November 2002
posts
Demonic Angelus, Wicked Spike--reply to a just-archived
post *Spoilers S2* -- Haecceity, 23:04:53 11/08/02
Fri
See, as a new poster I've got to learn to reply to things
faster!!
Here's my response to the Evil Angelus/Evil Spike post now
in Archive One:
Demonic Angelus, Wicked Spike
I’m in the midst of Terry Eagleton’s study of Tragic
Narrative conventions, “Sweet Violence: The Idea of the
Tragic”, which contains a chapter called Demons that
certainly speaks to the relative “evil” attitudes of our
favourite vamps.
***small disclaimer***I’m rather new to the Buffyverse and
have only started watching Angel this season, so I may not
have the specifics to prop up this little “hunch”.
First, a few quotes from the text:
“The demonic are those lost souls who can find release from
the anguish of non-being only by destroying others, but who
in doing so deplete themselves even further…The fact that
they find pleasure in this self-destruction is what keeps
them just this side of death. …[it] is the condition of
those who cling stubbornly to their despair and spit in the
world’s face for bringing them to this pass, those who
refuse to be saved since it would relieve them of their
delight in their rebellious rejection of the world. The
demonic is thus a kind of cosmic sulking. Comfort would be
the undoing of such despairers who wax most furious at the
thought that eternity may have the insolence to deprive them
of their misery. Such men and women are in rebellion against
existence as such. They detest the sheer fact of existence
because it reminds them of their own unbearable non-being…
For the demonic, value is just a sham, which is why it seeks
to demolish it. What it finds offensive is not this or that
value, but the whole farcical business of value as such…the
demonic derives its frisson precisely from showing up value
as purely conventional, not from a defiant belief in the
reality of evil. Evil is the last thing it believes in,
since this would be granting credence to good. To be wicked
is to share the same terms as the virtuous, whereas the
demonic is infuriated by the delusion that anything could
actually matter, good or bad.”
How does this translate to Angelus and Pre-Chip Spike?
Angelus---From my (admittedly rather limited) understanding
of the Liam/Angelus/ Angel character, the human was a self-
destructive fellow, bent on flouting the conventions of his
father’s place in society by, essentially, wasting himself.
As a vampire/demon we see a being whose delight lies in
destroying the values of his victims—the sanctity of family
(with the slaughter of his own), Drusilla’s faith, Giles’
belief in Good, Buffy’s love, etc. With the “curse” of
ensoulment, the demon seems to have been squashed down,
incapable of action, but note hybrid Angel’s notorious
brooding, his determination to destroy his past by vigorous
application of (again, self-) sacrifice. All culminating
with the reappearance of Angelus, now hell-bent (hee, hee)
on destroying the entire world with the waking of
Acathla.
Spike--- Begins his journey as “a bad poet, but a good man”,
a believer in the sanctity and power of Beauty, Love, Truth.
What sets him on the path to vamphood is not self-
destruction but rejection—by society and the woman he loves.
We see in Fool for Love, though, that Spike replaced the
values of the society that rejected his romantic human self
with an equally stringent structure of “evil” values---
blood, brawl and brutal honesty---within a close-knit family
of vampires. Spike finds the acceptance William longed for
only by becoming inhuman. Note how important it is to Spike
to be labeled Evil, to be the big bad---how much he believes
in the conventions of being evil. But it’s Spike who helps
Buffy save the world from Apocalypse Angelus, Spike who
wants to keep the world a place to make merry evil in.
Okay, probably long enough. Please, those who have a better
feel for the Angelus arc, is this a fair take?
---Haecceity
[> Nice. Apparantly Derrida is a demon. I always
suspected as much. -- Rochefort, 23:18:24 11/08/02
Fri
[> [> Re: Indeed, we've "turned our monsters into
pets" -- Haecceity, 23:42:23 11/08/02 Fri
At least our vampires:)
And if "monsters cannot be announced", they can be analyzed
into teeny fear demons. Around here, at any rate.
[> [> [> Re: Indeed, we've "turned our monsters
into pets" -- aliera, 22:52:40 11/09/02 Sat
They are us (in a sense), Haecceity.
And well come...enjoyed your post.
