't think he (Spike) could get rid of her is she came back
wrong? Kinda makes you wonder what Willow will try to do if and
when she finds out Buffy came back 'wrong'.
Spike hit Buffy in OomM and FFL. Each time, he got zapped. He
wanted to slap her in WotW but I think the SG stopped him. Anyone
else wondering if this has anything to do with Dawn's zombie spell?
I remember Doc saying something about her mother (Buffy) having
strong DNA.
-Aquitaine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Willow & Buffy -- Malandanza, 09:27:04
11/21/01 Wed
"Kinda makes you wonder what Willow will try to do if and
when she finds out Buffy came back 'wrong'."
In Afterlife, Willow says that one way to get rid of the demon
would be to undo the spell that brought Buffy back. The suggestion
was that it is in her power to reverse the spell and send Buffy
back to the grave (and her soul back to heaven? if it hasn't been
corrupted since her rebirth...)
Perhaps Willow was speculating -- that reversing the spell was
a possibility that she might research. And perhaps there was a
time frame she had to work within (so the statute of limitations
has expired) -- but if not, Willow has the power of life and death
over Buffy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Willow & Buffy -- Aquitaine,
10:53:29 11/21/01 Wed
Oh, Malandanza. You've spoken out loud what I didn't want to say.
What a truly horrifying scenario.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Thanks to all...I honestly couldn't remember
:) -- Calluna, 13:23:50 11/21/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> In Fool for Love, last season -- CW, 06:12:57 11/21/01
Wed
He demonstrates for Buffy, that if he's not trying to hurt her
the chip doesn't go off. Then to demonstrate again, he get's vampy
and snarly. Before he can even touch her the chip goes off.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Spike's chip (spoilers for Smashed) -- SKPE, 06:12:58
11/21/01 Wed
I had a couple of thoughts 1.a few years back a Dr. kerillen(sp?)
clamed to have developed a way to detect areas using photography.
Spikes 'chip' could be an outgrowth of that, wired between the
decision centers in the forebrain and the pain centers. 2.The
'Chip" would only activate when attacking someone with a
soul. Could This mean that Buffy was returned but not her soul?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> The chip is magic... just go with it (spoilers for smashed)
-- Traveler, 22:54:58 11/20/01 Tue
It has been shown several times (including smashed) that what
Spike thinks is absolutely unimportant. The chip punishes him
whether he knows beforehand that a creature is human or not. How
it knows that something is human is ultimately unimportant. After
all, you didn't ask how the freeze ray or the time distortion
device worked...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The chip is magic... just go with it (spoilers
for smashed) -- bugman, 23:08:59 11/20/01 Tue
That's because I already know how the freeze gun and the magic
lint works! I get your point, but you'll never stop us nitpickers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> The chip is the one Buffyverse thing that's NOT magic
-- Masq, 09:02:46 11/21/01 Wed
It is Initiative technology. One thing we know about the Initiative,
in fact, the whole point of Season 4, was that the Initiative
didn't believe in magic, and didn't use it.
It may be science-fiction technology, but it is technology pure
and simple.
Adam, the ultimate product of the Initiative, could be defeated
by magic because he was constructed and instructed by magic-free
humans.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The chip is the one Buffyverse thing that's
NOT magic -- JLP, 09:57:38 11/21/01 Wed
If we need a sci-fi explanation, don't remember that the Initiative
tracked demons using "pheromone signatures" or something
like that. What they seemed to have worked out was that even magical
beings had various physical/biological characteristics that could
be detected and manipulated by technological means. There are
also plenty of pseudo-scientific theories in our world about auras
and electrical patterns thrown off by human bodies. The "Buffy"
writers are running with this notion of an overlap between the
mystical and the physical, which makes perfect sense to me. Mystical
energy is still energy and could still be measured by scientific
instruments, if not really understood.
At any rate, the chip is set to detect a human biopattern of some
kind, and so does not depend on Spike's intentions. It seems to
me that Spike could be totally wrong about Buffy -- she's never
been the same as other humans, has she? So whatever pattern the
chip detects would probably not be the same in her. Has he ever
tried to hit her since he was chipped?
Last thought: Actually since Spike's chip only reacts to normal
humans it requires no magical know-how at all. They just noticed
that vampires had the same nervous system as humans and went with
it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The chip is the one Buffyverse thing that's
NOT magic -- Cleanthes, 14:22:17 11/21/01 Wed
I agree, and maybe that's what the chip detects - sticking to
the scientific rules. Humans, and human "smell" can
be measured (like the new iris scans that we'll prolly see in
all the airports withing five years). That's what the chip works
on.
All demons, demiurges, Slayers, slayer-returned-from-the-undiscovered-country,
etc. don't set off the chip, not because they aren't sentient,
nor because the chip is intended to just protect humans, but because
the chip was constructed by folks who refused to consider anything
that might not abide by the scientific rules or lay beyond that
paradigm.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> The chip . . . -- Fred, the obvious pseudonym,
11:54:26 11/22/01 Thu
Remember the Heinlein theorem (or was it Asimov? Clarke?)
"Any sufficiently advanced form of technology is indistinguishable
from magic."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Maybe it's not magic -- FelipeRijo, 11:41:46 11/21/01 Wed
If the chip acts based upon Spike's intentions (i.e. going off
if he plans to hurt someone), it means that if he doesn't MEAN
to hurt someone the chip won't go off. I think the chip won't
go off if Spike pretends to hit someone. My point is, he has such
strong feelings for Buffy, that in his mind, hitting her is an
act of love, not of inflicting physical pain. So, it disables
the chip functioning.
What you guys think?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Maybe it's not magic -- Aquitaine, 12:23:32 11/21/01
Wed
I agree with your logic, FelipeRijo. I always come back to Spike's
words in FFL. "Works on intent". We saw in TR that memory-wiped
Randy/Spike doesn't have the wish to kill Buffy. I take this to
mean that Spike's subconsciously doesn't want to kill her. It's
only the conscious, vulnerable, insecure persona who feels the
nostalgia for biting, the bloodlust etc.
Of course, there is the wee problem of explaining the pain he
feels when he fits a target he doesn't know is human. Hehehe.
Small loophole.
-Aquitaine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buffy's nature (Smashed spoilage)
-- Doug A Scott, 23:24:49 11/20/01 Tue
Okay, crazy idea here.
Buffy came back "different", so we all immediately think,
"Uh-oh, part demon."
But she came back from Heaven. What if she's pulled a Supergirl[1]
on us here? What if Buffy's... an angel?
Well, maybe not a real-life full-fledged Roma Downy celestial
cream-cheese eating angel, but whatever the opposite of a "demon"
is?
Just a thought.
[1]The Supergirl comic's been weird the last few years. But good.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Ooooh! -- WillowFan, 02:06:43 11/21/01 Wed
Interesting thought, but would an angel really do the nasty with
Spike?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Ooooh! -- Millan, 05:18:42 11/21/01 Wed
...would an angel really do the nasty with Spike?
Well, yes. You'd have to be a saint not to... :P
(I haven't seen it yet, but am spoiled. Will hopefully catch it
before the week-end.)
/Millan
"I must be a noble vampire. A good guy. On a mission of redemption."
- Randy, Tabula Rasa
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Buffy's true nature. . .Ah hah! Spoilers through
"Smashed" -- Simplicity, 05:42:57 11/21/01 Wed
I like this theory. It's much better than Buffy is a demon story
line. I don't buy that, she's too good.
Anyone else remember the episode(After Life?) where Buffy's walking
through the graveyard and stands directly in front of a statue
-- giving her the appearance of having angel's wings?
Also...the name she chose was "Joan" in Tabula Rosa.
Like Joan of Arc?
If I weren't such a nice girl I could use a four letter term for
what she and Spike did. That was lust pure and simple. I didn't
see any evidence of love on either side. Actually, it was kind
of sick and twisted. But...I don't think even an angel could say
no to Spike.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's true nature. . .Ah hah! Spoilers
through "Smashed" -- Aquitaine, 06:00:42 11/21/01 Wed
OK. This is totally tongue-in-cheek:
Dru 'was the face of his salvation and saved him from mediocrity'.
Maybe Buffy the angel was sent back to save Spike in a different
way.
Seriously, I hope that Buffy isn't a demon. But I also hope she
isn't an angel. I hope she's something else altogether. The question
is: Why would a 'something else' feel more comfortable with a
vampire than with humans. Why is she attracted to death and seek
it out to make her 'feel'?
-Aquitaine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's true nature. . .Ah hah!
Spoilers through "Smashed" -- cat, 06:21:04 11/21/01
Wed
>>Why is she attracted to death and seek it out to make
her 'feel'?
Maybe because Willow petitioned Osiris - a god of death & rebirth
- in her resurrection? Not to mention, the words of the first
slayer "Death is your gift" maybe Buffy has seen abd
dealt out so much death, that it is the only thing which seems
familiar to her now, and she is now seeking comfort in the familiar.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Choice of company (ramble) -- Millan,
07:44:27 11/21/01 Wed
Why would a 'something else' feel more comfortable with a vampire
than with humans. Why is she attracted to death and seek it out
to make her 'feel'?
The simple answer could be that she is comfortable with death
since she's been there (a lot). :)
But is that really the question?
Is she comfortable with Spike because he is a vampire, even though
he is a vampire or partly because he is a vampire?
As I said, I haven't seen 'Smashed' but from the other episodes
this season I think Spike is the only one that seems to really
listen to her. The one that she knows she can count on being there
and the one that lets her take it slow. The others are so busy
being happy she's back and wanting to make everything ok that
they seem to expect her to go back to the path exactly where she
left off. Once the whole 'being dead experience' is 'gotten over
with' she should start to slay and be happy.
The only other person that she could have leaned on is Giles,
and he made that impossible when he didn't take a stand against
her. She substituted her lost mother for a father-figure and dumped
every 'real-life problems' on him, and he never drew any lines.
So he did the next best thing - he left. Now she's unheard by
the friends that are present and abandoned by the last rock she
could lean on. What's left?
I think Spike is the only one that she is comfortable with because
he lets her be herself. He is there if she needs support, be it
mental or physical (and no, I'm not hinting at "that"
right now, gutter-minds), and wants her to tell him how she is
but isn't in her face asking "Are you ok?" all the time.
She can move at her own pace with him. No sugered lies or half-truths
is needed, raw, ugly truth is ok - if it is the truth. [Life isn't
bliss - it's this - it's living.]
It doesn't complicate things that he's a vampire because his world
is the dark world. She needs to know that world partly because
of what she's been through (death), partly because of what she
is (the slayer).
It does complicate things that Spike's in love with her, but more
because Buffy's experiences with love has been bad than because
he's a vampire. Spike is: Evil, yeah, right... ;P Soulless, sure,
but undeniably capable of love. Truthful and reliable? Half a
year helping the good guys, protecting Dawn without any expectations
for a crumb as a reward should say something about his motives...
I think that most of Buffy's bitching with him is more blind defence
than thought-out reasons. When she reaches out to him now, she
uses his feelings and tries to substitute comfort with need/lust
for the person that she knows is dependent on her. Cruel, but
understandable. Could she but take a step back and be objective,
I'm sure some stronger feelings are there, half-formed, repressed,
but there.
Oh, look, my first ramble here. Tear it apart if you don't like
it. I'm heading off for an evening of role-playing games. :)
/Millan
"So much easier to talk to when he wanted to kill me."
- Buffy, All The Way
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Choice of company (ramble)
-- Kimberly, 08:13:05 11/21/01 Wed
Good post; not a ramble (or a ramble in a good way)
My impression all along is that Buffy is comfortable with Spike
even though he is a vampire. If you have noticed, it is only with
Spike that Buffy has been able to sit without talking. He isn't
requiring anything of her, or wasn't until OMWF in which all of
his pent-up feelings came out.
As to what Buffy is now, I doubt we're talking either demon or
angel; they've been moving farther and farther from black and
white this season. I also don't really think that there is something
missing so much as something else. Buffy may have been perceiving
it as a loss because she is different, but it is my guess that
we will see her become more and more the True Slayer. If she is
filled with Love, and if the Vampire Messiah thinking holds true
(a theory I've dearly loved since it was first proposed), she
may be fulfilling the ultimate destiny of ALL the Slayers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Choice of company
(ramble) -- Wynn, 11:02:39 11/21/01 Wed
I'm still trying to process everything that happened in Smashed,
especially the last 10 minutes. I agree with your post (she is
comfortable with him even though he is a vampire), but I haven't
heard about the Vampire Messiah thinking/theory. What is it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Choice of company
(ramble)*Fray spoilers!* -- Lunarchickk, 19:28:13 11/21/01 Wed
Hey, I don't know if anybody doesn't want to be spoiled for Fray
(I think it's the 3rd or 4th issue that I'm referring to) but
I thought I'd be careful just in case... (I just read issues 1-4
and was very impressed! Go Joss!) Anyway, back to my original
point...
"...she may be fulfilling the ultimate destiny of ALL the
Slayers."
Interesting, especially considering the tale of the last Slayer
told in Fray... in the 21st century, the last Slayer for something
like 200 years defeats *everything*. All the demons, all the vampires,
all the magicks. Now, the story's being told by a being from another
dimension who doesn't have all the details (like who survived
the final battle), so maybe it's slightly misleading on purpose;
*and* there's nothing to indicate that it was definitely Buffy.
(After all, the 21st century has only just begun.) But it hints
that Buffy *may* be the Slayer who rids the world of demons. Maybe
it's just not through fighting, but through redemption (per the
Vampire Messiah theory)...
(Just thought I'd throw that in for discussion.) :) Lunar
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy's nature - alternate wild idea (Smashed spoilage)
-- T-rex, 06:39:27 11/21/01 Wed
Or, what if Buffy came back without her soul (whatever that really
is). He soul could still be in heaven, while her conscious self
sleepwalks through life without it. Missing something, but not
sure what.
If Spike's chip works by detecting the presence of a soul, it
would explain why the chip doesn't work on Buffy now.
AND, if you (like me) like the idea of Buffy coming back as some
kind of Vampire messiah (forget which posters first fleshed that
theory out) then it would make sense that the savior should have
a similar metaphysical makeup as the beings she is meant to help
redeem.
What do you guys think?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy's nature (Smashed spoilage) -- grendelagain, 08:16:11
11/21/01 Wed
I like that idea. But taking it even farther-- perhaps she's becoming,
for a little while, a "fallen" angel? Up to last night,
Spike was beneath her in a certain way and last night- quite a
different way! But seriously, Spike, Faith, even Buffy in the
past have suggested a darker desire, way of being lurking inside
her.
I can think of one other fallen angel who has "walked to
the fire" himself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missing Scene? If so, what does
this mean? -- Anthora, 23:28:38 11/21/01 Wed
Ok, posted this hours ago and never saw it. Maybe its just me
-- if, so , many apologies.
-----------------
This is part of the Smashed summary on the buffy.com site, which
seems to imply it was trimmed out but originally written or even
filmed. It really worries me about how Joss sees Spike's current
attitudes -- its Crush redux!
"Down in Spike's crypt, the bleached bloodsucker prepares
to stick it to the Slayer by pulling out several goodies, including
a stun gun, a rope, chains, padlocks and handcuffs. Then, he puts
on a Roxy Music record, lights some candles, sets up flowers and
then puts rose petals on the bed. When he is content with his
preparation, he bolts from the crypt in search of Buffy."
Someone talk this poor redemptionist shipper off the tower...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Just in case: Above is Possible Spoiler for SMASHED (though
if its missing, is it really?) -- Anthora, 00:15:31 11/22/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Roxy Music? -- d'Herblay, 00:16:21 11/22/01 Thu
Would that record have been "Love is the Drug"? If so,
the redemptionistas might not have liked it, but the growing group
of addictionistas would have loved that scene.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Roxy Music? -- Anthora, 00:27:30 11/22/01 Thu
I'm a bit more disturbed by the 'toys' he would be pulling out.
That kind of puts a kink in the redemption road, doesn't it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Roxy Music? -- Rufus, 00:41:39 11/22/01
Thu
I thought that was rather a conservative collection myself......with
conflicting emotions. He obviously thinks that this is normal
and he did have the sweet touch of rose petals......if it were
anyone but a slayer I'd worry about the stun gun......:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Roxy Music? -- Cynthia, 05:28:24 11/22/01
Thu
Well, maybe he thought he could make the demon come out of Buffy
the way that he goes into vamp mode. After all, he doesn't know
what kind of demon it could be.
Maybe, he decided to have an asortment of goodies not knowing
exactly what Buffy would "enjoy".
Having read several posts regarding this, I'm not sure if this
is a joke that someone wrote into a review or summary or not.
Perhaps he was thinking that since he didn't seem to be making
any sort of headway just talking to her that he would take that
he wanted. Well the physical part of it anyway, and just settle
for that.
Or perhaps, he thought he would physically hold her. abet unwillingly,
until he verbally got though to her and which, in his mind would
lead to seduction.
But, in the end, he got something he never expected. A gift (and
I know that some folks will disagree) from Buffy -- her complete
and totally consent. I'm not talking about what caused it and
whether she will regret it but the fact that, at that moment,
it was given -- willingly.
The look on Spike's face just before they lost themselves in the
sensations. The surprise and joy at Buffy truly desired him was
priceless. And something, I think that will effect him much more
than any forced secduction could.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Roxy Music? -- LoriAnn, 06:53:16
11/22/01 Thu
Spike goes from being loving to being verbally abusive to being
loving to being physically abusive to being verbally abusive to
being tender to being understanding to being . . .. Sounds like
he's in love to me. However, he has problems: 1) his self-confidence
is at a low ebb, 2) he is a vampire, 3) he is in love, 4) the
object of his love gives him wildly erratic messages. He's frantic
and doesn't know what to do. At times he can be loving and understanding;
at others he can be highly aggressive. The poor boy is confused
in several different ways. Buffy, not to mention everyone else,
has treated Spike very shabbily, at best, for a long time. Of
course, chip or no chip, he's evil--and apparently a low life
too boot, kitten poker--but he's posed no threat to anyone, generally,
and has still been treated very badly, even before his menage
a trois with Buffy and Dru. Buffy in particular has been very
abusive, physically and verbally. On the other hand, when it suits
her purposes she runs to him for help. When she doesn't need his
help, she generally treats him as scum. Spike's reactions to Buffy's
actions have generally been to respond as he thought he should.
If she told him he'd do anything for money, he'd take the money
and do the dirty job; he'd do it and act like the money was all
that mattered. If she treated him like, in his words, a man, he
tried to act both human and manly. If she trusted him, he tried
to deserve her trust. Buffy on the other hand never treats Spike
consistently for very long. He's a vicious ememy, then he's the
scum of the earth, then he's a trusted ally, then he's beneath
her, then he's a confidant, then he's scum again. If Spike were
ever treated consistently one way or another, he would probably
be acting more consistently. He's clearly, as has been often pointed
out, desirous of meeting the expectations of the group he is around.
Mix that with his more general insecurity and clear difference--he's
a vamp--and the he becomes wildly unpredictable, with swings from
tender and loving to highly abusive and potentially dangerous.
Sounds like Spike doesn't it.
Another thing, Spike's attempt to bite the girl when he thought
his chip was inactive is interesting and open to interpretation.
What actually happened and what would have happened had Spike
been able to complete the action? What were his motivations? He
wasn't just hungry. That didn't seem to enter into the equation.
Was he being a vampire, evil? Was he testing the chip? Was he
striking out after being hurt by Buffy? Was he trying to reinforce
his ego after having had it almost destroyed by the person he
loves and respects more than any other? Was he being self-destructive?
Although I expect ME could find a way to really rehabilitate Spike,
he does seem like a bad match for Buffy. He's the wrong guy at
the right time. On the other hand, Buffy seems like a poor match
for someone with Spike's problems and potential. On more thing,
as I posted before, the PTB owe Spike a real shot at redemption
for the way he was selflessly willing to give his unlife to protect
Dawn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Roxy Music? -- rowan, 20:37:08 11/23/01
Fri
Not if it was a deliberate attempt on the part of the writer to
consciously echo prior *bad* points of the B/S relationship prior
to *smashing* them in the fight/lovemaking scene.
There are too many scenes in this that are replays of prior B/S
moments to be anything but intentional:
1. Spike telling Buffy in the teaser that he's the only one she's
got echoes Becoming 2.
2. Spike on his knees after Buffy hits him echoes the FFL alley
scene where she throws the money on him, he cries, then decides
to go get the shotgun to kill her.
3. Spike telling Buffy in the fight at the house that he is only
going to hurt her a little echoes the School Hard fight.
4. Buffy calling Spike an evil disgusting thing echoes Crush.
5. The start of the B/S sex scene echoes S/D in FFL during China
Boxer Rebellion.
6. The poor little lost girl with no one to love comment echoes
the fight in HLOD.
These are only the obvious ones that have occurred to me. Frankly,
the whole script seems riddled with them. DG refered to the fact
in interviews in the summer that he's rather a Buffy historian.
Since it was removed, I can only speculate they realized that
having Spike prepare for sex made no sense since he was obviously
extremely startled when Buffy initiated it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Smells like a plant to me... -- vandalia, 23:56:28 11/22/01
Thu
Wouldn't be the first time the writers had planted false spoilers.
However, given the nature of the scene it could also be UPN balked
at showing it (a bit too suggestive even for them). But my gut
feeling remains with 'red herring.' I'd like a link to this review,
to see if it was indeed 'official' or just something someone posted
on the buffy.com site (which doesn't make it offical).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Official site... -- Lunarchickk, 17:05:09 11/25/01
Sun
Here's the link to the exact page on buffy.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I the only one who doesn't
want to see Buffy and Spike together? ("Smashed" SPOILERS)
-- WillowFan, 01:48:57 11/22/01 Thu
Ugh. Buffy so deserves better than Bad-Boy-but-Pity-Me guy. If
Spike really loved Buffy, and wanted to change for her sake, he'd
ask Willow to conjure up a soul for him in order to prove his
devotion. But, no! As soon as he thinks the chip doesn't work
anymore, he goes right back to being evil, ready to kill someone
immediately. What a jerk.
F*cking him isn't "hot" or "sexy" or whatever.
It's sad and disturbed and unhealthy. It's a big, fat mistake,
and Buffy will surely regret it.
William was one thing, but Spike is quite another. William would
have made a good boyfriend. Spike isn't capable of it.
(I can't wait to see the responses to this one.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Am I the only one who doesn't want to see Buffy and
Spike together? ("Smashed" SPOILERS) -- RH, 05:58:59
11/22/01 Thu
"William would have made a good boyfriend."
Yikes! Are you SURE about that?!?
I guess it would depend on what you're looking for in a partner,
but William's "foppishness" certainly wouldn't go over
well with the women of today - they'd think he was far too effeminate,
(no offence to him - actually, some women might like that!) In
his own time, and with the proper feminine adoration, he mightn't
have turned out too badly... I guess we'll never know... unless
Joss gives us some sort of glimpse into an alternate dimension
where William hasn't been vamped... that would be neat!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Am I the only one who doesn't want to see Buffy and
Spike together? ("Smashed" SPOILERS) -- phoenix, 07:01:37
11/22/01 Thu
I agree i dont think Spike is worthy of Buffy and their relationship
is likely to come crashing down like the building they consummated
their relationship in. I am and always will be a B/A shipper.
But i must say that their being together is a great story line
and Smashed was great.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Am I the only one who doesn't want to see Buffy and
Spike together? ('Smashed' SPOILERS) -- John Burwood, 10:00:19
11/22/01 Thu
Agree with you one hundred per cent, Willowfan. Anyone who imagines
such a relationship could make Buffy happy or reform Spike is
quite literally living in fairy-tale country. Only in fairy tales
can Beauty's love turn the Beast into a handsome prince. In real
life the beast would drag Beauty down to his level. But, of course,
BTVS is a fantasy, so maybe my premise is wrong and the impossible
can happen. But BTVS has always made a point of its metaphorical
reality - & in any realverse situation any girl heading into a
relationship with a creep like Spike is taking the path of misery
and degradation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> hmmm -- Jen C., 23:14:29 11/23/01 Fri
**Anyone who imagines such a relationship could make Buffy happy
or reform Spike is quite literally living in fairy-tale country**
It's been stated that the theme for this season's Buffy is "grow
up" and one of the most important things that one learns
as they grow up is that nothing *makes* you happy - you make you
happy. If Buffy is conflicted about her life, if she can't reconcile
her reality with her expectations, then there is no way that she
can be happy - relationship or no. And as for Spike's "reformation",
I'm not sure that is what's in the cards for him. Spike has always
exhibited an intriguing mix of empathy and brutality. He often
seems to understand the "right" thing to do in a situation,
but, being soulless, has had a tough time really being motivated
to do it. He has found a great motivator in Buffy, but the question
remains whether his love for her is enough to overcome his evil
nature, or whether Buffy will be the one to destroy any vestige
of humanity left in him...she has amazing power over him and it
could turn either way at this point. I've been intrigued by the
posts that view this story arc as one that threatens Buffy. If
anyone is threatened, it's Spike. He's being offered what seems
to be his greatest wish. Is it real? Can he handle it? Can he
be what Buffy will want him to be? What if what is being offered
to him *isn't* real? What if Buffy *is* using him? I don't think
that he could take it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Sounds reasonable to me. You go, girl -- Masq, 11:31:18
11/22/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Am I the only one who doesn't want to see Buffy and
Spike together? ("Smashed" SPOILERS) -- CaptainPugwash,
11:37:47 11/22/01 Thu
I think Buffy/Spike will end up rather like the Buffy/Faith situation.
Spike and Faith have both tried to bring Buffy down to their level
by appealing to her dark/selfish side. With Faith, Buffy found
the confidence to forget about all of Faith's 'excuses' (I'm bad
because...) and assert that she WAS 'better' than her.
Spike is doing the same thing by telling her she's bad, getting
her drunk, and showing her his life (kitten-poker and all). Eventually,
Buffy will overcome her self-doubts and assert (as she did in
Season 5) that he is 'beneath' her. I don't how far she will descend
before she re-disovers her essential goodness and starts believing
in it again.
William is not a desirable character at all. I've noticed that
many of humans that get vamped in BtVS are already outcasts/'failures'
etc whose hatred of successful society is cultivated by being
constantly spurned by said society. This imprint is taken up by
the vamp demon, and the new entity now has the means to achieve
all that person couldn't achieve before. In some ways, the psyche
of the Troika is no different from your average vamp. They are
rejects that have acquired the means to exact vengeance/achieve
dominance.
Even the amnesia Spike has flaws - Buffy just 'helps the helpless'
because its her job. For William/Spike, its just an ego-trip.
He wants to be the 'big good' instead of the 'big bad' - what's
the difference?
Spike and William are actually very similar; Spike is just William
with power. Now, without that power (the chip) Spike is almost
a mirror fow William; he dedicates his entire existence to seducing
a woman who is quite frankly above him (as he did before). He's
only succeeding because Buffy is so weak at the moment; she was
impenetrable (no pun intended) in Season 5.
For me, the biggest mystery about Spike is his love for Dawn because
I can't construct a plausible self-interest scenario for it (neither
could Buffy after Spike was tortured in Season 5). If you're looking
for Spike's redemption, then that's where you'll find it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Some generalizations... -- WillowFan, 12:20:13 11/22/01
Thu
William is not a desirable character at all. I've noticed that
many of humans that get vamped in BtVS are already outcasts/'failures'
etc whose hatred of successful society is cultivated by being
constantly spurned by said society. This imprint is taken up by
the vamp demon, and the new entity now has the means to achieve
all that person couldn't achieve before. In some ways, the psyche
of the Troika is no different from your average vamp. They are
rejects that have acquired the means to exact vengeance/achieve
dominance.
This sounds like a generalization based on what we know about
Spike, Angel, and Darla. I mean, how do you explain Harmony? She
wasn't an "outcast" or a "failure" (by her
standards, anyway).
Spike and William are actually very similar; Spike is just William
with power.
I agree with that, except for the fact that William had the chance
to mature, to grow up. If he hadn't been vamped, he might have
eventually gotten over Cecily, and over women who consider him
"beneath" them, in general. He would have found a woman
who appreciates him, just as he is. Spike's chance to grow and
mature in this context has been aborted. That's why I think William
would have made a good boyfriend -- he had the potential to change
-- while Spike could never be a good boyfriend, because he's unable
(or unwilling?) to change.
Now, without that power (the chip) Spike is almost a mirror fow
William; he dedicates his entire existence to seducing a woman
who is quite frankly above him (as he did before).
I don't see it that way. William seemed to be a good person. There
was a kindness about him. He just needed to get over his pining-over-a-bitch
phase, which he could have done if he hadn't been vamped. Spike
is doomed to stay in this phase, to repeat this over and over
with different unavailable women, because he just can't seem to
mature. I thought he was genuinely growing until "Smashed,"
when he was ready to kill again once he thought the chip wasn't
working. He hasn't grown at all. He's just a big loser who happens
to be physically attractive and witty; unfortunately, a lot of
women are attracted to these types (I was), but sometimes we get
eventually over it and give the "William"s of the world
a chance.
For me, the biggest mystery about Spike is his love for Dawn because
I can't construct a plausible self-interest scenario for it [...]
Dawn has (or had) a crush on Spike. She's an ego trip for him,
so he wants to keep her alive. And, of course, he uses his protectiveness
of Dawn to impress Buffy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: One point about Dawn... -- Aquitaine, 12:29:23
11/22/01 Thu
**** For me, the biggest mystery about Spike is his love for Dawn
because I can't construct a plausible self-interest scenario for
it [...] ****
[i]Dawn has (or had) a crush on Spike. She's an ego trip for him,
so he wants to keep her alive. And, of course, he uses his protectiveness
of Dawn to impress Buffy.[/i]
I think there's more to it than that. He was there with her in
Blood Ties and Forever without any real, overt motive besides
a strange instinct to protect her. I have no clue whether Spike
is redeemable. I don't really care, truth be known. I'm interested
in whether his being around can make the world a better place.
Spike's presence, IMO, has only been beneficial to Dawn at this
point.
-Aquitaine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Dawn, and Spike's capacity to change --
astrid, 17:36:33 11/23/01 Fri
"Dawn has (or had) a crush on Spike. She's an ego trip for
him, so he wants to keep her alive. And, of course, he uses his
protectiveness of Dawn to impress Buffy.
I think there's more to it than that. He was there with her in
Blood Ties and Forever without any real, overt motive besides
a strange instinct to protect her. I have no clue whether Spike
is redeemable. I don't really care, truth be known. I'm interested
in whether his being around can make the world a better place.
Spike's presence, IMO, has only been beneficial to Dawn at this
point. "
In the Buffyverse, "redemption" has never been as simple
as good intent and good actions, or even as hard work and loyal
service. Redemption seems to be a combination of intent and action,
and it's certainly a journey, rather that some event in which
you suddenly wake up and you're good and redeemed.
Redemption is not something that comes from personal change. If
it were, Angel would be redeemed the moment he got his soul back,
because he was sorry, and no longer wished to behave as he had
done. Personal change and good intentions are certainly part of
it, but actions are part of it also. I see redemption in the Buffyverse
in a somewhat existentialist sense, in which you are the sum of
the choices that you have made in the past, but you are never
defined solely by that past. There's a succession of choices,
little and big, that you string together one piece at a time to
make up your life, and it can have a direction (positive or negative)
but it doesn't have a finite value. At least, not until you're
dead.
The journey of redemption, differently reflected in Angel and
in Spike (and I think also in Darla), is what happens at each
crucial moment where you have to make a decision, and you choose
one way over another. The quality of the decision is not only
in the intent (do you believe it's the right thing, or the wrong
thing) but also in the action itself, and the outcome. Angel slept
with Darla knowing that it was the wrong thing, intent on self-destruction,
but that ultimately led to what Darla called "the only good
thing we ever did together", and something very like *her*
redemption. And maybe the child is part of Angel's - who knows?
The key part to this is that in Angel:tS and in Buffy, redemption
is a combination of the direction of intent (self) and action
(world). The idea of the importance of being "tied to the
world" crops up again and again. In Fool for Love, Spike
tells Buffy that she has survived so long only because of her
ties to friends and family. In Becoming, Spike chooses to side
with Buffy to save the world from Angel, partly because of Drusilla,
but partly also because he is too tied to the world to let it
be destroyed (love for Drusilla itself is a tie to humanity for
him). Early in Angel:tS, Doyle explains to Angel that if he is
to do good, he has to have ties to the world, that good actions
done without love and compassion ultimately can turn to evil.
The implication is that being a force for good in the world is
inseparably tied with humanity, in the sense that being good comes
from having ties, from loving, from having committments and acting
to meet them.
Over time, Spike's choices in the face of the world he is confronted
with have tied him ever-increasingly to humanity. I think his
relationship with Dawn fits into this. Once Buffy is dead, the
initial reason for him to look after her family is gone - and
yet he stays, and watches Dawn, seemingly out of a sense of both
attachment and maybe even some odd kind of honor (he tells Dawn
that he has to make up for his failure to keep his promise to
protect her). The old Spike would never have stayed with Dawn
even when his ulterior motive (Buffy) was dead. Even he doesn't
seem to know why he does, since it goes against his opinion of
himself as the "big bad". Yet, his actions in that instance
are good.
It may not be that he is capable, as a vampire, of wanting change,
but change seems to have found him anyway. Whether it's something
he sought or not, he's not exactly the vampire that he used to
be. Is it redemption even if you don't want to be redeemed, and
don't care if you are? Maybe, although I think maybe not, as such.
But it's certainly change. You can change without being redeemed.
You can tend towards the good, commit good actions, without being
redeemed. I think that's where Spike is.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Some generalizations... -- Naomi, 10:38:23
11/23/01 Fri
I think that Dawn means more to Spike than an ego trip. He made
a great effort to comfort her in Tough Love for example about
her origins. He has also helped her in Forever without Buffy's
knowledge. In fact he was actually afraid of Buffy's reaction
so I think the writers were trying to tell us something there.
Spike also underwent torture to protect Buffy and Dawn. He was
risking death so he was hardly simply trying to impress Buffy
as Buffy loving him would hardly have benefited him if he was
dead. He also took care of Dawn when Buffy wasn't around. And
what evidence do you have that he was simply doing it because
Dawn once had a crush on him? I don't remember him even being
made aware that Dawn had a crush. And even if he did know I doubt
he would care. He loves Buffy. And Dawn's crush didn't last long
as she liked another boy in The Body. She also once liked Xander
so like many teenagers she is pretty fickle and I doubt her feelings
for Spike remain. The two of them have built a genuine friendship
and I am unsure about where you get the idea that it revolves
around hero worshio on Dawn's part and Spike's ego on his part.
Wht evidence do you have? And how is Spike unwilling/unable to
change? I would say that he's changed a lot since the beginning
of season 5. He left flowers in Forever to pay his respects to
Joyce. and is currently fighting alongside the good guys after
all. He had to talk himself into bitting the woman in Smashed
and for all we know he may have been very remorsefull afterwards.
He was mainly testing whether or not the chip definitely didn't
work IMO. It was the logical thing to do. There is no question
that he was in the wrong but I don't see why one wrong act should
cancel out all the good he's done and continued to do even after
losing Buffy (his main motivater to change). And he was very supportive
of Buffy when she returned. His attitude was actually at odds
with the scoobies, the so-called "good guys". He has
put up with very poor treatment from Buffy and opted for retailiation
in Smashed in order to show that he wasn't content with being
treated like a toy by Buffy. It's not as if Buffy can't handle
herself. She gave back just as much as Spike was dishing out.
That's just how their relationship works and it's unfair to blame
it solely on Spike. I have to problem with people feeling that
Spike is still souless and therefore evil but there is no need
to just make things up. Spike is not playing on Dawn's crush and
I would really like to know what evidence you have that, that
is the case. I understand that we all have different opinions
but you present your argument as if it is fact. There is no "of
course" about your interpretation of the relationship between
Spike and Dawn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Am I the only one who doesn't want to see Buffy
and Spike together? ("Smashed" SPOILERS) -- RH, 13:33:15
11/22/01 Thu
"For me, the biggest mystery about Spike is his love for
Dawn because I can't construct a plausible self-interest scenario
for it (neither could Buffy after Spike was tortured in Season
5)."
Do you think his "ties" to Dawn could be "blood
ties"? She was made from Buffy - "Summer's blood"
and all. Spike has often mentioned the importance of "blood",
even beyond basic vampire-hunger, (ie. rituals, love, etc.)
Perhaps Spike's interest in Buffy is more than just physical -
perhaps, somehow, it's magical and has been orchestrated at this
time for purposes known only by the PTB?! (Could there be some
link to the timing and strange events occurring in AtS?)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ First Slayer: "You think you're
losing your ability to love."
Buffy: "I-I didn't say that... Yeah."
First Slayer: "You're afraid that being the Slayer means
losing your humanity."
Buffy: "Does it?"
First Slayer: "You are full of love. You love with all of
your soul. It's brighter than the fire... blinding. That's why
you pull away from it."
Buffy: "I'm full of love? I'm not losing it?"
First Slayer: "Only if you reject it. Love is pain, and the
Slayer forges strength from pain. Love... give... forgive. Risk
the pain. It is your nature. Love will bring you to your gift."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Death is your gift." "Love will bring you to your
gift."
Her love for Dawn = sacrifice = her death. (A gift to Dawn, the
SG, and the world.)
Her death brought her to heaven. (A gift well deserved for her.)
Turning Point: The love of her friends brought her back.
Now if it is still true that love will lead her to her gift and
that death is her gift...
Spike = death (he is dead) Buffy = love
Buffy + love for Spike = gift?!?!
Is Buffy's love for Spike/death a gift she is receiving from the
PTB?!?!
(Ack! My math has never been stellar!)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Buffy: "I love you, Dawn.
You know that, right?"
Dawn: "Yeah. I love you too."
Buffy: "I love you... really love you."
Dawn: "Gettin' weird."
Buffy: "Sorry. But it's important that I tell you. Weird
love's better than no love." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
IS "weird love" better than no love?
Thoughts? Help?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Spike and change ("Smashed" SPOILERS) -- Traveler,
09:39:39 11/23/01 Fri
"If Spike really loved Buffy, and wanted to change for her
sake, he'd ask Willow to conjure up a soul for him in order to
prove his devotion."
I would argue that Spike really does love Buffy, and he HAS changed
quite a bit for her. However, he is still a souless vampire, and
he seems to prefer himself that way. After all, he believes that
Drusilla removed him from a "life of mediocraty." Spike
would rather be evil and respected than good and despised. Should
he try to become what he hates, just to gain Buffy's approval?
Wouldn't that make him even more pathetic? Whether Spike is really
beneath Buffy is another interesting question. Did you notice
the way she taunted the human muggers in the beginning of "Smashed?"
She seemed to be getting off on the violence as much as Spike
ever did.
Furthermore, her reaction when Spike says, "a man can change,"
is interesting. Rather than supporting Spike as he tries to become
a better man, she shuts him down. She tells him that he can't
change because he isn't a man. Maybe she doesn't really want him
to change? Because if he weren't evil anymore, he wouldn't be
able to relate to the evil that resides in her own heart...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Not the only one, no -- Earl Allison, 04:44:16 11/24/01
Sat
No, I can't see them together either. Not for the same reasons,
exactly, but I can't see it lasting.
To me, Spike's NEVER shown remorse for his past. He's made changes,
mostly due to his chip, but he did seem to do some serious backsliding
in "Smashed."
Would he have killed the girl? Maybe, maybe not. I can make a
reasonable case for either action, though.
He DID manipulate Buffy masterfully, though. Not exactly the sign
of a winning personality. He knew what to say to shake her to
the core, that she wasn't human (why she assumes that means LESS
and not possibly MORE, I don't know), and that he was the only
one for her.
I'm just not a B/S 'shipper.
Take it and run.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The soul issue ("Smashed" SPOILERS) -- Malandanza,
09:21:08 11/24/01 Sat
"If Spike really loved Buffy, and wanted to change for her
sake, he'd ask Willow to conjure up a soul for him in order to
prove his devotion."
While I agree that Buffy and Spike are wrong for each other (or,
rather, that Spike is wrong for Buffy) I don't think an ensoulment
is the answer. Spike with a soul wouldn't be Spike any longer
-- any more than Angelus is the same person as Angel. Angel/Angelus
is more like a split personality than two parts of the same personality.
We can debate exactly what a soul is, but what a soul does is
rather dramatic. Angelus with a lobotomy couldn't be more different
from Angelus with a soul.
Would Buffy like a newly ensouled Spike? Maybe, but I doubt it
-- he'd be a different person. He'd probably be too busy brooding
over his past sins to pay much attention to Buffy. By the time
he came to terms with who he is and what he's done, Buffy's grandchildren
would be in retirement homes. Plus, there's the whole "moment
of true happiness" clause - which, for Spike, would almost
certainly be some form of deviant sex. I don't think it's beyond
the realm of possibility for Spike to be ensouled (or even want
to be ensouled after Buffy rejects him again) -- but I do think
it would be ill-advised and would end badly.
And I'm not sure Spike wants Willow casting any spell on him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> gypsy curse -- WillowFan, 13:51:28 11/25/01 Sun
Plus, there's the whole "moment of true happiness" clause
- which, for Spike, would almost certainly be some form of deviant
sex.
That was only true in the gypsy curse that ensouled Angelus. Willow
might be able to conjure up a soul without the "no sex"
clause (or any other clause).
While Willow has been using magic unwisely, she's not incompetent.
She brought Buffy back to life. She could probably give Spike
a soul -- and doing the latter really would help people, as opposed
to just helping herself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buffy and bitchiness (possible
spoiler, maybe) -- LadyStarlight, 15:10:12 11/22/01 Thu
I was watching Smashed for the second time when a thought struck
me. Could the reason Buffy's been crueller than usual to Spike
lately been that being with him forces her to recognize that she
did come back wrong? And the reason she's 'drawn' to him be that
she can forget that she's different than the SG when she's with
him?
Just my .02....:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy and bitchiness (possible spoiler, maybe) -- Kerri,
19:03:58 11/22/01 Thu
Buffy's attraction to Spike scares her because it makes her question
herself. It scares her that she can feel for someone that is souless
and evil. She tries to convince herself that Spike is just a thing
and that she doesn't love him but it doesn't work. She continues
to be attracted to Spike but just won't admit it to herself. And
so with Buffy trying desperately to tell herself spike is just
a thing she finds out that she too isn't quite human. This breaks
down her defense against Spike, she no longer can say he is below
her since he isn't human. And so she hurls insults but in her
mind they apply to herself as well. Spike certainly doesn't help
by telling Buffy there is something wrong with her and that she
has no one to love. So Buffy gives in to these ideas, she has
sex with Spike since she has come to believe she like him is just
a thing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Buffy and Spike/Buffy and Faith -- Rahael, 04:39:55
11/23/01 Fri
Just an idea....
Reading others' posts, and seeing a clip of the final climactic
seen (but nothing else from Smashed), it occurred to me that there
is some similarity between the things that Buffy calls Spike as
she is beating him up, and the things that Faith calls Buffy when
they are in each others' bodies. Its quite clear that when Faith
and Buffy fight in that Church, and Faith looks down at her body
and beats it up, she is literally punishing herself, expressing
her intense self loathing.
Is there then a sense that this is what Buffy in Smashed? As the
floor gives way under her and Spike, its also clear that her own
strong sense of self identity is crumbling.....she is going back
to that question of 'who am I?" She can no longer be sure
that 'this is her work' as she was in the Gift.
Crushed to little pieces, Buffy and Spike's self identities razed
to the foundation, is this now the opportunity for them to rebuild
anew?
All human life starts with sex....and here we have a brilliantly
juxtoposed image of destruction, and new life. Adding to the Eden
myth thing, Adam and Eve's self conciousness of their sexuality
is a sign of their guilt....and Buffy and Spike literally 'fall'.
Apologies...I seem to have meandered away from the 'bitchiness'
theme!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Spoilery post above!! plus, some typos.. --
Rahael, 04:48:24 11/23/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've Got a Theory About Smashed
-- rowan, 18:18:34 11/22/01 Thu
Snippets overheard at this week about Smashed:
--How can Buffy treat spike like that after all he's done for
her and Dawn?
--Why is she calling him a disgusting thing like in Crush?
--Spike suddenly seems like he's regressed to Lover's Walk Spike.
--I didn't like how Spike told Buffy he was all she had. It sounded
like Spike from Becoming 2.
--The characterizations seemed off. Where are late S5/S6 Spike/Buffy?
--Why did they give the new guy this critical sweeps episode?