[> Re: Demonic Angelus, Wicked Spike--reply to a just-
archived post *Spoilers S2* -- Rufus, 04:43:09
11/09/02 Sat
One trait that both characters share in is the rejection of
someone that they value. Liam was rejected by his father who
wanted to form him into someone he thought would be
acceptable. Instead of standing up for himself or leaving,
Liam does the only thing left to him which is force his
father into the ultimate rejection of casting him out of the
home. Liams antics were at the very least beer sodden and
petty....things that could have turned him either way...into
a crook or someone who grows up and moves on into and adult
life....but Darla happens to covet the nicely formed fellow
and makes him her own. The result of this conversion is that
all the repressed feelings of wanting to be artistic, all
the things his father put little value into were directed in
wiping out the lives of people who reminded him of what he
felt was holding him back, mainly family and love.
William is born many years later and when he was rejected in
love, he was found by someone who seemed to see him as being
glorious. That was Dru, and what she set free was Williams
repressed feelings of wanting attention and respect.
Both vampires started their unlife just after an act of
rejection, and both spend most of their unlife getting even
with the symbols of their weakness, anything that would have
tied them to the world....family, religion, love in the
purest form.
Angel and Spike both go through a transformation...Angelus
by a gypsy curse, Spike through technology....both with
unexpected results. Angel ends up fighting for right after
many falls back into evil...Spike reaches for a soul when
for whatever reason he is able to see the monster in the man
and become repulsed. Both vampires have souls, both have had
their lives further transformed by their interactions with
Buffy.
To be wicked is to share the same terms as the virtuous,
whereas the demonic is infuriated by the delusion that
anything could actually matter, good or bad.”
We know for a fact that Angel has had an epiphany....he has
had a few of the suckers, but in the end he has ended up
back on the road for a redemption of sorts. Spike is the
unknown....he may have a soul, but what are the consequences
of being able to care about what he has done for so long?
Will he become again a monster because captive to a still
existing demon part of himself, Spike may only know one way
to be....the monster something that has saturated both parts
of this demon hybrid. Or, will Spike slowly reclaim his need
to help Buffy and the Scoobies because being good does
matter to him?
[> Re: Demonic Angelus, Wicked Spike--reply to a just-
archived post *Spoilers S2* -- gingerbob,
06:48:22 11/09/02 Sat
Excellent post! And a very interesting insight in the
section you quote on demons- not a point of view I had
considered, and it deals with that whole paradox of evil
being the rejection, but thereby a "recognition" of
good.
bob
[> [> Re: Demonic Angelus, Wicked Spike--reply to a
just-archived post *Spoilers S2* -- Slain, 15:10:25
11/09/02 Sat
This idea of evil recognising good interests me. It seems to
contradict with things the Master, Spike and perhaps others
have said or implied; that they aren't evil, but that evil
and good are only relative human terms. That strikes me as
an important thread in the Buffyverse; evil and good are
human words to define the relationship between demons and
humans. The words imply that demons are a part of the human
world, and that their existence is defined in terms to their
relationship with humanity (good). But many demons disagree,
that "Evil is the last thing it believes in, since this
would be granting credence to good". With some demons, they
might be right in believing this, as their values are only
evil because they're defined in this way by humanity; they
don't seek to do evil, but their existence with humanity
inevitably draws them to it. Vampires seem different, to me,
as they are part human, and have human values instilled in
them.
Sad news from Wales -- oboemaboe, 00:01:25
11/09/02 Sat
A disagreement over Buffy led to murder:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2421265.stm
[> Re: Sad news from Wales -- 110v3w1110w,
00:09:17 11/09/02 Sat
i live in swansea its a terrible place to live and the fact
that he lives in swansea alone can drive a man to murder. it
is that bad a place to live. although i wouldn't do anything
if someone criticised willow although i would they were
clearly mad or at best have very bad taste.
[> Re: Sad news from Wales -- Darby, 05:22:29
11/09/02 Sat
Am I nuts for immediately wondering which character it
was?
I'm assuming it was Willow from 110's post, but I still feel
guilty for how my mind was leapfrogging past the tragedy to
my Buffy obsession.
But I wasn't totally alone, was I?
- Darby, slinking away for the day (going to a fencing
tournament, actually).
[> [> No, Darby, You're not alone. -- Isabel,
10:52:34 11/09/02 Sat
I was thinking Spike, myself. It all depends on which eps
have aired in Wales.