--The sex scene at the end starts out like Spike and Dru in FFL
during the Boxer Rebellion.
--Why was that creepy scene going to be included with Spike decorating
the crypt with rose petals, a cattle prod, and chains like Crush?
--What happened to those spoilers about the audience not knowing
what is real or unreal?
--The mood of the episode really changed when Spike and Buffy
started making love. What was that?
--The music at the end sounds like The Wish, where Giles finally
smashes the talisman and the *real* Sunnydale is restored.
Finally, this morning it clicked. Smashed was deliberately framed
to echo key moments of the old S/B mortal enemy relationship & uneasy
ally relationship so that it could culminate in a scene where
those are marked as the *unreality* that must be smashed to make
way for the new *reality*. The old that is withered, unproductive,
and sterile is symbolically smashed to make way for the potential
of the new, the healing, and the regenerative.
Imagine this conversation at ME:
JW: Hey New Guy! Come here.
DG: Yes Mr. Whedon, sir.
JW: New Guy, I'm giving you the critical sweeps episode where
Buffy and Spike officially start their new relationship by having
sex.
DG: *gulp* I'm not sure I'm ready, sir.
JW: Sure you are. Here's the concept. We'll set up the episode
by echoing all the old B/S mortal enemy stuff from S2-midS5. Pick
out all the key B/S scenes and parallel 'em. You know, use Crush,
use Becoming 2, use FFL, use HLoD.
DG: *confused* But they've progressed way beyond that, sir.
JW: Yeah, yeah. But see, we want to set up a sort of showdown
between what they were and what they are going to be. Kind of
a catharsis to let go of the old so that they can embrace something
new. Get it?
DG: *nodding* I can do that. I know Buffyverse history like the
back of my hand.
Jw: Good, good. Now we'll have their final battle in some abandoned
house that they'll destroy. Clever, huh? *chuckles* New identities,
new relationship...you probably noticed they had no IDs in TR.
DG: Saw that, sir.
JW: That's the point of the sex. They'll really connect in an
authentic way. They finally *see* each other after they let out
all the old crap they've been carrying around.
DG: Okay, I'm following you, sir.
JW: Great. When they start the smoochies, we'll use that music
from The Wish when Anyanka's necklace is smashed and the *real*
Sunnydale is restored. That slow motion effect, too. It's a little
clue we're seeing the *real* Spike and Buffy.
DG: Like the old, mortal enemy stuff is now unreal and has been
destroyed and now we're ready to move on to the new which is the
real?
JW: You've got it, New Guy. We pick up where TR and OMwF left
off.
DG: So this relationship isn't about Buffy's despair? And this
addiction parallel with Willow has been a setup?
JW: *grins* Did I give Spike the big hero scene in OmwF? Oh, yeah,
it's been a setup. Gotta keep 'em guessing, New Guy. Marti'll
take care of that addiction thing in Wrecked. Willow is on the
ceiling, see, with nowhere to go but down. Buffy and Spike are
in the basement, with nowhere to go but up.
DG: Where do we go from here, sir? Are Spike and Buffy going to
get along better? Is Spike going to make progress on redemption?
JW: *laughs* New Guy, we've got 1 1/2 seasons left. There's alot
of story to tell. These two have a lot of problems and a lot of
baggage. What do you think? It'll be hard road, but this ep should
give the fans a clue or two about where it's all going.
DG: Clever, sir.
JW: Oh, and we need for Spike's chip to stop working. And he needs
to test it out on someone.
DG: What?!
JW: But it'll just not work on Buffy. Can't trust Spike without
the chip around anyone else just quite yet. She's not totally
human now, you see? But I can't go into all that with you yet.
It's classified info. But if they are going to start a new relationship,
she can't keep kicking him around unless he can kick back.
DG: *gulps again* Okay, sir.
JW: It'll be the next Restless, New Guy. The fans will be interpreting
it forever. I can't wait to get out on the boards to see the reaction.
They won't know which end is up. Oh, and for the last scene, use
my grave scene at the end of RIP from OMwF -- except this time,
instead of Buffy running away, they get their sweet release! *winking*
Thanks to those at BAPS whose insightful criticism helped light
my way to understanding!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> LOL, rowan! ;o) thanks for sharing that -- Wisewoman, 18:27:38
11/22/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Hey now I get it! : ) Thanks! -- Rochefort, 19:29:33 11/22/01
Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> So funny and so insightful! :)... but the music... -- Nina,
21:57:12 11/22/01 Thu
... is not the same as in "The Wish"! It's a similar
texture and melody using background vocals, but it's definitely
not the same music! (I just rewatch the episode to make sure)
I am happy if I can give the credit to Thomas Wanker for that
one! New scores for the fight scenes too. I'm in heaven really!
Still... the fact that the music is very alike doesn't take back
the similarities between "The Wish"'s real world and
"Smashed"!
I actually love Smashed's score better. Who knew TW could ever
surprise me like this. Youppi for him! :) :) :) :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Actually, if you listen closely, the music... -- RH,
07:49:52 11/23/01 Fri
...sounds very similar to the music they played as Buffy jumped
into the "portal" (to her death) at the end of last
season. This certainly fits in with the symbolism of the old self
"dying"...
Can anyone else confirm this? Thanks! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Actually, if you listen closely, the music...
-- Nina, 11:08:45 11/23/01 Fri
It's been so long since we've had any decent score in BtVS that
everyone just assume they've heard the S/B theme before... :)
It's orchestral music. We haven't heard this kind of harmonization
and orchestration since Chris Beck (season 2-3-4 and The Gift)
... but it is truly an original score never heard before and obviously
coming from Thomas Wanker's brain (I'll have to wait to make sure
on Saturday when I can read the end credits - but some of the
other music stuff in the episode is clearly his!) I have been
so bruised this season with the reappearence of old season 5 themes
that I feel I am healing a little bit. :) I'll keep praying for
new musical stuff to come along!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: It's Titanic Mermaid-y Music/Angels-on-High
-- Aquitaine, 11:10:23 11/23/01 Fri
Seemed to me that it symbolised both a death and a rebirth. Last
week, along with Michelle Branch's song "Goodbye To You",
Buffy said goodbye to her old self, to Giles, to Angel, to her
dream of being a 'normal' human woman. This week, the music promised
more than just goodbyes and heartbreak.
-Aquitaine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> You've posted some really great stuff this week, rowan.
Congrats! :) -- OnM, 22:30:27 11/22/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> so Rowan... where's the rest of your story for FC, you brilliant
writer, you!! -- Liquidram, 03:15:04 11/23/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> so Rowan... where's the rest of your story for FC, you brilliant
writer, you!! -- Liquidram, 03:16:04 11/23/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Brilliant writer...*laughing*...I've painted myself
into a plot corner I can't get out of. -- rowan, 07:03:49 11/23/01
Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: I've Got a Theory About Smashed (Spoilers) -- mundusmundi,
07:34:11 11/23/01 Fri
Excellent, rowan. Probably your most important point is here:
JW: *laughs* New Guy, we've got 1 1/2 seasons left. There's alot
of story to tell. These two have a lot of problems and a lot of
baggage. What do you think? It'll be hard road, but this ep should
give the fans a clue or two about where it's all going.
While truth be told the ep left me with more questions than answers,
I consider that a good thing. ME has always been very dynamic
in their plot and character development, so it's highly unlikely
that either Spike or Buffy are going to remain in one place for
very long. I've said this before and I'll say it again: Buffy
needs to rejoin the world; and I've no reason to doubt she will
by season's end. Spike's arc is less predictable, but if for nothing
else than creative considerations by the writing team, I cannot
see him staying the same vamp he's been. Where this will take
him I've no idea, but I have complete confidence he will go somewhere.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Again with the wonderful analysis! -- Dariel, 09:22:47 11/23/01
Fri
You definitely made my day with this brilliant (and funny)analysis!
I was a bit afraid that Spike was backsliding, but don't see it
that way now.
I only began watching in Season 5, and didn't even recognize the
Spike in "Smashed." Kept thinking "Who is that
guy?" Then I saw a tape of "Lovers Walk" and noticed
the similarities.
Your theory even explains some of those visual inconsistencies
folks have mentioned. Like Spike's blue shirt, and the chain he
was wearing. His attire is slightly off because he's not quite
his real self, but a representation of it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: I've Got a Theory About Smashed -- DEN, 10:56:20 11/23/01
Fri
A minor support for your great theory is that the relationship
of Willow and Buffy from Episode 1 has essentially been contrapuntal
rather than parallel. Even the sex--contrast Buffy/ Angel and
Willow/Oz in "Graduation." Establishing different paths
now would be consistent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: That was Awesome rowan -- Dedalus, 10:09:36 11/24/01
Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Loved reading it, rowan! Very funny...and also very insightful.
Love "The Wish" theory! -- Rob, 15:08:19 11/24/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Loved it, rowan! -- Isabel, 21:49:56 11/24/01 Sat
Have you OD'd on the triptophan in the turkey? ;o)
Makes you a little drowsy, add a little wine, a lot of calories...
Can you imagine the reactions if someone from ME lurked and read
your characterisations?
BTW: I realize that DG is the author of the script, but what is
his/her name?
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Owww! - Thoughts on *Smashed*
- (*Spoilers* & mature subject matter) -- OnM, 22:05:53 11/22/01
Thu
*******
It's human nature, Buff. It's very seductive, all that power.
............ Xander Harris
*******
It's no longer pain, it's simply a very intense sensation.
............ Fakir Musafar
*******
Sometimes love just don't feel like it should.
............ John Mellencamp
*******
Consider this your last warning-- in keeping with the rather adult
content of the current week's Buffy episode, this review will
be delving into some controversial subjects, so if the idea of
finding your brain sitting quietly on the steps leading down to
a subway station somewhere and wondering just where the hell it's
been offends or disturbs you, then please click the 'Back' button
now, and exit posthaste.
Still here? OK, then let's get down to the gritty de la nitty
and talk about mathematics, FM radio and the differential nature
of human relationships.
Back in the late 50's and early 60's, the radio industry was making
the transition from conventional, monaural FM radio broadcasts
to stereo presentations. The FCC had dictated that such transmisions
must be of a form that was compatible to existing standard radios,
that is, they had to receive the new stereo broadcasts in monaural
form. This is trickier to pull off than it might seem, but the
solution found was rather clever.
Adding a second channel to the radio transmission is actually
pretty easy, you generate a thing called a subcarrier, sort of
a secondary frequency within the main one, and then build a radio
that receives both main and subcarrier frequencies. The problem
is, this system isn't mono compatible, since older radios would
only pick up the main frequency, and thus play only half the intended
information, which is not good. What the engineers came up with
seems non-inuitive, but actually works rather nicely. Starting
with the original, 2-channel stereo source, they first mixed the
left stereo audio channel and the right stereo audio channel together
in equal proportions, which produces a standard monaural music
signal. Mathematically, we would represent this as L + R.
Now the non-intuitive part. The subcarrier signal is made up of
left channel subtracted from right channel, or (L - R). It could
also be '(R - L)', it doesn't matter, what we want is the difference
between the two channels, which is what subtraction gives you.
When your stereo FM radio receives these two signals, it performs
a bit of mathematical/electronic legerdemain to recreate the two
original stereo audio channels. First, we take the main signal,
(L + R) , and combine it with the (L - R) signal:
(L + R) + (L - R) = 2L ... ( the +R and -R cancel, leaving twice
as much L )
Now, we invert the phase (reverse the polarity) of the subcarrier,
and again add it to the main carrier.
(L + R) + (-L + R) = 2R ... ( the +L and -L cancel, leaving twice
as much R )
We now have the original left and right stereo audio channels
back again, despite having apparently lost them by rudely adding
and subtracting them from one another in the first place. Also,
we have simultaneously retained compatibility for those who prefer
things done in the 'good old fashioned way', i.e. monaural. Is
it any wonder that physicists consider math to be God's original
language? Too bad people aren't like mathematical formulas, you
could just crunch some numbers and everything would be explained,
and everyone would be happy.
Oh, by the way, one minor little point I neglected to mention
previously-- the people who listen in FM stereo often need to
put up with more background noise than the people who listen in
mono, because the mathematical process described above, while
perfect in theory, doesn't work perfectly in the real world. In
the real world, some information is always lost when the L+R,
L-R stuff gets done, so in the end communication is not ideal,
and one resigns oneself to it being fair to adequate. In the human,
biological, psychological real world, this sounds a lot like relationships,
which according to whomever the expert of the moment happens to
be, are always exactly definable in theory, but then annoyingly
evade exact definition in practice.
So much for the controversial part of the essay. Now we will move
on to less polemical subjects, such as sex, feminism and S&M.
Those of you who are regular readers of my rants may be aware
that I have long been, and am still, a fan of NPR's brilliant
interview program, Fresh Air. The key to getting a good interview
is of course the ability to frame and ask the right questions,
an art form in itself. Several years back, maybe even a decade
or more, I recall an interview with feminist writer Gloria Steinem
in which a question was asked that made the normally very erudite
and loquacious Ms. Steinem grasp for a logical response. ( As
you read the next paragraph, please keep clearly in mind the fact
that I am, of necessity, greatly summarizing some selected content
from a nearly hour-long program. I do not wish to be accused of
over-simplifying Ms. Steinem's well-thought-out lines of reasoning,
I have great respect for her and her work ).
Steinem had just spent a good ten minutes or more discussing her
views regarding the power relationships that currently exist between
men and women, with the general thrust of her arguments going
along the lines that there is too much thrust in the arguments.
Namely, that on an historical basis men have been the dominant
individuals in sexual, emotional or even platonic workplace relationships,
and women have been expected to remain passive or submissive,
because this is perceived as 'the natural order of things'. From
this fundamental belief system, all forms of discrimination flow,
including social examples such as keeping women out of, or underpaying
them in the workplace, or for not allowing women to behave in
a sexually assertive manner without some form of retribution being
enacted. Her solution, which Steinem openly admitted was going
to take a long time to achieve, was to educate both men and women
in a manner as to foster a sense of social and sexual equality
whereby neither partner in a relationship attempts to gain more
'power' than the other. Whether the relationship is personal or
in the workplace, all actions must be effectively democratic or
egalitarian. She then cited typical lesbian relationships as being
an example of such an 'equal-power' arrangement.
The interviewer (a woman), then asked the question (which I'm
paraphrasing), What about consensual lesbian D&S or S&M relationships?
Don't these follow the same basic pattern evident in conventional
male/female power relationships of this type? Also, what about
relationships where the female is dominant and the male submissive?
Wouldn't these cases indicate that the desire for a particular
power structure is something that can be freely chosen by the
individuals involved, and not always imposed from external sources?
Steinem seemed caught a bit unawares, or perhaps just wanted to
be careful in how she phrased a response. Again paraphrasing,
she stated that 'these relationships are still dysfunctional,
and in the case of the lesbian couple occur because women have
been so pervasively conditioned by society to a top/bottom power
structure, that they carry it over into their own expressed sexuality
even when that sexual expression involves another woman'. The
interviewer than followed up with a question that asked if such
was the case, then why is there seemingly greater and greater
amounts of D&S/S&M erotica/pornography written by women, with
the intended audience being not only men, but other women, sometimes
specifically the latter. She cited the well-regarded lesbian sexually-oriented
magazine On Our Backs as an example of this. Steinem demurred,
restated her previous answer, and seemed to regard such examples
as atypical or inconsequential, leaving the particular issue unresolved.
As I said, this conversation took place well over a decade ago.
More recent feminist thinking seems to allow for a greater acceptance
of the idea that achieving social equality doesn't also demand
that males and females should force themselves to adhere to behavioral
concepts which may be antithetical to biology. In addition, it
is a biological fact that humans are social animals, and social
animals tend to arrange themselves in groups organized by relative
power values. This does not mean that one must accept a biological
'destiny', only that one be aware of what it means in that this
is the root heritage that we grow from.
So what does this mean in terms of the Buffyverse? Mostly, it
means that the ability to live and interact socially and sexually
with other individuals in a positive fashion predicates itself
on a clear understanding of one's own true nature, and gaining
that understanding is often a perilously difficult task. No clearer
example of this exists than the situation in which Willow and
Buffy find themselves in Smashed, which appears to be a de facto
two-parter with next week's ep, Wrecked.
In some comments posted by rowan earlier this week, she quotes
exective producer Marti Noxon as stating that 'I have some concerns
about younger children having to deal with the more adult sexuality
depicted on BtVS'. This is a valid concern, and if there are those
readers who think I am way off in left field for discussing sexual
lifestyles as non-mainstream as SM in context of the Buffyverse,
then they are either very new to the series, or haven't been paying
close attention for the last 5 years (and that certainly wouldn't
happen on our board!). You don't need to look very hard to discover
that 'darker' forms of human sexual expression have been represented
since the very first season.
The traditional vampire mythology itself is a heavily sexualized
genre, so much so that it has become a near impossibilty to extend
or build upon it metaphorically without bringing up the same issues,
and ME has done just that. To each new generation is born a Chosen
One, but the current chosen one has somehow managed to live long
enough for sex to become a literal subject of study, not just
a metaphorical one. Buffy has had only three lovers to date, and
two of those entailed single instances of intimacy, with very
negative results. The one much longer term relationship fared
better, but still eventually ended unhappily. In each case, Buffy
approached intimacy slowly and with due consideration, which is
remarkable when you consider just how passionate Buffy is beneath
her careful, 'rational' exterior. (Yes, even Parker, who she thought
did care for her, so I don't see it as truly being an instance
of 'casual sex'). All of Buffy's lovers have easily recognized
the deeply passionate nature of her sexual personality, but she
herself seems either unaware of it (which I find unlikely), or
aware but fearful of where it might lead her (very likely, and
supported by the available empirical evidence, the single best
example being Faith).
In last week's review, I wondered what Buffy's attitude towards
Willow would be after becoming aware of the forgetting spell,
and presupposed it would be anger. In this week's episode, Xander,
Anya and Buffy are sitting around the 'research table' in The
Magic Box and discussing Willow's recent actions. Buffy not only
doesn't seem to be angry, but finds it hard to believe that 'level-headed'
Willow would not be self-limiting enough in her behavior to allow
her magic to get out of hand. Xander and Anya appear surprised
that Buffy thinks this way, and Anya then accurately describes
the fundamental psychology involved:
Anya: Well, those are the ones you have to watch out for the most.
Responsible types. Responsible people are always so concerned
with being good all the time, that when they finally get a taste
of being bad, they can't get enough, it's like all 'kablooey'
Buffy: That's not true.
Anya: OK, not kablooey, more like 'bam'.
Xander: It's human nature, Buff. It's gotta be seductive, just
giving in to it, going totally wild.
Buffy thinks that she is immune to this seduction, but of course
she is not. Like Willow, she isn't really completely in tune with
her true nature, and so cannot begin to deal with it positively.
Buffy distrusts her power, and acts as if she wants to give it
up, but when her passion rises and takes over her conscious or
'rational' mind, she clearly remains the dominant individual.
Willow feels that she was powerless, and so lusts after more and
more power. When we first met vampWillow several seasons back,
we saw a character that is not only 'sorta gay', but clearly an
individual comfortable in the role of sexual dominant. We may
have tended to dicard this aspect of Willow persona as being part
of the vampire half of the mix, but that isn't the way it looks
from the current perspective.Willow has now accepted this 'top'
role for herself, but doesn't understand that in order for it
to work positively for her, she needs to accept the presence of
a willing 'bottom', who then balances out the exchange of power.
Instead, Willow abuses first Buffy, then Tara, then the entire
SG, and now a entire room full of people at The Bronze. None of
these people have consented to 'play' with her, and it is chilling
that her blase attitude only appears to grow with each misuse
of her power.
Returning back to the Buffy side of things, in true Jossian fashion,
no relationship ever remains remotely conventional. Those expecting
to see Buffy ultimately get all swoony and 'girlish' with Spike
undoubtably found themselves aghast at the violence that preceded
their eventual sexual coupling. I wasn't surprised in the least,
I would have in fact been very disappointed at the writers if,
having allowed the event to occur at all (since I still have serious
reservations if this is a good idea) they didn't execute it in
this manner. I suspect that many viewers will interpret Spike's
aggressive 'assault' on Buffy (after discovering that his chip
no longer prevents him from hurting her) as evidence that he still
secretly wishes to kill her. If this is so, then we come back
to the very old question of why hasn't he done it sooner? There
were numerous opportunities, just as there have been numerous
opportunities for Buffy to dust Spike. Spike was right when he
asserted (in Fool for Love) that the relationship between Buffy
and he has been 'a dance'. Since he was chipped, the dance has
taken place with only Buffy calling the tunes. That has now changed,
and just as Willow and Amy decide to change the band in The Bronze
to suit their liking, Spike changes the tune with Buffy.
Parallels can also be drawn between last season's violent foreplay
between Angel and Darla on A:tS. If one loks at the relationships
beween Angel and Darla, and Angel and Buffy in terms of who is
sexually dominant or submissive, it casts a light that may explain
why these relationships may have ultimately been doomed as far
as 'romance' is concerned. Angel, Darla and Buffy are all clearly
'dominants' in my observations, and the eventual ends of their
'romances' reflect this fundamental incompatibility-- you can't
have a yin-yin, or yang-yang unless either someone is deceiving
themselves or the relationship is a 'business' one, such as the
one between Darla and Angel. The relationship between Drusilla
and Spike also suggests that Dru would be the dominant partner,
and again I would maintain the evidence to date supports this
contention, at least as long as we consider Dru's behavior after
she joins the ranks of the undead.
Looked at in this fashion, and giving Spike credit for enough
self-awareness that he recognizes his true nature (I may be love's
bitch pretty much lays it all out, does it not?), and also assuming
that he really does love Buffy (perverse or not, I accept it as
being real) what else can he do but act on his suspicions that
she could 'top' him successfully if only he could goad her into
freely admitting this aspect of her personality? Spike wants Buffy's
aggressiveness, and the danger that comes with it. He sees her
as 'holding out' on him by pretending to be all sweetness and
light and that the steel within is some artifact of her Slayerness,
not of that which is Buffy the human woman.
Secondary evidence that supports my speculations is also present
in Buffy's past relationship with Riley. It is no coincidence
that Spike and Riley had their little conversation prior to Riley
taking his leave of Sunnydale, since there are a number of similarities
between them, the most significant one being that they are both
willing 'bottoms' to Buffy's 'top'. Those who have read my 1st
Anniversary Character Post on Riley may remember these excerpts:
Riley: Buffy's like nobody else in the world. When I'm with her,
it's like I'm split in two-- half of me is just on fire, going
crazy if I'm not touching her. The other half is so still and
peaceful, just perfectly content. Just knows: this is the one.
OnM: In Something Blue, Buffy meets Riley when he is helping to
put up a large banner for the campus 'Lesbian Alliance'. Buffy
jokingly asks if there is something that she should know about
him, and he jokes back that 'yes, I am a lesbian'. Most interpretations
of the banner-hanging scene see it as a foreshadowing for Willow's
introduction to Tara in Hush. Interestingly, I feel there is an
additional subtext present with this scene that does involve Riley,
which may be that Joss is referring to Riley's atypical respect
for women being manifested as if he integrates his sexual and
social relationships to women in the manner of another woman,
rather than a male. Thus, Riley is a 'lesbian'. I don't think
that this is a dig, but rather a complement towards what Joss
views as Riley's acceptance of strong females.
Back in Buffy vs. Dracula, the 5th season opens with a scene of
Buffy in bed, next to a sleeping Riley. She quietly slips out
of bed, and in a cut to the next scene we see her chasing down
and staking a vamp, acting very agressively, very much the dangerous
predator. Cut back to the bedroom, we see her climb back under
the covers (another metaphor? Just thought of it this very instance
as I wrote it...) and snuggle up to Riley, with a contented look
on her face.
Season 5 at first appeared to be about Buffy's search for gaining
a deeper understanding of the 'real Buffy', but as in life, the
search for oneself gets easily sidetracked when more immediate
needs take over. The loss of Riley, the death of her mother and
the need to save her sister and the world from a Glory-induced
apocalypse left no time for further introspection. Her epiphany
in The Gift may have served as an answer to the question of her
nature as superhuman/Slayer, but no ground was gained in answering
what her nature as normal human/Buffy Anne Summers might be, a
moot point in death, but now very important to resolve in her
new life after death.
As mentioned previously, Smashed appears to be one-half of a two-part
episode with next week's ep., Wrecked. The titles themselves carry
the typical ME multiple levels of meaning, even though they are
composed of single words. Obviously, there is the 'drug' reference,
with 'smashed' being the immediate stage before one gets 'wrecked'.
Just as obviously, Willow seems to be the main object of the titles,
with magic substituting for alcohol or cocaine, but Buffy's addiction
is more subtle, although no less serious. Buffy is addicted to
the concept that she is fundamentally 'normal' and 'stable', and
so doesn't need to work at maintaining that stability in the face
of contrary and 'seductive' forces. Willow will only beat back
her addiction when she realizes that her 'normalcy' is not a disease
to be medicated. Buffy will conquer her addiction when she realizes
that her 'dark side' is likewise. Acceptance of one's true nature
leads to balance, or at least the ability to work in a positive
direction towards that balance.
(+Buffy+Spike) + (+Buffy-Spike) = 2Buffy (+Buffy+Spike) + (-Buffy+Spike)
= 2Spike
The difference makes all the difference, although there might
be some noise in the background.
One parting shot, then I'm going to wait for next week to continue
examining this very intriguing turn of events. Spike assumes that
Buffy has 'come back wrong', because his chip no longer prevents
him from hurting her. A few weeks ago, I wondered if Buffy unknowingly
gained a vamp-like immortality when she returned from the grave.
To date, I have seen nothing occur on the show to contradict this
possibility, and the apparent lack of damage to Buffy despite
the ferocious nature of Spike's 'attacks' this week even tend
to give some additional credence to the idea. We've never been
given an explanation of exactly how Spike's chip works, but perhaps
one of the 'human' characteristics it looks for is mortality.
If so...
( ... to be continued )
*******
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Hmmm....I really shouldn't read this stuff before bed...
-- Deeva, 23:53:41 11/22/01 Thu
as I will now be wide awake letting this baby simmer. Fabulous
post OnM! I actually liked reading through the L R- thing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> This is the best post in the whole world, like, ever! --
WillowFan, 02:39:16 11/23/01 Fri
Physics and feminism and Buffy, all on the same page! Wow!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Oh, it is not! But thanks anyway. I'm happy if you're
happy! ;) -- OnM, 11:14:31 11/23/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> As usual OnM - I am amazed. I can't wait for your review
next week! -- Liq, 03:03:15 11/23/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Owww! - Thoughts on *Smashed* - (*Spoilers* & mature
subject matter) -- rowan, 06:57:26 11/23/01 Fri
Again, I sit here thinking, "Whew! You are so damn brilliant!"
and I have nothing to add. The mind boggles.
I've thought since this summer that the Buffy/Spike relationship
in S6 will figure into the 'growing up' theme because it will
reflect lessons for Buffy about sexual maturity. I'm sure there
are also Spike lessons in there, but I haven't quite puzzled them
out yet. :)
ME has basically, thus far, left Buffy in a situation of emotional
and sexual frigidity. All three of her sexual relationships have
resulted in abandonment. In her third, mostly fully realized relationship
with Riley, she had certain issues of not feeling sexually satisfied
(as you point out with that slay scene) and Riley had certain
issues of not feeling sexually satisfied (the vamp whores). Surely
all this 'frozen' imagery can't be a coincidence. Buffy is emotionally
and sexually frigid right now. This is not presented as healthy
within the context of the Buffyverse. Sex, though possibly dark
and problematic, is certain not healthier when entirely absent.
You very rightly IMO point out that Buffy's addiction is to the
idea of being a *normal* girl. I've been saying she's addicted
to denial, but you've really hit the nail I didn't see right on
the head. This theme runs very explicitly through each season,
and has been of particular focus during S5/6. When she begins
to stray from what a *normal* girl's sexual identity entails,
I think she does worry that it means she is a *bad* girl, like
Faith. Prior to her sexual encounter with Spike in Smashed, Buffy's
single most intense sexual encounter was in Graduation Day 2 when
Angel drained her. Watching it again during the FX marathon left
me amazed it made it past the censors. Of course, that event is
wrapped up in death -- Faith's, Angel's and almost Buffy's own.
It's also wrapped up with guilt. Not a pleasant mix for health.
I think ME is finally trying to untwist what they've presented
as the knots in Buffy's sexual identity through this new relationship
with Spike. Yes, I'm one of the apparently few who think this
is a regenerative relationship, not a destructive one. While Buffy
might persist in thinking she can too easily become like Faith
if she gives in to any of the darker sexual impulses, clearly
Faith was a character missing balance. The lesson Buffy probably
needs to learn is how to balance the light with the dark, specifically
in this instance in the area of her sexuality.
I would suspect that Spike has a certain amount of balance in
that area that could be helpful to Buffy as she strives for the
same. I'm not sure I agree with you about Spike wanting to be
the submissive partner to Buffy's dominant partner. I realize
I'm probably perceived as a Spike apologist (and therefore my
credibility is diminished). But I think I would be very suspect
of any comments Spike makes about himself (e.g. love's bitch).
Spike has a tendency not to understand himself very well.
One of the key moments for Spike is when he takes on the role
of sexual aggressor with Dru in FFL after he kills the Chinese
Slayer. One can argue that Drusilla always maintained emotional
dominance (because she did not love him as much as he did her
and therefore retain control), but sexually, I think the relationship
was a little more balanced.
Spike also seems to be able to integrate a wider variety of sexual
expression than Buffy. We've seen him want everything from the
chains Dru fancied to the more tender lovemaking with the Bot
(after the initial furor wore off!). It's also good to note that
Angelus taunted Spike about not being dark enough sexually to
hold Dru. Sometimes he seems to like being the aggressive partner,
sometimes the submissive partner. This contrasts to Buffy, who
seems to be very uncomfortable with her aggressive sexual behaviors.
My, I have gone on, haven't I? Well, you can see we've both been
thinking about poor Buffy's sex life alot. I think your point
is well taken that we need to see Wrecked. But I also think this
is a theme that will play out over much of this season as ME strives
to restore Buffy to some degree of emotional/sexual health. They
have been stripping her down for two years; I think now they are
rebuilding. After all, Xander/Anya and to some extent Willow/Tara
(before this season!) have been presented at times as healthy
emotional/sexual models, so I don't think ME is addicted to pain
(as some have argued!). I look forward to seeing where this is
all going.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> More Thoughts on Buffy's Sexuality (Graduation Day
2 vs. Smashed) -- rowan, 09:09:14 11/23/01 Fri
Well, I guess I do have some more thoughts. Or thoughts in more
detail. ;)
I thought seeing Graduation Day 2 yesterday was interesting as
we juxtapose it against Smashed. Clearly, we have Buffy's two
most intense sexual experences to date to compare.
In GD2, Buffy punches Angel until she arouses him enough to feed.
Buffy experiences what looks to me like an intense climax while
Angel feeds from her. He lays on her in a position mimicing intercourse.
Buffy moans, crushes a pitcher, kicks furniture, and eventually
lapses into a post-climactic peacefulness. Angel is clearly the
dominant one in this situation from the moment he begins to feed.
He pins her down. He makes smacking, gobbling, and slurping noises
while feeding. He is the one to end the intercourse. He must then
rush Buffy to the hospital for a transfusion to prevent her death.
She has a prophetic dream about Faith before regaining consciousness.
In Smashed, Buffy and Spike fight until both are aroused. They
both experience intense climaxes which appear to start and end
at close to the same time. They stand together (neither one dominant;
in fact, they keep switching positions). The intercourse doesn't
end. They fall through the floor, still joined, still connected.
Neither one appears to need hospitalization (LOL!).
What do we do with these two scenes? The feeding scene in GD2
is the last intimate encounter between B/A before he leaves. It
is very wrapped up in the pain of the B/A relationship. Whiel
Buffy is having this intense sexual experience, Angel is feeding.
Maybe he's getting a sexual thrill from it. But he's not really
joining her in celebrating hers. He's just slurping away as he
has with many a victim throughout his vampiric unlife. He continues
after Buffy has already lapsed in post-coital lethargy (which
is really Buffy's life force slipping away).
It's the darker side of sexuality, and I think we're supposed
to see it as an almost unhealthy darkness since it almost results
in Buffy's death. It's not balanced, and balance is always a desired
state in the Buffyverse. It's seductive, but too much seduction
can be a dangerous thing.
Buffy to some extent has been fearing her darker sexual impulses
as a result of this encounter ever since. The encounter is so
wrapped up in Buffy's feelings about Faith (it's bookended by
Buffy almost killing Faith and Buffy dreaming about Faith) that
it suggests Buffy equates darker sexuality with being a *bad*
girl like Faith.
But Buffy, I think, has missed the full lesson in her dream. Faith
gives Buffy the key to defeat the Mayor. She also clues Buffy
in about Dawn's arrival and the sacrifice in The Gift. But Faith
also tells Buffy to 'take her stuff.' Buffy claims she has no
room for it all (we're in Faith's apartment, remember, so this
dream is about identity). Faith tells her to take what she needs.
What Buffy didn't, IMO, take from Faith was acceptance of her
darker sexual needs. She should have, because it's part of her
and she needs it to be satisfied. She rejects it becasue she's
afraid, but she craves it. Buffy need to take 'just what she needs'
which means just enough to remain balanced and healthy.
In subsequent sexual encounters with Riley, Buffy leaves to go
slay and returns to snuggle with Riley. Clearly, she can't fully
express the full range of her desires; she has to subliminate
them into the hunt and the kill. She hadn't learned Faith's lesson.
In the sexual encounter with Spike, both Buffy and Spike are satisfied.
There doesn't seem to be any sense that one is taking more than
the other. They start and end (or rather don't end!) by mutual
consent. It seems, while a walk on the dark side because of the
pre-game fight, (so to speak) a fairly balanced, healthy expression
of sexuality (given the whole vampire/Slayer not fully human thing,
LOL). It seems to me, frankly, to be the embodiment of Buffy 'taking
what she needs' in accordance with her Faith lesson. She's getting
a third opportunity to reconcile her view of a *normal* girl's
sexuality (Buffy is obsessed with being normal) with *her* true
sexuality.
However, I fully expect the return of Denial!Buffy next week.
rowan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Denial! Buffy (Spoilers Smashed) -- Traveler,
10:27:03 11/23/01 Fri
This is something that simultaneously amuses and confuses me.
You kiss a guy once and decide you make a mistake. OK. You kiss
him twice and decide you make a mistake. Well, hmm. But then,
you SLEEP with him the third time? How can Buffy possibly deny
her feelings after that? I know she is confused and all, but still...!?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> it seems to me that -- jen c., 10:47:37
11/23/01 Fri
Buffy's continued denials aren't fooling anyone anymore. It seemed
pretty obvious in Smashed that she'd run out of denials and had
to resort to cruel insult to disarm the attraction between her
and spike. we all saw how that turned out! any attempt to return
to denial city will be an obvious lie - one that Spike may let
her get away with if he sees that she is mortally freaked, but
it won't fool anyone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Denial Buffy -- Rufus, 14:49:49 11/23/01 Fri
If Buffy stays in denial, Spike will have a smile on his face
for a very long time....;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Denial Buffy :) :) -- rowan, 15:12:00
11/23/01 Fri
Yes, well, so will we all, since that means much more Nude!Spike...but
I'd prefer to see Buffy emotionally healthy and boinking Spike's
brains out.
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Picky.....;) -- Rufus, 15:19:40
11/23/01 Fri
In time,in time.........:):):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Denial Buffy :) :) -- Malandanza,
15:20:37 11/23/01 Fri
"but I'd prefer to see Buffy emotionally healthy and boinking
Spike's brains out."
But those two things are mutually exclusive, Rowan. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Denial Buffy :) :) --
rowan, 15:42:00 11/23/01 Fri
Hey, you live in your villa on the Nile and I'll live in mine,
LOL! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Denial Buffy :) :) -- Ramo,
10:21:42 11/24/01 Sat
If Buffy stays in denial, her secret will get out someway though
her "Freudian slips." She's been saying or reacting
to these little comments ever since All the Way, in every episode
since, I'm not sure about TR. In ATW she took the "rough
and tumble" too literally, similarly with the last episode.
And OMwF she said, "what else would I want to pump you for?"
Spike is clearly embedded in Buffy's subconscious desires, which
may have caused the so unexpected sex scene.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Denial Buffy :) :) --
Rufus,, 13:37:52 11/24/01 Sat
How about when Spike phones Buffy at the Magic Shop trying to
sound all big baddie and only sounds silly? He asked her about
"grunt work" and she freaks and says "grunting,
there will be no grunting".....loved that one, she was trying
so hard to cover up the fact she was in fact going to meet Spike
to Xander and Anya.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Denial Buffy :)
:) -- Malandanza, 15:36:48 11/24/01 Sat
How about when Spike phones Buffy at the Magic Shop trying to
sound all big baddie and only sounds silly? He asked her about
"grunt work" and she freaks and says "grunting,
there will be no grunting".....loved that one, she was trying
so hard to cover up the fact she was in fact going to meet Spike
to Xander and Anya.
Actually, it's not just Spike who is able to rattle Buffy with
sexual innuendoes -- accidental or intentional. Faith regularly
shocked Buffy (like when they discussed whether or not Buffy had
slept with Xander -- and there was also some complaints about
Faith's frequent grunting). And even Willow managed to startle
Buffy in Faith, Hope and Trick:
Willow: (notices a boy) Ooo, Scott Hope at eleven o'clock. (Buffy
looks) (to Buffy) He likes you. He wanted to ask you out last
year, but you weren't ready then. But I think you're ready now,
or at least in the state of pre-readiness to make conversation,
or-or to do that thing with your mouth that boys like.
Buffy snaps her head around at Willow and gives her a shocked
look.
Willow: (realizes her slip-up) Oh! I didn't mean the *bad* thing
with your mouth, I meant that little half-smile thing that you...
(glares at Oz) You're supposed to stop me when I do that.
Oz: (smiles and shakes his head) I like when you do that.
Anyway, I don't think it's just Freudian slips about Spike. Buffy
is insecure about every aspect of her own sexuality and is easily
shocked. When she's feeling guilty about something she's more
likely to misinterpret a random comment, but Buffy's misinterpretations,
malapropisms and accidental witticisms are one of her most endearing
qualities -- all that power and still so insecure.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Denial Buffy
:) :) -- dsf, 18:16:06 11/24/01 Sat
Certainly Spike finds it endearing -- in the phone scene in "Smashed",
for example, when he can hardly believe his ears, or his luck.
I like the way she keeps surprising him, going beyond his fondest
fantasies (and sometimes his worst nightmares.) It's in her nature
to be most aggressive when she's most vulnerable. Perhaps denial
is part of what allows her to do that: she's hiding her next move
from herself, so fear can't stop her.
dsf
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Denial Buffy :)
:) -- anom, 21:16:19 11/26/01 Mon
"...she was trying so hard to cover up the fact she was in
fact going to meet Spike to Xander and Anya."
Huh? She wasn't going to meet him, & in fact she didn't--that
why Spike surprised her near the museum. He expected her to show
(though it didn't sound to me like she was definitely going to)
& she didn't.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Denial Buffy :) :) -- Deeva,
19:44:53 11/24/01 Sat
"but I'd prefer to see Buffy emotionally healthy and boinking
Spike's brains out."
Nuff said! or like the trio of Fates on AtS "Ohhh! Naked!
Spike. Mmmmmmmmm." ;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> different interp of angel's feeding in G2 --
LL, 23:45:39 11/23/01 Fri
I didn't at all interpret buffy's reaction to Angel's feeding
on her an intense sexual climax, and though I now see what you're
saying, my first thought was that she was experiencing pain...
that she was in a state of, maybe, captivated disbelief of what
he was doing to her, even though she "forced" him to.
Her kicking and crushing were like squeezing someone's hand when
you get a shot, and her "post-climactic peacefulness"
seemed more like "post-blooddraining unconsciousness."
(This, of course, neglects the erotic undertones inherent to vampire
feeding... ah, well.) I don't think that this scene is the reason
for buffy's hesitation to embrace her "dark sexuality."
I think her fear of it is as close to her as her need for normalcy,
or that the one comes from the other.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: different interp of angel's feeding
in G2 -- rowan, 05:02:31 11/24/01 Sat
That's a more traditional interpretation, which I think is shared
by alot of people and certainly has alot of validity. All I would
ask is -- have you looked at the way Angel's body is position
over Buffy while he is feeding?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: different interp of angel's feeding
in G2 -- Malandanza, 08:21:51 11/24/01 Sat
This, of course, neglects the erotic undertones inherent to vampire
feeding... ah, well.
The eroticism of the feeding process seems to be one of those
things in the Buffyverse that lacks consistency. Usually, we see
sex and feeding mixed, but in some case, there is no sexual aspect
(at least, none shown). In particular, in All the Way, neither
the toymaker nor Dawn's friend seem to have been "turned
on" by the feeding of the young vamps. In other cases, the
victims are rescued early (like Faith in Buffy's body rescuing
the young girl in Who Are You) without any signs of being flustered
by the recent "sexual" act. Even when Darla was revamped
by Dru, Darla didn't seem to sexually excited by the prospect.
Now, it's possible that prolonged feeding is what gives the sexual
rush -- that initially, there is only pain and fear. It is also
possible that cases like the Toymaker are deliberately left asexual
to avoid the appearance of male homosexuality (which probably
wouldn't make it past the censors). In the case of Dawn's friend,
there would likely be reservations about mixing a violent sex
act with a young girl (15? 16?) -- although, paradoxically, the
episode was about the dangers of date-rape.
But I think there is enough inconsistency that a case could be
made for not every feeding being sexual in the Buffyverse. It
may well depend on the vampire or the victim.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: different interp of angel's feeding
in G2 -- racoon, 06:29:03 11/25/01 Sun
SMG made a remark on this particular scene in an interview once
- I recall reading her describing it as a sex scene culminating
in a powerful orgasm. I can't remember her exact words, but she
did say she was surprised that it got past the censors.
For a vampire feeding to be erotically pleasing there would have
to be some kind of consensus from the "bitee". Drusilla
siring Darla, for example, lacked this crucial element and therefore
IMO the exstacy inherent in the act. Drusilla siring Spike, on
the other hand, is a telling example of the contradictory elements
involved. His expression in FFL is first one of astonishment,
then pain and distaste, then exquisite pleasure.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> consent makes sense. -- LL, 16:55:26
11/25/01 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Owww! - Thoughts on *Smashed* - (*Spoilers* & mature
subject matter) -- Malandanza, 10:35:00 11/23/01 Fri
"I think I would be very suspect of any comments Spike makes
about himself (e.g. love's bitch). Spike has a tendency not to
understand himself very well."
I agree with you on this issue. Spike understands others very
well -- people with whom he has no emotional attachment -- so
he instantly sees the attraction between Tara and Willow, or Riley's
insecurities about not being man enough for Buffy. But he doesn't
understand himself very well (he believes most of his own propaganda)
and he has demonstrated that he doesn't understand Buffy -- his
"relationship" has been a series of misunderstandings
and mishaps. FFL and Crush, in particular, showed just how badly
he understands Buffy.
"I'm not sure I agree with you about Spike wanting to be
the submissive partner to Buffy's dominant partner...One of the
key moments for Spike is when he takes on the role of sexual aggressor
with Dru in FFL after he kills the Chinese Slayer."
Again, I agree with you. I also think that the first time Dru
and Spike had sex was after he had slain the Chinese Slayer --
it had a first time feel to it. Previously, Dru had been one of
Angelus' girls. For the first time, Spike was asserting his dominance
in the group -- he had always been lowest in the pecking order.
Not that I think it was Spike's first sexual experience (others
have suggested that Spike had only know Dru until she left him),
he was part of a band of vampires that raped and pillaged their
way across Europe. But this was probably his first "romance."
I never saw Dru as dominant. Perhaps, in the very beginning of
their relationship, between the Boxer Rebellion and the mob, there
may have been some equality, given Dru's role as a sire. But certainly
after she was wounded (do you know when she was injured by the
Prague mob?) Spike was dominant. When Spike was wounded, there
was a brief period where Dru might have been the dominant partner,
but once Angelus was back on the scene, Dru wasn't dominating
Spike, she was ignoring him for dominant Angelus. It seems to
me that Dru prefers the submissive role and gravitated towards
the stronger Angelus, which is borne out by your next point:
"It's also good to note that Angelus taunted Spike about
not being dark enough sexually to hold Dru."
But I think Spike's discomfort with Angelus was more about Angelus
than Dru. Spike has an inferiority complex when it comes to Angelus/Angel
(or maybe he's "just inferior" :) and to have Angelus
let Spike know that not only is he better than Spike at being
evil, but also in the bedroom, hurt Spike more than Dru's wandering
heart.
For me, Spike's obsession with Buffy has followed this pattern
-- being less about Buffy and more about Angel/Angelus.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Owww! - Thoughts on *Smashed* - (*Spoilers*
& mature subject matter) -- rowan, 17:36:57 11/23/01 Fri
"I agree with you on this issue. Spike understands others
very well -- people with whom he has no emotional attachment --
so he instantly sees the attraction between Tara and Willow, or
Riley's insecurities about not being man enough for Buffy. But
he doesn't understand himself very well (he believes most of his
own propaganda) and he has demonstrated that he doesn't understand
Buffy -- his "relationship" has been a series of misunderstandings
and mishaps. FFL and Crush, in particular, showed just how badly
he understands Buffy."
I go back and forth about how well Spike understands Buffy. His
insistence in Crush and FFL that Buffy does have some type of
attraction to him now seems to be rather born out by recent events,
unless we assume the attraction has only developed since her resurrection.
"Again, I agree with you. I also think that the first time
Dru and Spike had sex was after he had slain the Chinese Slayer
-- it had a first time feel to it."
I've always thought this, too, although not every agrees. I think
most people would at least agree that it is their first significant
sexual encounter. If they were having sex before this, the implication
would seem to be very master/minion sex where Spike *services*
Dru. This scene suggests a huge shift in power within the relationship.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Owww! - Thoughts on *Smashed* - (*Spoilers*
& mature subject matter) -- dsf, 19:36:26 11/24/01 Sat
Various thoughts:
1) You can be love's bitch without being your lover's bitch. (Keller
in =Oz= comes to mind.) Spike seems to be, as Malandanza notes,
versatile.
2) I think Spike's understanding of Buffy runs to extremes: he's
very astute about some things, and deeply clueless about in others.
Which is a wonderful way to get into trouble in any relationship.
3) I'll agree that there's a power shift in the relationship between
Spike and Dru after he kills a Slayer, but I don't think it's
about dominance, except indirectly. Dru has had the power in the
relationship because she's the one who's giving the best gift.
She's rescued Spike from mediocrity and introduced him to a world
of wonders, as she promised: something effulgent. In return, it
seems to be implied, he's given her his devout love.
When he kills a Slayer, though, he's given *her* a marvel, something
neither she nor Angelus nor Darla have apparently experienced
before. (Angelus doesn't seek out fights he might lose, and Darla
likewise avoids pointless risk.) He's shown he has the power to
give her pleasures that no one else can. In an existence that
can be eternal, with no conscience to make difficulties, to wield
that power may be even more significant than it is in human relationships.
I don't think Drusilla is especially submissive. I think she wants
to be entertained.
dsf
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Aaarrgh! Malandanza! -- Marie, 06:23:13 11/26/01
Mon
Not that I think it was Spike's first sexual experience (others
have suggested that Spike had only know Dru until she left him),
he was part of a band of vampires that raped and pillaged their
way across Europe.
These posts have all been so interesting to read, though normally
I come too late to the board to post my own opinions (someone
has always posted what I think!). This time you've brought me
out from behind my plant in the corner, because, while I agree
with a lot of your views on Spike (though not all), part of this
post aggravated me somewhat.
1. Whilst I agree that everyone must be free to have their own
opinion on this subject, why would anyone think that Spike and
Dru had not had sex prior to the Boxer Rebellion scene? They had
by then been together some years, and Spike (as opposed to William)
is a very sexual being. Also, Angelus had advised Drusilla to
get her own playmate - and I don't feel he meant that in a childlike
sense. It's my opinion that they were quite comfortable together
sexually long before that scene - though I do feel that this may
have been the first time that Spike was the dominant one.
2. Where, in any of the episodes, have you seen anything, or heard
mention of, vampires raping? As an ex-rapee, I can't tell you
how much I hate the casual use of this word for what the vampires
do. It minimalises the act of rape. That said, it's my opinion
that vampires are locust-like creatures, really - they descend
on scenes of chaos, like the Boxer Rebellion, and seize their
opportunity to feed on the helpless victims of riot and disorder.
Or maybe maggots would be a better word for them.
Rant over. Not meant to offend - you touched a sore spot!
Marie
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Word Choice -- Malandanza, 08:21:58
11/26/01 Mon
"Where, in any of the episodes, have you seen anything, or
heard mention of, vampires raping? As an ex-rapee, I can't tell
you how much I hate the casual use of this word for what the vampires
do. It minimalises the act of rape."
I agree that using the word "rape" metaphorically minimizes
the crime; however, when I said "raped and pillaged,"
I really did mean rape. I do not believe it is inappropriate given
the violent and nonconsensual sexual aspects of vampire feeding.
As for examples of vampires raping, we need look no further than
Angelus -- after all the rape and murder of the gypsy girl is
what got him cursed in the first place. We also saw him accosting
a servant girl in a flashback from Amends and his sex scene with
Darla as Noir Angel and the bodice-ripping attack on human Darla
in the convent had violent and sexual overtones. Most recently,
we have seen Angelus suggest to Holtz that he had repeatedly raped
Holtz's wife. As I have said, Spike seems to me to have patterned
himself after Angelus.
In the very first episode of Buffy, the Master's henchman tosses
Buffy around, throws her into a coffin and then (from the view
inside the coffin) we see him climbing in on top of her -- a scene
that established BtVS as horror, instead of a soap opera or comedy,
for me. Spike threatened Willow with rape in Lover's Walk and
attacked her again in The Initiative.
This season, we have seen vampires as date-rapists (and I dislike
the term "date-rape" since it seems to imply a separate
category of rape that is somehow not so bad) in All the Way. The
language of this episode falls into the "single-entendre"
(an Oz quote :) category -- the boys didn't have to be vampires,
everything they said still made sense in a purely sexual predator
context.
All these comments about Buffy being the "Ice Queen"
or a "Bitch" because she hadn't had sex with Spike after
kissing him twice have disturbed me. She does not owe him anything,
she isn't "asking for it" -- and I think that message
was clearly delivered in Smashed by the parallel between the boys
at the Bronze and Spike's abusive speech to Buffy:
Spike and Buffy in the alley:
SPIKE: You're a tease, you know that, Slayer? (Buffy rolls her
eyes, continues walking) Get a fellow's motor revving, let the
tension marinate a couple-a days, then bam! Crown yourself the
ice queen.
Amy, Willow and the boys in the Bronze:
GUY 1: Hey, come on. We're just getting started. AMY: (looks at
Willow) I think I'm gonna sit this one out. GUY 2: Nuh-uh! You
can't, you can't just work us up like that and then just-
The guy grabs Amy's arm and pulls her away from the bar, but she
pulls free.
AMY: Hey! WILLOW: I think she said no.
Spike's "motor revving" comment and the guy's "you
can't just work us up like that" comment are too close to
be coincidental. We all know that the Bronze guys were wrong --
and if Amy and Willow hadn't been witches there's no telling how
that incident might have ended. Yet Spike is held to a different
standard.
As for other vampires -- how many times have we seen a girl struggling
in an alley against an impossibly strong male vampire?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Word Choice -- Marie, 09:12:18
11/26/01 Mon
I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
I know it's just my own opinion, but I very strongly feel that
it's all about the thirst for blood, not sex, for these creatures.
When Angelus fed on the gypsy girl - he wasn't having sex with
her. I feel that you are looking at the examples you cite as metaphors
for sex. You haven't convinced me!
As to Spike - well, he does want sex with Buffy, doesn't he? Not
her blood (though I think he'd take that, too, if he could). He
didn't threaten Willow with rape! Were we watching the same things?
Again, he was after her blood! Granted, there was a little suggestive
suggesting, but more on the lines of the rambling drunk ("Hey,
babe, you wanna?") than the seriously agressive rapist...
Have to think more about this - got to pick my kid up! But I haven't
finished this yet!
Marie
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Word Choice -- Malandanza,
09:41:13 11/26/01 Mon
"Were we watching the same things?"
Why does eveybody keep asking me that? :)
But, seriously, the scenes with Willow were more than just a "little
suggestive" -- here's what Masquerade had to say about the
Willow/Spike scene in The Initiative:
"Sexual violence: It's another cute Spike and Willow moment
until we stop thinking of him as the emotionally sensitive vampire
we think we know and look at the situation from another perspective.
A man enters a woman's college dorm room, threatens her, and when
she tries to run, he throws her on the bed, turns up the stereo
to block out the sound of her screams, and then attacks her. The
only thing that saves Willow is Spike's Clockwork Orange impotence.
From this point of view, Willow's need for reassurance about her
desirability is not so funny. A vampire's bite is about predatory
violence, and in this case, revenge. To think of it as sexy is
to equate all such attacks with the more benevolent moment from
Graduation, and to forget how even then Buffy had to coerce Angel
to feed on her and that she almost died as a result of it."
and here's the scene from Lover's Walk (I'm never sure where to
put the apostrophe) from the shooting scripts (with a big chunk
of Spike's "poor me" speech cut):
He abruptly turns and crosses to a chest, grabs a half-finished
bottle of mescal. Swigs mightily. SPIKE: I'm gonna get what's
mine. What's MINE. Teach her to walk out on me...what are you
staring at? WILLOW:Nothing. SPIKE: You can do it, right? Make
Dru love me again? Make her crawl? WILLOW: I... I can try... He
grabs her by the back of the head, brings her close. SPIKE: What
are you talking to me about trying? You'll do it! WILLOW: Yes!
I'll do it! He smashes the bottle on a bedpost, holds the jagged
end inches from Willow's face. SPIKE: You lie to me, I'll shove
this through your face! Do you want that? All the way through
to your brain! She is practically crying with terror, weakly mewling:
WILLOW: No... please... no... He stops, drops the bottle, his
own eyes welling up. The anger deflating as abruptly as it came.
After a moment: SPIKE: She wouldn't even kill me ... she said
we could still be friends! Oh-God, I'm so unhappy! He bursts into
serious tears, buries his head in Willow's shoulder. She is entirely
nonplussed. WILLOW:There there... SPIKE:(into her neck)Friends!
How could she be so cruel? He holds onto her, letting the sobs
subside -- and they do, his grasp becoming a little tighter, more
sensual, his face in her neck advancing to nuzzlage. She begins
to look increasingly alarmed. SPIKE: Mmmmm... your neck, that
smell... He lifts his face -- and it's gone vampy. SPIKE: I haven't
had a woman in weeks -- Willow springs up. WILLOW: Whoah! No!
Hold it! SPIKE: Well, unless you count that shopkeeper... WILLOW:
Now hold on! I'll do your spell, and, and, I'll get you Drusilla
back but there's no bottles in the face and there's no "having"!
Of any kind! With me. All right? He stands, growling -- and a
second later his face morphs (greenscreen) back to human. SPIKE:
All right. Get started.
Vampires are violent and sexual creatures. Their victims generally
are nonconsensual -- I don't think it's a strecth to see them
either as literal or metaphorical rapists -- but then, it is the
assumptions I make that I feel are most solidly supported by the
facts that get me into the most trouble on this board :) -- I
have to go to work, but I'll read your replies when I get back
tonight.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Word Choice -- JoanSwift,
12:21:15 11/26/01 Mon
Pardon me for butting into this. I'm new here and I should post
something more philosophically potent first, I suppose. Cleanthes
told me I would not need to use acerbic, Swiftian techniques on
this forum. Yet, here I am, looking for trouble!
Regarding the use of the word RAPE, shouldn't equivalent cases
of male-on-male or female-on-male violence be cited?
When Angel drags Xander into the school as an offering to Spike,
did you think RAPE?
When Dru used her hypnotic power to confuse Giles into revealing
what Angel needed to do to activate Acathla, was that not rape?
What happens in the case of the word RAPE is what the folks in
the academic ghetto call "ideological anchorage". The
word has taken on an aura of political discourse from which it
cannot escape. In Xena discussions with which I am too familiar,
the word RAPE never really described what transpired on the TV
screen, but instead described the political framework from which
the poster wished to issue polemics.
Let's just call all these cases rape. Then what? How does using
this word add to understanding the philosophy behind the show?
I generally get the feeling that using the word is meant to trump
discussion. Once the word is applied, everyone is somehow supposed
to throw up their hands in horror and stop thinking and writing
in favor of picketing the production company or lobbying congress
or something. Why?
I'd agree with Malandanza's word choice if it did not come with
this political anchorage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Word Choice -- vandalia,
13:44:48 11/26/01 Mon
So where is the rape in this scene? Is it suggestive and full
of double-entendre? Yup. Vampires, sex/death etc etc. Been there,
deconstructed that. Is Spike threatening Willow with biting/something
else? Yep. So what does Willow do? She says 'no, you're not going
to bite me.' And what does big, bad evil Spike do in return? He
says, 'All right.' Just like that. No threatened staking, no screaming
for help, no being dragged off her by Xander, he states his desires,
Willow objects, and Spike acquiesces. There was absolutely no
way she could've stopped him. She said no, he said ok. Not exactly
the pattern of a serial rapist here.
You'd have a better case with Initiative, in which he walks in
and tells her 'I'm going to give you a choice. Now, I'm going
to kill you -- no choice about that -- but I can just kill you,
or I can bring you back, like me.' There is the suggestion of
rape in the way the scene is set up, as Masq explains (the closing
the door, turning up the music, etc) but again, Spike fails to
'perform.' This time its because of the chip. What ensues is really
one of the funniest scenes in S4 (and Spike actually mentions
wanting to bite Willow back in Lover's Walk. The outfit he describes
her wearing, the 'fuzzy pink number with the lilac underneath,'
was what she was wearing in that episode). Here biting and sex
are obviously being played with as related concepts. Its when
Willow (re)realizes that they're NOT talking about sex but rather
killing her and turning her into a vampire ('You're being too
hard on yourself. Why don't we wait a half an hour and try again?
Or...' (She whacks him with a lamp and runs) that she takes action.
Is feeding/attacking like rape? Yes, its (usually) non-consentual,
its physically invasive, its objectifying, its violent. But is
it _the same thing_ as rape? No. Does this make it any less evil?
No. But feeding is more understandable -- without blood, vampires
die. They need it to live. Let me repeat: this does not excuse
killing people. Spike is a bad, rude man (at least he is in S4).
But he's never been depicted as being a rapist.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Word Choice,
etc. -- anom, 22:46:59 11/26/01 Mon
Wow! A lot's been said while I was away. I'm going to quote from
several postings. First, I agree w/LL about the scene in GD2 where
Angel drains Buffy. Her reactions did not look at all to me like
sexual pleasure.
rowan:
"Buffy experiences what looks to me like an intense climax
while Angel feeds from her. He lays on her in a position mimicing
intercourse. Buffy moans, crushes a pitcher, kicks furniture,
and eventually lapses into a post-climactic peacefulness."...and
later..."All I would ask is -- have you looked at the way
Angel's body is position over Buffy while he is feeding?"
Yeah, I have. He's hunched over her, pinning her down, as someone
else said. If any scene looks like rape, this is it--& otherwise
I agree w/Marie about the use of this word--except of course that
Buffy has consented for reasons that don't have a sexual parallel
that I can think of. When Angel first bites her, her eyes widen
in what looks to me like shock at how much it hurts (I half expected
her to have a line later like "If I'd known it hurt that
much, I'd've worked harder to kill them all), not a climax. I
saw crushing the pitcher as Buffy putting her will & strength
into something other than throwing Angel off her. And I wouldn't
equate unconsciousness from loss of blood w/peacefulness of any
kind.
racoon:
"Drusilla siring Spike, on the other hand, is a telling example
of the contradictory elements involved. His expression in FFL
is first one of astonishment, then pain and distaste, then exquisite
pleasure."
I didn't see pleasure here, either. It looked & sounded to me
more like "Hey, that hurts, what are you doing? Oh my GOD,
that REALLY hurts!" & then realizing that Drusilla is actually
killing him. At the end I saw a combination of pain & approaching
unconsciousness. (Actually, I was a little disappointed that the
scene was played for laughs as much as it was, w/William's entire
dialog during the bite consisting of "Ow!")
Second, on Buffy & Spike,
Malandanza:
"For me, Spike's obsession with Buffy has followed this pattern
-- being less about Buffy and more about Angel/Angelus."
I'd say it was all about himself. He keeps projecting his feelings
for Buffy onto her, most tellingly in OMWF after both have left
the Magic Box. He sings, "The torch I bear is scorching me/Buffy's
laughing, I've no doubt." First, he knows what Buffy's been
going through after her resurrection. Second, all her friends
have apparently refused to help her, leaving her to face alone
a foe who's already shown his ability to control all of them.
Third, it's Tuesday, & Dawn's in trouble. Buffy has so much else
on her mind she can hardly bring herself to care about Dawn, & Spike
thinks she's sparing even enough attention to laugh at him? Then
there's Crush, in which he says he tries to get her out of his
mind but she "won't leave." She has no idea this has
even been going on, but to him it's her fault, as though she's
putting herself in his mind! Unlike many posters, I think Buffy
has not been attracted to Spike before the current season & has
been clueless about his feelings, not her own.
I'll have more to say about their final scene in Smashed, unless
I find out when I read further that someone else has said what
I want to.
Third, I disagree in different ways w/2 posters on the "impotence"
scene btwn. Willow & Spike. I agree w/vandalia about how funny
it is--it looks like Willow's about to die, Spike clutches his
head, &...they have the impotence talk. Perfect example of
deflating a tense moment w/comic relief.
Malandanza quotes Masquerade:
"From this point of view, Willow's need for reassurance about
her desirability is not so funny. A vampire's bite is about predatory
violence, and in this case, revenge. To think of it as sexy is
to equate all such attacks with the more benevolent moment from
Graduation, and to forget how even then Buffy had to coerce Angel
to feed on her and that she almost died as a result of it."
Seemed to me Willow was playing for time until the moment vandalia
describes below. After all, at that point neither of them knew
Spike couldn't hurt her in other ways. Like many women in abusive
situations, she's trying to appease him to protect herself. And
remember, she did smash the lamp over his head when she got the
chance. I thought she did very well for herself in that scene.
vandalia:
"Its when Willow (re)realizes that they're NOT talking about
sex but rather killing her and turning her into a vampire ('You're
being too hard on yourself. Why don't we wait a half an hour and
try again? Or...' (She whacks him with a lamp and runs) that she
takes action."
Considering that Spike had already tried again (twice, I think),
I don't think Willow was ever unaware of what they were really
talking about. To come back around to the discussion of Malandanza's
metaphor, a vampire attack seems to me much more like murder than
like rape.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Word Choice
-- Malandanza, 00:17:16 11/27/01 Tue
"So where is the rape in this scene? Is it suggestive and
full of double-entendre? Yup. Vampires, sex/death etc etc. Been
there, deconstructed that. Is Spike threatening Willow with biting/something
else? Yep. So what does Willow do? She says 'no, you're not going
to bite me.' And what does big, bad evil Spike do in return? He
says, 'All right.' Just like that. No threatened staking, no screaming
for help, no being dragged off her by Xander, he states his desires,
Willow objects, and Spike acquiesces. There was absolutely no
way she could've stopped him. She said no, he said ok. Not exactly
the pattern of a serial rapist here."
I have said that Spike "threatened" Willow with rape
and that the scene in The Initiative was "more than a little
suggestive." Nowhere did I say that Spike raped Willow. Masquerade's
comment about The Initiative are better than any I could invent
-- that the scene is a metaphor for rape is undeniable.
As for the scene from Lover's Walk, I can't help but feel you
are being a bit disingenuous when you say that "Spike acquiesces"
-- in fact, Willow did have a means of bargaining and she used
it -- the promise of the love spell. Spike calls off his attack,
but tells her that if she fails, Xander dies, then she tries again.
So was Spike just joking around? From Willow's point of view,
I doubt it mattered -- she thought it was real. One of the things
I like about the shooting scripts is the stage direction. Look
at the scene again, sans dialogue, from Willow's point of view:
He abruptly turns and crosses to a chest, grabs a half-finished
bottle of mescal. Swigs mightily... He grabs her by the back of
the head, brings her close... He smashes the bottle on a bedpost,
holds the jagged end inches from Willow's face... She is practically
crying with terror, weakly mewling:
So I am stuck talking about Spike again. Yet Marie's original
question had little to do with him:
"Where, in any of the episodes, have you seen anything, or
heard mention of, vampires raping?"
Am I alone in believing that Angelus was a rapist as well as a
murderer? The scene with the Gypsy, with Angelus slowly working
his hand up the thigh of a bound and struggling Gypsy girl...
where was that leading? Other scenes with Angelus have not been
quite as provocative, but the suggestion is frequently there.
So Spike joins Darla and Angelus as the very junior member of
their band. He is pathetically eager to fit in. Isn't it possible
that at some point on one of their rampages he decided to emulate
his "yoda"?
Back to the shooting script -- note the motivation for Spike's
distress in this scene from Crush:
BUFFY: Spike... The only chance you had with me was when I was
unconscious. Spike registers his disappointment. Why hadn't he
thought of that? Then, his rage building, he ROARS
The cut scene from Smashed (from the official site)
Down in Spike's crypt, the bleached bloodsucker prepares to stick
it to the Slayer by pulling out several goodies, including a stun
gun, a rope, chains, padlocks and handcuffs. Then, he puts on
a Roxy Music record, lights some candles, sets up flowers and
then puts rose petals on the bed. When he is content with his
preparation, he bolts from the crypt in search of Buffy.
A stun gun and handcuffs was awaiting Buffy had she answered Spike's
phone call.
So maybe it's all a big mistake. Spike is gentleman -- these circumstances
are all, well, circumstantial. He would never have really acted
on his evil intentions.
Fine.
What about the vamps in AtW? Were they just a bunch of misunderstood
kids out for a good time? What was that episode about if it wasn't
about rape?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Word
Choice -- Marie, 06:18:37 11/27/01 Tue
Well, I seem to have started something here, don't I?!
Can I start my reply by stating that, as someone who has been
raped, I am, naturally, coming at this from an emotional point
of view. That is not to say that I am in any way hysterical over
what happened to me a long time ago, but there are still sensitive
spots. One of them being what I perceive as a rather casual use
of the term rape.
Another important point, and may I stress once again that this
is MY opinion - I'm not trying to make anyone else think as I
do - is that I am very aware of any nuances in speech and action
that smack of attempted rape, and I have to say that I have NEVER
felt this in any of the episodes that I have seen of BtVS. Of
course, I haven't actually seen any of Season 6, so I can't comment
on them specifically. Now I come to your own comments:
I have said that Spike "threatened" Willow with rape
and that the scene in The Initiative was "more than a little
suggestive." Nowhere did I say that Spike raped Willow. Masquerade's
comment about The Initiative are better than any I could invent
-- that the scene is a metaphor for rape is undeniable.
To me, this scene was suggestive of a drunk vampire who suddenly
felt a little horny, and didn't care who he had. Now I have pushed
off some drunken advances in my time, and didn't feel that when
I did, the guy was going to rape me!
As for the scene from Lover's Walk, I can't help but feel you
are being a bit disingenuous when you say that "Spike acquiesces"
-- in fact, Willow did have a means of bargaining and she used
it -- the promise of the love spell. Spike calls off his attack,
but tells her that if she fails, Xander dies, then she tries again.
So was Spike just joking around? From Willow's point of view,
I doubt it mattered -- she thought it was real. One of the things
I like about the shooting scripts is the stage direction. Look
at the scene again, sans dialogue, from Willow's point of view:
He abruptly turns and crosses to a chest, grabs a half-finished
bottle of mescal. Swigs mightily... He grabs her by the back of
the head, brings her close... He smashes the bottle on a bedpost,
holds the jagged end inches from Willow's face... She is practically
crying with terror, weakly mewling
Here, again, I think you are seeing this from a different point
of view than me, and we have to agree to disagree. He's drunk,
violent, wants to eat her, may want to have sex with her, but
he didn't need much dissuading, did he? The act of a violent,
murdering monster, maybe, but NOT the act of a rapist.
Am I alone in believing that Angelus was a rapist as well as a
murderer? The scene with the Gypsy, with Angelus slowly working
his hand up the thigh of a bound and struggling Gypsy girl...
where was that leading? Other scenes with Angelus have not been
quite as provocative, but the suggestion is frequently there.
Again, I feel that this is something you might be seeing, but
not me. Angelus starts his feeding on the girl's thigh, it's true.
Not nice, and a little shocking, yes, given that we normally see
vampires go straight for the neck, but not necessarily something
that will lead to rape. There has never been a suggestion, that
I've heard, that Angelus raped - he liked to torture, he liked
to drive his victims insane, he liked to 'arrange' them after
death, and most of all he fed. Darla was his sex partner.
So Spike joins Darla and Angelus as the very junior member of
their band. He is pathetically eager to fit in. Isn't it possible
that at some point on one of their rampages he decided to emulate
his "yoda"?
"Isn't it possible/"?? If you use imagination, anything
is possible, I guess - and that's just what you seem to be doing
here. YOU are deciding it is possible that he rapes, this is not
written or shown, YOU decided - to me, Spike is eager to show
he's a bad guy, an evil guy, has 'street cred', if you like. Nothing
indicates rape in these scenes.
Back to the shooting script -- note the motivation for Spike's
distress in this scene from Crush:
BUFFY: Spike... The only chance you had with me was when I was
unconscious. Spike registers his disappointment. Why hadn't he
thought of that? Then, his rage building, he ROARS
AGAIN - you are the one putting your own interpretation on this
scene. "Why hadn't he thought of that?"?? Your words,
not the writers. I didn't see this as disappointment that he hadn't
taken Buffy when she was out cold, but that he was disappointed
she didn't feel the same way he did; didn't love him. She makes
him mad, yes, but not because he could've raped her and didn't!
The cut scene from Smashed (from the official site)
Down in Spike's crypt, the bleached bloodsucker prepares to stick
it to the Slayer by pulling out several goodies, including a stun
gun, a rope, chains, padlocks and handcuffs. Then, he puts on
a Roxy Music record, lights some candles, sets up flowers and
then puts rose petals on the bed. When he is content with his
preparation, he bolts from the crypt in search of Buffy.
A stun gun and handcuffs was awaiting Buffy had she answered Spike's
phone call.
OK. I haven't seen S6, as I've said. But reading this, the word
that jumps out at me is 'cut'. If we're playing guessing games
now, can I guess that the writers weren't comfortable with the
thought of writing Spike as having to stun Buffy to get her to
sleep with him? Can I guess that they obviously don't see him
as a rapist?
What about the vamps in AtW? Were they just a bunch of misunderstood
kids out for a good time? What was that episode about if it wasn't
about rape?
Well, I can't answer this one, because you don't include any relevant
quotes that might convince me - perhaps someone else who's seen
it will do so.
I hope I haven't come across as someone whining about the fact
that "Hey, I was raped, you can't say things like that!"
I don't mean to, honestly. I truly believe that you are certainly
entitled to your opinion on this subject. I just don't feel the
same, and none of your arguments so far have convinced me to feel
otherwise.
Marie
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Word Choice -- Malandanza, 08:00:18 11/27/01 Tue
"AGAIN - you are the one putting your own interpretation
on this scene. "Why hadn't he thought of that?"?? Your
words, not the writers."
Actually, those are the writer's words. It's a direct quote from
the shooting script. If you haven't seen psyche's transcript and
Shooting Scripts site, you ought to -- it's great -- especially
if you can't see the new episodes where you are. Summaries never
do justice to the writers.
As for the cut scene -- at first I dismissed it as a hoax -- but
it appeared in the episode summary on the official site. To me,
this says the scene was filmed and was meant to be shown (why
else would it appear in the official summary?) Maybe they decided
it was too out of character for Spike and cut it for that reason,
and maybe they cut it to squeeze in an extra commercial. Until
the DVD comes out, we won't know if they intended this scene to
be part of the episode.
I can accept that Spike is not a rapist. His primary motivations
are uncontrollable violence and unrestrained sexuality -- I don't
think it's a stretch to say that at some point in his checkered
past he combined his two favorite pastimes. But I don't think
it's an impossibility that the only women he has known have been
Dru, Harmony and Buffy -- he has an obsessive nature that might
pass for constancy.
The Angelus/Gypsy scene, however, is different. I do think the
intent was to show just how evil Angelus was -- that he raped
the Gypsy girl while Darla watched. Here we part ways.
The shooting script for All the Way isn't out yet -- but there's
the link for the transcript -- not as good as the actual script
since it doesn't have writer's commentary and certainly more open
to interpretation without being able to see MT's reactions.
Essentially, the episode is about Dawn and her young friend (Freshmen)
slipping away from parental control to spend the evening with
older boys (Juniors or Seniors when they had been vamped). Both
girls find themselves in powerless situations -- only the timely
interventions of Giles, Buffy and Spike prevent disaster. This
episode is particularly chilling to me because of the pervasive
nature of "date rape" in this country -- it is becoming
a rite of passage for young girls. I work with teen-agers and
I have heard otherwise decent young men (Seniors) from good families
discussing which of the incoming Freshmen girls are most "doable"
and taking bets on who will "hook-up" with them first.
We can debate about how much consent is involved, and you can
say that the girls shouldn't have allowed themselves to get into
these situation, but these are situations where the power lies
entirely with the men. At 15, a girl isn't driving -- if she's
in a deserted area where she's unsure of how to get back home
and scared of what else might be out on the streets, there is
little chance of escape. If it's her first experience, there is
intense pressure to conform mixed with fear and naivete (and sometimes
first time use of alcohol). This isn't the first time that BtVS
has looked at "date rape" (Reptile Boy, The Initiative,
even WttHM, depending upon your interpretation) but it is the
first time that the entire episode has dealt with the subject.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Word Choice - my last words, I promise! -- Marie, 14:43:22
11/27/01 Tue
OK. I seem to have brought you round on the subject of Spike,
and we'll have to agree to disagree on Angelus and the rest of
the vamps, huh?!
As to date rape, that's actually what happened to me, only they
didn't call it that in those days (showing my age, now!), so I
don't think I'll go there. When I finally get to see "All
the Way", I'm going to watch it with special interest after
our discussions, and I may well get back to you on it... you have
been warned!
It's been an interesting discussion, and, while I never wanted
to preach on this subject, I hope it's made anyone who's been
reading it think about their use of the word rape in general conversations.
Marie
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Excellent points Rowan -- Liq, 17:17:59 11/23/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Outstanding, OnM. You dust Jeff Jensen (at EW). -- mundusmundi,
07:24:53 11/23/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Hummm, that could be bad. Does he have allergies?
-- OnM, 11:30:35 11/23/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Thanks OnM! -- Cactus Watcher, 07:50:48 11/23/01 Fri
Thought provoking as usual.
I'm not sure I agree with your stereo-sexual algebra. But, it
goes to show that an intelligently presented argument is worth
pondering whether you agree or not. Wisewoman's offering helped
me from being bored to death watching a couple of really bad football
games with the guys yesterday. Surely there'll be another bad
game or two before the holiday weekend is over. Plenty of time
to ponder algebra. ;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Fantastic post OnM! And thanks for the lesson on stereo
radio. I always wondered how that worked. -- A8, 11:51:41 11/23/01
Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Great stuff, OnM... -- Wisewoman, 15:57:49 11/23/01 Fri
I'm going to read this over again when I get home from work tonight,
but I know you've touched on at least some of the points I've
been mulling over, which are the differences between domination/submission,
sado-masochism, partner-abuse, and passion.
I love Steinem, but I personally feel she gets on some pretty
shakey ground when she tries to deal with issues of physical/emotional
(rather than intellectual/political) passion.
Thanks for another wonderful review!
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Sex and Human Nature -- Aquitaine, 18:33:22 11/23/01
Fri
Very thought-provoking review OnM. I think I will follow your
lead and reserve my... reservations about your submissive/dominant
equation until I see "Wrecked". All I will say here
is that I thought that both parties got a taste of wielding the
power. That's what the fight was about IMO. Reciprocal interaction
as a prerequisite to intercourse.
I too found it interesting that when the power conflict was at
an impasse, something new occurred that moved Buffy and Spike
into a different kind of exchange, one from which they can both
learn about themselves, accept things about themselves. Maybe
they found their true limboesque natures. Not human, not little
girl, not vampire...
They got 'high' but then fell back to earth. I don't see them
as addicts.
Willow, however, is "a bloody mess". LOL. Poor soul.
I like your theory on what Buffy may be. Immortal. Hmm. Possible.
Immortal, zombie, soulless, angel, demon, half-demon, Messiah...
or maybe she's just fine and we are being led down a false alley.
BTW, for anyone who's interested in why we make the sexual choices
we make, I just bought a book titled "The Red Queen: Sex
and the Evolution of Human Nature". The author's name is
Matt Ridley. I've only just cracked it open but it looks very
interesting...
-Aquitaine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Sex, death, rock and roll, and other trivialities
-- Fred, the obvious pseudonym, 19:52:01 11/23/01 Fri
A wiser person would just add a heartfelt "Wow!" to
the chorus praising OnM, Rowan, Aquitaine (is there an Eleanor
in there?) and others. A wiser person would not risk making oneself
foolish by comparison with this brilliance. I do, however, tend
to yield to temptation.
At least literary.
Applause to Whedon & Co. for being able to sneak some really powerful
themes past the vanilla-custard of commercial TV. There is, I
think, a very powerful connection between sexual aggression and
violence, one exploited shamelessly by American film but dodged
by civil discourse in America.
To take the initiative in either an approach to sex or an approach
to mortal combat requires powerful self-assurance. In either case
one is risking either emotional (at least, if you are proposing
sex with someone important to you) or physical damage. (If it's
a really odd sexual relationship you may be risking both.) You've
got to believe going in that you have the "right stuff"
and will prevail, or at least, survive the experience. I think
this self-assurance may well carry over from one to the other
acts.
Let's look at some examples from the Buffyverse, especially Spike's
episode during the Boxer Rebellion. Not having seen Fool for Love,
I don't know how or why Spike entered his mortal clash with the
Chinese slayer. I don't know if he chose it or was somehow forced
into it. (A side-excursion -- perhaps Spike had his own death
-- or "un-death" -- wish at that time; messing with
a Slayer is not a good way to prolong your vampiric existence.
Spike may have had enough of being bottom vamp on the Angelus-crowd
totem pole. If he was dusted he was out of it; if he prevailed
his status would change, as indeed it did. Maybe this experience
gave him the personal insight to understand the Slayer death-wish.)
In any event Spike's victory gave him a surge of confidence which
translated immediately into aggressive coitus with Drusilla. He
had taken a risk and conquered in doing something which she, despite
her seniority, had NOT done -- kill a Slayer. In vampire circles
challenging and killing a Slayer has to earn a certain level of
respect; it's not done that often and your chance of survival
can't be too good.
Just thought of this; it's interesting that Drusilla dumps Spike
only AFTER she kills her own Slayer -- Kendra -- in Becoming,
end of Season Two. Perhaps by this act of violence and "victory"
[from her perspective -- a.) I categorically reject murder as
a way to enhance self-esteem and b.) I apologize to all Kendra-fans
out there] she was able to re-establish her own relative dominance
and break away from Spike.
I'd like to take exception to Andrea Dworkin (I think) and others
who consider that this connection between sex and violence is
a given, a discrediting factor in sex. (Didn't Dworkin or another
of her supporters argue that all acts of sex are acts of rape
-- the exploitation of women by the patriarchy?)
Violence need never (and SHOULD never) actually occur in a relationship.
But I think people need to feel confident in their capacity to
use violence, if only in self-defense; if your entire existence
is dependent on the good-will and risk of others your own status,
in your own mind if nowhere else, is probably quite low. This
lack of confidence may carry over into an unwillingness to challenge
yourself in proposing a sexual relationship. At the very least
someone who is desirable to you will probably be desirable to
others, who may well use the threat of violence to get you to
abandon your romantic pursuits and surrender your potential lover
to them. (This actually happened to a friend of mine; his rival
had a local reputation for violence. My friend sensibly abandoned
his interest.)
So where does this leave Spike and Buffy? Both have demonstrated
confidence in their own ability to use violence for their ends.
Spike is, I believe, quite confident in his sexual nature; Buffy,
as others have opined, is not. This is an interesting contradiction;
the little blonde female is not sure of her own ability to maintain
a sexual relationship, functional or otherwise, but is absolutely
sure of her ability to kill monsters and break things.
In the sex scene at the end of "Smashed," it's interesting
also that Buffy starts the exchange (IIRC) by smacking Spike.
Chip or no, she obviously isn't too worried about her ability
to "take" Spike (again, note the correlation in terms
between violence and aggressive sex). The ensuing . . . "exchange"
moves, possibly consciously, from Buffy's "zone of comfort"
(hand-to-hand combat) to her zone of discomfort (sex). I understand
that this progress from actions associated with comfort to actions
associated with higher anxiety levels is common in treatment of
various low-level psychological disorders. (Spike, therefore,
may be acting as a bloodsucking sexual therapist.)
If the teaser for "Wrecked" is accurate, Spike arises
the "morning after" (so to speak) crowing over his sexual
conquest of Buffy. Now Spike isn't stupid. He's got to know that
this behavior will really piss the Slayer off.
So why does he do this? Perhaps it's because he wants Buffy to
learn something about herself from her reaction. A "nice"
girl will either be deeply dejected over such a betrayal or accept
this as an example of male idiocy. I expect Buffy to react with
"Sexual conquest? I'll show you sexual conquest, you schmuck!"
Of course, it is possible that Spike is being dense. In either
event, his broken bones should heal quickly.
One other item; there's an excellent article that deals (among
other things) with the relationship between violence in war and
sex. It's called "Why Men Love War," Esquire, November
1984. Check it out.
Thanks for your indulgence.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Ok, so where can I find that article..........
-- Rufus, 20:22:15 11/23/01 Fri
Who isn't sure what Esquire is........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Ok, so where can I find that article..........
-- JBone, 20:05:29 11/25/01 Sun
Esquire is a pretentious, white collar, mens magazine. I tried
to get into the habit of reading it when I was a younger man,
but much like my attempts at drinking coffee, I could never develop
a taste for it. I'm not sure about the article in question, but
you can find the magazine itself online at
http://www.esquire.com/
They never had much respect for beer drinkers, and although it's
been years since I've seen a issue, I'd bet anything that they'd
mock the buffy viewership. They were always above everything.
If you couldn't tell before, I hate the "aristocratic"
sensiblility. Only, for them, it wasn't what you where born to,
but how you lived. And I can't go a week without bleeding from
a new scratch or at the very least, some dirt under my fingernails.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Thanks..... -- Rufus, 00:19:56 11/26/01
Mon
Couldn't find a thing though.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> The morning after... -- rowan, 20:22:32 11/23/01
Fri
"If the teaser for "Wrecked" is accurate, Spike
arises the "morning after" (so to speak) crowing over
his sexual conquest of Buffy. Now Spike isn't stupid. He's got
to know that this behavior will really piss the Slayer off."
As we see from the promo, it appears the teaser will immediately
address the morning after. It is interesting to note that Buffy
uses Angel's words from The Prom about the B/A ship to describe
her night with Spike. Denial!Buffy returns. I suspect Spike's
attitude is directly designed to counter those defenses. I'm expecting
some frank male appreciation for both the events of the evening
before as well as for the sight of a totally nude Buffy desperately
trying to get dressed, LOL.
I await this episode with interest. Of course, The Prom came before
Graduation Day 2, which included the scene I talked about above
with Angel feeding from Buffy and leaving his *mark* upon her
(both his predatory, sexual and physical mark). I note that the
promo includes a shot of Spike leaving his mark on Buffy somewhere
on her right throat/breast area. It will be interesting to speculate
on what the differences may mean. I also think I notice a similar
mark that Buffy may have left on Spike during the evening's activities
(not that I've watched the promo obsessively or anything, LOL).
But maybe my eyesight is overreaching.
Anyway, I await Tuesday!
rowan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Yeah.......let her explain matching "battle
scars" to the other Scoobies..........:) -- Rufus, 20:29:16
11/23/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> I'm waiting for Scoobyheads to start
exploding in Fury's 6.11 ep, Rufus! -- rowan, 20:38:43 11/23/01
Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: The morning after... -- Dyna, 14:30:08
11/24/01 Sat
I know we really have to wait to see "Wrecked" to figure
this out, but the promo may be using Spike's words as misdirection.
We hear them over the visual of him smiling at her, suggesting
some morning-after smugness; but when the promo cuts to the scene
where he's actually saying the words, he and Buffy are on the
street, at night, and he appears to be angry.
I'm now eagerly awaiting both the episode, and whatever brilliant
commentary rowan decides to make on it!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> "bloodsucking sexual therapist" ROFL
-- Traveler, 20:46:13 11/23/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Sex, death, rock and roll, and other trivialities
-- Aquitaine, 21:47:50 11/23/01 Fri
Gracious! What a lovely addition your post is to this thread,
Fred.
To take the initiative in either an approach to sex or an approach
to mortal combat requires powerful self-assurance.
Personally, I am amazed at how consistently Spike lays it all
down on the line (on a personal note, that's what makes him so
appealing to 'moi'). Spike is not the strongest vampire around.
Never was, never will be. He takes risks for fun, true, but it's
what 'animates' him, this penchant for 'fights he may not win'.
He's always ready to lose. Relishes the chance to lose it all.
As Drusilla indicated to William before she vamped him: "Your
wealth lies here (touches his temple) and here (touches his heart)
In the spirit and... imagination (touches his family jewels).
You walk in worlds the others can't begin to imagine." Now,
both Revenant!Buffy and Spike have walked in worlds others can't
begin to imagine. Sometimes I think that Tara took over from Dru
as the voice of ME.
I think Spike can teach Buffy to become a little bit less reticent
sexually and emotionally. OTOH, Buffy can coax him into honouring
his promises (to protect Dawn) and honouring his debt (at the
end of TR Spike declares he's no welcher while at the beg. of
the episode, he ran away from his responsibility). So, to grow
up Buffy needs to be less prim and repressed; Spike needs to be
more restrained.
***
You make an excellent point about Dru leaving Spike after killing
Kendra. She left when she gained status rather than when had lost
his. Entirely possible.
***
I agree that Buffy's seminal, cough, change in attitude vis-à-vis
sex was brought on by Spike's coaxing. Like you, one thing I am
not sure about is whether he is consciously bringing her to this
climax;) What I mean is, if and when he gloats the morning after,
is that just his personality at work or does he realise that he
is pushing just the right buttons to get Buffy suitably flustered?
Could be a bit of both.
I like to think there was a reason (mainly that he wanted to be
the Chosen One's chosen one himself) behind all his mockery of
her choice in partners (Angel, Parker, Riley). And I hope that
inasmuch as he has always pointed out her weaknesses and played
to her insecurities, he won't take aim at her self-esteem now
that he's had his one good day/lay.
-Aquitaine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> He gets past her defenses... -- rowan,
05:05:30 11/24/01 Sat
At this point in Buffy's life, she is so entrenched behind her
emotional defenses (particularly against men), I think that anything
that can reach her has to be characterized as a good thing (as
long as it doesn't kill her, LOL!). So for right now, I put Spike
in that category. He can consistently get behind whatever walls
she puts up. Sometimes it isn't a pretty thing to watch, I'll
grant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Is "wrong" the right word? -- Rufus, 20:27:10
11/23/01 Fri
Spike is only assuming that something is "wrong" with
the returned Buffy. Why do I think that he may be in for a surprise.
With a journey through the myth of the divine child going on over
at Angel, why is it a surprise that we may get Buffy as divine
messenger(angel) story?
I can't comment much on this week because I think that we may
have to look at both Smashed and Wrecked together to come to any
sure conclusions. Except for Willow being screwed up.....no mistake
there.
As usual I waited for your article on the ep and wasn't dissapointed........except
with the fact I've mixed up stereo equiptment and sex.........:):):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Strange bedfellows... -- OnM, 23:00:29 11/23/01 Fri
...except with the fact I've mixed up stereo equipment and sex...
Yeah, I know. Me so Evil!
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Wow, OnM... -- Isabel, 22:43:17 11/24/01 Sat
I'm always learning something new when I read your posts. I never
understood how stereo was different.
Now I have to wait for the end of your train of thought which
will be late NEXT week! I am not the most patient of people....
Oh, well. I look forward to your next topics, Professor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
more on B/S and sex SPOILERISH
-- yabyumpan, 20:36:44 11/23/01 Fri
I'm going to aproach this purely on the sexual nature of Buffy
(as I see it). There's been a lot of discussion about what Buffy
is now, after she's been raised (demon/angel etc), but I think
to get some insight into her sexual nature we also need to look
at what she was before. She thinks of herself as Human and so
do we but I think she has always been more/other than that. She
is the Slayer, the chosen one, I would say she is human in a way
no one else on the planet is (except Faith), she has superhuman
strength and abilities, she is Supra Human, possibly even Mutant
Human. What does that mean in terms of her sexuality? I think
it means that up untill now she has had to hold herself back sexually.
When she had sex with Angel she was seventeen, just, and a virgin;
although I'm sure she gave as much of her self as she could I
think there was probably an element of "first time nerves",
being aware that her partner was much more expierienced than she
was, wanting to "get it right", all thing things that
anyone has on their first time; also she was just comming into
her sexualilty, testing it for the first time. However good your
first time was, it still definatly gets better with age and expirience.
When Angel/Angelus taunted her about it the next day, she was
unsure enough about her sexuality to take it on board and ask
what she'd done wrong. With Parker it was like rebound sex and
after her first time, where the man literally turned into a monster
(most of us have just had to deal with the metophorical monster
in the morning!), she must have been wary about giving herself
fully. With Rielly she may have felt that she gave herself fully
but as has been said in an earlier post, even after great sex,
she still needed to get up and do some Slaying. I think she really
needs to have someone as her physical equal before she can really
let go. She could literally crush a man to death in the throws
of passion (as in a recent Bond movie where the female assasin
killed the men by literally squeezing the life out of them with
her thighs as she was having sex with them), I think unconsciously
she knows that and so holds herself back. With Rielly, although
she was attracted to him she wouldn't allow herself to get close,
she didn't want to hurt him, although on a conscious level this
was to do with her Slaying, unconsciously it may have had something
to do with her not feeling he was physically strong enough for
her sexually. It wasn't untill they had battled together and he
had in some way proved himself that they became sexual with one
another. OK, Spike....I think sexually there are lots of layers
to this. She is the Slayer, destined to kill Vampires etc but
she also gets a sexual high from this (although deeply hidden
and denied). Her first sexual expirience was with a vampire and
although that turned out bad the sex was probably great, she was
sexually attracted to Dracula, even if part of that was the thrall
he put her under, there was also an underlying sexual attraction;
so I think she does equate Vampires with sexuallity, unconscious
though it may be. Spike's right, there has always been some sort
of connection between them; when he first came on the scene, they
found out he had already killed two Slayers, so unlike battles
with other Vamps, it was already personal. They teamed up to help
battle Angelus and fought as equals, in sunlight, when he was
waring the Ring of Amarah. Since he got chipped the relationship
has been an unequal one, he is nolonger a threat physically and
has gone from being an adversary to punch bag to confident. I
think the attraction to him has steadily grown but he is "beneath
her", I don't think this just refers to his demonness but
also to the fact that he is physically unable to hurt her. Again,
it is only when he has proved himself able to hurt her, to be
her physical equal that she is able to be sexual with him, and
she really did seem to give herself fully. Living in the UK I
haven't seen the ep but I did download the final scene and as
I was watching it a line from the film Red Sonja came into my
head; Red Sonja is a warrier who teams up with another male warrier
to fight evil, after a battle thy start to get sexually close
when RS jumps up and challenges the man to a fight to the death,
he has to prove himself worthy of her, the male warrier says "so
in order to love you, I have to try to kill you first". Spike
is her physical equal, he could possibly kill her, she can't "break"
him, there is, at last, no reason to hold herself back. She can
be fully expresive of her sexuality, probably for the first time.
Sexually, Spike is probably her perfect partner. Of course he
isn't in other ways but I think the above does go some way to
explain the attraction and explosive sex, with him she can sexually
express her self fully and I think all of us, men and women, are
always looking for a sexual partner we can do that with. Anyway,
just some thoughts from a sleep-deprived shift worker still adjusting
from nights to days. apologies for spelling mistakes and typos.
I'd like to know your feedback yabyumpan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I couldn't agree more -- Wisewoman, 21:04:15 11/23/01 Fri
I think you've really covered the key issue with Buffy and sex,
and the unbreakability of Spike. It wouldn't have happened if
he hadn't be able to prove he was capable of fighting back.
What's interesting to me is just how much of this sexual interaction
between Buffy and her vampires has arisen out of the chemistry
between SMG and DB, and SMG and JM. I understand that initially
both Angel and Spike were seen as being guest players, with a
limited expiration date. Because they worked as characters Joss
found ways to keep them around, or bring them back. I think this
may also have played a significant part in the greying of the
vampires in the Jossverse...iow, if Angel, Darla, Drusilla, Spike
had fulfilled their limited roles and been duly dusted we might
never have had the incredibly convoluted and fascinating explorations
into the nature of good and evil that we've had in the last six
years.
Well done!
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> fact check: did joss know where the series was going
when it started? -- LL, 23:47:46 11/23/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Joss does not plan out every little detail --
Tanker, 06:03:31 11/24/01 Sat
According to what he and other Mutant Enemy people have said,
he plans out some of the larger events, but not the episode-to-episode
details, and he leaves himself plenty of wiggle room in case things
don't work out, or, in the case of Spike, Angel and Anya, work
out better than expected.
Or in case he just plain changes his mind. When Sarah brought
up the idea of Buffy and Spike a couple of seasons ago, Joss'
initial reaction was "No! No more vampires!" She and
James have probably been working on changing Joss' mind ever since.
Things that were planned at least a couple of seasons in advance
were Dawn's arrival and Joyce's death. But Joss didn't plan out
the entire course of the series back in Season 1. Heck, back then
they didn't even know if there would be a Season 2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Right. He's said the story comes to
him in increments. -- mundusmundi, 06:59:11 11/24/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Sarah pitched Buffy/Spike? -- Traveler,
08:09:15 11/24/01 Sat
I didn't know that... where did you get this juicy information
from?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Sarah pitched Buffy/Spike? --
MayaPapaya9, 12:00:41 11/24/01 Sat
Sarah's said it in a lot of magazine articles. I'm glad she was
able to change Joss' mind, cause that whole "normal guy"
thing was sickening.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Quote from Joss Whedon re. Buffy 'coming back'
-- Marie, 06:57:05 11/26/01 Mon
How will we bring her back? With great difficulty, of course.
And pain and confusion. Will it be cheezy? I don't think so. (I've
loved some of the theories here on how it might be done.) The
fact is, we've had most of next season planned before we ever
shot this ep. Same writers you know, same actors you love, same
crappy little warehouse we've been shooting in for five years...
Different network. But we've never been controlled by the network
-- WB was great about that, UPN has already shown they will be
too. The only difference is that Marti will share exec prod credit
with me, and it's about time she did. I'm in charge.
Okay, that's a lie. The STORY is in charge, the story that keeps
on speaking to me, that says there is much more to tell about
all these characters. An ensemble this brilliant could easily
carry the show even without the Slayer -- but the fact is, even
though she reached some beauty closure, Buffy's story isn't over.
When it is, I'll know. And we'll stop. Til then, have faith. (not
faith the character -- she's making movies and stuff.)
This is from the Bronze VIP archives, May 2001. There was also
another, which I couldn't find, in which he says that Buffy won't
be coming back the same, but still 'good'. And he also says "I
like Buffy".
So it seems to me that someone who likes the character so much,
couldn't plan anything truly bad for her... could he? There was
also another interview, round about the same time, with Marti
Noxon, in which she says that by the time they were half-way through
filimg S5, Joss had pretty much mapped out most of S6!
Marie
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I couldn't agree more -- Kerri, 12:53:02 11/24/01
Sat
"I think you've really covered the key issue with Buffy and
sex, and the unbreakability of Spike. It wouldn't have happened
if he hadn't be able to prove he was capable of fighting back."
This reminded me of what Faith told Spike when she was in Buffy's
body,
Buffy: Cause I could do anything I want, and instead, I choose
to pout and whine and feel the burden of slayerness? I mean, I
couldbe rich, I could be famous, I could have anything. Anyone.
[Buffy moves closer and puts her hands on Spike's chest.] Even
you, Spike. I could ride you at a gallop until your legs buckled
and your eyes rolled up. I've got muscles you've never even dreamed
of. I could squeeze you until you popped like warm champagne,
and you'd beg me to hurt you just a little bit more. And you know
why I don't? [She moves closer and looks up at himpursing her
lips.] Because it's wrong. Humh humh. [She moves off.]
Spike: I get this chip out, you and me are gonna have a confrontation.
Buffy: Count on it. [Spike throws his bottle into the wall and
walks off. He shoves someone and clutches his head.]
And Spike's right. As soon as his chip stops working with Buffy
they certainly do have that confrontation ;)
Faith embraced her darkness and her sexuality, something Buffy
has never been able to do. Rowan mentioned in her excellent post
below that this is one of the things Buffy should have taken from
Faith. But Buffy is clearly afraid to let any of her darker impulses
take over for fear of not being able to control them and becoming
Faith. It's about balance, something neither Faith nor Buffy possess.
Buffy needs to accept her sexuality and dark side along with her
humanity to be complete and find her path.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> You hit the nail right on the head! Great post! -- Deeva,
19:42:29 11/24/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Classic Movie of the Week - November
23rd 2001 -- OnM, 22:53:04 11/23/01 Fri
*******
From a stylistic perspective, this is a beautiful film -- a color
motion picture with black-and-white sensibilities.
............ James Berardinelli
*******
Usually I wait until the very end of the column to ask the Question
of the Week, but I feel like putting it right up front this time:
Can any of you recall if Joss has done any episodes of Buffy that
could be accurately classed as film noir? Before you jump up and
wave your hand frantically about and go 'Ooo! Oooo! Call on me!
I know! I know!', I need to remind you of one or two things. First,
in your wanton enthusiasm, admirable though it may be, you have
forgotten that this is a discussion board and I can't see you.
Second, the shadowy comic humor of my first caveat is intended
to remind you that even in the darkest and most chilling past
episodes ME has always injected a degree of lighter temperament,
an often laugh-out-loud jocularity that may act to discredit the
show from claiming true Noir status.
You could argue this point, and in fact I hope that you will.
You could site Tarantino's Pulp Fiction as an example of what
most cinefolk would consider to be a classic Noir, yet it is chock
full of humor. I mean, if I had a non-sequential $20.00 bill for
each of the times humorists of all stripes have begged, borrowed
or stolen the line 'Get medieval on yer ass', I could be bribing
some sleazy publisher to make a book out of all these silly movie
reviews of mine and retire early. It really comes down to much
the same thing as trying to determine the difference between obscenity
and erotica, namely you either know it when you read/see it, or
when you get famous enough that you can have it re-released in
a fancy new edition under your actual name like a certain famous
female vampire writer we all know and love.
Nonetheless, I don't recall offhand if ME has ever done true noir
for an entire program, although certain parts of virtually every
other ep unquestionably realize it in microcosmic fashion. While
you think about it, I'm going to recommend one of the very finest
Noirs of recent years, maybe even of the whole last century, brought
to you in all it's sweaty, bloody, albeit glamorous glory by the
evil geniuses of Matrixology, the one and only Wachowski Brothers.
Back in 1996, three years before 'bullet time' (tm) and Neo falling
down the rabbit hole of externally constructed realities, the
other WB produced an equally brilliant flick called Bound, starring
Jennifer Tilly and Gina Gershon as two women who plot to steal
two million dollars from the mob and live to tell the tale. Violet
(Tilly) is the 'moll' of a Chicago mobster named Caesar, played
with perfect manic edginess by Joe Pantoliano. While riding up
the elevator to their condo one day, they meet Corky (Gershon),
who eyes Violet in a clearly sexual way. Surprisingly, Violet
eyes her back, and within less than 15 minutes of screen time
the two are engaged in some of the most erotically charged visuals
either heterosexual males or homoerotically inclined females could
hope for. (One of the many non-cliched aspects of this film is
that it neither flaunts nor conceals it's sexual explicitness,
it simply presents it de facto, as for example in Corky's words
to Violet when she incorrectly predicts Violet's intentions: Don't
apologize. One thing I can't stand is when women apologize for
wanting sex.)
Bound starts out from the very first scene to set up traditional
noir expectations, especially in regard to it's female characters,
and then proceeds to turn them every which way but conventionally.
Thus, initially we see what appears to be a classic 'damsel in
distress' scenario where Corky is tied and gagged and lying on
the floor of a closet somewhere. I have no intention of spoiling
any of the magnificent twists and turnabouts in the film, but
rest assured Corky doesn't get rescued by a knight in shiny black
Pierre Cardin any time soon. The same is true about Violet, who
very quickly dispells the myth of the mob-man's ditzy golddigger,
or that she is only a singularly attractive lust-bunny for Corky
to while away her free time with.
Caesar is also a fabulous villain for the very same reason-- it
would be typical for Bound to tweak convention half-heartedly
by having smart women defeat a violent but essentially witless
sap, but no such cop-out presents itself. Caesar may be a thug,
but he's nobody's fool, and right up until the last few minutes,
you are never quite sure just who is going to get out with their
lives and who is going to join the growing catalog of corpses.
All of the minor roles are played with equal grace and dexterity,
but special mention goes out to John P. Ryan as Caesar's immediate
'boss', Mickey Malnato, who longs for the company of a woman like
Violet, but in an honorable, almost stately fashion that contrasts
exquisitely to Caesar's 'it's all about business' definition of
his 'significant other'.
The acting work and screenwriting alone would be more than enough
to make Bound a classic, but the photographic work and editing
polish everything to a high sheen, with a continual and clever
use of light, shadow, color, texture and angle that recalls the
very best work of the Cohn Brothers, Kubrick or Burton. The commentary
track on the laserdisc edition (and presumably also on the DVD)
is one of the best so far since this now-popular feature emerged
from some years back, offering numerous and engagingly presented
tidbits regarding the visuals, actors, production travails and
so on.
So, the only other comment I wish to add is this one: Make yourself
an offer you can't refuse, and see Bound this weekend. It's one
hot little winner, hands down.
E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,
OnM
*******
Freshly laundered technical currency:
Bound is available on DVD. As previously mentioned, the review
copy was on laserdisc, so I cannot verify whether there are any
extended features on the DVD, but it is likely. The film was released
in 1996, and running time is 1 hour and 48 minutes for the 'R'
rated version and 1 hr / 49 min for the unrated version. (My guess
is they excised some critical bits of the sex scenes, but of course
it could have been the violent stuff instead. What's your guess?
Yeah, thought so-- sex bad / death pretty. What the hell kinda
country is this, anyway? Don't answer that, we're at war, ya know.
Can we send the Taliban pictures of the naked Tilly and Gershon?
Their heads might explode, and then we'd save big bucks on artillery).
The sound mix is Dolby Digital, and original music was by Don
Davis. Cinematography was by Bill Pope, and editing by Zach Staenberg--
as mentioned, big big thumbs up to you guys, you rock! Production
design was by Eve Cauley, art direction by Andrea Dopaso and Robert
C. Goldstein, set decoration by Kristen Toscano Messina and costume
design was by Lizzy Gardiner.
Cast overview:
Gina Gershon .... Corky Jennifer Tilly .... Violet Joe Pantoliano
.... Caesar Mary Mara .... Bartender Susie Bright .... Jesse Margaret
Smith .... Woman Cop Barry Kivel .... Shelly Christopher Meloni
.... Johnnie Marzzone John P. Ryan .... Mickey Malnato Peter Spellos
.... Lou Ivan Kane .... Cop #1 Kevin Michael Richardson .... Cop
#2 Richard C. Sarafian .... Gino Marzzone Gene Borkan .... Roy
*******
Miscellaneous and the QotW:
Well, sorry, no Misc. Dept. this week. I've still not gotten to
viddy the ever-growing pile of DVD's that have been decorating
my living room for the past month or so, these damn 24 hour days
just aren't like the ones I remember when I was younger. You'll
have to amuse yourself in lieu of my normal addendal witticisms.
Try some sex. Rope is optional. Soft nylon is recommended.
The Question of the Week:
Hey, it's up there at the beginning, did you forget already? Sheesh!
Good thing I don't test you on this stuff!
Take care, see ya next week, and as always, post 'em if ya got
'em.
Peace!
*******
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Help! Need more info... --
Dumbwoman, 08:41:43 11/24/01 Sat
Ah, OnM in your enthusiasm you've forgotten just how cinematically
naive some of your audience is...I'd love to participate in your
question of the week (and I loved Bound, too) but I need a definition
of Noir that is more detailed than "French Black."
I have a fuzzy kind of idea based on your comments about Pulp
Fiction and the Cohen Brothers, but right now I'm thinking Restless
might have been Noir, so that will give you some idea of just
how fuzzy my idea is!
Help?
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Help! Need more info... -- Cactus Watcher, 14:12:43
11/24/01 Sat
Unless I'm mistaken film noir as a genre means a film similar
to the moody detective movies of the late 1940's and earlier 1950's.
They had low budgets, and were always black-and-white. Usually
most scenes were very dark, shadowy night time sets. The mood
was always gloomy, the music blue jazz, and the detective usually
drank too much. It was usually never good vs evil, but an ambiguous
hero against somewhat shadier bad guys. Humphrey Bogart's, The
Maltese Falcon really was too classy a movie to fit in that category,
but that might give you an idea of the typical story line.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Ask and ye shall receive... -- OnM, 15:13:28 11/24/01
Sat
No problemo, WW. Sorry about my presumptuousness! A quickie search
of Google came up with several sites with info on Film Noir. The
most straigtforward summary I found on short notice was this one,
at the link below. I clipped a small section of it to get you
started.
*******
FROM: http://www.german-way.com/german/noir.html
Key ingredients for film noir-- To qualify as "true"
noir, a film must contain most or all of the following:
* Required: Dark, shadowy, contrasty images filmed in black and
white (a contribution of German Expressionism) -- often at night
and usually in a gritty urban setting
* Required: Hard-boiled, cynical, disillusioned characters --
who are nevertheless usually likable
* A male protagonist facing a moral dilemma and/or some kind of
threat
* An alluring, sassy, independent and usually dangerous woman
(who often suffers for independence)
* Often: A crime or detective story (Cain, Chandler, Hammett)
* Flashbacks -- a wavering past and present, inextricably linked
* A voice-over narration (probably why I dislike the narrator-less
so-called director's cut of "Blade Runner")
* Crisp, often witty dialog, sprinkled with great one-liners
* Often: A German, Austrian or Austro-Hungarian director of the
German school (Curtiz, Lang, Maté, Preminger, Siodmak,
Ulmer, Wilder, et al)
* A healthy dose of paranoia or, at the very least, a strong sense
of insecurity, betrayal, or being trapped
* Angst, American style
* Required for "pure" film noir: NO happy ending. A
happy ending turns a film noir into a film gris or a melodrama
done in noir style.
*******
You might also check this out for a variety of links:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/education/lesson9_organizer3.html
*******
Gee, now I'm gonna have to go study some of this stuff myself!
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Thanks, guys! ;o) -- WW, 21:22:06 11/24/01 Sat
I'm havin' a think, but I'm not comin' up with any Buffy that
fits...
Need more research...see ya later!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - November 23rd 2001 -- Premiere,
12:07:08 11/24/01 Sat
It has long been one of my desires to see a "Film Noir"
BtVS. The possibilities of roles in the ep are really interesting
to ponder. Buffy as the "Shady Lady" with a big hat,
Xander, the hard-boiled detective, Spike, the criminal mastermind,
are just a few, as I said this could go in any number of ways.
As for any eps presently approaching "Film Noir", I'd
have to go with "I Only Have Eyes For You".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - November 23rd 2001 -- Vonnie,
18:10:37 11/24/01 Sat
"Bound" is bloody brilliant, but I don't know whether
I would call it a film noir (ditto Pulp Fiction). It has too much
*glee* for a noir, I think. A lot of stylistic choices, such as
mood, lighting, music, can give a film a noirish feel, but a true
noir film has an essentially pessimistic world-view, a spiritual
darkness if you like. "Bound" took the conventions of
noir genre and flipped them around in a completely delightful
fashion, but by doing so, it lost a lot of the themes that define
a film as a noir. (Geez, I sound like a snotty first year film
student. I'm not, really.) My quintessential noir picks are Tourneur's
"Out of the Past", and "In a Lonely Place"
with Humphrey Bogart. Things do not end well for our anti-heros
there. Of the recent films, I would say maybe "A Simple Plan",
and maybe "L.A. Confidential" (which kind of ruined
it at the end by the non-death of a character, who should have
died in a real noir film) qualify.
As for Buffy, despite the darkness of some of the themes, I believe
it to be ultimately an optimistic show. I can't recall any particular
episode that could be remotely called noirish. The closest I can
think of is the Wishverse, as self-contained before the destruction
of Anyanka's powercenter.
BTW...I usually lurk, but I just want to say that I really enjoy
your movie reviews. You always manages to bring out stuff I haven't
thought about a film as a casual viewer. Keep'em coming!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - November 23rd 2001
-- Andy, 04:37:52 11/25/01 Sun
""Bound" is bloody brilliant, but I don't know
whether I would call it a film noir (ditto Pulp Fiction). It has
too much *glee* for a noir, I think. A lot of stylistic choices,
such as mood, lighting, music, can give a film a noirish feel,
but a true noir film has an essentially pessimistic world-view,
a spiritual darkness if you like. "Bound" took the conventions
of noir genre and flipped them around in a completely delightful
fashion, but by doing so, it lost a lot of the themes that define
a film as a noir."
This might be among the reasons why film noir is technically defined
as a closed genre. That is, the genre only ever truly existed
from 1941, when The Maltese Falcon came out, up through 1959 when
Touch of Evil became the last "true" film noir. Everything
after that is usually regarded as a homage, such as Chinatown.
It just seems to be very difficult for filmmakers to come up with
stories that are noirish in their quality without the work feeling
self-referential in some way or another.
Actually, I think the X-Files is probably the closest thing I
can think of these days that manages to really feel like authentic
film noir even though it incorporates a lot of horror and scifi
elements :)
"Of the recent films, I would say maybe "A Simple Plan",
and maybe "L.A. Confidential" (which kind of ruined
it at the end by the non-death of a character, who should have
died in a real noir film) qualify."
Well, he had a similar near-death in the book, so they were just
being faithful :)
"As for Buffy, despite the darkness of some of the themes,
I believe it to be ultimately an optimistic show. I can't recall
any particular episode that could be remotely called noirish.
The closest I can think of is the Wishverse, as self-contained
before the destruction of Anyanka's powercenter."
Maybe Becoming? Her evil boyfriend gets turned good only to have
Buffy send him to hell, and there's much bickering and ambiguity
in the characterizations. Yeah it all ends up saving the world,
but it costs Buffy everything she has and she ends up having to
miserably leave town at the end. It just exudes a feeling of cosmic
unfairness :)
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - November 23rd 2001 -- Rattletrap,
11:53:55 11/25/01 Sun
Buffy tends to more or less steer clear of the noir style; but
Angel is almost a running homage to it through the first couple
of seasons. While not black and white, it makes heavy use of dark
colors and low lighting; and is almost always shot at night, giving
an almost monochromatic effect. Our characters are even employed
as private investigators, another key point; and our broody, angsty
hero fits in the vein of a typical noir detective--just a recoving
vampire rather than a recovering alcoholic. The series has given
us a number of women in the femme fatale role, most recently Darla.
Even the flashbacks tend to conflate past (long past) and present
much as noir type movies do.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - November 23rd 2001
-- Wisewoman, 13:21:59 11/25/01 Sun
Okay, I can see that. And Lilah makes a pretty good recurring
femme fatale as well.
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - November 23rd 2001 -- mundusmundi,
14:35:59 11/25/01 Sun
Bound is a terrific flick, a neo-noir, to get technical. The Wachowskis
have great filmmaking instincts, as The Matrix further proves.
And the matter-of-factness with which they depict the Corky/Violet
relationship has more than a few echoes with Willow/Tara; only
Corky didn't levitate off the bed.
Buffy isn't noir. I agree with 'trap that Angel is in more of
the neo-noir tradition. It should be mentioned, though, that noir
is more of a style than a subject, and that no two film scholars
can agree on a set definition or films that encompass the category.
(Personally, I prefer Paul Schrader's defining of the term, in
his "Notes on Film Noir.")
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - November 23rd 2001 -- Marie,
07:38:42 11/26/01 Mon
I don't really think that any of the Buffy episodes could be classed
as true Film Noir, but if I had to choose, I'd pick either 'I
Only Have Eyes For You' (S2) or 'Amends' (S3), if only because
they are so angst-ridden all the way through!
M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buffy and Spike -- do they have
a future? -- Earl Allison, 04:38:08 11/24/01
Just like the subject reads -- will they have a great love, like
Angel and Buffy, or even Riley and Buffy, or will it be a purely
physical, ultimately hollow and short-lived thing?
I hate to say it, due to the massive number of S/B 'shippers here,
but I personally hope it ends quickly. Maybe it's my problem,
but I cannot see the two of them together in any meaningful way.
Spike's STILL not sorry for what he's done in the past, even if
he wouldn't kill now (and I'm of two minds on the scene where
the chip kicks in, he could have killed the girl, I think). But,
I'm also someone who usually likes the status quo, so maybe I
can't handle the change ... Sorry, but that's my humble opinion.
Let the slings, flames, and arrows commence!
Take it and run.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Well, how distant a future are we talking about? -- Traveler,
08:24:17 11/24/01 Sat
Right now, I think things could go either way. Buffy and Spike
could get even closer, or they could violently break apart. However,
what happens if Buffy wants children some day? How would Spike
help support Buffy and Dawn financially? It must really limit
your job choices if you are a vampire without a degree. Would
Spike be a good male role-model for Dawn? Also, how would Dawn
feel having a step-father who could never come to PTA meetings,
pick her up from school, go to football games, etc etc etc. Although
I should say, ironically, that I can see Spike easily slipping
into a father-figure role for Dawn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Well, how distant a future are we talking about?
-- Morgane, 11:55:17 11/25/01 Sun
I think we can't compare relationship of realverse and relationship
of Buffyverse, especially of Buffy's. Angel, when he left her,
told Buffy that they had no future together, the having child
and al... But the point is, Buffy lives a very intense life, she
already died twice and will probably not die definetively very
old. She's a slayer. She's not a normal girl. You said that you
don't see Spike handle great family responsibility, I agree, but
I don't see Buffy either. Why every family got to be the normal
family, with a dog and children that play football. That's not
a happiness prerequested and especially for a slayer and a vampire.
I don't say that they necessarily should get together but maybe
Spike is the better guy for her. I mean, who else could be able
to deal with her kind of life, with her strenght, with her painful
memories. Of course they have a way to go, but still. And about
Spike being a father-figure for Dawn, he is already, not a traditional
one, I agree, but he's her male protector and tried is best to
give her the better advice he could. Anyway, she won't have any
other father-figure, as the thing are going right now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy and Spike -- do they have a future? -- Deeva,
08:44:25 11/24/01 Sat
I don't believe that anyone should compare whatever Buffy & Spike
have to what she had with Angel (hello? She was 16 and at 16 you
feel things that much more acutely. Nothing IMO will come close
to that only because of her emotional state at that point in her
life) or with Riley (a somewhat "normal" relationship,
kind of her shot at "picket fence, picnics in the sun in
the park" happiness). As for a "great love" well
I'm now going to repeat what a lot of others are saying, Spike
loves Buffy that's what he has been putting out there and has
changed a little of himself because of that. I just don't know
if Buffy will be reciprocating those feelings on the same level.
I want to believe that she will, if only for a short time even.
You know that really crappy, sappy cliche "Tis better to
have loved and lost, than to not have loved at all." Well,
sometimes I believe that. Spike is capable of having a more than
physical relationship. The physicality, and nothing but, would
bore anyone, sooner or later. His relationship with Harmony was
essentially physical and look how shabby they treated each other.
some like to say that he was awful to her but she was the same
to him. I don't want to seem conflicted or someone who is a little
schizo but I personally think (& maybe even hope a little) that
what Spike & Buffy will have will be a "great love"
but a short one. Who says that great things always last forever?
I can say from personal experience some of the short relationships
that I have had, helped me to relaize many things about myself.
A couple I remain friends with but more often than not the passion
and the feelings are so strong that friendship is not possible.
This could be the relationship that is the catalyst to Buffy "living"
more fully, more like she was before she died the 2nd time around.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy and Spike -- do they have a future? -- cknight,
09:12:10 11/24/01 Sat
I agree with you. Spike and Buffy shouldn't be together unless
he's really changed and from what I saw he really hasn't yet.
the scene with the girl in the alley shows this. He thinks he's
free of the chip and first thing he wants to do is kill. Spike
loves to push buttons and now he can push Buffy's (so to speak).
But at the end of the day he's still evil. I think they can still
have a lot of fun though, but a lasting love is out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy and Spike -- do they have a future? -- Nina,
10:10:26 11/24/01 Sat
Because I don't read spoilers I am still sitting on the ground
(not to say on my ass) to see that the writers pulled such a bold
move so fast. This can only mean one thing. Sex is not the climax
of that relationship as it was for Buffy and Angel.
I personally don't care where they go from here.... I know it
will be interesting and that they will keep my attention. I guess
I needed a sweet release as a viewer too..... now I can sit back
and watch. Spike can turn completely evil if they want... I know
that if that's their move it will be for the better. At BAPS they
made a poll this summer asking when Buffy and Spike would have
sex.... I guessed it would be in January (during her birthday
episode - to parallel "Surprise").... I felt bold as
many of the votes went to February sweeps, the end of season 6
or even season 7!
So..... where do we go from here? The writers pulled the carpet
from under our feet. They changed the rules. The writers kept
saying that Buffy would never go with Spike because it was wrong
and yet she did...
Their future? It can be anything. Right now Spike, in my opinion,
doesn't deserve Buffy. He's at a cross road like in Crush, he
needs to go there, but boy does he need to work on himself before
he is worthy of her. Buffy on her side is not acting in a good
way with him. She's afraid and she doesn't talk and she jumps
him and kisses him. That's not better.
What feels fantastic is that we have 13 + 22 episodes still to
go to see where it can lead us... and we've already got the sex
part. Will they build something out of the ashes or will they
destroy everything a little more?
I am happy to see that Buffy has to explore some darkness, but
I would be disturbed to see her accept that Spike. I guess I'll
just have to sit on the fence now and look at what's going to
happen!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Buffy and Spike -- do they have a future?
-- MayaPapaya9, 12:05:39 11/24/01 Sat
Geez, why do they need a future? Spike at PTA meetings? They're
not getting married, Spike isn't going to get a job to support
her. It's not gonna be a great love like Angel and Buffy. I can
actually see Angel playing the father-type for Dawn, maybe even
attending some evening PTA meetings, but Spike? Nah, he and Buffy
are just having some fun. Maybe he does love her, but there are
many kinds of love and not all of them lead to lasting relationships.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> That's what I was trying to say earlier.
BTW luv your posting name. *g* -- Deeva, 13:37:29 11/24/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy and Spike -- do they have a future? -- Isabel,
00:39:57 11/25/01 Sun
That is the Question... (Don't know whether 'tis nobler or not.)
;)
I honestly don't know what'll become of them. They could 'demolish
buildings' from now until the end of the series or they could
believably never have sex again. I'd wager Joss & Co. aren't 100%
sure of the outcome themselves. (Or maybe they are, who's to say?)
And that completely ignores the emotional basis of your question.
Do they have a future as lovers, rather than just sex partners?
Only time will tell. I have to confess to a desire for Buffy to
not have another 'one shot deal' sexual experience. But I like
a little variety. I also would like her to have a stable, loving
relationship that lasts. (And maybe not end with her getting abandonned
this time?)
Unfortunately, happiness and stability do not produce good drama
for television shows. From what I've heard, that was what her
relationship with Riley was supposed to be. It didn't turn out
so well. Many fans complained that he was too dull, there was
no chemistry, he was an Angel replacement... While I never had
anything against Riley, I found him much more interesting once
he started going to the vamp hookers.
A stable relationship is problematical with Spike. He loves pissing
off people. He's definately not ashamed of his past, which involves
the killing of two Slayers. He is disliked and distrusted by the
Scoobies. He's not nice and last but not least, he's evil. (Actually
I'm not 100% sure about the evil part anymore. At least currently.
It's part of his self image, he still wants to be the 'Big Bad'
despite the fact that everyone who knows him doesn't buy it anymore.)
Love isn't logical and it's not about who deserves it. If it was,
we'd be looking for Buffy's next romance to be with the Dalai
Lama. Frankly, after everything she's been through, all the sacrifices
she's made to save individual lives and the world, 99.9999% of
the human race is 'beneath her.' She has nothing in common with
a nice normal guy. You can say, "What about Xander?"
Well, he's currently engaged to an ex-demon, which kinda removes
him from the definition of 'normal' and makes him unavailable
as well. Plus, unless Buffy was under a spell or trying to make
Angel jealous, she's never been interested in Xander sexually.
She loves him as a friend.
So what is the point of my ramble, besides the obvious that I
should not be posting to this board so late at night? Well, I'm
going to say they have a future. But maybe not with each other.
I can see a number of different outcomes for their relationship,
but I'm willing to bet that NONE of them match what Joss & Co.
have in store for us. The ride's gonna be bumpy, but like a good
rollercoaster, after all the screaming and crying when we get
to the end of the track we'll probably say, "Wasn't that
fun?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy and Spike -- do they have a future? -- Caligo,
10:57:38 11/26/01 Mon
I don't see it as being anything long and lasting. It will be
a fleeting liason, but still something that can help them both.
It's not the true lasting kind of love, but it's the passionate
kind of thing. First of all, I think within the next season, Spike
will finally get Buffy out of his system. He's been pining for
her, loving her from afar, putting her on a pedestle, much like
he did with Cecily. In "Rest In Peace" he talked about
how he can't find his "sweet release." He's getting
his sweet release now. As for Buffy, this whole season she's been
walking around half-alive. She's getting "the fire back,"
she's feeling real-adult passion, something she never had with
Angel (love), or Riley (security). Eventually it's going to burn
out, like most relationships of today's 20-something generation,
and both will learn from it. The relationship will never really
be more than "friends with benefits" or "bed buddies."
It is not long term, it is not true love, and it won't even be
a great love (at least of Buffy's life). Every girl needs to have
one bad boy in her life, that one guy that she knows is wrong
but damn, it felt good, that one guy who she has for a few months
to a year, then she lets it fade away. Who's more of a bad boy
than Spike?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why Does Spike Love Buffy? Is
Dawn the Key? (Spoilers) -- Mari_Star_99, 08:57:40 11/24/01 Sat
Dawn is the KEY.
James Masters has said that he always played Spike as a little
in love with Buffy. Looking back at seasons 2-4 we could explain
that as the love of a challenge. Spike was attracted to the slayer
he could not kill. That is not the kind of love for which you
would endure torture, and be willing to sacrifice you undead life
for. I think Spike might have wanted Buffy on some level before
S5 (and I think Buffy might have also harbored some attraction
as well), but not the selfless love he showed at the end of last
season. He willingness to protect Dawn even after Buffy was gone
shows that something deeper has occurred then the mere desire
to dominate/conquer Buffy.
Is possible that his inability to hurt humans gave him time to
think about the error of his ways? No, Spike is unrepentant. The
chip had no change on Spike personality, or his feelings. So what
changed?
It was shortly after Dawn came to be that Spike had his epiphany.
He dreamed about kissing the slayer (Note, before the kiss they
fought. Talk about dreams coming true ;) lol), he woke up and
seemed shocked by his feelings.
We know that the Monks implanted memories of Dawn in everyone
Buffy knew, so Dawn would integrate seamlessly with Buffy's life
and her role as the Slayer. Of Course they would have included
Spike in this. He was hanging around Sunnydale and sometimes worked
with the Slayer. One big problem Spike is a vampire. As far as
the Monks were concerned a malfunction of the chip could happen
at anytime. Where would that leave Dawn and Buffy? While vamps
have serious bloodlust issues, they, and Spike inparticular have
the ability to love. So, why not plant a seed of protective love,
not for the slayer, but for her sister. Would the Monks really
just send the slayer with a Dagon' shpere to protect the Key?
Why not take advantage of a vampire unable to hurt humans, his
strength would be an asset. Dawn, the sister of a Slayer was never
afraid of Spike. Indeed, she often sought him out. Buffy herself
went to Spike to protect Dawn. Is it possible that the Monks set
up Spike as a secondary protector of Dawn?
Is it possible that that seed once planted could have grown? Now
I'm really stretching so, bear with me...
We saw on Angel that the souled child in her could affect Darla.
She developed feeling simply by carrying it. Eventually sacrificing
herself for the baby. I am suggesting that the monks did not give
Spike a soul, but some spark of love.
The spoilers for Wreaked (TV Guide) say Buffy is too busy fighting
her atraction to Spike to notice Willow has put Dawn in danger.
I wonder if Spike will come to the rescue. If he does I think
it will cement his roll as a secondary protector of Dawn.
So, what do you guys think? Please be gentle, unlike Buffy I bruise
easy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Great Post Mari - -- Liq, 12:43:21 11/24/01 Sat
and I've heard a theory similar to this before. Sounds very logical
to me.
Welcome aboard!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Why Does Spike Love Buffy? Is Dawn the Key? (Spoilers)
-- HelloBot, 17:17:04 11/24/01 Sat
Hello Mari!
Welcome to the Existential Scooby forum - the only Buffy forum
on the world wide web to have posts complete with footnotes. May
your posting experience be full of joy.
Yes, Dawn is the KEY. And Willow is recently GAY.
*Big Smile*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Why Does Spike Love Buffy? Is Dawn the Key? (Spoilers)
-- pagangodess, 18:26:47 11/24/01 Sat
Welcome to the board. Great post.
Now my two bits.
Is it then also possible that the monks set up Spike as protector,
because they KNEW that the Slayer would die/sacrifice herself?
In that case, they would still have someone able to continue to
protect The Key.
So, yes, I guess I'm saying, Dawn is still The Key.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Tao of Buffy (spoilers for
season six) -- Dedalus, 14:11:03 11/24/01 Sat
Okay, I was watching the Empire Strikes Back for the first time
in a long time yesterday, and I had the neatest epiphany.
What is he talking about? you ask. You click on a post titled
The Tao of Buffy, and you're expecting some heavy stuff on Buffy
and Eastern philosophy, right? Well, you expected wrong. Actually,
you didn't, but I'll get to that part later. Basically, you were
tricked, plain and simple, but I don't feel guilty about it in
the least.
It's like this. All of you have no idea how good you have it.
I've been reading the last few pages today, and it's like, damn.
So all of you are like "Tra-la-la, I'm going to go skipping
through another brilliant Buffy dissertation at the ATPoBTVS discussion
forum today. Everyone is articulate, well-read, kind, and intelligent.
Life is all daisies. Tra-la-la." You've forgotten how tough
it is out there on the real internet, out on the streets, trying
to post thoughtful insights about Star Wars.
So I'm going to say what I want to say. I haven't posted for awhile,
so there's no need to be anything but indulgent. And look, even
though we may not be talking about Buffy for a few paragraphs,
you've already read down this far. May as well read the rest.
It would take more time and effort than it's worth to click "back"
and all that crap. It's hopefully worth hearing. And if I don't
post it here, I'll have to wade through ten thousand posts all
written by the same guy complaining about how midichlorians are
the Force on some god-forsaken SW forum. Some guy so geeky he
would make Jonathon look like James Dean. And then I would post.
My post would be followed up by one of two responses.
1. "Jar Jar sucks!"
or
2. "Padme is hot!!!"
This is what I deal with.
Okay, so enough of that. I was watching ESB yesterday, and I started
comparing all the characters in The Phantom Menace with where
they end up. It's mindblowing. Shmi is Luke and Leia's grandmother.
How wierd is that? The same kid that said "yipee" is
the one who grows up to say "You have failed me for the last
time, admiral" while Force choking him. But even more than
that, I was taken back to the Episode Two trailer, and comparing
Anakin and Amidala to Han and Leia. You can find some interesting
stuff.
Amidala and Leia both fall for hotshot pilots who are good mechanics.
Plus one of Ani's grins in the trailer is very Harrison Ford-ish,
the "I've got it wired, babe," look. I thought about
Anakin and Amidala getting married while watching the carbon freezing
chamber scene in Bespin. The first scene of the trailer shows
Ani with his hands clasped behind his back, just like Vader was
introduced in ESB. More importantly, Han and Leia share a great
lovelorn look before they are torn apart. In the Episode Two trailer,
before Amidala and Ani are brought to the arena at the very end
to fight all sorts of creatures to the death, they share the exact
same look! It's great. Then it hit me. The carbon freezing scene
is essentially a wedding. Han and Leia are standing together and
kissing, Vader, the father of the bride, is presiding over them,
only instead of giving his daughter away, he freezes the groom
in carbonite, and the two are pulled apart. He's symbolically
re-enacting what happened to him and his wife. He too is "frozen"
in stasis by the dark side. His wife will probably be taken away
from him. And when Han is being tortured, Vader leans in and takes
a really good look, obviously really enjoying himself. So throw
in a little projection, and he's symbolically torturing his younger
self, the "good man" who was Luke's father.
Neat, huh?
Okay, on to Buffy ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Maybe you'd have better luck on the SW sites if you used
that same title! ;o) -- CW, 14:22:14 11/24/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The (real) Tao of Buffy (spoilers for season six) --
Dedalus, 14:41:32 11/24/01 Sat
Oh yeah, Spike held Fett hostage! ESB! See, it does all come together.
I even got a decent segue swinging.
God, Buffy is so KEWL! I just finished watching Tabula Rasa and
Smashed again, and it was so neat! Smashed had been built up so
much, it was kind of hard to enjoy while I was waiting for the
whammo-finish. But really, there was so much good in there. Particularly
in light of rowan's ever so brill comments. Incidentally, do you
guys just come up with this stuff on the fly, or what? I could
never do that. Probably why I do more essay writing than anything.
Anyway, this is going to be a random Buffy and Eastern philosophy
post.
I was reading an Intro to Zen by DT Suzuki, and he was saying
how satori can be triggered by the wierdest things, like a phone
ringing, or tripping on a rug, or a Zen master slapping you in
the face. Or a sunrise, as was the case in The Gift. What I wrote
in my essay does seem to tie-in pretty well. I'm also thinking
Angel perhaps had a bit of that in Epiphany.
Anyway, my main thing that got me started on this was the end
song in OMWF. "Understand we'll go hand in hand - but we're
walk alone in fear." I love the execution of that, too, with
the actual joining of hands. It struck me that Whedon was actually
giving a perfect picture of the universe in microcosm in that
little scene. You have that underlying unity the physicists and
Zen masters talk about, and then you have the corresponding fall
into opposites. There is still Eden, but all they see is an angel
with a flaming sword.
So out of the trauma of self-consciousness comes the drama of
the universe. "Life's a show, and we all play a part,"
as Buffy sang. According to Vedanta philosophy, life is indeed
a show, and we all indeed play a part. We really are the whole
she-bang, the unity rather than the parts. We are the universe
looking at itself from a trillion different points of view. We
are the cosmic Self, but the zest of the show is to pretend that
we're not, and so we enact polarity with all our might. This is
what the "fall" is all about. Paul Tillich defined sin
as "estrangement" from that ground of being, and therefore
all the characters this year are sinners to a great degree.
Buffy is caught somewhere between knowing it's all a show and
actually being an active part of the show. In "The Book on
the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are," Alan Watts talks
about how death is essentially wiping the slate clean. Life becomes
like a bunch of mystery novels you already know the endings to,
so you start over. This doesn't mean literal reincarnation, rather
that every being, every self, that comes into existence, starts
from the same perspective that you have right now - that you are
an individual self, isolated and alone, but at the same time,
the center of the universe because you seem to be so separate
from everything around you.
Buffy has seen through the veil of maya even if she can't remember
it, thus she crawled out of her grave and finds "this fight
doesn't mean a thing," because she's gone past the polarities
of existence. Her thrill at finding herself cast as Joan the Vampire
Slayer in tabula rasa is what Watts was talking about. All of
her old life traumas and victories had been wiped clean, and she
got to encounter a new world still fresh with dew. This is how
it should have gone down. While not literally reborn, her experience
of self would have been reflected in every other being, creature,
human, and even in the next Slayer. The sensation of being an
individual self would have still been there, because the sensation
is basically the same for everything.
I also think there is a bit of Zen in Dawn. And this is as good
a place as any to put it. In Blood Ties, she described herself
as not being a Key or a girl, she was "nothing." But
to the Zen way of thinking, nothing implies everything. She has
that prajna, the potential to become, no matter where she came
from. As the Buddhist sutras say, "Form is emptiness, emptiness
if form." Can't have one without the other, and I think this
will be explored with Dawn as the series progresses.
Actually, I think the show is reinventing its own "self."
Things are completely different after sweeps, a blank slate where
nothing is the same. There was something primal about Buffy and
Spike's sex fight in Smashed, and it is appropriate that they
brought down a house in the process, a house of course being symbolic
of civilization.
"Where do we go from here" could serve as the show's
mantra this season. That bit brings with it quite a bit of existential
intensity. And I'll get more into that later, but for now, someone
wants to use the phone, so no more internet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Excellent post, Dedalus... -- Traveler, 15:10:58 11/24/01
Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Great post, Dedalus! -- rowan, 18:31:40 11/24/01 Sat
"Incidentally, do you guys just come up with this stuff on
the fly, or what?"
For me, it's pretty much typing while I'm thinking, which should
be obvious from the total lack of sense some of the stuff makes!
"Anyway, my main thing that got me started on this was the
end song in OMWF. "Understand we'll go hand in hand - but
we're walk alone in fear." I love the execution of that,
too, with the actual joining of hands. It struck me that Whedon
was actually giving a perfect picture of the universe in microcosm
in that little scene. You have that underlying unity the physicists
and Zen masters talk about, and then you have the corresponding
fall into opposites. There is still Eden, but all they see is
an angel with a flaming sword."
*sigh* I always feel stupid when trying to respond to your profound
posts. I loved this image too. The more I watch BtVS, the more
I feel it's about the balance of opposing forces and the exquisite
tension that entails. This image is both inspiring and bittersweet
at the same time. We can love. We can support each other. But
ultimately, we're alone in our skin in the dark.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Great post, Dedalus! -- Dedalus, 20:09:03
11/24/01 Sat
"We can love. We can support each other. But ultimately,
we're all alone in our skin in the dark."
Wow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> More thoughts... -- rowan, 10:31:20 11/25/01
Sun
"We can love. We can support each other. But ultimately,
we're all alone in our skin in the dark."
Buffy is stronger than other Slayers because she has friends and
because she has family. But ultimately, she's got to bear her
fate alone.
Giles could be her Watcher. He taught her what he could. But he
knows there's something left within Buffy that needs development
and that he can't help her with it. In fact, his very presence
stands in the way of it. It's a hard lesson.
Spike is now Buffy's Watcher to a certain extent. We have alot
of clues in Restless, and the multiple times he's been referred
to as her protector. Even the Randy goes back to a root which
means protector. But he's the next layer of Watcher -- he watches
her back (sorry, that sounds dirty and I really don't mean it
to, LOL). He provides the support that keeps her from being blindsided.
His role is more passive than Giles.
But still there is Buffy. Her lesson in S2 with Angelus(mentioned
by Whistler) is that when all is stripped away, there's still
her. S6 is about Buffy rebuilding that inner core again, after
the tough lessons of S3-S5.
She's got friends, she's got family, she's got a lover. But ultimately,
she needs herself underneath all that to make it all work, to
make it all stay in balance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: More thoughts... -- Kerri, 11:13:25
11/25/01 Sun
But still there is Buffy. Her lesson in S2 with Angelus(mentioned
by Whistler) is that when all is stripped away, there's still
her. S6 is about Buffy rebuilding that inner core again, after
the tough lessons of S3-S5.
She's got friends, she's got family, she's got a lover. But ultimately,
she needs herself underneath all that to make it all work, to
make it all stay in balance.
To go back to the eastern religion themes of Dedalus' original
post, the need for Buffy to find herself beneath her friends and
family ultimately also leads back to Buffy's epiphany in The Gift
that all of humanity is a part of Buffy. Buffy realized she would
forever live on in Dawn and in the world, and thus accepted her
death. However, Buffy has not been able to reconcile this same
lesson in life. About the lesson Whistler states there is the
lesson that each person in Buffy's life will forever be a part
of her through the lessons they teach. And thus while Buffy will
always "walk alone" she will never truly be alone, and
that is what makes her different than the other slayers since
she has opened her heart to the lessons that those she love hold
for her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Good one, Ded! ;o) -- Wisewoman, 12:55:54 11/25/01
Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Wonderful, that was something I've been wanting to
learn about for a long time, thanks. -- LL, 16:53:22 11/25/01
Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> DUDE U ROCK!!! .... Han's a hottie!~ .........LOL -- Shiver,
14:43:57 11/24/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> So wait... Darth Vader is a vampire? -- Traveler, 15:07:12
11/24/01 Sat
"He too is "frozen" in stasis by the dark side."
Since vampires are also "locked in stasis" when they
are created, wouldn't Vader be a vampire in the Buffyverse?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: A Sith vampire?! -- Dedalus, 17:12:47 11/24/01
Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I thought that Vader aged. -- JBone, 20:21:57 11/25/01
Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Zen of Buffy (spoilers for season six) -- Dedalus,
17:57:25 11/24/01 Sat
Okay, the phoneline is free, so once again I post.
I mentioned earlier about Buffy's satori moment at the end of
the Gift. There was a quote from DT Suzuki that complements what
I said in my Goddess and Her Gift essay. He defined satori as
"the unfolding of a new world hitherto unperceived in the
confusion of a dualistic mind." There ya go.
There was a bit of Zen in Spike, too, when he said "Life
isn't bliss, life is just this." That's all that needed to
be said. Life doesn't need an explanation or an apology.
I also love the idea of the "meritless deed." This is
what Angel was talking about last season. "If nothing we
do matters, then all that matters is what we do." Compare
this with Suzuki's statements. "A child is drowning; I get
into the water, and the child is saved. That is all there is to
be done in the case; what is done is done. I walk away. I never
lookd backward, and nothing more it thought of it." I love
that one.
There is also a neat quote that could bear out what I was saying
regarding tabula rasa. "This breaking up of the tyranny of
name and logic is at the same time a spiritual emancipation; for
the soul is no longer divided against itself," writes Suzuki,
Willow's spell literally overthrowing Buffy's name and the logic
that had brought her to that point. There is also something to
be said for Dawn's emergence in the Buffyverse, the quintessential
breaker of rules and logic. Reality is literally rewritten when
she enters it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> A ramble on Buffy and SW Episode I (spoilers) -- Calluna,
22:26:08 11/25/01 Sun
So, I'm sitting there, watching SW Episode I and one line brings
together my view of Buffy this season.
"Your focus determines your reality."-Gui Gon Jinn (Or
however you spell it)
Jeepers, that explains a lot, doesn't it? For just about every
character on the show, their focus has skewed their reality. Buffy
is so focused on her time in heaven and trying to feel again,
she has totally lost all connection to the world. She ignores
Dawn. Sleeps with Spike. Doesn't seem to mind that Willow tried
to mindwipe her.
Willow is focused on the power she suddenly has. She hasn't realized
that she's lost love, trust and truth in the meantime. Her connection
to the "real" reality is also lost.
In a more mundane way, Xander and Anya are so focused on each
other that they, too, are in their own world.
The only ones that seem to be at all connected to the "Here
and Now" are Tara and Dawn. Tara realized that she was focused/part
of Willow's reality and it was blinding her to what Willow was
doing to others, Tara and herself. Tara was able to detatch herself
from Willow's reality and become "one with her reality".
Dawn, I'm afraid, has pretty much been part with the "real"
reality that is Sunnydale. Going to school probably keeps her
centered. Dawn's problem is that, until "Smashed", no
one else noticed her, because they were all focused on themselves.
That's why, I would love to see a more mundane cliffhanger for
the end of November. Wouldn't it be fitting if either: 1) Hank
Summers returns to take custody of Dawn or 2) Child protective
services comes to take Dawn away or (my personal favorite) 3)
Tara decides, after having to spend the night with Dawn because
Willow and Buffy were too involved in their own worlds, to have
Dawn pack up her stuff and come live with her. Then Willow and
Buffy come home to find Dawn missing and perhaps get their long
deserved wake-up call.
And in connection to Dedalus's original post, I think it mind
blowing that Anakin/Vader built C-3PO. Such a bizzare and unexpected
connection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Jar-Jar Sucks -- Slayrunt, 00:15:17 11/25/01 Sun
you thought I would just let that lie there?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Yeah, and Padme´s hot, too! ;D -- grifter, 08:14:27
11/25/01 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Redemption Motifs in BtVS and
Ats........ -- Rufus, 15:03:38 11/24/01 Sat
I think where everyone is getting stuck is the word redemption
itself. Redemption has a few meanings beyond that we think of
when we consider both shows. To only think of redemption in terms
of Christian dogma limits our understanding of what frequently
happens in both shows. Redemption in the Christian form means
good works to atone for sins. That is limiting when you consider
the metaphysical situations going on in Angel or Buffy. Redeem
also means to "set free; rescue or ransom", "to
restore the honor, worth, or reputation of". In Buffy, Fairy
tales are prominently mentioned specifically in Gingerbread where
Buffy makes the comment "Fairytales are real". Redemption
in Fairytales isn't limited to Christian confines. Frequently
all that has to happen is that the curse or bewitchment the victim
is under is removed and the person is redeemed by returning to
their normal state. Anya is a good example, her redemption happened
when her power center was crushed by Giles. Her curse or bewitchment
is over and she is now again human. She is redeemed. or set free
from her curse. In respect to vampires redemption can occur in
many ways. First, they could be restored to their human state,
the curse lifted they are no longer a demon. In Angels case he
is working to redeem himself because he still has a resident demon.
But, Darla has a great point that Angel himself brought up in
Reprise/Epiphany.....they can never make up for what they have
done as a demon, redemption is an impossibility.....they can only
attempt to atone for their acts by good works, that process never
ending. Their redemption only possible in the afterlife because
they can never restore the lives they have taken. Darla did achieve
a redemption of sorts by the presence of her son. He set her free
from the demon enough to understand what she had done all these
years and feel remorse for it. Her redemption is her act of sacrifice
to save her son. She in fact frees herself from the demon by death.
The situation with Spike over on Buffy is much more complicated
as he still has a demon and is only restrained from his addiction
to killing by a chip. I will have to see more of what is going
on to make a guess on the redemption aspects of his story. Now,
to ships. I'm sick of them. If one only cares about a particular
ship they actually can't enjoy the show as a whole, as they aren't
open to what the writers may be trying to say. If we use a ship
to narrow our concept of evil to an absolute, what the show is
all about may drift over our heads. If evil was absolute then
humans would be good and demons evil.....period...and such is
not the case. I have no preference for any particular ship as
I only think, why are these people together at this time when
I see a new one starting. I have no problem with shippers liking
a couple, but when it disintegrates into pointless wars and squabbles
then the show isn't as enjoyable. Love your ship, write fic about
your favorite ship....but give the writers a break and watch the
current story to see what they are really saying as there is so
much more to these wonderful shows than the couples in them.
This is a post I wrote for another board that has become focused
on ships instead of the show itself. Redemption is something that
is a constant theme in both shows so I thought I'd bring that
thought over here for a brainstorm. I do think that if you only
focus on couples, the true merits of the show are missed. There
has been some wonderful stories and writing in both shows and
all I can see is resistance that is expressed along the battlelines
of favorite ships. We know that demons specially vampires are
the metaphor for those things about ourselves we can find hard
to admit to, but can accept in the form of an ugly demon. Redemption
happens all the time in both shows but is ignored because many
only see redemption in Christian terms, limiting their understanding
of what may really be going on. Consider the case of Spike, he
can only be seen as evil by some people because he is a demon,
forgetting that the demon is only a representation of the things
we don't like to admit we are capable of. Anya is another case.
Her redemption happened when Giles crushed her power center. She
was restored to human form but now has to learn to live with the
very human emotions that pushed her to become a demon in the first
place. Great stuff....we are all potential demons everytime we
do something shitty to another person. Vampires are just a concentration
of that demonic urge in us all. So question, if we look at redemption
and demons in more than just a Christian sense, what is happening
in both shows that has value beyond the couples in them?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Redemption Motifs in BtVS and Ats........ -- Dedalus,
17:25:23 11/24/01 Sat
You posted this on another board? Another Buffy board? Cheating
on us, much? Listen, if I have to come here to post damn SW posts,
the least you can do is post your Buffy posts here.
I particularly like the idea about redemption being restoring
honor or worth. Very interesting. I had never thought of it in
such a context before, though perhaps I should have. I just watched
Lullaby, and I think Darla's epiphany was very much foreshadowed
by Angel's. The idea that ultimately there can be no redemption,
so you just do what needs to be done anyway. That is a redemption
in and of itself, isn't it? The redemption of no-redemption.
And natch, vamps and munsters represent our shadow side.
I also agree that shippers are missing the point. I've been a
fan of certain couples myself, but it's never anything I've gotten
hung up on. Pretty boring compared to everything else that is
going on.
BTW, Spike is KEWL. He has a coat.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> LOL.......he has a coat......:):):) -- Rufus, 17:55:39
11/24/01 Sat
I just noticed that over the years acts of redemption happened
all the time if you go beyond the Christian dogma regarding redemption.
Think back the Helpless when Giles betrayed his relationship with
Buffy to obey his superiors in the Council. Giles felt the need
to restore his honour with Buffy..an act of redemption. And if
we think of the Fairy tale idea of redemption, you could think
of the time that Angel was human because of the demons blood,
he was set free from the demon, he became fully human, or redeemed.
Spike redeemed himself to Buffy by fulfilling his promise to protect
Dawn. Redemption in small ways happens all the time. I was just
wondering if anyone else could remember other instances.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: LOL.......he has a coat......:):):) -- DEN,
19:11:44 11/24/01 Sat
Spike gave everything he had against Glory. In my world much can
be forgiven someone who'll go down covering your back.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> I love it when someone uses the F word.........;)
-- Rufus, 21:35:40 11/24/01 Sat
Forgiveness is something that confused people because they think
of it as a get out of jail free card. I don't see it that way.
In the case of many of the characters in BVS forgiveness is impossible
as the people that have been wronged are dead. But the situation
with Giles and Angel shows that forgiveness can be a way to get
on with your life. Angelus killed Jenny, but Angel is part of
Angelus. Giles was right to be angry about the death of the woman
he loved, but he also saw the value to the world and the fight
between good and evil by the continued existence of Angel. He
forgave him, he set aside his resentment of Angelus/Angel and
let the both of them start to live again, actually work together
again. To forgive isn't a ticket to forgetting how you may have
been wronged, but may be a necessary part of getting on with your
life. It's not saying what was done was right, or that you will
forget it, but you are setting aside anger and resentment so life
can go on.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I love it when someone uses
the F word.........;) -- DEN, 23:08:53 11/24/01 Sat
Thanks, Rufus, for completing and developing my half-formed idea.
When I posted I was focusing on the concept of honor, and thinking
Spike's behavior in that part of the S5 arc can at least be called
"honorable."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: LOL.......he has a coat......:):):) -- vandalia,
21:21:50 11/24/01 Sat
Faith's going to prison could also be seen as a redemption (she
is taking responsibility for her actions finally).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Vandalia, you have mail! -- Rahael, 07:05:45
11/25/01 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Redemption Motifs in BtVS and Ats........ -- bible belt,
18:11:45 11/24/01 Sat
A lot of people were disturbed about Spike's attempt to bite that
girl in the alley, that it looked a little too much like he really
wanted it, and how could Buffy love someone like that. I didn't
have a problem with it at all, and I wondered if I wasn't just
morally retarded or something.
A friend of mine told me that Spike's redemption might lead to
Buffy having to question every demon she ever killed. There is
so much to look forward to in this show.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Redemption Motifs in BtVS and Ats........ -- T-rex,
20:53:23 11/24/01 Sat
Yeah, the scene with the girl in the alley didn't bother me either.
A lot of people have expressed the opinion that Spike hasn't changed
a bit because he attempted to bite that girl. That this one act
of attempted badness negates the things he has done for Dawn and
Buffy.
However, I believe that an individual's moral or spiritual growth
rarely follows a straight line. We make progress, then get sidetracked,
make more progress, then perhaps loop back on ourselves for a
while.
It could be that Spike's redemption (if he is to have any) does
not lie in that direction anyway. He may *always* be addicted
to killing, which would require a chip or other mechanism to allow
him to continue to interact with humans. Perhaps his value, and
thus his chance at redemption, lies in what he is willing to do
and what he is willing to sacrifice for those he has an emotional
connection with, even if that happens to be an elite group of
two.
And if his emotional connection to Dawn is only a function of
her "keyness", as a thread down below proposes, that
does not negate the fact that Spike has value as her protector.
So, that is all fine and good with me. Even in the christian sense
of the word, redemption doesn't happen because we do something
to deserve it. It only happens if we choose to accept it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Redemption Motifs in BtVS and Ats........
-- Spike Lover, 21:00:37 11/24/01 Sat
Okay, I am in agreement-
Has anyone considered the simple fact that Spike was just trying
to "test" the chip. As I understand it, if he (even
for an instant) did not "intend" harm toward that girl,
then the chip would not have 'fired' and he would not have known
if it was actually broken. That is, what after all, he wants to
know. I think at this point he is faily comfortable with his "vegetarianism".
Did you see that pep talk he was having to give himself before
he tried to bite her??
Besides, we don't know that he would have killed her, eaten her
or turned her, if he had been able to bite her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Redemption Motifs in BtVS and Ats........
-- robert, 23:20:07 11/24/01 Sat
"Has anyone considered the simple fact that Spike was just
trying to "test" the chip. "
I considered it. I just don't believe it. Spike with shocked and
surprised when the chip prevented him from biting the woman. My
conclusion is that he fully expected that the chip was malfunctioning
and that he was going to get a snack.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Redemption Motifs in BtVS and
Ats........ [spoilers etc.] -- dsf, 07:12:34 11/25/01 Sun
I'm undecided. Sure, he looked shocked and surprised. But then
again, the anesthesiologist warned me that the spinal would burn
at first, and told me not to jump, and I agreed, and then I jumped
anyway when I actually felt it. And there has to be something
about the pain from the chip that prevents developing a tolerance,
or else Spike, who's no physical coward, would have got used to
it by now.
And I'm even less decided on the question of whether he would
have stopped at a snack or had himself a meal. He knows Buffy
could never tolerate a kill, but he might think a nibble "just
to see if I could" might be concealed or even forgiven if
discovered.
Or perhaps he just wasn't thinking. Habit is strong.
dsf
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Redemption and Reformation -- rowan, 18:57:41 11/24/01 Sat
"Redemption happens all the time in both shows but is ignored
because many only see redemption in Christian terms, limiting
their understanding of what may really be going on."
Redemption is one of the hardest things to talk about because
it's one of the hardest things to actually define. I don't get
much of a sense that the Buffyverse uses any type of a conventional
Christian concept of redemption or that redemption is necessarily
linked to an eternal stay in a heaven dimension.
But what is it? To redeem is from Latin for 'buy back.' This is
the one thing I think we can almost certainly say that redemption
doesn't mean in the Buffyverse. Time and time again it is reinforced
(as recently as this week with Darla's death) that past evil cannot
be made right or bought back or mitigated by future action. Angel
understands he can never do enough good to make up for all his
evil, even if he saves ten times the lives he took.
But as you point out, Rufus, honor and value can be restored to
those without it. Even Darla, for one moment, was a being of value
as she put the life of her unborn child ahead of her unlife. Does
that mean she is now magically designated as *redeemed*? I don't
know. Who decides? For a moment she had value. That's all I know.
Perhaps redemption can never really be a goal or an end state.
Perhaps it's a transitory state of being with ebb and flow.
Then there's reformation. To make again. This is Angel. He had
remade himself so that he is now in a right relationship to others.
He tries to act rightly. He doesn't always succeed. He follows
a different star than when he was Angelus. But is he redeemed
or just reformed?
Sometimes I think the word redemption just gets in the way. If
vampires are creatures that represent a lack of empathy (a lack
of love), then redemption could simply be a matter of being able
to love and put the welfare of others before one's own. Basically,
the golden mean.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Redemption Motifs in BtVS and Ats........ -- Aquitaine,
20:36:59 11/24/01 Sat
You've got me thinking about motifs and story arcs, Rufus, and
I think that everyone is periodically in needed of random acts
of redemption. Consider Xander buying Cordelia's dress for the
prom. Consider Giles helping Angel after Jenny's death. Willow
and Xander accepting Buffy after When She Was Bad. Buffy kissing
Spike for keeping the Key secret...
There is no beginning or ending to forgiveness, love and the possibilities
of redemption. They are all part of the cycle of life (death and
rebirth etc).
Polly!Aquitaine!Anna
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> A Word about Christian Redemption -- Spike Lover,
21:13:04 11/24/01 Sat
From what I have read, Joss is not a Christian. But that is okay.
Buffy does not go to church much either, which is ironic for someone
who has a chest of crosses, holy water, and communion wafers,
(The Harvest) 2nd episode.
The Christian faith concurs. There is nothing you can do to redeem
yourself. You will never be able to make up for the wrongs that
you have committed. Ancient peoples attempted to atone for their
sins through animal and occassionally human sacrifice. It still
did not work. Thus, God himself incarnated Himself into a perfect
human and sacrificed Himself to Himself. This sacrifice will redeem
believers. (I probably am not explaining this well-- sorry.)
Now, in theory, could it redeem a vampire?? (I hope I am not offending
anyone.) I think so. I suspect that a vampire could drink "the
blood of Christ" and be healed. (If it didn't turn him to
dust first.) But the vampire would have to want to do this (it
would not work by "accident") and would have to believe
it would work, and whereas a vamp might do the second, I am not
certain many would do the first.
However, if there was suddenly a cure for vampirism, then I think
Joss would not have a show anymore and Ann Rice would have to
write about something else and people would lose interest in vampire
lore all together. I mean, it is an interesting subject.
(When you went into your discussion of redemption, you probably
did not intend this. I am sorry.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: A Word about Christian Redemption -- J,
21:27:15 11/24/01 Sat
SOME branches of the Christian faith believe as you have written
below, but certainly not all.
These days there is almost no such thing as a general description
of "Christianity" other than the belief that there was
once a man named Jesus Christ. After that, things have a tendency
to diverge quite a bit depending on your branch :-)
>>The Christian faith concurs. There is nothing you can
do to redeem yourself. You will never be able to make up for the
wrongs that you have committed. Ancient peoples attempted to atone
for their sins through animal and occassionally human sacrifice.
It still did not work. Thus, God himself incarnated Himself into
a perfect human and sacrificed Himself to Himself. This sacrifice
will redeem believers. (I probably am not explaining this well--
sorry.)<<
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Redemption Motifs in BtVS and Ats........ -- LoriAnn,
11:21:27 11/25/01 Sun
Self-redemption in Christianity is an impossibility. A person
can never do enough to make up for one sin. The concept comes
from the nature of God. God is so "God" that any offence
against him or his laws is greater bad that all the good a person
could do in a lifetime. That's why the ultimate sacrifice, Jesus
Christ, was necessary to "buy back" everyone. Most Christian
denominations believe that people should obey God's laws and do
good works, but that redemption, in God's eyes, comes from individuals
accepting the one perfect sacrifice as atonement for his or her
sins. Clearly, this idea is not operative in the Buffyverse. What
we are working with is literary redemption. In literature, we
see redemption as one selfless act before death or the end of
the story. After all, even in Christian terms, evil is putting
self above the interests of others or God. Therefore, denying
self is a redemptive act. Darla managed the selfless act first
by being willing to die to save Angel in "Trial" and
then by dying to save her baby. When she backslid, through no
fault of her own in this case, she was given a second chance to
redeem herself throught the soul provided by the baby, and she
did. Since Darla is dead, we can call her redeemed. That isn't
to say her evil deeds are forgotten, but she has redeemed her
"life" by turning from the thing that prompted all the
evil: self. Angel is an ongoing selfless act. He still has plenty
of chance to backslide as he did when he was keeping score of
the demons he killed and when he became "Angel noir"
last season. However, his life seems to be on track again. He
was willing to give his life for Darla in "Trial". That
is a redemptive act. Had his life ended there, we would see him
as redeemed. Spike has performed at least one selfless act. Even
though he didn't give up Dawn to Glory, we might conclude that
he was more interested in what his reward from Buffy might have
been. Although I don't think that was the case, it could have
been, so I won't consider that as redemptive. However, his willingness
to give his life to keep Dawn safe while she was on the tower
can be nothing other than a selfless act and, had he died, would
have been redemptive. Since then he may have backslid, perhaps
egregiously. If we see Darla and Angel as models, Spike should
get another real shot at redemption, as they did. Does a person
have to repent? Certainly, but if sin or evil is putting self
above others, then repentence is selflessness. Insisting that
a person make good every evil committed is insisting on the impossible
and is nothing more than revenge or jealousy. Does a person have
to reform? If the person has a chance to, if the life continues,
of course, he or she does. Am I writing about something like deathbed
confessions? Yes, but a person cannot fake redemption or repentence.
Either the act is selfless or it is just a ploy to try to get
into the good graces of the PTB. Such a ploy is not selfless.
Finally, redemption in the Buffyverse seems to follow the general
concept of literary redemption rather than those forms we, in
the realverse, are religiously or culturally or fearfully familiar
with.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Christian models don't work in Buffyverse... -- Moose,
13:31:47 11/25/01 Sun
Christianity would put killers like Spike and those that fight
for good like Buffy on the same level, incapable of redeeming
themselves and destined for hell without the external help of
Christ.
The Buffyverse borrows some symbology from Christianity and plays
with it, but it simply doesn't match up--thankfully.
In the Buffyverse, life is an endless fight full of pain and suffering
and endless foes. This season was the first to postulate a possible
reward for the endless fight and dedication to the good. Whether
Joss expands this or goes with the "life is its own reward"
(as the OMWF seemed to postulate) still remains to be seen.
I doubt he will expand the role of heaven in the Buffyverse, though
I would love it if he would. Heavens' warriors could be made as
feirce as their demon counterparts. The Spawn animated series
on HBO is a good example.
But then I don't know if Joss would want to tread where others
have gone. And the themes would disturb some since the Jossverse
would inevitably grey the distinction between heaven(s) and hell(s),
or at least their methods.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Christian models don't work in Buffyverse...
-- astrid, 15:52:07 11/25/01 Sun
But then I don't know if Joss would want to tread where others
have gone. And the themes would disturb some since the Jossverse
would inevitably grey the distinction between heaven(s) and hell(s),
or at least their methods.
I think the line is already somewhat grey. When the Scoobies are
sitting around the table at the start of Tabula Rasa, one (I think
Tara) says that Buffy could have been in "any number of heavenly
dimensions" - implying that there's not just one "heaven"
to go to, any more than there's just one "hell". Hell
has always been described as "hell dimensions" pretty
much interchangeably with "demon dimensions".
At the end of the last Angel season we see Lorin's home "demon
dimension", which is not the happiest place (for humans especially)
but it's still a place where beings live out their lives in a
recognizable manner. It's not pure torture - just not very human-friendly.
(Or Lorin-friendly, or musical).
And there's the moment where Angel gets the in the elevator to
travel to what he thinks is hell - the "home office"
- and when he steps out, he's back in the world he just came from,
with people being people - a little bad, a little good, living
together and loving each other and hurting each other, each of
whom carries evil (and by extension, goodness) in themselves.
So I don't think that we're going to see heaven in any more absolute
terms than hell. Buffy's experience there was peaceful and blissful,
but in a sense it wasn't real at all. She was free from doubt
and pain, and knew that all the people she loved were okay. But
they weren't okay - all she really got was peace from her own
doubts and hurt and fear.
I think that she's going to have to come to terms with the idea
that peace isn't something you go to when you die - it's something
that you have to find within yourself. (Kind of trite, I know,
but the simple truths are often the ones that are hardest to reach
in real life.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buffy Marathon on Thanksgiving
Day on F/X -- Spike Lover, 20:41:38 11/24/01
Thanksgiving day I found myself in front of the tv watching F/X
during the "family gathering". But as I was watching
the Ballot marathon of the shows most wanted shown, I was able
to see some character development that was a bit interesting.
**One very interesting time was during a college episode, when
Buff was talking to Willow about Riley: she was attracted, he
was cute (she did not know he was a commando at that time, etc.)
She tells Willow that she can't envision a relationship without..."
pain and fighting." Did she get that from her (divorced parents)
or from what happened w/ Angel?? Well, regardless, how perfect
the sex scene with Spike must be then.
They showed the episode where She and Angel get it on. Apparently
right before they have sex was the first time that Angel told
her that he loved her, and then he loses his soul and says all
of those horrible things to her (that I have had said to me.)
And then goes about on his killing rampage. By the way, when he
does lose his soul, he goes back to Dru and Spike and tells them
the fatal words, "To kill her you have to love her."
-No wonder she cringes when Spike says he loves her. (And the
viewers too.) Does she think Spike's words are empty??
As someone once said a long, long time ago, maybe this is all
about Angel. Angel said and proved that he loved her. He had a
soul, and then in a heartbeat he is evil and trying to kill her.
Spike does not even have a soul. How can his love be real? I have
read a lot of feedback from viewers who don't believe Spike truly
loves Buff because of the lack of soul, but I believe he does.
I have never doubted Spike. I have adored him from his first appearance.
He is the bad boy with devotion. And it was neat to watch those
old episodes when he is so tender and loving with crazy, (even
unfaithful) Dru. They showed the season final when Buffy is forced
to send the "re-souled" Angel to hell. Spike is beating
on Angel and then Dru jumps on Spike. He says, "I don't want
to hurt you Dru." Then he knocks her across the room and
adds, "But that doesn't mean I won't." Finally he puts
a sleep hold on her and picks her up to make their escape. Curiously,
he takes one final look at Buffy and Angel fighting and says,
"He is going to kill her." He doesn't laugh. There is
concern, but he remains devoted to his love and carries her to
safety.
I have a new theory about Joss W's vampires. I tend to think now
that a vampire keeps the last strongest personality trait they
had before being bitten. Darla was angry and vengeful because
she was dying of VD. Dru was nuts. Angel was angry at his family
(his father) and was into having fun (?)- thus he is kind of a
psychopath who kills for the joy of it. (Ok, this may be weak.)
Spike, however, was in love, and rather than having issues with
his family, he was devoted to his mother. Unlike Darla or Angel,
he was a "good man". At the most, he is sort of a vampire
that likes to 'brawl'. If this is evil, it is a very different
evil. --Now I remember, the other really interesting thing I saw
on the marathon, was when they were doing Fool For Love, and William
was about to be turned into Spike, he fears at first that Dru
is a pickpocket. She says something like, "Your treasure
is not in your purse, but it lies here (and puts her hand on his
heart) and here (puts her hand on his head.) Surely, he is something
special. I don't understand it but this is Joss's world.
The one thing I have never understood that I wish Joss would incorporate
an explanation for is: what is the 3 bites rule that Bram Stoker
wrote about? Joss has gone with the Ann Rice/vampire feed theory
which is ok.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Should Spike Be Sorry? (Spoilers
up through Smashed) -- vandalia, 22:25:36 11/24/01 Sat
Rowan wrote: But what is it? To redeem is from Latin for 'buy
back.' This is the one thing I think we can almost certainly say
that redemption doesn't mean in the Buffyverse. Time and time
again it is reinforced (as recently as this week with Darla's
death) that past evil cannot be made right or bought back or mitigated
by future action. Angel understands he can never do enough good
to make up for all his evil, even if he saves ten times the lives
he took.
But as you point out, Rufus, honor and value can be restored to
those without it. Even Darla, for one moment, was a being of value
as she put the life of her unborn child ahead of her unlife. Does
that mean she is now magically designated as *redeemed*? I don't
know. Who decides? For a moment she had value. That's all I know.
Perhaps redemption can never really be a goal or an end state.
Perhaps it's a transitory state of being with ebb and flow.
Then there's reformation. To make again. This is Angel. He had
remade himself so that he is now in a right relationship to others.
He tries to act rightly. He doesn't always succeed. He follows
a different star than when he was Angelus. But is he redeemed
or just reformed?
Sometimes I think the word redemption just gets in the way. If
vampires are creatures that represent a lack of empathy (a lack
of love), then redemption could simply be a matter of being able
to love and put the welfare of others before one's own. Basically,
the golden mean.
I've been thinking on this for awhile, as its one of the main
things people bring up whenever they are arguing against a Buffy/Spike
relationship. 'Spike isn't sorry for what he's done. He's not
repentant.' I guess my question is, why should he be?
Spike is a vampire. Spike accepts this. Until very recently, he
reveled in it. What do vampires do? They kill people. They cause
mayhem. They drink blood. Sometimes they plot to control/take
over/destroy the world (or at least Sunnydale/the Hellmouth).
Now, Spike has been cast a different lot. With the chip in his
head, he can no longer drink blood (right from the tap, at least
if the person is still alive) or kill people. He can still cause
mayhem and plot to take over/destroy the world (as witnessed in
S4).
Presumably he's had time to ruminate over the things he's done.
Whether or not he has, its clear he doesn't have regret for them.
My question is, why should he? Or maybe a better way to put it
would be, 'what good would it do to be sorry?'
Look at this way: Angel (post souling) felt so bad about what
he'd done and what he was that he ran off for two years, hid in
sewers and ate rats to survive. Then he went back to Darla and
wanted his old life back. He tried only killing rapists and scoundrels
and murderers. (I'm reminded of Buffy's sarcastic comment to Spike
in Smashed when he complains about not being able to attack criminals:
'because muggers deserve to be eaten.') That didn't work, Darla
tried to force him to eat a baby, and off he ran to brood for
almost a hundred years. What good, exactly, did this do? Angel
was sorry. Angel felt bad. Angel sank into deep depression. Well,
good for Angel. He let his guilt paralyze him for almost a century.
And it was only when Whistler came down, showed him Buffy, and
told him to wake up and smell the Slayer that he roused himself
to do something productive.
Now take Spike. Spike is chipped, he gets despondent, he almost
kills himself until he finds he can still fight demons. He rebels
against the Scooby gangs' attempts to get him to help. He teams
up with Adam, not to destroy the world so much as to get the chip
out of his head so he can return to the life he knew. Doesn't
work. He joins forces with the Scoobies at the last minute when
a) it becomes clear Adam doesn't mean to help him and b) it becomes
clear that the Scoobies are probably going to win. Then come season
five, he slowly begins to work with the Scoobies. First its for
money, then its to impress Buffy, and finally its for love of
'Summers women' (Buffy and Dawn, and to a lesser extent, Joyce).
Come the beginning of season six, he's worked with the Scooby
gang for the entire summer, and has apparently developed a camaradarie
of sorts with the gang (they trust him enough to sit for Dawn
and fight with him nightly). None of this appears to be out of
a self-interested sense, but (at least in the case of Dawnsitting)
out of a sense of personal failure. Spike finally feels regret
not for something that he did, but ironically failed to do --
stop Doc and save Dawn. He also appears to feel at least uncomfortable
around the Buffybot, which could be seen as another sign of regret
-- he's embarrassed, nay stricken, by the attentions he originally
had the 'bot created to perform.
So I guess the question is, is feeling bad about what you've done
a necessary step in deciding not to do it again? Or is it possible
to acknowledge that what once was acceptable is now not and choose
to work within the new ruleset? A telling example is when men
come home from war. For a number of years, they have acted in
a world of violence, where killing is not only considered acceptable,
it is encouraged, necessary and they can even be killed for refusing
to kill (i.e. not following orders). Killing is a constant, accepted
part of existence. Then the war ends and the soldiers are sent
home and expected to live by a peaceful society's rules, which
usually includes not killing those you disagree with (something
which is essential to war). Do we expect some trouble adjusting
on the part of the soldiers, or do we for the most part assume
that they will seamlessly reintegrate with a civilized society?
Do we expect soldiers to feel remorse for their actions during
wartime? Not usually. In many cases they are looked upon as heroes
for their actions.
In a way, Spike is rather like a soldier who's lost the war (or
been taken prisoner) and has to live among his former enemies.
They treat him with distrust and contempt. He can never truly
earn their respect because of what he is (other, the enemy). He
can never truly belong in his adopted world, and he is considered
traitor to the world he (at first unwillingly) left behind. The
only reason he is allowed to live is because he has been disarmed
(chipped). Yet still he chooses to fight for his new 'side.' He
attempts to do constructive things for his former enemies (with
some backsliding, admittedly). He does not feel guilty for his
past actions anymore than a soldier would.
We know Spike considers himself a warrior. Fighting means enough
to him that his loss of the ability to do so rendered him suicidal.
We have also never seen evidence of him being cruel about his
kills (especially not in the way Angelus and Darla were). In fact
he has often shown distaste for Angel et al's styles (FFL, season
2 Angelus' attempts at driving Buffy insane ('we're supposed to
be killing her, not leaving gag gifts in her friend's beds').
So in this way, it makes sense for Angel to feel guilt for his
(admittedly reprehensible) actions, and for Spike not to. It was
never personal for Spike in the way it was for Angel. With Spike,
it was about the battle. For Angel, it was about control, dominance
and winning. Spike has killed in self-defense (whether or not
he started the fight, it was clear that, did he not win, he would
more than likely be destroyed), and he has killed to eat. So far
as I know, he never did kill soley for perverse pleasure in the
way Angel(us) did.
I welcome debate on this topic, as I'm not quite convinced myself.
But either way, I don't think remorse is going to be the green
light to Spike's redemption/acceptance anymore than it was to
Angel's. All of Angel's paralyzing remorse did him little good.
His realization of never being able to atone for the past, accepting
that and moving on to what he could do here and now, did.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Should Spike Be Sorry? (Spoilers up through Smashed)
-- DEN, 22:58:31 11/24/01 Sat
Another impressive posting! I like the idea that repentance may
be an overrated virtue--one indeed that can inhibit reform, as
Angel's experience suggests. And comparing Spke to a soldier who
has to learn new rules of play fits very well with some of my
ideas, posted earlier, about Willow's behavior. IMO, a key statement
supporting the "warrior" thesis, even granting Spike's
limited skills in self-analysis, is his line from "The Gift:"
"I always expected to go down fighting--I only thought it
would be on the other side."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Should Spike Be Sorry? (Spoilers up through Smashed)
-- Juliette, 05:23:55 11/25/01 Sun
I agree. I've never understood the argument that Spike is like
a human serial killer. He's not human. He's a vampire. There's
no point comparing him to realverse humans becuse vampires don't
exist. We, and the writers, make the rules concerning how we see
them. We change our moral values in wartime to call soldiers heroes
instead of serial killers and I'm sure I'm not the only person
who enjoys watching The Sopranos even though in real life I would
find these gangsters despicable. The point of all this being,
it's a vampire's nature to kill. If Spike wants to hang with the
Scoobies, he has to stop killing (the fact that he was about to
kill again in Smashed is a bit disconcerting, but he didn't seem
entirely sure about it judging by his ran about being 'confused
about what you are') but why should he be sorry for simply doing
what vampires do?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Should Spike Be Sorry? (Spoilers up through
Smashed) -- CaptainPugwash, 07:06:07 11/25/01 Sun
Well... if Spike wants to remain a vampire (and not apologise
for being a vampire) then fine, no need to feel remorse. I agree
that vamps shouldn't apologise for being vamps, but then neither
should humans for staking them. There are no rules in the vamps
vs humans thing; vamps try to kill humans, and humans try to kill
vamps. It's a war, and who wins wins...
Spike's problem is that he has fallen in love with a human (assuming
Buffy is human...), and if he wants the respect (and love) of
humans then he has to start acting like one and stop killing them.
And this does involve feeling a little sorry for past actions.
There is a BIG difference between feeling remorse, accepting it,
and 'moving on' (as Faith & Angel are doing) and being totally
remorseless (like Spike). My father has several patients who are
WWII veterans, but most of them rarely speak about their experiences
(and shy away from being called heroes). They have 'moved on',
but that doesn't mean they feel nothing (or have no regrets) about
what they had to do. Using paralyzing remorse as a justification
for feeling NO remorse just isn't acceptable.
The worst thing about Smashed was Spike being all corrupted by
power again (and the Troika.. grrrr). Whenever he gets released
from his current state he turns into a massive egoist; he wanted
to be the 'big good' in TR and now hes enjoying being the 'big
bad' again.
As for B/S.. well, Buffy can sleep with whoever she likes and
I think the Spike redemption issue is something much bigger than
their sex life...
And like it or not, remorse is a part of redemption. It doesn't
have to become all consuming and disabling, but mere recognition
of one's past wrongs is essential. How dreadfully old-fashioned
of me...
And please please please kill all the Spike kills only for food
nonsense. He killed three people in School Hard just to make a
point, and he isn't called Spike for nothing. Ok, so he's not
as bad as Angelus, but he's still bad! Sexy, insightful, cynical,
amusing etc. etc., but still BAD! I admire Claudius' intellectual
honesty in Hamlet when he realises that he can't be forgiven for
his crimes whilst he still possesses the gains, but that doesn't
change the fact that he is an murderous adulterer!
Why do people on this forum ALWAYS use an example of worse behaviour
to let someone less worse off the hook?!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Should Spike Be Sorry? (Spoilers up
through Smashed) -- Monique (second language speaker, so be kind
;), 07:30:23 11/25/01 Sun
Hum... I kind of agree with both views on this issue actually
(yikes, confusing much?). While I can understand that the killing
is part of a vampire´s nature and that Spike wasn´t
as evil as Angelus was, if Spike is to be fighting on "our"
side, he is going to have to live with our rules in mind.
"And like it or not, remorse is a part of redemption. It
doesn't have to become all consuming and disabling, but mere recognition
of one's past wrongs is essential."
And I have to agree with this... the problem with Spike is that
he is a souless vampire, thus he lacks the "instinct"
to do good naturally (although with what we´ve seen in TR
I am starting to question that as well) acording to the laws of
the Buffyverse. So how can he feel guilty when it would be against
his very nature?
I think that this is all related to the "Oh, grow up!"
theme of the season though... it´s not just Buffy, Willow
and Xander who have to grow up, Spike has to as well, if he wants
to be on the Scoobies´ side. The vampire is the eternal
adolescent taken to an extreme: it´s all me, me, me, with
no control at all. Reckless, much like Spike was in FFL. Vampires
can´t grow past that... you could say it´s the bad
part about being inmortal really: you are bound to repeat your
human life over and over again, but in a much twisted manner.
Spike cannot grow past his "Love´s Bitch" phase...
he keeps on falling madly in love with women only to be "beneath
them". Will Spike be able to grow this year? Who knows...
But if he does, then maybe this "Should Spike be sorry?"
argument might finally be adressed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> big up to english as a second language
people! -- LL, 16:02:28 11/25/01 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Should Spike Be Sorry? (Spoilers up
through Smashed) -- dsf, 07:44:08 11/25/01 Sun
What I find interesting is the implication of Angel's recent speech
about Angelus not hating his victims. (Whether I believe it with
respect to Buffy is another question. I think he bore her a killing
grudge for 'violating' him with love. And he may have been more
willing to destroy the world because it had witnessed his humiliation;
credit to Guy Gavriel Kay for that concept. But then Angelus was
capable of self-delusion. The funny thing about that line, "To
kill this girl, you have to love her," is that Angelus was
wrong and Spike and Buffy -- "Give me time" -- were
right. When the chips were down, despite every psychological torture
Angelus could devise, Buffy won.)
But putting aside the Angelus of season two, and returning to
Darla's happy kill-artist of yore, the implication is that even
at his most sadistic, Angelus felt neither rage nor spite toward
his victims. He went to great trouble to torment some of them;
killed others casually; but since he was never really threatened,
and always had a good time, why should he have hated them? I don't
hate a tangerine when I rip off its skin, tear it into pieces,
and sink my teeth into them. Without a soul, apparently, one doesn't
need to hate a person to hurt them (conscience/soul as empathy
again.)
So why is Angel remorseful when Spike is not? Well, Spike doesn't
have a soul. This doesn't seem to spare him entirely from empathy,
not any more. He seems to have begun to generalize from the person
he loves. He felt for Joyce and feels for Dawn as well as for
Buffy. And he seems to feel unwilling empathy toward the woman
he tries to bite.
But overall I'd say it's Angel's soul, not Angelus' sadism, that's
made Angel repentant where Spike has only changed his ways. Though
Spike's chosen pleasures -- love and a good fight -- are more
attractive to most of us than Angelus', they were both evil, in
the careless, casual way natural to vampires. (Other evil demons
seem to be evil in different ways. Most vampires, with the exception
of lunatics and religious fanatics, seem to be looking primarily
for a good time.) Nothing is forcing Spike to empathize with his
past victims, so he doesn't. Should he? I'm not sure.
dsf
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Should Spike Be Sorry? (Spoilers up through
Smashed) -- Malandanza, 08:41:24 11/25/01 Sun
If Spike was just "simply doing what vampires do" we
might compare him to a predator, like a crocodile or tiger. (Of
course, we still kill predators, even endangered one, when they
take human lives.) But Spike goes beyond that -- he has taken
pleasure in his human kills and has enjoyed causing terror. He
has threatened Willow with rape/death twice (Lovers Walk and The
Initiative). Even is his "ghost story" to Dawn he takes
pleasure in causing fear. In FFL, we see that he becomes sexually
excited just from talking about his previous kills. For Spike,
violence and sex seem inextricably mixed.
And look at his behavior after the chipping -- he goes out and
kills demons and vampires -- definitely not in a vampire's nature,
as other vampires never tire of telling him. With his preferred
victims unavailable, he kills whatever he can. I'd say the serial
killer is prison analogy is valid -- he's like a serial killer
who attacks other inmates to get his violence/sex fix. The Scoobies
provide him with a relatively low-risk means of indulging his
favorite pastime.
I don't see remorse as vital to reform(Anya, apparently, doesn't
feel remorse). Angel still managed to kill a few people when he
had a soul. Noir Angel might not have been as bad as Angelus,
but Wesley, Cordelia and Gunn were still right to break off their
relationship with him. Actions are important -- how a person behaves
now should determine how they are treated now (although past actions
help determine whether a person's current actions are sincere).
Remorse without reform is pointless -- just look at Willow: always
contrite, but never amending.
Ryuei had a post some time ago called "It's us or them, baby"
where he suggested that demons and vampires that fail to conform
to the rules of human society ought to be destroyed -- but that
demons that allowed themselves to be assimilated into human society
should be allow to live. Thus, the baby-eating demon or the three-eyed
demons should be hunted down and killed, but the balancing entity
with the Slurpee should live. I agree with his position entirely.
If Spike is willing to behave like a human, he should be treated
accordingly. If he wants to keep playing at being a "Big
Bad" creature of the night, he shouldn't be surprised if
he gets staked.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Anya and remorse -- Wilder, 13:43:23 11/25/01
Sun
Malandanza mention something in the above post that;s plagued
me for a while:"I don't see remorse as vital to reform(Anya,
apparently, doesn't feel remorse). "
It seems rather hypocritical that Xander, who has con't'd to despise
Angel, is dating an ex-demon that undoubtably caused tremendous
suffering.
And while we critizie Spike for his evil ways, there has been
no calls for Anya to be accountable for her deeds.
And, does Anya have a soul now? There seems to be a bit of a paralell
between her and the Big Bad, where both have become more compassionate
as a byproduct of thier love for their other.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Anya and remorse -- Laural,
15:27:58 11/25/01 Sun
I don't see Anya failing to feel remorse as a huge problem, though,
since technically none of her actions as Anyanka currently have
any consequences in the Real World.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> The Real World ... -- Wilder,
18:23:52 11/25/01 Sun
"I don't see Anya failing to feel remorse as a huge problem,
though, since technically none of her actions as Anyanka currently
have any consequences in the Real World."
Maybe all her actions in the alternate Buffyverse ended up reversed,
but did crushing her amulet take back all the other vengance she
inflicted? It certainly un-turn her Troll ex-boyfriend.
And, even if so, that shouldn't take away from the fact she committed
said veganances. Vengangicis? Is that Italian?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Huh? -- T-rex, 06:54:17 11/26/01
Mon
The events resulting from Cordy's wish were reversed. But as far
as we know everything else Anyanka did remained in effect.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> from the Wish transcript:
-- Laural, 14:05:44 11/26/01 Mon
Giles: Ah! Ah! Ah! Yes! (glances at Buffy and stands up) Here.
(reads) 'In order to defeat Anyanka, one must destroy her powercenter.
(walks down the steps) This should reverse all the wishes she's
granted, rendering her mortal and powerless again.'
(from Psyche's site, emphasis mine)
Seems pretty straightforward to me. Granted, Anya remembers doing
all those horrible things she did and doesn't seem to have remorse
for them, but the fact remains that technically they never happened,
so why should she?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: from the Wish
transcript: -- t-rex, 14:42:31 11/26/01 Mon
Ok, now this brings up another questions. Couldn't reversing 1000
years of vengeance and wish granting significantly alter the course
of history?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: from
the Wish transcript: -- vandalia, 19:16:27 11/26/01 Mon
Doesn't Giles say that in the alternate dimension? I.E. if her
medallion is destroyed all wishes in THAT version of reality are
rendered null and void? That reality would have started when Cordy
made her wish, so everything AFTER that point would be backdated,
NOT everything made up to that point. Otherise, Olaf the Troll
God would not have been Anya's ex-boyfriend, as she turned him
into a troll to punish him as a vengeance demon. Right?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
from the Wish transcript: -- t-rex, 19:28:27 11/26/01 Mon
That sounds right to me. I was afraid I had missed something big.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> RE:
Olaf -- Laural, 21:17:59 11/26/01 Mon
I'm pretty sure that Olaf was actually the curse that got her
the job as vengeance demon, not one of her acts as vengeance demon.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> xander's double standard -- LL,
15:59:45 11/25/01 Sun
I always felt that xander's reaction to her lack of remorse was
interesting, taking in to account his absolute and unfaltering
refusal to forgive angel. yes, that had something to do with his
being threatened by Angel, but it's interesting he himself hasn't
realized the similarities between the two, in terms of their past
conquests. Is this just an example of his ability/tendancy to
always consider things in a way that works for him? (me like buffy,
buffy back, me happy.) So i have another potentially very stupid
question, (stupid IMO, i don't need to be reassured :) ) is there
any sort of consistent correlation between demon and soul? b/c
if so i don't understand it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: xander's double standard
-- cat, 12:28:50 11/26/01 Mon
Is this just an example of his ability/tendancy to always consider
things in a way that works for him?
Hmm, I always thought it was more of a "guy" thing:
Angel hurting Buffy, and 'horning in' on his turf as protector
when Xander had a severe crush on her, and Anya being an attractive
female and therefore automatically forgiven! ;) Xander has a very
stereotypical gender perspective, he's all guy, so I understood
his antagonism towards Angel to arise primarily from that...just
a thought.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Anya and remorse -- Q, 18:58:20
11/26/01 Mon
I agree--but I think this will be dealt with. It is not how they
act while "chipped" that matters--but what they do when
free will is restored. We know that Spike, when he thinks he can,
goes straight for the kill. I think they NEED to deal with Anya.
She needs to get her powers back, and make the decision between
powerful woman, or life with Xander. Only then can we make a suitable
comparison between the two characters.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Remorce, Repentance, Reform, and Redemption -- Kerri, 09:41:22
11/25/01 Sun
Ok, bear with me here everyone. I've got an idea but sadly am
not as eloquent as many of the posters on this board so I hope
you'll forgive me if this post is slightly incoherent. I'll do
my best. Ok, here goes.
So I guess the question is, is feeling bad about what you've done
a necessary step in deciding not to do it again?
Clearly the answer to this question is no. Someone can change
the way they behave for many reason, including selfish ones. The
decision to change ones' actions may have nothing to do with a
sense of morality or a sense that past behavoir was wrong. And
according to Rufus' post someone can be redeemed without remorse
since according to some definitions a person need not be good
to be redeemed.
Rowan brought up the point of reform as a seperate entity from
redemption. IMO, there are two seperate components to reform:
external and internal. There is ofcorse the reform of ones' actions,
which can be achieved without any moral compass. Spike has clearly
undergone a reform of his actions, whether or not this will be
a permanent change once the chip is removed remains to be seen.
Internal reform, or the change is ones consciousness, is where
remorse seems to be vital. This is something that Angel has achieved.
He has clearly undergone a change in morality and consciousness.
This goes back to the necessity of a change in consciousness in
the hero's journey; the hero needs to ascend in order to complete
their journey. It seems that for spike to undergo reform he at
least needs to understand his past actions in terms of different
moral standards.
I guess where this comes up a lot is the B/S relationship. Personaly,
I have a problem with them as a couple until Spike's morality
changes. In FFL Buffy asserts that Spike is below her. If we take
the position that humans are above vampires (which we seem to
as we have no problem with Buffy killing vamps) then Buffy is
right: Spike is below her. And if Spike ever wants to be equal
to Buffy he needs to reform his morality.
I'm proabably getting slightly off on a tangent here but Spike
and Buffy had sex only when Spike was physically equal. With physical
equality there was a physical relationship but Buffy could never
love Spike until there is mental/moral equality.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Remorse, Repentance, Reform, and Redemption --
Traveler, 10:38:20 11/25/01 Sun
"With physical equality there was a physical relationship
but Buffy could never love Spike until there is mental/moral equality."
I'm not sure about that. Perhaps it is possible to love someone
who has different moral standards than we do? Another interesting
idea that has been brought up before is that maybe Buffy isn't
as moral as she would like to believe. It seems to me that the
lines between Buffy and Spike are being intentionally blurred,
in every way, including morality. Strangely, I find this darker
Buffy somehow refreshing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Remorce, Repentance, Reform, and Redemption --
rowan, 10:46:37 11/25/01 Sun
"I guess where this comes up a lot is the B/S relationship.
Personaly, I have a problem with them as a couple until Spike's
morality changes. In FFL Buffy asserts that Spike is below her.
If we take the position that humans are above vampires (which
we seem to as we have no problem with Buffy killing vamps) then
Buffy is right: Spike is below her. And if Spike ever wants to
be equal to Buffy he needs to reform his morality."
I think perhaps this might be what ME is showing us, slow bits
by slow bits.
We got cheated on the Angel redemption in a way. The soul pops
back in. We get the torment, we get the remorse, we get the reformation,
we get the constant struggle to be better, to feel better. Angel's
struggle is about knowing what is right, having done wrong, trying
to keep doing right, and handling the guilt of the wrong.
What we missed out on was an examination of how someone might
become transformed internally and externally over time. That's
Spike's story.
When he's in the alley in Smashed, he has to work himself up to
bite that victim. He almost talks to his victim as if she's his
therapist. Suddenly, he's making comments Buffy thinks because
she's confused about her place in things, he should be too.
Hello? When has Buffy ever said that to him? That's Spike projecting
his own internal conflict onto Buffy. One scene earlier she reinforced
that he is an evil thing. Three scenes before that she rejected
his attempt to fight against wrongdoing humans by framing it as
if he would bite them, not fight them. No conflict on her part
about his role. It's SPIKE who is conflicted. Yes, he definitely
talks himself into trying to take back his role. And I think if
the chip hadn't stopped him, he would have killed that woman.
But he was conflicted internally about it. He's gone from a conflicted
twinge in Crush to a conversation about doing evil in Smashed.
He's now consciously aware of himself. He's beyond the instinct
to kill. He can rationale it, understand it, and maybe in some
future day, stop it.
In TR, this is reinforced. Randy, without his life experiences
to condition himself, has no instinctive desire to bite. Even
after he finds out he's a vampire, he doesn't want to bite Joan.
Nor does he want to go back to the Bronze to bite the Scoobies.
He feels instinctively connected (empathetic) to them. He doesn't
even express a desire to find other humans to bite.
This is radically different than the type of redemption/reformation
we've seen with Angel. Equally interesting, but different. Spike
is being burned and purified by this love for Buffy. It's changing
him in ways he can't even understand or comprehend. We're just
getting the hints of it, small bit by small bit.
Look at Darla. She's a totally different kind of redemption. She
has a moment when she realizes truly what she is. She knows she
is evil, yet she loves. She knows when the baby is born, she will
revert to evil. She knows she can't make up for what's she done.
So in a stunning moment of self-knowledge, she stakes herself.
It's raw, powerful, and beautiful. Nothing became Darla's life
like the leaving of it.
Spike has no idea about his true nature. He's nowhere close to
that knowledge. But if we focus a little less on the ship and
focus a little more on the internal change (of which Buffy was
and is the ongoing catalyst), then I think we'll get to those
interesting themes that Rufus wants to make sure we don't miss.
:)
rowan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> The meaning of redemption -- Juliette, 14:26:40
11/25/01 Sun
I came across a definition of redemption today as 'being forgiven.'
Does anyone have a dictionary definition? Do you have to repent
in order to be redeemed? (I came across the definition at church,
which is pretty firm on that issue (!) but I was wondering what
everyone thought, regardless of religious background.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: The meaning of redemption -- Rufus,
17:00:34 11/25/01 Sun
Go to your search and plunk in Dictionary and you will get many
hits. Redemption can mean what Christian dogma defines it as or
it can mean forgiveness. I think that Joss isn't sticking by a
strictly Christian frame for redemption. If you consider that
the show is about myth and fairy tale, redemption can also be
the lifting of a curse or a bewitchment, where when the person
is restored to their former state they are not held accountable
for their actions when cursed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: The meaning of redemption -- Maxwell,
19:21:48 11/25/01 Sun
The question is this case is forgiven by whom and for what? Buffy
and the SG could forgive Spike for all the threats and torments
he visited on them in recent years but who will forgive him for
all the lives he took over the centuries? A better question may
be "how can you forgive someone you does not apologise(repent)?"
We saw in "Smashed" that Spike is not only not repentant
for his past actions but would eagerly repeat them if he could.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Hello? VAMPIRE! (Contains adult material) -- Wisewoman,
11:13:37 11/25/01 Sun
Great post vandalia. Loved it.
As to the whole remorse/redemption issue, Spike himself keeps
trying to point out that he is not human. The rules (and there
seem to be several different versions of them) don't apply.
As to the issue of B/S sex and why it happened/what it means,
I've been of the opinion that Spike had to prove himself "unbreakable"
in order for Buffy to give in to her desire to have sex with him.
Now I think there may be another aspect to what we witnessed in
"Smashed."
When a human being engages in sexual congress with a non-human
being we call that bestiality. It's generally considered to be
sinful and, I believe, illegal as well. In the strictest sense
of the word, Buffy engaged in bestiality when she had sex with
Angel. There was the mitigating factor of him having a soul, but
that still did not make him a human being.
Previous to the revelations in "Smashed," Buffy would
have seen any sexual congress with Spike as bestiality, so it's
no wonder she fought against her desires as hard as she did. There
was no mitigating factor, i.e. soul, and Spike's chip restricts
his natural actions as a vampire, rather than doing anything to
move him closer to human status.
She pretty much sums it up when she says, "You're not a man.
You're a thing." She's right.
Then Spike offers her pretty convincing evidence that she's a
"thing," too. Maybe he's wrong and there's some other
explanation, but for the time being whatever lingering taboo Buffy
was honoring concerning bestiality just disappears. You have to
be human to engage in bestial acts. If both parties are other
than human, again, the rules don't apply.
I am now of the opinion that both issues were integral to allowing
the "climax" that we saw in Smashed: Spike had to show
that he was unbreakable, and he had to show, at the same time,
that Buffy wasn't human. Again, there may be some other explanation
as to why the chip doesn't work with Buffy, but for the time being
the simplest explanation is that she's no longer human and he
is, therefore, no longer beneath her (except in the most obvious
sense!).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Hello? VAMPIRE! (Contains adult material) -- Morgane,
11:30:31 11/25/01 Sun
I'm sorry to completely disagree with you! To talk about bestiality
there got to be two different species, a human and another specie,
but the thing is, vampires aren't a different specie than human,
they are dead human with a demon inside. But still, physically,
they are totally human. We could talk about necrophily (not sure
about the english word) but even then, usually, the body is dead
AND not moving, and especially not loving. So I'm not sure it's
the right word either. So, even if Buffy is still entirely human,
I'm not really sure there is any moral issue about her having
sex with Spike.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Hello? VAMPIRE! (Contains adult material)
-- Kerri, 11:44:45 11/25/01 Sun
Lets put aside the technical qualifications. I agree, WW, that
Buffy finding out that she isn't human is a huge part of her having
sex with Spike. She buys into the idea that he is no longer beneath
her since she is a thing too. Therefore, Buffy is willing to have
sex with spike not because he has done anything to become more
human but because she believes she has become less human. And
there is definately an element of Spike needing to be Buffy's
physical equal as well. She definately has a dark side like Faith,
and that part of Buffy is attracted to the strength and sexual
prowess of the vampire.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Two points -- vampire hunter D, 12:41:37 11/25/01
Sun
I have two points to make: 10 you'd think bestiality would be
illegal, but guess what. It isn't. I know this b/c a few years
ago some pervert i my area was arrested having sex with a sheep
and when they went to charge him, they couldn't find an actual
law that forbids what he did.
2) Margane, we here on the board had the bestiality/ necrophilia
discussion already. Hell, I'm the one who sarted it. And considering
the direction that one took, let's not do that again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do we expect Spike to be
the best of human? -- Spike Lover, 16:06:51 11/25/01 Sun
I really don't understand it. I love the show, but I don't like
all the characters. I don't have to. I don't like how some of
the characters have changed over the series. That is okay too.
But what I don't understand is why I read post after post of 'why
Spike is not good enough for Buffy'.
Usually the reasons are: 1) He has no soul and has killed for
years. 2) Spike has no job and cannot financially support her.
3) Spike can not have children. There is no future there. 4) Spike
is evil/could be evil/might be evil, and even if he is not evil
at present, he still is/could be/might be.
I am still not explaining myself well. I don't understand why
these arguments are presented when there are real life people
out there (presumably with souls) who do evil acts -and (one presumes
that) they date. There are certainly deadbeats who don't work
and they have wives or girlfriends (or boyfriends). There are
certainly human beings who are unable to have children or simply
don't want them, and they are permitted to date and even to marry.
Why do they expect Spike to act better than many human beings
do?
Perhaps the people posting these comments are simply very protective
of Buffy. (I'm not. I have never really liked her, but find her
interesting to watch.)
Why don't I like Buffy? Well, let me back up and say that I did
not like Joyce either, and it only took 2 episodes to make me
dispise the woman. I am of course referring to season 2 when she
found out that Buffy was the slayer, and she told Buffy that if
she left the house, not to come back. She should not blame Buffy
for taking her at her word. In the season opener of 3, she told
Giles she blamed him for Buffy's leaving. (I am glad she is dead.)
I use to like Buffy, and when Angel broke her heart the day after
her 17th birthday, I was crying right there with her. But as the
years went by, she became cold. Actually, Xander, Willow, and
Buffy were all pretty unfeeling. It was Tara that brought the
sensitivity in. It was Spike who cared, who reached out With Feeling.
(FFL)
She was not even terribly warm with Riley, who was trying as best
he could to relate to her and be there for her. (Although I thought
he was way too protective.)
When Spike went out on a limb and finally told her how he felt,
I know a lot of you were hoping like I was that Buffy for once
in a great while was going to be gentle with his feelings. Oh,
NO, she was outraged. She had Willow do the out-of-the-house spell.
That hurt him too.
Her inability to feel/love is an issue because she did talk to
the first slayer about it. (When I saw that episode was breaching
that subject, I said, "Right on".)
Then you have the season final with Glory. Things are getting
better: She seems to have accepted that Spike loves her and invites
him in the house. This season, Spike has been counting the days
since she has been gone, and once again she is confiding in him,
going out drinking with him. Then she is kissing him and confusing
him.-- She is using him willingly even though she knows that his
feelings are real (to him at least.)She is so cold blooded!! What
does he see in her??
Then Just as suddenly we are back to "Spike, you are a thing!!"
I hate her!! He is the best THING that has happened to her yet.
0k, I will continue my raving on another post.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> THE ICE QUEEN -- Spike Lover, 16:38:04 11/25/01 Sun
Now to Tues's sex. I hope that Rowan is correct in his/her interpretation.
BUT:
To be brief. Some people have posted that the scene was about
power and lust. Power? maybe. Lust? Lust? I don't think so. Spike
has not really talked about how Buffy looks in a long, long time.
And Buffy has never admired Spike's muscular physique. (although
I have been drooling at home.)
Right before she goes into the alley, she makes some comment to
Xander/Anya about resisting seduction or something. Was the following
scene with Spike particularly seductive? I don't think so.
What I found interesting in it was that it was all Buffy's doing.
Spike was not trying to seduce her or put a guilt trip on her.
Nor, when he got her down on the floor did he try to rip her clothes
off of her and take her by force. (A natural choice of events
to occur for the choreographer.) No, it seems pretty clear that
he is not thinking about sex, particularly from the look of clear
astonishment on his face when it does occur. But it was Buffy,
(your sweet, innocent, angelic, I-am-never-wrong/morally-lax)Buffy,
that went to the next level.
Now, why did she do it? Boy, we could debate that one all day
long. But I think I can say with some confidence it was not to
show him that she loved him. I think she just wanted something
more than a kiss or as they sang in "OMwF", "I
just want to feel".
So what kind of a person is it who feels nothing but will "use"
a person for sex knowing full well the other person's feelings
are involved? Well, I can name them, but they are not very nice
terms.
So what will happen next? Will Buffy feel ashamed and regret it
and say it was a horrible mistake and never see him again? (Probably.)
Will she drop kick him and his tender feelings across Sunnydale?
(I would not put it past her.) She is the ICE QUEEN
They should rename the show Buffy, The Ice Queen and sometime
Vampire Slayer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Understanding Buffy -- Kerri, 17:34:09 11/25/01 Sun
Personally, I have always liked Buffy. Yes, sometimes she does
things that are wrong or that you may disagree with, but so does
everyone. If Buffy never did anything wrong she wouldn't be a
believable character. And that is why everything that Buffy is
able to accomplish is greater and why she truly is the hero: Buffy
overcomes not just outside forces but herself. With all that Buffy
has been through it seems reasonable to allow for some mistakes.
It is perfectly understandable why Buffy would be cold with Spike.
First of all she's been abandoned by every male figure in her
life and when ever Buffy gets close to someone they seem to be
taken away or leave her. Also, Buffy is clearly afraid of her
own sexuality and dark side and therefore is afraid of what her
attraction to Spike means about her.
IMO, Buffy's fault are what make her a great character and what
make her the hero. She struggles with her identity but in the
end is a moral, selfless, loving woman.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I'm not a Buffy Lover, but... (spoilers seasons 5
& 6) -- Traveler, 17:34:12 11/25/01 Sun
I agree with you that some people seem to expect Spike to be more
human than human... i.e., he has to be a noble/heroic human to
be worthy of Buffy. Also, I agree that Buffy has always taken
Spike for granted, and often was unduly harsh with him. However,
your position seems rather extreme. After all, for a long time
Spike was trying to kill Buffy and her friends. That's not something
that you easily forget. Also, right after confessing his love
for her, Spike tied Buffy up and threatened to kill her if she
didn't admitt some kind of affection for him. No wonder she reinvoked
the anti-vampire spell! Since then, Spike's growth has been gradual,
and Buffy's attitude towards him has also changed just as gradually.
I think that most people on this board believe that Buffy has
treated Spike badly recently because she has feelings for him,
and those feelings scare her. Are those feelings love? Who knows?
I would argue yes, but that's a seperate topic. Regardless, I
wouldn't say that Buffy is a cruel person. Rather, she is simply
not dealing with the events in her life in a mature fashion. Hence
the them, "oh, grow up!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Melting ... -- Wilder, 18:27:46 11/25/01 Sun
For all that about Buffy being an ice queen
(which I am leaning in agreement of)
still, that last scene was HOT.
Like they say, not a dry seat in the house.
p.s. Han is cute!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: THE ICE QUEEN -- maddog, 09:03:29 11/26/01 Mon
I think you're missing one key point there...is that Buffy isn't
thinking straight right now...people do weird things after big
traumatic events. Buffy's still realing from being sucked out
of Heaven...it's kinda like temporary insanity. If she were her
normal self I'm pretty sure she'd have the moral sense to not
do that with Spike knowing that it would be giving him what he
wanted, but not what he wanted(if you follow me). To call her
these mean names for what she did, that's somewhat deserved, but
to label her as those things overall I don't find fair.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Buffy versus SMG... -- CaptainPugwash, 04:52:01 11/26/01
Mon
Spike is in limbo at the moment; no-one knows where his character
is heading. We will only know if Spike has changed when the chip
is *removed*; I think his lack of confidence in 'Smashed' was
due to his knowing that the chip *might* kick in. No chip = no
inhibitions.
I'm not really concerned about whether Spike is 'good enough'
for Buffy. Ultimately, that decision is up to her. I've always
refused to pass judgement on Buffy's relationship decisions. I
never liked Riley, but I accepted that Buffy loved him even though
I thought he was boring (which was something that Spike never
did). I am scared of Spike's murderous side too; when he jokingly
threatened to rip Dawn's head off and drink from her brain stem
in 'Afterlife' it was obvious that he was referring to a past
experience. However, Buffy can sleep with whoever she wants. The
only time I will ever start criticising Buffy is when her decisions
start affecting her slaying ability or put other people in danger.
Some people may think that sleeping with Spike is a moral no-no,
but its not a dereliction of duty on Buffy's part. When she stops
'going through the motions', we can all start worrying.
As for the wider issue of people considering other people 'beneath
them', this is what happens in the real world all the time. Yes,
people with no money/jobs, violent backgrounds etc. still find
partners (and have kids). However, those partners are very unlikely
to be the rich, successful, beautiful, and famous. I know that
is a generalisation, but people usually don't associate (especially
intimately) with those who don't have their attributes or possessions.
For example, I used to work as a temp in a bank. I have very little
money, no partner, no car, and still live at home. The people
who *had* these things treated me like dirt; they thought they
were better than me/above me because they had made a success of
their lives whereas I hadn't. It's not particularly nice, but
this is how people discriminate and justify themselves.
And Buffy did it too - in FFL she was perfectly entitled to consider
Spike 'beneath her' (she did the same thing with Faith). Spike
has killed innocents (and got off on it), whereas she hasn't (assuming
[questionable] that demons aren't innocent). Spike plays kitten
poker etc; he is a drop-out whereas she isn't. Now, I have NO
PROBLEM with a Buffy/Spike relationship (Buffy can do what she
likes), but it just seems unlikely that it will last. It just
seems so implausible, rather like SMG going out with me rather
than her fiance! I think Spike should enjoy while it lasts; Buffy
has been on depressed binges before (with Faith), but sooner or
later she re-discovers her essential goodness and is back to her
normal hardened self.
I don't like Buffy much either; she is rather intimidating. She's
quite cold/frigid too; yeah yeah, she enjoys sex an all and is
sleeping with Spike, but she's not an overtly sexual character
like Faith!
Maybe this is a bloke thing, but Buffy was only ever really truly
'sexy' when Faith had taken over her body. Let me be quite specific
here; I don't want get all hung up on self-respect, good sex/bad
sex issues (like I did in the chat room). I'm not judging Buffy
& Faith as characters, but only in terms of being sexually adventurous.
I had a female friend who hated Buffy because she hated seeing
SMG (who is capable of playing 'the bitch') in such a 'sweet'
role. Buffy *is* afraid of her sexuality, and is definitely not
into staged 'causal sex' within a relationship (sometimes sex,
even between lovers, is purely physical). This is gonna sound
so crude, but I'd rather sleep with a (reformed) Faith than Buffy.
It's as simple as that. Buffy's 'innocence' really annoys me,
because its so uncharacteristic of someone with her looks. Buffy
has no sexual appeal for me at all, unlike Faith...
If anything good comes out of Buffy/Spike, it will hopefully be
a 'sexy' Buffy. A Buffy that doesn't need to be 'possessed' by
Faith to deliver lines that could make a man weep... I felt so
sorry for Spike in that episode!
So, although Spike isn't good enough for the Buffy of S5, he appears
to be good enough for the Buffy of S6. It's her decision really
(which is fine by me). My only concern is that Buffy is acting
out-of-character, and the only one who will get hurt by that is
Spike. The whole viability of the B/S thing depends on Buffy (not
Spike), which is why I think it won't last.
I don't get the Spike fan thing much either, or rather the lack
of disgust about his past. I have a 'thing' for Faith, but its
a 'thing' for her sexual confidence, not a 'thing' for her murderous
impulses. So, she only really attractive to me once she's been
through rehab. This is why I can't go for the B/S thing 100%;
Spike is just too in love with being 'bad' (which is fine, but
not if it involves KILLING INNOCENTS). As long as Spike remains
a potential killer, then I just can't see it working. I just wish
someone would get rid of that bloody chip.
Rant over..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy versus SMG... -- maddog, 09:20:33 11/26/01
Mon
A good post but just a comment or two... I didn't see Buffy acting
like she was better than Faith. I think at first she was confused
at Faith's outlook on life and the slaying...then I think she
was somewhat jealous of how free Faith seemed to be...until she
killed the deputy mayor...then from there on it was more feeling
bad(maybe even pity) for the emotional state Faith was in...until
she joyned with the Mayor...then I think it was more like business
as usual cause Faith had gone bad...that's hardly overly judgemental...she
joined up with someone that was going to kill EVERYONE...she'd
become a "bad" in a sense.
I think Buffy's uncharacteristic lack of sexuality comes from
her circumstances. It's kinda hard to be truly confident when
you have to save the world from the depths of hell on a daily
basis and how she treated it. Though Faith was in the same situation
she had a more positive outlook on her slayer duties while Buffy's
always considered them just that...duties. And besides, a reformed
Faith wouldn't have that same sexuality because of the reformation.
You wouldn't have the same girl that we've seen on the show.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> PS.. -- CaptainPugwash, 04:56:29 11/26/01 Mon
The sex scene between Buffy & Spike was hilarious - the only erotic
thing about it was all the fighting foreplay beforehand. The actual
sex was about as erotic as Top Gun.
Even when's she trying to be HOT, Buffy just isn't HOT...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: PS.. -- robert, 08:37:25 11/26/01 Mon
"Even when's she trying to be HOT, Buffy just isn't HOT..."
Do you think that Buffy was trying to be hot? Do you think that
being hot is an important motivation for Buffy?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: PS.. -- CaptainPugwash, 08:57:39 11/26/01
Mon
I was borrowing the language from those who thought this sex scene
was sexy. I don't think being 'hot' is a priority for Buffy; her
timid attitude towards sex (of a particular kind) was a target
for Faith and well as being a target for Spike.
I wouldn't mind seeing a more overtly sexual Buffy; the only times
that she ever been erotic were when her body got taken over by
Faith (which doesn't count I guess), and when Angel fed on her.
As sex scenes go, Buffy's union with Spike was pretty poor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Why do we expect Spike to be the best of human? -- maddog,
08:52:13 11/26/01 Mon
I think the simple fact that Spike is a vampire is why people
are giving him such high standards to match up to. Because he's
inherently evil they want to see certain redeeming quailities
that would make him good enough even for the average human, let
alone Buffy.
I hated Joyce too...especially pre-realization that Buffy's a
slayer. She never trusted her, always took anyone else's side
over Buffy, and pretty much treated her like dirt. And then I
thought it would be over after season 2 and then she went and
blamed Giles for Buffy's calling....and I hit the fan...I almost
hate her as much as I hate Momma Camden on 7th Heaven(don't EVEN
get me started on her). Joyce was acting like a teenager that
was willing to blame anyone else for something that she couldn't
change.
I think Riley's overprotectivness came from the boyfriend he felt
he had to live up to...I mean, can ANYONE live up to the legacy
of Angel...her one true love....I can't even see Spike claiming
that place in her heart.
I think you're jumping the gun on her being cold hearted. I think
part of it is her jaded personality...with all that she's gone
through in 5+ seasons I can't blame her for being in that position.
I think it's also the most recent act of being pulled from Heaven.
It's confused her in a way that she can't explain. And now everyone's
kinda wigging on her...Giles leaves...Xander gets engaged....Willow
goes all nutsy will the spell casting and drives away her girlfriend....and
the last straw...Spike says, oh, guess what...you're not human
anymore and I can prove it...that's a lot to deal with...so much
so that I think mentally she just gave up.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Why does Buffy have to be 'sexy'? -- Sebastian,
12:35:57 11/26/01 Mon
I'm going to risk being flamed and say there seems to be a bit
of sexism going on in this post.
I can understand the discussion of why Buffy is rebuking Spike.
But the question of why Buffy is/is not 'sexy' seems to be vaguely
sexist.
Why does Buffy 'have' to be sexy? It is been stated in several
messages (this is not verbatim) that 'if she looks like that -
you would expect her to be sexy' - or something along those lines.
There seems to be an assumption that because Buffy/SMG is beautiful
- that she should be 'hot' or 'sexy'.
But Buffy - the show and the character is not about being sexy.
Yes, we have monsters and epic storylines interwoven into the
season - but the show is primarily about life.
Growing up, moving on, friends, family, break-ups, and death.
To put a 'sexy' spin on Buffy the Character would diminish both
her characterization and the show. I admit, Buffy, as a character
is not sexy. But who is sexy 24/7? Buffy is a Slayer, a sister,
a friend, a (now) breadwinner, a daughter - and more importantly
- a person.
To say she should be sexier objectifies her in a way that flies
in the face of the show.
Faith was overtly sexual because she was designed as a foil to
Buffy. Everything Buffy wanted to be, but could not because of
her responsibilities.
If you note, once Faith became a rogue slayer, her 'sexiness'
was not as obvious. She was sexually aggressive - sure - but it
was to highlight the growing violence of her chararcter.
To have Buffy 'sexy' all the time would diminish her as a well-rounded
character. She *can't* be sexy all the time. I don't mean to slam
'dark angel' - but that show is an example of a female lead whose
24/7 'sexiness' sacrifices her character development.
I think the one thing that has always struck me about the show
is that the female characters (Buffy, Cordelia, Anya, Willow,
Tara, and Dawn) are all VERY attractive (even beautiful) women
- but it was the personalities that have been emphasized the most.
And that's why Buffy isn't sexy. Because her character, as a whole,
goes beyond that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Why is Buffy an 'ice queen'? -- Sebastian,
13:06:12 11/26/01 Mon
Also, there has been discussion on why Buffy is an 'ice queen'
and/or frigid. Once again I 'm going to have to say there is vague
sexism at work here.
Buffy has been shown quite capable of showing love. Joyce, Giles,
Dawn, Willow, Xander, and even Angel were shown unconditional
love from Buffy. Yes - there were times she has shown bad judgement
in how she interacts with them - but this is human nature. She
has never shown herself to be emotionally unavailable (and I would
argue the times she pushed people away such as in S4 and in individual
eps such as "When She was Bad" - because those were
specific circumstances.)
But Buffy is accused of being an 'ice queen' because she has rebuked
Spike.
Spike, as we well know - has killed TWO SLAYERS in the last century.
He has slaughtered and vamped numerous people. He is a vampire
- WITHOUT a soul I would like to add.
Don't get me wrong, Spike is one of my fave characters - but to
expect Buffy to 'like' him is a bit ridiculous.
Spike has shown nobility last season. He sacrificed his own well
being to protect Dawn from Glory. He upheld Buffy's promise to
protect Dawn. He aided the Scoobies in fighting vamps over the
summer.
But "Smashed" showed a reversion to pre-chip form. His
taunting of Buffy was sadistic not only for the obvious reasons
- but because he alone knew the real pain Buffy was going through.
And once he discovered he could harm her emotionally and physically
- he ACTED upon that discovery.
Why SHOULD Buffy be with a person like that? Buffy's history with
men has been about hurt and abandonment. Her father, Angel, Riley,
and even Giles have left her alone - and inadvertently hurt her
deeply in the process.
Which could be the reasons why Buffy DID 'give in' to Spike. Knowing
that he is now capable of hurting her - may be the trigger to
her desire finally manifesting. Buffy has a streak of emotional
S&M when it comes to men. Knowing Spike can 'hurt' her triggered
it once more.
Spike is a killer. Yes - he is chipped - but as soon as he discovered
the chip was supposedly malfunctioning his first thought was to
get a 'snack'. Yes - he had to psych himself up to do it - but
he was still psyching himself up to murder someone.
We also have to remember that Spike did kidnap Buffy last season
with an ultimatum - love me or die. He had a BuffyBot created
so he could play his own version of 'shiver me timbers'.
This is not a normal relationship by any means. Contrast this
to Xander - who carried a torch for Buffy for a season and a half
- but still did not resort to kidnapping or robot building.
If Spike were a human and not a vampire, he would be a deeply
disturbed individual. What disturbs ME, however, is that we are
making excuses for his psychotic behavior simply because he IS
a vampire.
If Ted Bundy were alive and 'reformed' through an electronic device
that inhibited his murderous tendencies - would we call a woman
an 'ice queen' if she refused his offer to be the 'object of his
affection'? I would hope not.
And that's why Buffy should be given a little leeway regarding
her treatment of him.
Just my thoughts...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Well said, Sebastian! -- Marie, 06:48:08 11/27/01
Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Many thanks, Marie! I was fearful I would
need a fire extinquisher. :-) -- Sebastian, 15:03:11 11/27/01
Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Momma Camden -- Spike Lover, 20:00:28 11/26/01 Mon
Yes, I watch 7th Heaven and watch those people on their moral
high horse. One of the BEST things about Buffy and Angel is the
reality and sexual reality of the show.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Why do we expect Spike to be the best of human? -- Krevlornegreen,
23:24:09 11/27/01 Tue
We are privy to a Spike that Buffy (nor can it be said, any of
the cast of either show)ever knew -- the poet, the soul-baring
sensitive young lad who was abrasively denegrated by snobbish
assholes. Kind of a sweet kid who your heart went out to. So,
he kind of was portrayed as possessing some of the most noble,
sensitive, and "best of human" traits. Why we should
expect any of that to linger in the demon who now possesses William
is a mystery though.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Happy endings need not apply
-- Fred, the obvious pseudonym, 16:28:19 11/25/01 Sun
I've never been able to see how Buffy can have a "happy ending"
to her career as a Slayer. Perhaps its my natural pessimism, but
there is no logical pleasant way out that is consistent with the
patterns of the Buffyverse.
All Slayers slay until they die. Period. (Unless they become undead.)
So the most that Buffy can reasonably expect is a violent, stressful
life and a painful death. (She's already had one -- or is it two?
lost count?) There is no way out but the grave. (Odd, isn't it;
the happiest she's been for years was when she was dead.)
Others have said that I'm far too pessimistic. Okay. What way
do YOU see for Buffy to leave the game and have a (relatively)
happy life?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> No happy endings here -- Wisewoman, 17:42:37 11/25/01 Sun
As I touched upon in a post further down the board, I don't believe
there can be a traditional "baby, puppy, white picket fence"
happy ending for Buffy either.
Much as she has bemoaned her inability to be a "normal"
girl and live a "normal" life in the past, I think in
reality it would bore her silly. Her life is about action, struggle,
heroic deeds, and yes, the temptation to turn her back on it and
rest must be huge at times.
I don't hold out much hope that we'll ever see Bride!Buffy, Mom!Buffy,
or Suburban!Buffy. She does, however, have to opportunity to become
something truly unique: a 30+ year old Slayer!
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re:I think it would bore us silly too;) -- bible belt,
17:50:25 11/25/01 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I can actually see a "Bride!Buffy" -- VampRiley,
07:13:21 11/26/01 Mon
Read a fic once, I forget who wrote it, maybe Sabre Shadowkitten,
but I'm not sure. Anyway, how the marriage happened was an accident.
The part I remember was Buffy and Spike were running from this
group of demons (Why? Can't remember.) and they duck into this
shop. This guy was there, along with someone else and B & S are
looking outside for the demons. They aren't really paying much
attention to what the guy is saying and they unknowingly were
involved in a marriage ceremony. It turned out the guy was someone
who was able to marry people without the couple having to go through
all the stuff you need to do to get a "legal" one. He
explained that to them and gave them the marriage certificate
and stuff. Later on, in a hotel room, Xander and either Willow
or Faith meet them after thinking that the both of them were dead.
And while Buffy is off with either Faith or Willow, Xander is
talking with Spike and when asked Spike sarcasticly says something
like he does love Buffy and that he's just using her or something.
When the other two get back, Xander says this to Buffy. And hilarity
begins. At least, hilarity to me. I remember it was a good fic.
But I'm not suggesting Spike and Buffy get married. I'm not sure
if it would actually work. I'm just suggesting a way for "Bride!Buffy"
to exist, alongside "Husband!Whoever". I'll see if I
can find out the name. I want to read it again. Been a long time.
VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: I can actually see a "Bride!Buffy"
-- Deeva, 15:27:24 11/26/01 Mon
When you find it could you post the link? It sounds funny and
I'd love to take a peek.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Hey! Vamp Riley... -- Isabel, 21:05:03 11/26/01
Mon
The name of that one is "When Slayers Fall."
The URL to Saber Shadowkitten's site is:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Hollow/5214/btvs.html
Oh, no. I don't read fanfic... ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Thanks Isabel... -- VampRiley, 14:38:11
11/27/01 Tue
Hadn't had a chance to loÿ
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Bleedin' message board screwed up my post
above... -- VampRiley, 14:44:30 11/27/01 Tue
So here is the re-write:
Hadn't had a chance to look for it yet.
Oh, yeah. You don't read any fanfic just like I don't have a day
where I don't think of the Jossverse. :P
VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: No happy endings here -- maddog, 08:34:48 11/26/01
Mon
I don't think it's possible for the simple fact that dramatic
tv shows never keep anything happy for too long. No angst equals
low ratings in their minds...that's why couples never stay happy...and
besides, this is Joss we're talking about...the the average drama
doesn't like happiness...he refuses to give it to us. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> You know... -- WillowFan, 17:42:45 11/25/01 Sun
I have thought about this before. And, alas, I have to agree with
you. I see no way out, either, which makes what Willow and the
SG did so cruel, even if it was done unwittingly and with good
intentions. Sad.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Everybody dies (that gloomy enough for ya?) -- Traveler,
17:43:36 11/25/01 Sun
You, me, and everybody else--we're all dying right now as I type.
Life is something that nobody survives :) However, does that necessarily
doom us to be unhappy with the cards fate has given us? Of course
not, and I would argue the same is true for Buffy. Yeah, she's
a Slayer and could be killed by her foes. But then again, I could
slip in the bathtub tomorrow and break my neck. So, the real question
is not how long will Buffy live, but how will she live her life
while she's got it? As TR showed us, Buffy is perfectly happy
being a Slayer; the roots of her depression are found elsewhere.
If she can come to terms with her feelings, she probably can be
happy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Everybody dies (that gloomy enough for ya?) --
Deeva, 19:43:00 11/25/01 Sun
Also if Buffy can come to terms with whatever is causing her "emotional
blackout", I would cut that girl some slack. She is one of
the longest lived Slayers (I really don't remember if they ever
mentioned the oldest a Slayer had ever been). Their lives are
usually short and a painful death is all but guaranteed & yada
yada yada. So where ever Buffy finds a bit happiness, relationship-wise,
I would leave it be. No matter how you choose to travel in life,
the end result is the same, we all die. Dark enough fer ya?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I won't -- vampire hunter D, 23:04:28 11/25/01 Sun
I'm gonna live forever or die trying
btw,Deeva, I remember reading that list of deeds of past slayers
(I don't remember where it first appeared, but it has been posted
on many websites) and it mentions a 22 year old girl who was the
Slayer. So, for Buffy to be the oldest, she has at least 2 more
years to go.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> life: an invariably fatal disease... -- anom, 21:04:37
11/28/01 Wed
...transmitted by sexual contact.
Yes, that's on a button.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Happy endings need not apply -- Neaux, 08:17:42 11/26/01
Mon
would an ending like Xena's be fitting?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Happy endings need not apply -- maddog, 08:22:17 11/26/01
Mon
It isn't odd at all that her most happy and peacefull time was
when she was dead...I mean listen to her song in OMWF, she couldn't
feel all the bad stuff where she was...that's as peaceful as it
gets for a slayer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Happy endings need not apply -- RabidHarpy, 10:29:15
11/26/01 Mon
It will be interesting to see how Joss will close the series .
Although I'm sure we'd all like to see the "riding into the
sunset" ending where Buffy and the Scoobies, (and Spike)
live happily ever after, it just wouldn't fit with the general
"angst" of the series overall. My guess would be to
have Buffy either lose her Slayer abilities and be able to continue
living as a normal woman, (yeah - I don't see Joss giving us that
one either), or having Buffy die, (yet again).
One possibility would be to have Buffy somehow defeat all demons
and somehow have everyone return to where they were before they
had changed, (ie. Angel, Darla, Dru and Spike would be sent back
to their original "times" before they had been turned
to live out their lives as normal human beings/ Buffy would return
to her life before the revelation of being a Slayer, etc.) None
of them would ever have met - Angel, Darla, Dru and Spike would
never be vamped and would never cross time-lines; no Watcher would
exist because no vampires exist; Buffy would never move to Sunnydale,
her parents would never have divorced, she wouldn't be the Slayer
(no vamps), and Dawn would never have existed; perhaps Xander
and Willow would be high school acquaintances, but never build
a solid friendship...etc.) It will be as if the whole series had
never happened.
Another possibility would be to have Buffy sacrifice her life,
(yet again) for some greater good. For example, if Faith dies
and a new Slayer is called, or if Dawn becomes another Slayer,
Buffy sacrificing her life to protect the new Slayer - the slayage
would continue, but her part in it would be over.
Another possibility that I thought of would be to have Buffy somehow
turn evil, (like Angelus), and, as with the whole Acathla incident,
turn back to her "good" self before having to be killed,
(either by Dawn - the new Slayer - or Spike) to close a portal
she's opened and save the world from hell. Since this scenario
has already been done, I can't see Joss repeating it, (unless
it had some significance to the closing of the "Angel"
series as well - ie. this time Angel has to kill her and continue
without her...) Or else Buffy remains good and has to close another
portal that someone else has opened, (with Dawn's blood again?)
But this time the PTB wouldn't allow her to go to "hell"
as Angel did, but would return her. This final sacrifice will
have purged the world of the demon element forever so that they
no longer existed, (vampires would return to their human forms
to live out the rest of their days - yay Spike!), and Buffy could
return as a normal woman without having to fight anything more
than the evils that the rest of us face every day, (which is bad
enough!)
A final possibility, (and the most melancholy), would be to have
Buffy turned into a vampire herself. What a way to undermine the
hero - make them, (through no fault of their own) become the very
thing they hate and have vowed to destroy. She could be turned
by someone she trusted, (Spike), or as a way of protecting someone,
(ie. someone threatens to turn Dawn and Buffy exchanges herself/
or someone threatens to dust Spike and kill Dawn and the Scoobies
unless... this would present a lovely opportunity for Dracula
if he is able to return...) Anywho, Buffy becomes a vampire (or
some other horrible creature), and either has to be killed by
Dawn, Spike and/or the Scoobies, or stakes/kills herself in front
of them... She would either die to prevent herself from harming
others, (especialy those she loves who have sworn to fight the
forces of evil), or, her physical death would be a requirement
of the PTB in order to release her soul and let her find her eternal
rest in "heaven" (which is where it should have been,
if she hadn't been resurrected...)
"Here end the Chronicles of Buffy the Vampire Slayer..."
(And here begin the opportunities of another spin-off series for
any of the other characters... "Dawn the Vampire Slayer";
"Sunnydale Slayers and Scoobies"; "Witch World"
featuring Willow and the Scoobies; "Vigilante" - featuring
Spike as a heartbroken, eternally damned vampire trying to seek
justice for mortals so that one day he can earn the restoration
of his soul and reunite with his true love in "heaven"
- kind of like the movie "The Crow"...)
No offence, but I kind of see the "profound death" scenario
as the one Joss is most likely to apply...
But then, with Joss, you just never know...!!!
;D
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Ooh! Another thought... (tangents and random speculations)
-- RH, 11:01:41 11/26/01 Mon
Perhaps Buffy IS still dead, and this is what her "soul"
is living-out in her subconscious. Her "heaven" consisted
of all the happy, peaceful thoughts she had right at her death
- knowing that her sacrifice would save the world and protect
her loved ones, etc. The nightmare truly begins with her original
nightmare of clawing her way out of her own grave, and now she
has progressed to the "what-if" scenario stage... (This
whole season is actually a dream...)
-what if my friends resurrected me? -what if Willow turned evil?
-what if Xander and Anya got married? -what if Giles left? -what
if I had to continue to live without my mom and take care of Dawn?
-what if Spike and I started a relationship?
If this were true, Buffy will have effectually created her own
"hell". This dream world of her "soul's" subconscious
is, perhaps, supposed to lead her to discover that her purpose
on earth has not yet been fulfilled, and that she has a specific
goal yet to complete, (whatever that may be - ie. training Dawn;
saving Willow or Spike; learning to love fully for the first time
like Xander and Anya, etc.)
When she is ready to return, the PTB will have her wake up on
the pile of boxes where she landed after having jumped. Her sacrifice
and the closing of the portal will have restored order to the
world, (ie. all the "demons" will have been returned/bound
to other dimensions because they were never originally supposed
to have entered THIS dimension). Buffy's Slayer half is now "dead"
and doesn't return with her because it is no longer needed; Spike,
(weeping so piteously for her), is no longer a vampire; Willow
and Tara are no longer "magical" (magic is no longer
needed); Dawn is no longer the key (she's a "real" girl);
Giles has no reason to leave; and Xander and Anya are the only
one's who have found TRUE magic - the magic of love... Awww! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Ooh! Another thought... (tangents and random speculations)
-- RH, 11:03:01 11/26/01 Mon
Perhaps Buffy IS still dead, and this is what her "soul"
is living-out in her subconscious. Her "heaven" consisted
of all the happy, peaceful thoughts she had right at her death
- knowing that her sacrifice would save the world and protect
her loved ones, etc. The nightmare truly begins with her original
nightmare of clawing her way out of her own grave, and now she
has progressed to the "what-if" scenario stage... (This
whole season is actually a dream...)
-what if my friends resurrected me? -what if Willow turned evil?
-what if Xander and Anya got married? -what if Giles left? -what
if I had to continue to live without my mom and take care of Dawn?
-what if Spike and I started a relationship?
If this were true, Buffy will have effectually created her own
"hell". This dream world of her "soul's" subconscious
is, perhaps, supposed to lead her to discover that her purpose
on earth has not yet been fulfilled, and that she has a specific
goal yet to complete, (whatever that may be - ie. training Dawn;
saving Willow or Spike; learning to love fully for the first time
like Xander and Anya, etc.)
When she is ready to return, the PTB will have her wake up on
the pile of boxes where she landed after having jumped. Her sacrifice
and the closing of the portal will have restored order to the
world, (ie. all the "demons" will have been returned/bound
to other dimensions because they were never originally supposed
to have entered THIS dimension). Buffy's Slayer half is now "dead"
and doesn't return with her because it is no longer needed; Spike,
(weeping so piteously for her), is no longer a vampire; Willow
and Tara are no longer "magical" (magic is no longer
needed); Dawn is no longer the key (she's a "real" girl);
Giles has no reason to leave; and Xander and Anya are the only
one's who have found TRUE magic - the magic of love... Awww! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Happy endings need not apply -- John Burwood,
12:33:33 11/26/01 Mon
Obviously the fact that we all die in the end means that our own
personal ending can not be of itself happy. The realverse equivalent
of the happy ending comes from those who live on after us - specifically
our children. If Buffy can live long enough to have children and
see them grown and strong and worth the effort - as Joyce did
- then that is the closest thing any life story can get to a happy
ending. Extremely unlikely for a Slayer, of course. It did begin
to seem possible when Riley was around. He got called boring by
many, but the more boring a life the better if happiness is desired.
"May you live in interesting times" is an ancient curse
not a blessing. You can bet the majority of Afghans today would
be much happier if their lives were very boring.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Happy endings need not apply -- vampire hunter
D, 13:40:43 11/26/01 Mon
I think the Buffy turned into vampire theory to be very plausible.
Remember my comments on Joss likes to use forshadowing? Well,
in nightmares, he showed that one ofbuffy's worst fear is becoming
a vampire. Could this be forshadowing to some future event, like
the finale of the show?
and btw, even if time resets and Buffy never went to SD, and SD
had no vampires, Xander and Willow would still be best friends.
Remember, they've been friends since childhood (they were boyfriend/girlfriend
when they were 5, they used to sleep together when they used to
wear footy pajamas, Willow watched Merry Chrismas Charlie Brown
at Xander's). The only difference in that relationship would be
that their friend Jesse would still be part of the group. Also,
Joyce and Hank's divorce had nothing to do with Buffy being the
Slayer (In Becoming, we see that the marriage already had one
foot in the grave when Buffy was called), so there is still the
possibility of her going to SD, except that she probably would
have fallen in with the Cordellia crowd and never have been friends
with Willow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Happy endings need not apply -- RH, 06:19:33
11/27/01 Tue
"Well, in nightmares, he showed that one ofbuffy's worst
fear is becoming a vampire."
Sorry - I don't remember that - which episode was this nightmare
in?
As far as Buffy's parent's divorce, moving to Sunnydale and Willow
and Xander's relationship - you're right, they may have all happened
anyways...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> RH - "Nightmares", Season 1,
episode 10 -- Marie, 03:51:10 11/28/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> happiness is overrated. I'd rather have an intense, exciting
life than a happy one. -- LL, 17:20:11 11/26/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BS Epiphany? -- Loki, 18:36:06
11/25/01 Sun
Hi
Found a fabulous post at JM.com that I felt deserved a wider audience.
Think you guys will appreciate it.......
****************
From Suzanne (posted at JM.com):
Must warn that this will probably be a little spoilery but I feel
that this belongs in this board more . . . .
Joseph Campbell: And then you get what Joyce called the radiance,
epiphany .The epiphany is the showing through of the essence .
. . .
Buffy and Spike made love. We all knew it was going to happen
but my God whoever would have believed when and how. I had to
admit I was freaked for a while. As a dedicated pro-Spike, pro-redemption
and pro-B/S, the last few episodes had me feeling blue. So blue
that I was beginning to think that the best thing for Spike and
Buffy would be to get away from each other for a long while and
maybe get some therapy to boot.As it was, I saw that there was
no way it could work. But they made love and war and peace and
whole lot of other stuff . . . .
I had to watch the scene over and over again not believing what
I was seeing. Everything about this encounter was perfect INCLUDING
the knock-down, drag-out fight leading up to the sex. It was sublime.
As far as love scenes go, this was one of the most beautiful I
have ever seen on film. But when I started to think about it,
really examine the fight leading up to the lovemaking, I realized
that you can not isolate or separate one from the other, it is
all one piece and the fight scene was a)exhilirating and b) neccessary
to those characters and that conclusion. When Spike began to hit
Buffy and I saw what it was doing to her, I cheered him on
Before I go any further I will say: I like Buffy. No, I do not
want Spike to kill her. I do not believe in s/m or rough love
or anything like that. I know some people were turned off by that
scene because of its rawness and others because they felt it undermined
the idea of "good" Spike. How could he be so vicious
to a person he professes to love? How could Buffy give in to sexual
impulses after an emotional and physical battering?There have
been a lot of interesting posts dissecting the meaning of the
scene, whether the messages it sent were unhealthy, even irresponsible
and whether the writer was veering the characters off course.
For myself, I just have to say as with a lot of other aspects
of the show I tend to see these things as metaphors rather than
take the literal interpretation ie man and woman beat the crap
out of each other and have sex. As for the writer, I know he is
new and I have to say that he must have done his homework because
from School Hard on you can see that not only were these two characters
leading to that point in the abandoned house but their entire
lives as well. As Spike told Faith-in-Buffy, when the chip comes
out you and me are going to have a confrontation. It's very much
like that song: when an irresistible force meets an immovaable
object, something has to give. The scene works on so many levels
I barely know where to begin
First, I think in many ways this scene was an emotional turning
point for Buffy not only in her present dilemma -dealing with
life after heaven - but in her life on the whole. I cheered Spike
on because he WAS lighting the fire, he was getting the engine
going again. On an interpersonal level, this again shows that
there has ALWAYS been a part of Buffy that, except for Spike,
no other person has touched: her rage. Not even Angelus pissed
her off the way Spike could. Take Harsh Light of Day, for instance.
Spike definitely had the upper hand on the vulnerable Buffy until
he touched on the subject of men, sexuality -the source of her
deepest pain and humiliation. He was voicing her deepest fears,
the things she tries to repress. Having them wrenched into the
open - and viciously at that - brought out something else: her
rage. She was as pissed as she had ever been and it was a good
thing for that anger allowed her to defeat her predator. It is
interesting the amount of Buffy bashing that goes on and it's
usually having to do with her behavior towards Spike. Really she
IS a good person, a little self-aborbed at times and definitely
exasperating but for the most part a good friend, daughter, sister
and girlfriend. Except when it comes to Spike, then a side of
her that many find distasteful comes out. Why? Does it have something
to do with the fact that as she noted he is the one person she
can't fool? That she knows he is able to see into her? That is
terrifying if there is something inside you are trying to protect
or hide. The enemy is the one who can see. All those punches,
kicks are a natural defense - when Spike couldn't hit back, it
was easier to sympathize with him. Now he is no longer toothless
- the gloves are off - and I think to some it was a battle between
two monsters. That must be the answer, declare some, she is either
soulless or part demon herself. There was something about that
scene that offended and repulsed many and the use of the words
ugly, disgust have been hurled around. It made people uncomfortble.
What about flowers, candy, candlelit dinners? And Buffy and Spike
- where the hell was all THAT coming from? This was too negative.
But was it really? As my dad always loved to say the knowledge
Eve absorbed was good AND evil not good OR evil ( the "and"
DOES make a difference) and he loves to quote this Shakespeare
as well: nothing is good or bad/thinking makes it so. We are taught
to believe certain emotions are right and others are wrong and
God forbid if you indulge in the "wrong" ones. They
are put away, locked in a box but chances they just grow and fester.
And lo and behold if you are a woman - from very early we are
taught to make nice, be nice, swallow your pain, swallow your
anger, don't spill, don't make people uncomfortable. Remember
Willow mourning Oz? Her friends wanted her to repress not thinking
that it may be better to bring out the pain, expose the wound,
examine it, tend to it. Only then can you heal, only then can
you move on. Buffy has a lifetime of hurts, inner wounds that
have never had a chance to heal and along with it anger.
I reached for a book by a Jungian analyst I just read and she
talks about how there has tolerance for every emotion that exists,
even what we view as negative ones. About rage she says this :
"Even raw and messy emotions are a form of light, crackling,
bursting with energy. We can use the light of rage in a positive
way in order to see into places we cannot usually see. . . . All
emotion, even rage, carries knowlegde, insight, what some call
enlightenment. Our rage can, for a time, can become our teacher
. . . . . " Isn't that what Buffy and Spike were doing? The
thunderbolts they were hurling, the harsh truths may be neccessary
not only if they can develop as a couple but develop as individuals.
This writer notes that behind all rage, all anger is pain and
in order to deal it must be brought out, understood, and then
purged or transformed. God knows they both have reason to be pissed.
Spike, unlike Buffy, always had easier access to his emotions
but with her, post-chip, he had to tread lightly first because
she could beat the crap out of him, stake him if he went too far
and later because he loved her and was afraid of alienating her.
Look at his face in the bar in Life Serial, the effort at holding
his tongue and not losing his temper. As for Buffy, if she ever
sat down and thought about her life, chances are she would just
start screaming - for days. All the things that were imposed,
all the things that happened . Let's examine her life starting
with dear old dad leaving leading to being ripped from heaven.
Spike too is in the same boat in that respect: William, Dru, chips,
Buffy etc. In some ways, they are in the same emotional place,
Job screaming at God: what the f--k!!!
Again I know a lot of people were turned off by the anger - and
wonder how they could even be a couple, form a relationship in
light of all that happened. But I do believe people who can express
anger can also love more profoundly. The kind of brutal honesty
Spike and Buffy showed was something missed in their other relationships
-they have seen the very best and the very worst in the other,
not the ideal but real. Dru was mad and nothing else can be said
about that but the protectiveness Spike had towards Dru would
not include any "poor lost girl" moments. In Buffy's
case, when she first knew Angel their relationship was marred
by evasions, even lies. Post-Angelus, they spent most of the time
walking on egg shells never discussing the pain and anger that
must have existed beneath the surface. As for Riley, for the life
of me I never knew what they discussed but certainly nothing that
could ever mar the happy facade they presented to the world -
and look what happened there. Anger can be good - it's about saying
I am not going to fake or put up appearances or avoid things that
will make you uncomfortable. Look at the Scoobies in crisis moments-
Buffy's return in season 3, the whole business leading up to Adam
- a lot of revelations came out of anger (which had its roots
in love) but once that is purged a deeper understanding occurred
among friends,a renewed closeness.
It's amazing watching late season 2/early season 3 eps again to
see how Buffy's emotional development in some ways had been stunted.
Post Angel/Angelus the patterns of withdrawal and isolation, the
knowledge that she, as she told Angelus, had only herself to rely
on seem to set. The frozen state began long before she consciously
became aware of it. In Buffy's case, she is an example of a person
of great experience but almost no insight. She seems unable to
turn her experience into a greater understanding so that negative
patterns are repeated. When push comes to shove, she seems to
only know how to be alone, to withdraw, to repress. "Don't
tell anyone. They must never know." Of course, there is a
high cost to pay when so much emotion is repressed. In Buffy's
case, it was almost a paralysis. She was dormant. There is also
a sense that post Angel/Angelus there is a real fear of feeling
as well. Even positive emotions like love seem threatening or
dangerous. The First Slayer even conveyed that to her - you have
all this love but you push it away. I don't think she only meant
Buffy's capacity for love but all the love directed her way. Unfortuneately,
a lesson Buffy learned too well was the greater the happiness,
the greater the chance for pain or disillusionment.
It interesting that we have had two encounters with the First
Slayer, one in which she is seen as negative energy, a destructive
force, an army of one. In another she is benevolent, a bringer
of light. In eastern religions esp Tibetan Buddhism many of the
deities have two aspects: vengeful, wrathful or peaceful, loving.
These double-sided deities are much closer to the idea of good
AND evil, as opposed to the Judeo-Christian belief system good
OR evil, God or the Devil. How and why are they able to reconcile
two such seemingly different concepts?The idea behind it has to
do with our receptiveness. If the deity - whatever form it takes-
is trying to reach us and we cling our preconceived ideas, if
we cling to our world and our ego, then the messages seem terrible.
We don't want to hear, we don't want to know. Buffy IS the Queen
of Egypt - that is denial. In Restless, Buffy rejected the First
Slayer who was trying to reveal an aspect of Buffy's nature because
she was frightened, because it was too much for her to handle.
As seen in her encounter with Dracula, there was obviously more
to her inner life than even she realized, her Slayer nature as
well as a woman but she pushes that knowledge away. She rejects
Spike's lesson in Fool for Love. The knowledge they were trying
to convey was not neccesarily wrong or bad but to Buffy it was
evil, something akin to destruction because it threatened her
carefully structured belief system, her world. The second time
Buffy sought the First Slayer and this time she was willing to
listen, willing to open herself and while she was not thrilled
with what she heard or even understood completely, enough stayed
with her to allow her to decide her course of action at a crucial
moment in her life. But as she noted to Giles, the old beliefs
- the absolutes, the certainties - can no longer hold, can no
longer sustain
Let's not forget Spike. Buffy gave as good as she got and just
as I cheered him on, I cheered her on as well. It is amazing how
two people originate from such different places and yet wind up
in almost the exact same state: lost, alone, undefined. On the
one hand, there is Buffy's fear about her frozen state, her inability
to feel while Spike's main problem is that he feels every damn
thing. It's too much at times and leaves him unable to regulate
his own behavior. He is a highly intelligent and perceptive man/vamp
- and too impulsive for his own good which leads him to a lot
of stupid mistakes or decisions that even the dimmest person would
have said "Don't go there." Spike is Love's Bitch. But
he is also Hate's Bitch, Happy's Bitch and Unhappy's Bitch as
well. Viewers who love Spike, have always loved Spike's capacity
for feeling, his Love's Bitch side but love, as he expresses or
experiences it, has not led to a joyful, peaceful place for him
- quite the opposite. And make no mistake people have done as
many horrible things, and allowed horrible things, in the name
of love as as they do in hate - more because it is amazing what
you can justify when you call it love. It is true that negative
emotions can lead to enlightenment - look at the chain of events
leading to Angel's epiphany - and repressing emotions can have
a destructive effect on a person, but there too is a danger when
emotions go out of control. Faith, who in many ways was Buffy's
shadow side, is an example of a person unable to purge or learn
from her inner torments. Her feelings became toxic and destructive
not only to herself but to those around her. Repressing everything
or letting things out uncontrollably lead to the same road. As
seen in Spike's renewed attempts at Big Bad, he needs to learn
self-control, learn to think first and then act, particularly
if he is serious about beginning a life with the Slayer. If ever
a lesson needed to be absorbed he should have learned in Crush
- but he didn't which could lead to disaster in the long run.
Like Buffy, Spike too is in a state of paralysis: where am I going
in life? Buffy was on the money: who are you? Not this and not
that and all you can do is follow me around and have me point
the way. You think I'm lost? Just as he spelled out some devastating
truths, so did she - she was able to turn the tables, get a visible
rise out of him (uh, the emotional kind). There was a thread I
think in the spoiler section where it was hypothesized that Buffy
was Spike's soul and many took that as a good sign. I was dismayed
at the idea. For one thing that is NOT redemption and from Buffy's
perspective that would not be flattering but terrifying especially
if she knew about that stunt with the woman in the alley. I mean
it would be ok when things are fine and dandy between them but
what about their next fight? If things begin to go wrong ? It's
Angel all over again. Would she have to perpetually worry that
every emotional upheaval would cause her would-be lover to go
back to his Happy Meals on Legs? It's a moot point while the chip
is in but what happens when it comes out?
This episode was one that both Spike lovers and haters could chew
over. To some it was the surest sign of the fact that he was irredeemable,
that true redemption would have Spike give a big remorseful speech
and do a Darla and hara-kiri himself. His "Big Bad"
scenes were very ambiguous. You could see how the persona was
like an ill-fitted suit, how he needed to talk himself into killing,
justify his actions, how he had to convince himself that he is
what she ( Buffy) says he is. He may have believed it with conviction
at one point but the conviction is gone replaced by uncertainty,
by questioning. Even later on the phone with Buffy, it was funny
how the menacing routine just goes over her head - it had been
so long since she had seen this Spike, that she no longer recognized
him. Or it could be he no longer knew how to play the part convincingly.
Bloody hell - the same exasperation he had with Dawn in Blood
Ties when he realized that he couldn't scare a 14 year old.
Who is Spike? That is something he has to answer himself and the
answer must come from within his own being apart from Buffy. Is
he the scorpion after all? The creature who will betray and sting
- no matter that it will also mean his own destruction - all the
while murmuring "I can't help himself - it is my nature."
Or could it be a case of nurture? The closest ties that he has
in the world were with the Scoobies. One of the most telling moments
is Spike to Xander - "I worked by your side all summer."
There is real pain and betrayal in his eyes and voice and you
realized that it - being by their side - mattered to him, they
mattered to him. Not to Scooby bash too much but it was a moment
when I felt profoundly disgusted by them. Were they just using
him? He may have thought that he earned some respect and trust,
that they were friends - a little - but they never felt that way
about him. He was still this evil but neutered vamp who was convenient
to have around. Remember about social constructs: how we are formed
as much as we form, how it comes from within and as well as from
souces outside of ourselves. With a little more understanding
and acceptance, what would Spike be like, what could he become?
As it is, he doesn't belong anywhere and it is up to him to carve
out a place in the world, to forge his own identity. Buffy can
not be his raison d'etre but loving her can be a starting point.
When you open your heart, you open yourself to the possibility
of a whole new life.
I said it another thread but I found their lovemaking was almost
holy. I did not at all see it as an angry or ugly coupling. Very
rarely do you see two characters come together like that, where
you see them enter into the center of each other's being, the
essence of who they are. And, no, I do not think at essence Buffy
and Spike are rageaholics. Remember "We can use the light
of rage in a positive way in order to see into places we cannot
usually see . . ." They were using anger, rage - their own
and each other's - to reach that place in each other, the places
they are trying to protect and hide in. One can call it your real
self or elemental self. People have thick skins and defenses and
barriers protecting their inner selves -you have to in order to
survive. Buffy's and Spike's are more elaborate that most. What
happens when you strip away the persona, identity, and ego? Buffy
and Spike knocked down each other's defenses and barriers. Perhaps
it started in a fit of revenge, to hurt but something else happened
instead. All that negative energy was transformed into a kind
of mutual surrender, a rapture,a letting go. That moment just
after she - well, post zipper - when she lets him in and he realizes
that, they look they gave each other is not only awe, amazement,
but absolute vulnerability and trust, a state that can only be
reached by letting go of the ego completely. No skins, no place
to hide, no barriers. Even if they do become established as couple
I doubt they will ever be as close or experience something like
that again. It may be something that happens only a few times
in one's life.
The visuals of the scene were amazing. Not only the perfect metaphor
of this man and this woman coming together, of orgasm (talk about
the Earth moving, seeing God and le petit mort) but the collison
of two lives and with it the tearing down of walls. I know some
saw the destruction around them and viewed that as a bad sign,
a metaphor to where they will wind up but I saw hope. Remember
the phoenix does rise from the ashes, the old life dies and a
new one begins, le roi est mort/vive le roi - ok I'm sure you
get the picture. Destruction yes but in the middle of that a point
of radiance. There is no turning back for Spike and Buffy. She
could try the old cycle of acceptance/rejection but everything
has changed. Spike threw down the gauntlet and she picked up the
challenge. Spike is no Angel who was so afraid of causing or feeling
additional pain that he would not take the chance and he is no
Riley who sees the walls, the defenses and after a few feeble
attempts at scaling them, walks away. He tried. He tried the Angel
route ie stay away and let me get over this. He tried the Riley
route by allowing her to set the tone, letting her walk away or
not face up to things she doesn't want to face and not pushing
too hard. He tried but that isn't Spike. Spike will risk the pain
and he will punch through and knock down walls if need be. He,
as had been demonstrated in the past, will fight for love.
Spike: I wasn't planning on hurting you much (you are not walking
away. You are going to face some things whether you want to or
not)
Buffy: You haven't even come close to hurting me ( The defenses
are up and I am not letting you in)
Spike: Afraid to give me the chance? ( You're a coward. Let me
in. See what happens then)
As Dawn once told Spike: she is afraid of you because you are
tough - maybe even tougher than she is. Joseph Campbell once said
that relationships (marriage/couple kind) are NOT love affairs
but ordeals because you constantly have to sacrifice your ego
NOT for the other person but for the RELATIONSHIP- it is not for
YOU but for US. Angel couldn't, neither could Riley. Could Spike?
Could Buffy? Not there yet - could they ever be?
As I said the encounter - from struggle to surrender - was a culmination
of Spike and Buffy. Like the First Slayer, one can't help but
wonder what they see what they look at each other: an agent of
destruction or a harbinger of light, the bridge to a new life?
I think it would be safe to say both: you can't have one without
the other. This season is about a transition to adulthood. Buffy
is about to turn to 21and with it the transition from girl to
woman. It makes me think about that Biblical passage: when I was
a child I thought as a child, believed as a child but I grew up
and I gave up childish things. Really youth is about prejudices:
you accept the things that fit into your world view and reject
those that don't. But how can you see life, experience life in
full if you continue along those lines? One begins to understand
the ambiguitues and complexities of the world and within our own
selves but you have to open yourself to life and all the possibilites
that exist out there. Metaphorically speaking, the fact that Spike
can get to Buffy is because she is coming into contact with an
inner self she had always been frightened of or denied: call it
her shadow side or her inner monster or her dark side. It's awful
to use these phrases because it implies that it is bad. But there
are aspects to Buffy that she has to learn to accept, to examine,
to understand. How can she ever be a complete human being or complete
woman if she doesn't?Also Spike's assumption - you came back wrong
- is also a rather large one: it may be that Buffy came back as
something less than human but it could also be the case that he
is more human as well. And just as Buffy has to learn about the
shadowy places that exist within her, Spike may also have to come
to an accord with his own inner light. There is an Angel and Demon
at war within him and he has to learn to reconcile both sides
of his nature.
Suzanne ***************
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Hey, thanks for sharing ... that was interesting -- listening,
18:52:18 11/25/01 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Outstanding post! (nt) -- Moose, 20:30:05 11/25/01 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: BS Epiphany? -- Raven, 03:13:08 11/26/01 Mon
My compliments! Indeed outstanding. A sort of Buffy/Spike essay.
Thank you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Much to ponder. Thanks! -- racoon, 05:37:43 11/26/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: BS Epiphany? -- maddog, 08:01:10 11/26/01 Mon
A couple of side points to a very well written essay.... ok, first
off, I'm not sure that everyone here would agree with you that
what you saw was two people making love...that phrase insinuates
a tenderness that I didn't see there...that seemed more like raw
sex.
I think the Scoobies use Spike as much as they can...the only
ones that truly care are the Summers girls. To Dawn he's this
big protective older to brother...I haven't yet figured out who
he is to Buffy, but you can tell, in her own weird ways, she cares
for him and by the end of last season he could see it too. The
Scoobies on the other hand are hypocrites, cause they'll use his
hand in fighting but they don't treat him as a friend, or even
as a human(and really by the Scoobies I narrow that down to Xander,
Willow, and Giles...Tara seems to be a little more open...and
Anya...a former vengence demon....really doubt she's overly critical).
How can you not see even the slightest bit of anger in their sex(I
can't bear to call it love making, sorry)? They were fighting.
:) I can't think of calling it holy either. I looked it up at
dictionary.com for reference and those definitions that don't
refer to religion(which doesn't fit this situation), refer to
holy as divine or sacred(which I don't see either but I'm sure
someone will try to explain it to me).
To me Spike has an advantage that Angel and Riley couldn't have.
Angel couldn't submit himself to her...or it would be Angelus
on the rise. And while Riley could(and did more times than I'd
care to remember) he never had the mental aspect of it down. Spike
seems to have the best of both worlds and it finally paid off
for him.
I don't think it's fair to say that Angel couldn't sacrifice for
the relationship...if he had stayed around she would be sacrificing
just as much as he did...because they'd always want each other
and know that they couldn't do much about it. If anything he left
because she wouldn't be able to handle the reprocussions. If he
stays they still have to deal with the fact that the Scobbies
hated him. That scene in the hospital where he tries to explain
that Buffy let him feed off of her...it was brutal....cause it
wasn't his fault yet they all blamed him like they always did...if
Angel had stuck around she'd always have to defend him...so in
a way, he left to save HER more so then THEM.
I still don't see how people(and you're not the first) can ignore
what Spike found out last week. If the chip still works as was
told to him then it has to be Buffy. Cause chip or not, Spike's
still vampire through and through. And if that only allows him
to hit non humans then it has to be Buffy...and to tell you the
truth....that seems more down Joss's alley(as I've said before).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: BS Epiphany? -- Melena, 09:55:16 11/26/01 Mon
You have my most sincere gratitude. Because now I can finally
stop thinking about that scene and trying to analyze and articulate
its meaning. You've done it for me, and better than I could've
done.
Lovely.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
spike -- bodhi, 19:05:28 11/25/01
Sun
buffy banging spike is a disgrace to the show. its bullsh*t, hes
a demon and soul-less and no amount of "conditioning"
is going to change that. the chip will teach him what is "good"
and "bad" but not in a sense of a "moral good"
and "moral bad." his love for buffy is in the darkest
form, lustful, but not pure.
the whole storyline with spike is by all means interesting and
entertaining but it makes angel a joke. put a chip in his head
when he is angelus and see if hes capable of love. that sure could
be the happy ending everyone wanted between buffy and angel if
buffy could find some way to love an evil angel.
anyways, i think its lame they were brought together even if it
did make buffy feel something (like spike's schlong). nowadays
i feel like ths show lost that bit of something it had a few years
ago. some episodes still manage to shine (like the musical) but
its spiraling out of control. like whats the deal with willow?
(that she-witch is stronger than buffy now, they should start
calling the show after her). and i bet if xander finds out about
the buffster, hes going to be pissed (that spike got a piece of
her and not him).
PS: any chance buffy and spike were dry humping?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: spike -- maddog, 07:17:05 11/26/01 Mon
You obviously didn't hear the zipper move and that look on Spike's
face...no dry humpin going on there.
I think you're missing one key point...did you at any point see
Buffy fall in love with Spike like she did with Angel? I know
I didn't. That sex wasn't about love. Buffy's in a bad place right
now. Trust me, she doesn't love Spike. And if you've read any
of the Wednesday/Thursday posts on this board you'll see that
most agree with this, cause those that want a romance felt that
the sex was unfulfilling because of it's non romantic nature.
Shows grow and mature...you didn't expect Willow to stay meek
on a show that's entering it's sixth season did you? :) They've
been building this kinda storyline since the first time Willow
showed her unreciprocated love for Xander back in season 1. Characters
don't stay the way we like them all the time...see that's what
I don't get about viewers...the minute their favorite character
does something they don't like the first thing you hear is, the
show sucks now cause my "so and so" isn't what they
used to be...that's BS. If characters don't change they become
boring and stagnant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Willow and Once More With Feeling
-- LAMF, 23:33:27 11/25/01 Sun
Wondering if anyone else thinks there's something in the fact
that Willow, didn't have her own 'number' during the episode.
Willow obviously had a truth which was there to be revealed, even
though Tara discovered it by other means. Although every other
member of the Scoob's was compelled to reveal themselves in song,
Willow seemed to be partially immune as she only participated
in the group numbers.
Perhaps Willow was powerful enough to resist the full impact of
Sweet's spell? She's definitely been the most avoidy of the gang
so far this season so she's definitely feels that she has something
to hide.
By the way, I really enjoyed the irony of Under your Spell where
Tara sings that Willow made her complete, only to find that in
actual fact it's been the exact opposite.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Maybe it was because Hannigan can't sing worth a squat?
-- bobob, 00:06:16 11/26/01 Mon
s
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Maybe it was because Hannigan can't sing worth
a squat? -- LAMF, 00:17:34 11/26/01 Mon
I'd agree with you on that, but then Nicholas Brendan didn't have
the greatest singing voice either.
I felt that since it was the actors singing in character, the
actual musicality of the performance was not necessarily going
to be the determining factor. If it was they would have just replaced
her with a voice double like they did with Audrey Hepburn on My
Fair Lady.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> sorry to squash your theory -- Jennifer, 05:14:10
11/26/01 Mon
If you watch the episode, when Buffy first askes if anyone "broke
out into song", and the gang all talks at once, you can hear
Tara or Willow say that they were singing the night before while
doing dishes. So obviously Willow did sing, we just didn't hear
it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: sorry to squash your theory -- maddog,
07:04:53 11/26/01 Mon
yes, but didn't have a solo...THEY "broke out into song"...not
a solo. Theory could still hold up.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Willow and Once More With Feeling -- grifter, 02:16:25
11/26/01 Mon
I think this has already been discussed on this board after the
episode aired, you might want to check out the thread (if you
find it).
IMHO, it´s just ´cause Hannigan REALLY can´t
sing (as she impressively proved in "I´ve got a theory"
and "Walk through the fire" ;).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Willow and Once More With Feeling -- maddog, 07:01:46
11/26/01 Mon
Well, I wouldn't say she didn't make Tara complete...because for
a while she did...but Willow, like many others, made a relationship
mistake and now she's going to have to pay for it.
I think that theory about Willow's lack of a solo's been brought
up before and it's extremely valid. Even Sweet could tell she
posses a good deal of power. Though immune may not be the right
word, I think it may have been more like blocked...which I suppose
really is the same thing when you think about it. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Willow and Once More With Feeling -- SingedCat, 08:06:40
11/26/01 Mon
LAMF, I agree with you. I know that the reason *outside* the show
was that Aly couldn't sing, but there's always a Buffyverse explanation
to go with it. I think that's exactly why Woillow didn't sing,
or if she did, we didn't see it. I think she might have had a
better idea than most of the gang what would happen if she did.
Also--and this is probably me thinking too much-- a lot of what
she was doing had to do with using her intellect to get control--
that's kind of been her mindset for awhile there, no? I think
her resistance might have been very automatic, because her whole
mind has been focused on protecting herself. And she *is* after
all the brainy type...:D
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Willow and Once More With Feeling -- Rob, 09:24:27
11/26/01 Mon
I don't think it was a question of Willow's power being stronger.
What did the spell do? It forced the Scoobies to reveal their
deepest secrets in song. Everyone had a problem--Anya and Xander's
wedding jitters; Buffy's knowledge that she has lost heaven; Giles
realizes that he has to leave Buffy; Tara realizes she has to
leave Willow. The only one who didn't have a problem in the episode
was Willow. And why? I think the most valid theory is that she
does not see anything she has done as wrong. The "forget"
spell on Tara was not wrong, nor was bringing Buffy back, in her
eyes. She has so totally convinced herself that there is absolutely
nothing wrong with her overuse of magic that she does not need
anything to sing about of any real emotional value (besides dishwashing,
trying to figure out how the spell was cast, etc, just like everybody
with the "mustard" song and the "ticket" song).
She has no things that she is guilty about, and so must reveal,
unlike all the other characters.
So I don't think she used her power to block the spell, at least
directly. But I think her power played a different sort of trick
on her, by convincing her that she has nothing to hide...or reveal.
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Zoinks! I think you hit on it Rob... -- JBone,
19:36:31 11/26/01 Mon
it makes more sense than any other theory I've read so far.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions and speculations about
Amy (spoilers for Smashed) -- Slayrunt, 02:55:44 11/26/01 Mon
Amy from earlier seasons was a somewhat powerful witch, but perhaps
as not as powerful as Willow. What is your opinion on that statement?
Amy has been a rat for years now and always been in Willow's room.
Any change she knows or remembers what went on. Perhaps she learned
more magic from watching Willow. Also, she seemed to know what
buttons to push to get Willow out of the house, ie, nerdy Wil
sitting at home alone in HS.
When and where did she meet the powerful male witch (is it worlock?).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Witches and Warlocks -- Wolfhowl3, 05:23:00 11/26/01 Mon
Okay, a Male witch is a Witch.
But Willow and Amy are not Witch's, they are Warlocks.
Warlock means oath breaker, and It seems to me that that what
Willow and Amy are.
Tara is a Witch.
Wolfhowl
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Witches and Warlocks -- maddog, 06:58:10 11/26/01
Mon
ok, I'm confused now...I thought the females were witches and
the males were warlocks...too simple?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Witches and Warlocks -- Lucifer_Sponge,
07:19:31 11/26/01 Mon
Eh... in the realverse practice of witchcraft, both males and
females are refered to as witches.
This is not, however, a new thing witches came up with just because
they didn't think the term warlock as P.C enough. Even in the
witch trials that ran rampant through Europe, men were generally
refered to as witches, not warlocks. THAT term started in Scotland
and didn't real gain widespread use until much later. I've read
(in historical books, not occult books) that the word warlock
was actually used for both sexes - interchangeable with the word
witch, but eventually it just came to be a name used for men only.
In the Buffyverse, however, it HAS been shown that female witches
are refered to as WITCHES, while male witches are refered to as
WARLOCKS. I'd prefere they'd refer to them ALL as witches, but
what can you do, you know?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Witches and Warlocks -- maddog, 07:23:56
11/26/01 Mon
It's not just Buffy where my viewpoint of that came from...Bewitched
and I'm sure other shows use that theory...guess they didn't do
their homework there.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Witches and Warlocks -- Cactus Watcher, 07:28:22
11/26/01 Mon
No offense to the practitioners of Wicca (I truly like some of
you a lot), but, no you don't get to reshape the language the
way you feel like it. A male doing the same things as a witch
is a warlock to the rest of us. LIVE WITH IT! It is true that
warlock orginally meant an oath breaker, but it hasn't meant that
since the days of Shakespeare and beyond. The words 'lord' and
'lady' once had to do with people who looked after the king's
bread. You don't expect us to go back to that, do you? A significant
percent of all words we use have changed in meaning over the centuries.
I do not discuss my religion, and its quirks here. Others do discuss
theirs here, but they don't tell us how we ought to say things,
or how to believe. If you refer to a male practitioner as a witch
we will understand you. But, please do not attempt to impose your
philosophy and its terminology on the rest of us. Please? :o)
With that tirade over, how can you say Willow is an oath breaker?
When did she take the oath? Being a witch, in the Wiccan sense,
is what Tara subscribes to. We've heard her talk about it. Since
that 'bake sale' meeting where she met Tara, back in "Hush,"
I don't remember Willow voicing anything about Wicca as opposed
to just doing spells.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Witches and Warlocks -- t-rex, 08:38:46
11/26/01 Mon
>I do not discuss my religion, and its quirks here. Others
do discuss theirs here, but they don't tell us how we ought to
say things, or how to believe. If you refer to a male practitioner
as a witch we will understand you. But, please do not attempt
to impose your philosophy and its terminology on the rest of us.
Please? :o)
I didn't perceive Wolfhowl3's post in that light. I thought he
(she?) was merely responding to Slayrunt's request for clarification
on terminology.
I'm not Wiccan, but I prefer the term "witch" for both
sexes because it seems archaic to have different terms based on
gender.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Witches and Warlocks -- maddog, 08:56:34
11/26/01 Mon
I agree that I didn't see that post as negative either, but I
will say that i like the gender seperation for the mere fact that
it distinguishes between the sexes when necessary, almost making
the word witch too vague.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Witches and Warlocks -- CW,
09:38:22 11/26/01 Mon
The point is that no one uses the term 'warlock' to mean oath
breaker except Wiccans any more. Nor has anyone for centuries.
They are the ones continually reminding us to use the term 'witch'
"correctly." Some languages use the same term for both
male and female spell casters (Spanish for example, although with
male and female gender markers). Some languages don't (Russian
for example). Yes, 'witch' can mean either male or female. In
the long run, it makes no difference. But, don't throw out the
usage of warlock as a gender marker, simply because it doesn't
agree with the philosophy of one group of people, no matter how
vocal they are.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Witches and Warlocks -- yabyumpan, 10:38:01
11/26/01 Mon
I lived with a male Witch for six years and he hated to be called
a Warlock. For him it was insulting, belittleing and implied evil
doing (which he was totally against). "I do not discuss my
religion, and its quirks here. Others do discuss theirs here,
but they don't tell us how we ought to say things, or how to believe.
If you refer to a male practitioner as a witch we will understand
you. But, please do not attempt to impose your philosophy and
its terminology on the rest of us. Please?" It is not about
imposing philosophy or terminology, IMO it's about respect. Why
use a term which you know may be offensive. The term Warlock,
whatever it's original meaning is, is not usually used in any
positive sense, in most fiction, Warlocks are usually people who
do bad things, I think it's pretty understandable that Male Witches
would not like the word used for them. I haven't noticed on this
board that practitioners of other belief are refered to in a way
that may be offensive, why should Witches/Wiccans be the exceptions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Witches and Warlocks -- CW, 11:46:49
11/26/01 Mon
Nine times out of ten when people other than Wiccans use the term
'witch' it's certainly not a positive term either. In most literature,
witches are people who do bad things, as well. In all likelihood
the reason your male friend hated the term 'warlock' was precisely
because he was involved with Wicca. 99% percent of the world knows
nothing about Wicca and doesn't care. If a person chooses to be
offended, when they are fully aware that most people don't have
the faintest desire to offend, then its his or her problem, isn't
it?
Of course, it's about imposing a philosophy! It's saying use our
terminology, or you are knowningly trying to insult us. If it
wasn't about imposing a philosphy you wouldn't have even replied,
considering what other people have written. Wiccans have to understand
that while they certainly should tell people that they don't like
the word 'warlock' applied to them, they should not assume that
all references to witches or warlocks have anything whatsoever
to do with Wicca!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Witches and Warlocks -- T-rex,
12:26:46 11/26/01 Mon
>99% percent of the world knows nothing about Wicca and doesn't
care.
That may be true. But there are people out there (and here)with
an interest in religions who may want to know.
>It's saying use our terminology, or you are knowningly trying
to insult us.
Not necessarily. I didn't know until reading the above posts that
the term "warlock" could be considered offensive. Using
the term "witch" instead is really no big deal.
Sometimes reactions to words are emotional, rather than logical.
Just because you know the person using that term doesn't mean
any harm doesn't mean that you can avoid a knee jerk emotional
reaction to that word.
For instance, there was Pres. Bush's unfortunate choice of the
word "crusade" when referring to the "war on terrorism".
That word was a hot button that understandably offended a lot
of muslims. If his speech writers had thought about it for a while,
that whole embarrassing incident could have been avoided just
by choosing another word.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Witches and Warlocks -- Caligo,
12:34:10 11/26/01 Mon
I agree that some people are taking the whole "warlock"
terminology a little too seriously and shouldn't be insulted,
but saying that we should just "Live with it" is insulting.
There is no reshaping of the language as they see fit. Someone
else has done the reshaping and caused this confusion. All that
was done was clarifying a definition of a word that someone else
asked about. Words do change meanings along the way, what's wrong
with pointing out the original meaning? The members of this board
that are giving the original definition of "Warlock"
are clarifying that not all male practioners of magicks are called
"Warlocks" and not all "warlocks" are male.
I don't see how they're imposing their beliefs on us. You seem
to be one taking this discussion too seriously. Don't you think
that by speaking out so strongly against the use of the word "Warlock"
you're imposing your own beliefs on this board?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Witches and Warlocks --
CW, 13:19:31 11/26/01 Mon
The difference is that I am 'imposing' my beliefs as a trained
historical linguist (with the graduate degree to prove it), not
as the advocate of a religion or philosophy. I get upset over
the way people use words for the same kinds of reasons your high
school English teacher would get upset over MY grammar and punctuation
mistakes.
I am as happy as anyone to listen to our Wiccans' views on philosophy.
I just wish that a minority of them would be more careful not
to assume we all should follow their lead in matters beyond the
scope of our discussions here.
And actually I was speaking in favor of wider use of the word
'warlock.' ;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Witches and Warlocks
-- Wisewoman, 14:55:16 11/26/01 Mon
CactusWatcher said: I am as happy as anyone to listen to our Wiccans'
views on philosophy. I just wish that a minority of them would
be more careful not to assume we all should follow their lead
in matters beyond the scope of our discussions here.
Actually, up to this point I think "our Wiccans" have
stayed out of this discussion! We've discussed the differences
between Wicca in the Jossverse and the Realverse into the ground,
and I, for one, just enjoy the show and ignore the differences.
Think that's the general attitude of most of the regular posters
of the Wiccan persuasion on this board.
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I always listen
to Wisewoman! ;o) -- CW, 15:28:49 11/26/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> And well
you should . . . ;) -- Shaglio, 06:59:16 11/27/01 Tue
. . . Her name is Wisewoman after all! Now if her name was Wiseasswoman,
I'd suggest taking her words with a grain of salt. But I have
an easy solution for this problem: rather than using the terms
"witch" and "warlock," we should all just
use the term "wizard."
Shaglio a.k.a. Wiseassman
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> We
could opt for Hogwarts terminology: Witchcraft and Wizardry! --
WW, 14:40:13 11/27/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Didn't mean to
start a war... -- Slayrunt, 23:10:40 11/26/01 Mon
I was refering to Xander's line in Bargaining, "I am also
a powerful male witch, or is it warlock?" It seems to me
that Willow and perhaps Tara both agreed that it should have been
warlock. So, in the Jossverse, it seems that a male witch is a
warlock. Sorry, Wiccans.
I agree with CW about the language and the changes in it though
and how on TV, warlock seems universal to male witch.
This reminds me of the Hitchhiker's guide to the Galaxy computer
game where if you make a typo or try something that doesn't work,
your words drift though time and space and are heard at a peace
conference between two warring races and are the worst insult
imaginable. You start a war that destroys millions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I Love Hitch-hiker's
Guide! So much funny in one book!!! and.... -- Caligo, 06:16:54
11/27/01 Tue
if you like that, you should read "Good Omens" by Neil
Gaiman and Terry Prachett (spl? I don't have the book with me).
It's been hailed as "The hitch-hiker's Guide to the Apocalypse."
Hehe... OOOOOO! I just got an inspiration for a Buffy/Good Omen's
crossover fanfic!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Witches and Warlocks-Shouldn't this
wait until.... -- Calluna, 15:33:37 11/26/01 Mon
...tomorrow night? Then we'll all find out what "warlock"
means in the Buffyverse.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Witches and Warlocks -- Wolfhowl3, 06:12:06
11/27/01 Tue
I'm not going to talk about defining Warlock, in and out of Wicca.
I'll just stick to Buffy.
Quote: With that tirade over, how can you say Willow is an oath
breaker? When did she take the oath? Being a witch, in the Wiccan
sense, is what Tara subscribes to. We've heard her talk about
it. Since that 'bake sale' meeting where she met Tara, back in
"Hush," I don't remember Willow voicing anything about
Wicca as opposed to just doing spells.
Willow is an oath breaker because she broke the Wiccan Reed. "And
thee Harm None, Do What you will" Her spells have been harming
people.
The biggest and most blatant example would be the spell to erase
Tara and Buffy's Memory (The rest of the SG aswell, but they were
an accident). They didn't ask for it, and they didn't want it.
Then there was changing people's Sex, controling peoples minds,
Traping them in Go-go Cages on her Magic Binge with Amy. The list
goes on and on. Karma is going to catch up with Willow soon, and
Payback is going to be a bitch!
Wolfhowl3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Questions and speculations about Amy (spoilers for Smashed)
-- maddog, 06:53:24 11/26/01 Mon
I think Amy had gotten a lot better at magic by the time she ratted
herself...you could see it by the way she was while she was tied
to the stake...it was like watching Willow perform the soul restoration
spell or the resurection spell...eyes get all dark...they don't
look like they're in control of what they're doing...the signs
were there.
As for which buttons to push I think it was just familiarity.
In high school that's exactly what Willow was. Once Oz finally
got into the picture he started her self confidence off and then
definitely when Tara came into the picture Willow became multidimensional...not
just the bookworm/wicca. And with Tara gone and Willow acting
as vulnerable as she felt I think Amy just took advantage of the
Willow she remembered.
Speaking of witches, I'm watching the old episodes on the F/X
marathon, "Something Blue", and Anya mentioned how she
started off with a little magic before she became a vengence demon...wonder
why she doesn't more actively participate in the spell casting
if she has that type of past.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Questions and speculations about Amy (spoilers for Smashed)
-- Neaux, 08:11:37 11/26/01 Mon
This is a silly reply.. but has anyone else wondered about the
Lifespan of a Rat? Could Amy have died if she didn't return to
human form when she did?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I suppose that's possible...though I doubt Willow
would have allowed it. -- maddog, 08:17:51 11/26/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> From my references: rats can live about 3 years --
CW, 08:22:32 11/26/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: From my references: rats can live about
3 years -- John Burwood, 09:26:17 11/26/01 Mon
Didn't Amy say something about thinking she had been a rat for
weeks? As rat lives are so much relatively shorter than humans,
and Amy was a human in rat form, maybe the explanation is that
a few weeks of a rat's life is the equivalent of three years of
a human life. Meaning that Amy the rat's rat body had aged only
the rat equivalent of the aging Amy the human would have done.
Does that make sense?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: From my references: rats can live
about 3 years -- Neaux, 09:44:29 11/26/01 Mon
weirdly that does make sense..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> That does make sense -- Isabel, 21:56:19
11/26/01 Mon
I was thinking about Amy's deratting age another way. I heard
somewhere, and I don't know if it was accurate anyway, that the
reason Amy didn't get deratted earlier was that Elizabeth Anne
Allen had conflicts and they couldn't get her back. Since rats
only live a few years, and since Amy's been a rat for almost 3
years, I was expecting them to hire an extremely OLD actress to
be Amy when Willow did return her to human form.
But I also wondered how Amy knew a powerful, um, male-practioner-of-magic
who 'knew spells that lasted for days with almost no burnout.'
He could have moved or died, been turned into a toad, or anything.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Silly comparison, but does it
make sense? -- CaptainPugwash, 05:06:12 11/26/01 Mon
Dunno if this has been brought up before, but has anyone else
noticed a parallel between Buffy & Ripley?
Ripley:
Encounters Aliens as innocent and is 'chosen' to take them on
(Alien into Aliens)
Becomes wise strong maternal protector figure and slayer of Alien
Queens (Aliens)
Dies to save the world and rid herself of her 'curse' (Aliens3)
Is brought back from the dead, but infused with the very darkness
she once fought and alienated from the rest of humanity (Aliens
4)
Just a thought - run with it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Silly comparison, but does it make sense? -- Rahael,
06:08:19 11/26/01 Mon
I've never seen the Alien films, so I can't really commment on
the comparison. But it really isn't silly at all, since Joss was
involved with the script for at least one of them, though I understand
he was highly dissatisfied with the result. I think it was Alien:
Resurrection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Silly comparison,Spoilers: Alien Resurrection Season
6 'Buffy' -- Age, 23:46:41 11/26/01 Mon
In 'Alien: Resurrection' the clone of Ripley is a hybrid created
by men in the cold of space(heavens), and responds as such: she,
like the resurrected Buffy, is devoid of emotions when we first
meet her. Ripley and the android female (who first comes to kill
Ripley before the alien that Ripley is gestating has been extracted,
ie women used as vessels, with a virgin extraction that leads
to the birth of the other human/alien(human/of the heavens) hybrid
that is sacrificed by being sucked back into space/the heavens
from whence it came, another type of resurrection, in order that
humanity may be saved) have been created to serve a patriarchal
system but both outdo their programming(literal in the android
and figurative in Ripley in the sense of DNA restructuring to
create a hybrid: the human female and a representation of the
vilifed aspect of women, the bad animal nature, ie the alien DNA.)
The male dominated team believe that they have control of the
aliens and Ripley, and through them will control nature and finally
death itself. It is an illusion that is quickly destroyed. As
in 'Buffy' the movement is towards deconstruction of myth, and
the dangers of male dominance whereby the natural order of life
is compartmentalized, caged as if it is something that can be
repressed(as in 'Buffy') and used. The aliens make short work
of the arrogance of their male masters.
I believe that the garden of Eden myth is part of the film but
Ripley herself doesn't fall as her gradual movement downwards
is part of the space station's journey, part of the fall initiated
by the male scientists(their fall in other words), but for Ripley
it is a movement from the dead vacuum of space/heavens to the
symbol of life itself: the earth(from the representation of a
top down power structure to one that is more egalitarian; and
from the heavens where the men have their heads way above the
clouds playing at being God to getting her feet on solid ground,
to some sense of reality ; she is not so much Eve as the created/resurrected
Lillith who represents the wholeness of the original woman; however,
she is the woman made in man's image, the human and the alien,
but she doesn't internalize the idea that her animal/alien aspect
is bad, hence the idea of wholeness. In fact the alien DNA gives
her the strength to deconstruct the idea of females as the weaker
sex as Buffy's slayer role is in part. In one scene a male scientist
patronizingly tests Ripley to see if she can name a fork(the naming
of things in the garden of Eden myth) but she replies with another
word beginning with the letter f and ending with k to show that
she is aware of her sexuality. In yet another scene a ball is
used to symbolize her not giving up her sexuality/fertility to
males as Eve did, but puts it back on the tree(inside herself,
intact) as symbolized by the basketball hoop. There is no fall
for her, no giving anything up; the fall from innocence is on
the part of the male scientists who fall from the innocent notion
of their safety to the knowledge that they can't separate themselves
from life and death, cannot be as gods, or play God: as Ripley
says, the aliens will breed and you will die.
Created by men to be subhuman, a hybrid, Ripley takes charge of
herself. At first she is cold, but then she gains more compassion,
more vitality. She is, because of her alien(animal) nature, keyed
into everything going on in the ship: she and the aliens represent
the interconnectedness of all things: the aliens in the sense
that death will come to us all, our mortality as inevitable: their
blood corrodes the bulkheads that symbolize the attempt to cut
things up, divide and control; whereas Ripley comes to represent
the humanity that binds us all together. The journey itself of
the spacestation to earth is symbolic of the movement from the
cold and predatory system of male dominance to the more warm and
human society that includes the feminine. It is a movement from
the top down use of the rule of law as the detaching of the Bible
and the Father voice from the system of the spacestation represent,
and the adoption through the sacrifice/resurrection scene of the
other hybrid of the idea of redemption and compassion.
Of course while the death of the other hybrid is a sacrifice/resurrection,
it is also meant to put back into space the work of the human
males who in their hubris would have unleashed this man made version
of Christ, this chimera of human/heaven(space) made by those who
would fancy themselves as gods, and unleashed not life, but death
on earth for the human race, the very thing they were trying to
avoid. It is Ripley, the female figure who has to save humanity
by sacrificing the other hybrid. What is left is a symbol of wholeness,
the female Ripley and the male installed alien DNA, female and
male. (To clarify: the aliens have several symbolic meanings:
they are primarily animals representing our animal nature; but
they are also animals of the coldness of space, predators; and
because the scientists have resurrected them, they come to symbolize
this cold hierarchal structure of male dominance. As exquisite
killing machines they represent the inevitability of death. And,
when put with Ripley's DNA they represent the vilified other,
the alien, the animal, the monster, the bringers of death that
women were made out to be, but which notion Ripley doesn't entertain
at all. When it comes to the other hybrid, the male one, the space/heavens
aspect of the aliens is used to imply a resurrection.)
Or, this may just be a film about a whole bunch of aliens killing
a whole smorgasboard full of human beings.
As I think that the garden of Eden myth is relevant to both 'Buffy'
and 'Angel' this season, and because Buffy herself has descended
from the heavens(in a cold state as represented by the diamond(ice)
in the museum scene) as the spacestation Ripley is on does, and
as Ripley moves from the coldness of a subhuman state to the warmth
of life and compassion, I think your comparison is relevant. However,
a difference may lie in the idea that Ripley isn't representing
a woman coming of age; Ripley was already an adult before she
died; there isn't so much the fall from innocence into adulthood
as we've seen this season with Buffy. Buffy seems to have fallen
into bifurcation and is moving between extremes, not wanting to
own up to part of what she is. Ripley on the other hand already
seems to have accepted all of herself(she states things as they
are), but requires the journey to earth to bring out her more
human qualities, resurrect them. Buffy still needs to investigate
the dark aspect of herself which she seems to be have been resurrected
as.
Whether there is a connection or not, the idea of the resurrected
woman is relevant to our society as we move towards one that is
more egalitarian.
Hope this helps the discussion.
Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> You've gone and done it again!!! -- Rahael, 03:48:16
11/27/01 Tue
What a great analysis. Of course, I'm insanely jealous. It's persuaded
me to actually go and see the Alien films sometime soon.
Also, why don't you pop into the chat room sometime? Much philosophical/literary
discussion takes places (ok, some of the time!!
Does love trump chips?
-- Jolly, 06:41:40 11/26/01 Mon
I just read the Episode Guide entry for Smashed and all the theories
on why Spike is able to strike Buffy without triggering the chip,
and my personal favorite wasn't posted. I apologize if this has
already been mentioned as a possibility and debunked...I haven't
had a chance to keep up with the board.
In any event, I believe that Spike is in love with Buffy. Because
of this, he is emotionally incapable of truly hurting her. Oh
sure, he can punch her, kick her and push her around, but that's
foreplay to him and he knows she can shrug off such blows like
a lovetap. We've seen in the past that it's intent to harm that
triggers the chip, and from Tabula Rasa, we know that he has no
desire to bite her. (Well, not in a bloodsucking way, anyways.)
I bet the day he gets angry enough to try to kill her, he's going
to go all headachy.
Thoughts?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Does love trump chips? -- maddog,
06:44:29 11/26/01 Mon
Actually, once you see the episode, they actually give you a semi
explanation...and that's not it. So either keep guessing or go
find a copy of the episode online(I'm glad that I did cause I
didn't get a chance to tape it).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Explanation? -- FelipeRijo, 07:38:39
11/26/01 Mon
I posted Jolly's idea last week and I don't remember any explanation
on the ep... could you elaborate any further on that?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Explanation? -- maddog,
08:10:28 11/26/01 Mon
Well it seems as though what I took from last week's episode some
people seem to consider Spike's speculation and I considered it
fact. Cause as the show is portraying it so far Spike's idea,
that Buffy came back "not quite human", is the only
logical explaination. If the chip works, and he found out that
it's still in working order, then how else would he be able to
hit someone without pain? He's still a vamp...I know some want
to say that he's got this human side to him...and while I agree
that emotionally he seems that way guess what...he's still a vamp.
So maybe I can't be as positive as I was in the last post but
until someone can come up with another reason that makes more
sense than this(and I can't agree that yours does) then I will
take that as fact(until of course Joss finds the time in an episode
to show me I'm wrong). :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Explanation? --
vandalia, 09:09:01 11/26/01 Mon
Well, in the midst of the fight in the house, Spike _does_ say
'I didn't want to hurt you...much.' So if you want some shred
of evidence to back up Jolly's theory, there's some right from
the horse's mouth. And we know from long experience that those
throwaway lines almost always come back to haunt us...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Explanation?
-- Rob, 12:22:49 11/26/01 Mon
Yes, I know that the idea that Buffy came back wrong was, on the
one hand, speculation by Spike. But I am one of those that takes
it as fact. Why? Because it was no wild idea he took out of nowhere.
It was an educated theory based on the evidence.
According to the rules of the Buffyverse, Spike's chip will not
allow him to hurt any creature that is not a demon. He cannot
even hurt a "bad" or "evil" human, i.e. he
got a headache from attacking a mugger. So, therefore he gets
no brownie points for trying to save an innocent human by harming
a bad one. He cannot harm anything human. That is why the fact
that he loves Buffy, or the idea that it is foreplay does not
count. If she were fully human now (or human at all), he could
not have hurt her without being wracked with pain.
(The only major exception we have seen to this has been his attack
on the funeral in "OMWF," but that makes sense in the
context of the episode. He was in the heights of a musical number,
and there is a question as to whether those people really there
having a funeral or just there for the purposes of that particular
musical number. It was nighttime, after all. I believe that they
were placed there for the number, similar to how in "Under
Your Spell," Tara suddenly had backup dancers near the water.
But, I digress...)
The other fact to consider is that not only is the wording of
Willow's spell questionable ("Warrior of the people..."),
but the fact that it was cut short. The urn was broken before
the spell was complete. In fact, the gang left the grave, thinking
that the spell had not worked. That could have had repercussions.
Thirdly, I don't think Joss puts anything in for no reason...and
especially a huge revelation such as that I do not believe would
have been put in just as one character's idea. Further, magic
never runs smoothly in the Buffyverse. Buffy was brought back
from the dead. Just because she is not as visibly "wrong"
as the Joyce that Dawn resurrected briefly in "Forever"
does not mean that she came back "right." I will not
hypothesize about whether Buffy is only the "Slayer"
half of herself (a la "The Replacement), a demon, an angel,
a god...but I can almost guarantee you that Spike is able to punch
Buffy not because he is in love with her, but because she is not
completely human anymore.
If Buffy came back perfectly normal and had no problems, it would
have reduced the end of "The Gift" to merely a stunt
or a gimmick. The moment she returned in "Bargaining,"
however, scared, confused, and mute, it was clear that this would
be no easy transition. And the revelation about heaven in "After
Life" made it all the more clear that there was a real reason
for Buffy having died and been brought back. We don't completely
know why yet...but, according to Campbell, a hero always returns
from death with a new purpose, with something that he or she must
reveal to the world that he left in order for it to carry on and
grow, even if that hero is dragged back into the world against
his will, as Buffy was. I just can't wait to see where Buffy will
go from here, and what she is now.
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Explanation?
-- Jolly, 05:43:16 11/27/01 Tue
Whether Buffy returned from the grave as human or something else,
she's got problems. I think that's pretty clear by the weekly
"Hey, I was dead...think I'll cover up my issues with it
by making a big joke about it." Week after week we've seen
the consequences of Willow's resurrection spell...both Buffy dealing
with heaven-withdrawal and Willow's power trip getting further
and further out of hand. So while I'll agree that there are always
consequences to magic, I don't believe that this counters my idea.
I don't believe Joss put that bit in for no reason, but I've also
seen Joss go 180 degrees time and again, to keep us fans guessing.
So I'm not going to buy into Joss's motivation as evidence either.
The muggers have me unconvinced. I'm sure Spike, given the opportunity,
would have no qualms making a bedtime snack out of them. And they
don't have slayer strength or recuperative powers, so he knows
his blows will indeed hurt. Finally, he's not interested in foreplay
with the muggers or anyone else. He was trying to hurt the muggers,
and they were human, so hence chip goes off.
That leaves us with the distractions and chaos that was the resurrection
spell/biker demon extravaganza. No argument there...that situation
went horribly wrong, and Willow's magic has been known to screw
up in the best of circumstances. So absolutely, I agree that the
spell could have gone wrong. But we don't know for sure that it
did.
I'm not saying that I'm right. I'm presenting my idea as an alternate
possibility. The possibility that Spike does not know everything
about how his chip works, that Spike's admission that he had no
desire to harm Buffy when he didn't even know about the chip proves
that there is no intent to harm, and that the chip might not be
triggering because of that utter lack of intent. I'm saying don't
be shocked if we find out that Spike's guess about Buffy is wrong.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Explanation? the
first punch -- Shiver, 07:51:33 11/28/01 Wed
What you're missing here is that the first time Spike notices
the chp not going off, is at the museum, when he grabs Buffy and
she yells Don't Touch Me! and slugs him. He slugs her back out
of ANGER - not out of love or any kind of foreplay. Then he looks
shocked when the chip doesn't go off. In that instance, Spike
was mad and he WANTED to hurt Buffy. It takes only one exception
to disprove a theory :-) So it is not the case that love trumped
the chip, because that punch was not meant to be a love tap.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Does love trump chips? -- verdantheart,
11:29:40 11/26/01 Mon
In "Fool for Love" Spike pokes Buffy (relatively gently,
for him) in her wounded midsection, leaving them both reeling
in pain. He loved her then as well, though I suppose we could
quibble that things have progressed significantly from there.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Does love trump chips? -- astrid,
19:47:19 11/26/01 Mon
Love certainly does not preclude hurt... in the Buffyverse (even
more than in real life), love seems to be inseparable from pain.
So I think that Spike is more than capable of hurting Buffy, and
vice-versa, even if love is the motivation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTVS writers read occult books?
-- Lucifer_Sponge, 07:11:55 11/26/01 Mon
I've noticed that a decent amount of bits and pieces from BTVS
spells and rituals come from actual occult books.
The words "Adonai, Helomi, Pine" appear in the Lemegeton,
a well known occult manual and demon/spirit guide from somewhere
around the middle ages.
The "liscense to depart" given to Hecate in Bewitched,
Bothered, and Bewildered is a standard practice in ceremonial
magic and the summoning of spirits. You give the spirit the "liscense
to depart" so that it will GO AWAY instead of hanging around
and doing all manner of unspeakable things to your sanity.
I was at a bookstore the other day, flipping through Herman Slater's
"A Book of Pagan Rituals," and one phrase jumped out
at me - "Harken well, ye elements," which is in Willow's
"I Will it So" spell.
In Tough Love, the line to one of Willow's spells is "Cassiel,
by your second star." Cassiel is the name of a demon, and
it's not even in any well known book (I can't remember the title
of it at the moment, but I do remember that it wasn't the most
memorable of texts).
There's no real point to any of this information. I just thought
that it was neat. The writers seem to be looking high and low
for ideas to put into the spells used on BTVS. Marti Noxon even
admitted she has a whole shelf full of books on demonology at
her home. Joss, however, seems to insist on making up his own.
"Ayala," from Who Are You's Nether-realm ritual was
a name chosen by the head of ME himself, and is not listed under
any demon, god, or spirit list anywhere. "Blind Cadria,"
from Family is nowhere to be seen either.
It's sort of funny. All the other writers scramble to find things
to add to their spells, while Joss just sort of makes it all up
and winds up with some of the most poetic incantations I've ever
seen or heard on OR off the television screen.
~Sponge
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't resist: a couple more comments
about Smashed from the peanut gallery (SPOILERS, ribald remark)
-- verdantheart, 12:30:04 11/26/01 Mon
As I expected, I saw a deluge of commentary about that the-earth-moved
episode, "Smashed." Since I returned from my Thanksgiving
trip, I've been trying (ee-yikes! Didn't get to all of them!)
to catch up. As usual, I find myself very much in tune with you,
rowan (especially) and Rufus, and very much in awe of the insightful
remarks of OnM, Dedalus, and so many others. You've brought out
most of the points I found fascinating in this episode: feminism/role
reversal; addiction/seduction; a whole lot about sexuality and
male/female roles and how sexuality relates to other aspects of
life; the push-the-envelope mix of sex and violence; the potential
implications/complications brought out in the episode, from Willow's
insistance that her abuse of magic is "a little thing"
that Tara "blew out of proportion" to Warren getting
a look at Spike's chip (which may lead to nefarious plotting and
unhappy experiences for Spike) to what does it mean if Buffy's
not quite human to now that Buffy has given in how (if at all)
will their relationship change. Whew! There was a lot to chew
on in that episode.
What is there to add to all those wonderful comments? (BTW, it
continues to please me that BtVS, like Shakespeare, can be interpreted
in multiple ways.) I was thinking of waiting until I've seen tomorrow's
episode before posting, and I think I'll sit on a few of the things
I've been mulling over, but I think I'll offer a couple of things
I've distilled from seeing the episode and reading the posts below:
1) "It's not pretty, but it's real." - Spike, "Crush",
about the "something" between him and Buffy With the
emphasis on Buffy's not feeling real (came back "wrong"?),
is Buffy reaching for the one thing in her life that feels real?
"Smashed" (including the title) seems to be filled with
echoes of "Crush."
2) I found it interesting that this appears (unless I missed something
important) to be the first episode in which Spike actually uses
the L-word since "Crush." In "OMWF" he all
but uses it, but here he clearly states "I'm in love with
you." There's intervening dialog, but he eventually says
"What's your excuse?" That is, I know why I follow you,
why do you follow me?
3) Fear factor. I, too, found it interesting that things come
to a head after Spike asks "Afraid to give me the chance
[to hurt you]? You afraid I'm gonna --" She stops his words
with kisses. What was he going to say? Was she afraid to hear
that? Was it too close to home? She calls him an "evil thing"
and refuses to admit the possibility that, as Spike asserts, "[he]
can change". Is she reminding herself, trying desperately
not to allow herself to let him in (both emotionally and physically,
so to speak) because she fears the outcome of such a relationship?
The odds aren't good, after all. And yet, Spike insists that she
treated him "like a man." She beats him down, puts herself
above him, but can't stay away from him any more than she can
stay above the earth beneath her feet.
4) Reaction. Will we see Denial!Buffy (looks that way, from the
teaser), vowing never to do it again, only to find herself drawn
back? How can this lead to anything but self-loathing (I can't
stop boffing this evil thing; what the hell is wrong with me?)?
Or will she open herself up to the possibility that Spike is or
can be more than just another vampire?
5) This episode and the relationship shown between Buffy and Spike
in it really made me think of "Vow" by Garbage, with
its references to sex/death, ressurection, and even Joan of Arc.
(Never mind the line "I'm gonna break your soul apart.")
Both works are raw and powerful.
OK, this is taking long enough.
As a postscript, I leave you with my ribald remark. It's obvious,
so I wouldn't be surprised if someone already posted this somewhere
(didn't see it), and I apologize in advance. I couldn't help thinking
the short episode summary should be:
Smashed: Buffy finds out why they call him "Spike."
Sorry about that. Couldn't resist.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Fear Factor -- Shiver, 12:44:39 11/26/01 Mon
I think it's telling that she finally jumps on him (literally)
when he asks her if she's afraid. She is very forceful and demanding,
she is the one who initiates the following actions, her hand grabs
the zipper, she's on top. Spike got her riled up enough, angry
enough, to push her to the point of sexual dominance. "I
ain't afraid of you!" The two of them beating on each other
wasn't getting them anywhere fast, they always have been almost
equal in a fight, and Spike's had more than a year of chippiness
to watch her more closely and learn how she fights. The only way
to shut him up was to stop his mouth with a kiss. The best way
to exert dominance - since beating him isn't going to cut it any
more, now that he can hit back - is to take the dominant sexual
position. The eye contact between them is another form of dominance
- I can't remember offhand who looks away first - I think Spike
breaks it by spinning her around, or she leans in to kiss him
again. but you get the point.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Ribald Remark ROTLMFAO (with spoilers) -- Kimberly, 12:46:33
11/26/01 Mon
After spending the week with family, 7-hour car trips, and a violently
ill six-year-old, I haven't had much time to really put together
my feelings about Smashed. Like you, I have a couple of thoughts
that I haven't seen posted elsewhere (I may just have missed them;
jeez, you guys have been busy!), so here they are:
1. Spike attacked that girl AFTER Buffy violently rejected him,
and had a hard time doing so. I had the feeling that that attack
was less about regaining his status as the Big Bad and more about
punishing Buffy. I never got the feeling he was that interested
in eating the poor thing.
2. Once they started kissing, the violence stopped. Buffy did
push Spike twice, once away from the wall where a beam was about
to hit, and the second toward a wall to hold them up. (And you
all have dirty minds. ;-))
3. What was Smashed was our conceptions: especially about Buffy,
Spike and Willow, but ultimately about everyone.
I'm not a B/S shipper; I'm not an B/S anti-shipper. I'm just enjoying
the ride (in all senses of the term.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Ribald Remark ROTLMFAO (with spoilers) -- Rob,
13:19:25 11/26/01 Mon
"Spike attacked that girl AFTER Buffy violently rejected
him, and had a hard time doing so. I had the feeling that that
attack was less about regaining his status as the Big Bad and
more about punishing Buffy. I never got the feeling he was that
interested in eating the poor thing."
I agree with this. Some people said they thought it was out of
character for Spike to all of a sudden go back to being a big
bad the moment he thinks the chip is broken. But I agree with
you...I think it's more Buffy's rejection of him and his anger
at that that is propelling him to try to be bad again. Who is
to say whether he would hate gone through with drinking from that
girl if he could have? But the fact is that Buffy reduced him
once more from a "man" to a "monster." Therefore,
he is settling into old habits...again looking for "nummy
treats," but he doesn't do it with the same heart that he
used to. Further, as he talks to the girl before he tries to bite
her, he complains about how Buffy is treating him, and how he'll
prove her wrong. His attempt to go back to the dark side is, in
my opinion, totally to get back at Buffy. He is angry and hurt.
I don't think that negates the change that the chip has done to
him. In classic Jossian moral ambiguity, good arguments could
be made at this point for both why Spike is now "good,"
(see "Tabula Rasa") and why he might not be (see this
episode). But I would argue that Spike's actions in this episode
do not make him any less "good." In some way, I think
Spike's convinced himself that he had just been biding time, being
a good "person" until the chip could be removed, so
that he could go back to being what he really is. He thinks he
has the opportunity, so he tries to go right back into his old
ways. But right from the start, it just isn't the same.
Regarding his treatment of "Buffy," his desire to both
hurt her and love her was voiced in OMWF as well, as he changes
from "I'm free if that bitch dies...I'd better help her out"
and "First I'll help her, then I'll kill her..." I think
right now his anger at her is due to her hypocrisy in kissing
him and at the same time calling him repulsive, and how she keeps
denying that anything is going on between them. He no longer wants
to hurt her because she is the Slayer (although that is the exterior
he puts on when he challenges her), although that may be what
Buffy believes. He wants to hurt her because he loves her so much,
and she either rejects him or represses whatever feelings she
has for him. She treats him like a man, until her feelings for
him get too uncomfortable. Then she falls back into calling him
a "thing." But that part is denial, IMO. Yes, she may
have been using him in order to try to "feel," but I
think the thing that scares her is she really is, if not in love
with Spike, strongly attracted to him.
Rob
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Ribald Remark ROTLMFAO (with spoilers) --
verdantheart, 14:22:05 11/26/01 Mon
Yep, I agree. Buffy's afraid to find out what her real feelings
are toward Spike. And yet, that "real something" between
them is the only thing that seems real to her right now. When
there was so much going on with Glory, Dawn, and her mother, she
could ignore her feelings toward Spike. Now, when she feels more
empty, that's not so easy. If she doesn't love him, is it just
that she really badly needed to get laid? Why not take up another
offer ("How can I repay--?" "Whatever.")?
If not love, there is some powerful attraction at work. If she
does (love him), the ramifications could be so bad (What if the
chip gets broken? Angelus revisited? What would loving an evil
vampire say about her? Is she afraid he could take Angel's place
in her heart?). So we have this dance of attraction and repulsion
going on.
What will the Scoobies say? This isn't the sort of thing that
stays a secret long. Will Xander take the opportunity to beat
the crap out of Spike since he can't fight back?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Buffy's Other Options -- Wisewoman, 17:33:39
11/26/01 Mon
If she doesn't love him, is it just that she really badly needed
to get laid? Why not take up another offer ("How can I repay--?"
"Whatever.")?
THANK YOU for reminding me of this little snippet...I knew there
was something significant I'd lost track of from Smashed!
Buffy's reaction to the male-damsel in distress: not even a second
look. Used along with the lyrics to show us just how alienated
Buffy has become while going through the motions.
Two points are significant here, I think: 1) This is not the reaction
Buffy would have had to a studly young man before her death and
resurrection. She was definitely interested in Ben for a while
after Riley left. She wasn't ready to give up on men altogether.
Having the young man in OMwF helpless and bound by demons certainly
indicates that he's probably not her type (seems he'd be quite
breakable), but his looks alone would have caused her to pause
a bit in the past. She's wandering around, looking for something
to make her feel, and she passes right over one of the items that
would have made her heart go pitter-pat in the past.
2) ME made a definite choice here to have Buffy rescue a young
man, rather than a young woman. For whatever reason, they established
that Buffy did not just return from the grave horny and in need
of some physical action. They placed Mr. Studly in her path, and
she ignored him.
She didn't ignore Spike, though. She may have sung, "This
isn't real, but I just wanna feel," but it's clear that she
didn't "just wanna feel" with just anybody.
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's Other Options -- Rufus,
17:40:27 11/26/01 Mon
ME made a definite choice here to have Buffy rescue a young man,
rather than a young woman. For whatever reason, they established
that Buffy did not just return from the grave horny and in need
of some physical action. They placed Mr. Studly in her path, and
she ignored him.
She didn't ignore Spike, though. She may have sung, "This
isn't real, but I just wanna feel," but it's clear that she
didn't "just wanna feel" with just anybody.
I'm a bad girl, I thought you said she "just didn't want
to feel up anybody"........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Eeeeeeeeeeevil! ;o) -- WW,
18:24:40 11/26/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's Other Options -- Rob,
21:15:52 11/26/01 Mon
"ME made a definite choice here to have Buffy rescue a young
man, rather than a young woman. For whatever reason, they established
that Buffy did not just return from the grave horny and in need
of some physical action. They placed Mr. Studly in her path, and
she ignored him."
I thought that was one of the best moments in the entire episode...and
a perfect little parody/satire of the Disney movie/fairy tale
situation, the difference being however that a prince is rescued,
and his rescuer couldn't care less about having a possible romantic
entanglement with him. Moreover, she doesn't even look in his
direction. Perhaps she does not want a prince at this point in
her life, which I would see as a Riley or Angel-type figure...She
wants a bad boy, like Spike.
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
More thoughts on B/S (Spoilers
for Smashed & promo for Wrecked) -- Dyna, 18:59:07 11/26/01 Mon
I posted a version of this on another forum, but so much of it
relates to and is inspired by the brilliant posts I've read here
in the past few days, especially those of rowan, OnM, Deadalus,
and many others, that I wanted to share it here and get your reactions.
First, let me say: rowan, I'm in complete agreement with your
idea that the B/S sex scene in "Smashed," while clothed
in the appearance of freakiness and disturbing to many, has at
its core a potentially positive model for Buffy as she grows up
and into her adult sexuality. Cutting away the noise that surrounds
it, we're given in this scene a model of sexual interaction that
embraces the passion and aggression that are natural to Buffy,
in which neither partner clearly dominates or is dominated, and
where there is connection and recognition of each other, as represented
by the very striking motif of the long, intense gaze. I also think
your idea to compare this scene with the scene in Grad Day 2 where
Angel feeds on Buffy is amazingly interesting. To add another
detail, the couples in both scenes topple over; in GD2 Buffy is
crushed under Angel (who never looks at or reacts to her during
the "act" of feeding), while in Smashed Buffy ends up
on top, her fall broken by her partner, eye contact maintained.
There's a promising revision for you!
I also think this model applies to Spike. Spike has just as much
a need as Buffy does to learn to relate to a partner in a balanced
way, where there is connection and mutuality, and where neither
party is too dominated or too dominating. Being Love's Bitch may
be large with the drama, but it doesn't work for him anymore,
just like being the Ice Queen can't be ultimately satisfying to
Buffy.
Whatever happens in the immediate aftermath, I think the fact
that the scene went down like it did is a hopeful sign. Even if
the characters don't see it, it establishes for us, the audience,
that they both have it in them to "do it right." Without
thinking or planning or anything but instinct, they somehow arrived
at a moment of connection that was mutual, balanced, and satisfying.
Nothing could say to me more clearly that there's hope for both
of them, individually and maybe together, to find a way of being
that's more true to who they are. But first, they have to get
past a lot of crap, and that's not going to be fun or easy.
I don't have any doubt that in the immediate aftermath of this,
mistakes will be made on both sides. We can already infer from
the promo for "Wrecked" that things aren't all blood
and peaches between them. But that doesn't feel wrong to me either,
because I think one of the truisms of the Buffyverse is that the
old doesn't magically go away. Just as Buffy and Spike need the
experience of trying to go back to their old identities--impenetrable
paragon of righteousness and eeeevil vampire--in order to let
them see that they don't fit anymore, they need to try out their
dysfunctional modes of interaction on each other before they can
discard them and start working on something new.
To that end, I think Buffy's sudden reversion to pre-Intervention
relations with Spike is part of a necessary process. She's commented
repeatedly lately on how much easier it was to relate to Spike
before, "when he wanted to kill me," when she didn't
"keep saving his life." Now, when faced with the real
prospect of having to negotiate a new way of relating to him,
post-kissage, she reflexively reaches for the old familiar--disdain,
abuse, the emotional beat-down. Which, as a strategy for getting
Spike to stop pressing her, is spectacularly unsuccessful.
What it looks like we'll see in "Wrecked," based on
the promo, is Spike's entry in the dysfunctional modes of interaction
contest, "sinister attraction." This is a throwback
for him in the same way the beatdown is for Buffy, and was also
last seen circa "Intervention." If we believe that the
way Spike had the Bot programmed was an attempt to simulate the
real Buffy, then we also learn from the Bot that Spike believed
(and maybe still believes) that the only possible basis for connection
between him and Buffy was her unwilling seduction to the dark
side. ("Darn your sinister attraction!") However, as
the evidence is already pretty good that this is not the basis
of the connection he's formed with Buffy since her resurrection,
I predict that his attempt to revive this old relationship strategy
will also meet with failure.
Which to me is all of the good. Just like the abandoned house
has to be torn down before something new can be built, the discarding
of old, nonworkable ways of relating to each other clears the
way for a new relationship to form. It won't be easy, and it almost
certainly won't be pretty, but I'm fascinated and I can't wait
to find out what happens next.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> And did you see...? (spoilers for Smashed/Wrecked promo)
-- vandalia, 20:36:07 11/26/01 Mon
...the love bites on those two? Spike's got a hickey on his right
pectoral and three bloody claw marks over his heart, Buffy's got
a hickey on her chest halfway to her collarbone... the only thing
I found unrealistic about the 'war wounds' was Spike's back was
totally unmarred. No way. Though I'll forgive this if he gives
Buffy a good old-fashioned hickey on her neck in that scene when
she's trying to leave the 'freakshow' in the promo.
Okay, now I feel dirty. ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Just how closely DID you look at that promo ...? --
listening, 05:55:11 11/27/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vishnu stuff -- MayaPapaya9,
20:57:23 11/26/01 Mon
Okay for starters, there are three main gods in Hinduism. This
is not to be confused with the Christian trinity business, it's
similar but not the same. There's Brahma, the creator; Vishnu,
the sustainer or preserver; and Shiva the destroyer. Vishnu was
the first guy to ever exist, and his sons are Brahma and Shiva.
So Vishnu takes human form every once in a while, I think he has
ten human forms, but the most famous ones are from the "epic
poems" Ramayana (he's Rama in this one) and Mahabharata (Krishna).
Lots of religious Indian people have pictures of Rama or Krishna
up in their houses. Anyways these two are supposed to set an example
for you cause they're like the perfect human beings, and Krishna
is often compared to Jesus Christ.
Krishna has his own book, the Bhagvad Gita, which is actually
part of the Mahabharata. It's a conversation that he has with
his friend Arjuna before battle. I think someone else brought
this up in another thread. The story goes, Arjuna and his brothers,
the good guys, are forced to fight their cousins, the bad guys,
to uphold justice and peace and everything like that (hahaha sorry
I can't remember the details, it's been a while) and Arjuna gets
nervous, because he is a moral man and cannot find it in himself
to murder his own cousins in battle, even if they are evil.
So Krishna, his buddy, takes him aside (this is all ON the battlefield,
right before they start fighting. They were very polite in those
days and waited until everyone was ready) and tells him basically,
they may be your cousins, but this is for a greater good and you
must do what is right. Of course he goes into greater detail and
lots of people use the Bhagvad Gita's teachings as how to live
their daily lives. Anyways Arjuna is enlightened and they win
the war in the end.
The story of Rama I like less but is just as widely worshipped.
Rama was a prince, and the perfect human being. He marries Sita
who's really pretty, and is looking forward to the perfect human
life when his archnemesis Ravana (he'll be the one with like ten
arms) steals Sita and brings her to his castle as a prisoner.
Rama embarks on a quest to get his wife back. It's worth mentioning
that he has this devoted friend named Hanuman, who is worshipped
for being the most faithful servant of God, and he helps Rama
all the way during his journey.
Okay, these are all the stories that are in my head right now.
Wouldn't my sunday school teachers be proud. Now I know you want
the philosophy behind them, and I assure you there is philosophy.
If you go to Barnes & Noble and look under the religion section
for books on Vedantha or Hinduism or even my super cool name Maya
you're probably gonna get Vishnu. Because Vishnu and Maya go hand
in hand. Maya is like a concept, not a person. It's sort of like
that Matrix, if you saw that movie. Anyways that's enough for
today, if you want I can dig up my old textbooks and research
a little for you. I hope this helped!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Lovely precis Maya -- Rahael, 03:59:07 11/27/01 Tue
Certainly its the funniest one I've read!!
I love the Mahabaratha too (I particularly like the Peter Brook
play version, which I highly recommend). Most of all for its incredible
moral complexity.
Even while Krishna debates with Arjuna, you as the onlooker have
to be persuaded. The Pandava's don't act with justice at all times.
In fact there is a whole line of thinking which points to their
cruelty and injustice. (treatment of Surya for instance)
Surya, their half brother and enemy could easily be conceived
of as a truly honourable man. I had incredible sympathy for him,
all the way through.
And of course the deepest irony about the Ramayana is the way
in which Rama shows himself up at the end - total and shocking
cruelty, while Sita is of course the true heroine, embraced by
mother Earth because humanity and Rama have abandoned her because
of her 'impurity'.
And finally, the most appealing thing about the Mahabaratha is
that it isn't a single codified text. Every region of India has
different versions of the stories, different endings and emphasises.
Each strand flys away like an arrow, questioning ideas about 'truth'
and 'heroism'. Each narrative is splintered....how postmodern!!!!
In fact, like your name, my real name is a metaphor too, the beauty
of Shiva meditating created into a fully grown and beautiful woman
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Lovely precis Maya -- MayaPapaya9, 15:34:38 11/27/01
Tue
Hehe I'm glad you liked it! I hope it was somewhat accurate..and
yeah, the ending of the Ramayana used to infuriate me when I was
little, but now I understand that he did what he had to do or
maintain his perfect morality. It's one of those things where
it's not anybody's fault but that's just the way it is. And, hey!
While I was going through my old books I found lots of stuff on
Kali in eerie relation to the First Slayer. Someone asked me about
her in a chat and I'll make a new thread about her I guess.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I'm sticking to the feminist reading!! -- Rahael,
04:53:22 11/29/01 Thu
of the Sita story. Still not persuaded by Rama's motivations.
He had to get rid of her with reluctance because his subjects
objected to her sexual impurity (yeah, she got kidnapped by a
demon...obviously, she must have been asking for it). Rama lacked
the courage of his convictions, and he didn't have enough faith
in his wife.
And doesn't she prove her moral and sexual purity (when Rama doesn't
believe her) by immolating herself in fire and coming through
unscathed? at which point everyone is very sorry, but mother earth
is so angry on her behalf, she rises up and carries her away?
And talking of feminist readings of Hindu myth....I love Kali.
I had always heard of her as the goddes of death and love. Dark,
powerful, bloodthirsty, but also fair. Sounds like a mixture of
Anyanka and the first Slayer!!!
Current board
| More November 2001