[> [> [> vampires and Wales -- leslie, 12:14:49
11/09/02 Sat
What is it with vampires and Wales? Wasn't it only a month
or so ago that there was a trial up in Anglesey of a teenage
vampire-wannabee who killed an elderly lady in Llanfair
P.G.? There the inciting factor was alleged to be, not BtVS,
but Bizarre magazine.
[> [> [> [> Re: vampires and Wales --
KdS, 12:42:40 11/09/02 Sat
From personal experience, I can say that it's probably to do
with the weather. It's so cloudy and wet that most of the
year you can walk around 24/7 without combusting :-)
Oh, and Bizarre could provoke just about
anything.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: vampires and Wales
-- leslie,
12:46:35 11/09/02 Sat
Well, I lived in Wales for a year and encountered no
vampires whatsoever. Now, those chaos demons with the fungus
growing all over their horns, those I could definitely see,
especially if there's a subspecies that has mildew instead
of fungus.
[> [> [> [> [> [> No even Leanan Sidhe
? -- Etrangere, 14:06:15 11/09/02 Sat
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Leanan Sidhe is
Scottish! -- leslie,
16:03:44 11/09/02 Sat
[> What's sad about this is ... -- Kitkat,
07:12:06 11/09/02 Sat
...that it actually has little or nothing to do with
'Buffy'. This man was evidently unbalanced, because you
don't rape and murder someone over a small disagreement like
which character you like/dislike. The incident could easily
have been over a different show, or a type of food, or
something equally trivial. Yet the way it is reported
implies that the fact that they were watching Buffy has
something to do with it, and the BBC website has added
sections on occult murders as 'related stories'.
Sorry, the supposition that a show like Buffy somehow
incites murder is a media thing which pushes my buttons.
[> [> Yes, was it really necessary to even mention
which show it was? -- Rob, 09:05:24 11/09/02 Sat
Because this post is too damn good to miss...."Him"
Themes -- Rufus reposting vblackheart's work,
05:09:43 11/09/02 Sat
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_stakehouse/message/6402
"Him" themes (warning: long)
--- In the_stakehouse@y..., "vblackheart"
wrote:
> Even without WtP saying it, it seems to me that "Him"
is not a throw
> away ep. Personally, I found six themes
interesting:
>
Theme 1: The old rules no longer apply
The issue at hand in "Him" was not that that women were all
under a love spell that seduced them into doing "wacky
things." The point is that the jacket affected people who
fell back on old habits that earned them success in the
past. Those that learned from past experiences, but didn't
fall back on old habits, were able to solve the riddle and
save the day.
Think about this. In the B/D/A/W argument in the Summers
entrance hall, all four women scramble to find a way to
"prove" their love to R.J. They all use their talents and
skills to get what they want. The problem is, even if they
succeed at their tasks, they still won't win the object of
their affection.
Buffy vows to kill the principal because she's a Slayer and
she knows about violence. Violence and forceful action has
almost always carried the day and brought her victory.
However, she's already been shown that falling back on the
tried-and-true does not always get her the prize. In
"Grave," acting as the Slayer when she faced off against
DarkWillow only got her enmeshed in a side fight and kept
her peripheral to the real action on Kingman's Bluff; in
"Lessons," she
was once again entangled in a peripheral fight against the
zombies while the real source of her problems was located
one floor above; in "Help," all her Slayer tactics and
actions didn't buy Cassie so much as one extra second of
life; in "Selfless" she swings into "kill Anyanka" mode
while both Xander and Willow work to find another way to
successfully resolve the situation. "Him" is just another
variation on the same theme.
Willow falls back on magic to transmogrify the boy into a
woman. Using magic to smooth over the bumps in the road of
life, as well as changing her lovers to better suit herself
(think Tara in S6) has been Willow's modus operandi in the
past. While it ultimately lead to her downfall in "Grave,"
by and large magic was responsible for giving Willow the
good life: good grades in college, victory in battle,
meeting Tara, smoothing over arguments, creating parties out
of thin air, etc. Willow conveniently forgets those times
when magic resulted in some pretty horrific consequences:
"Dopplegangland" and "Something Blue" are just two examples.
She also has a habit of performing magic on others without
their permission to get what she wants. She tried to cast a
de-lusting spell on herself and Xander without Xander's
knowledge or consent; she was willing to cast a spell on Oz
and Veruca out of jealousy and revenge; "Something Blue" was
all about Willow (unintentionally) making "her will be done"
on people who are simply not responsible for her deep funk;
her actions in making Tara forget fights is just one example
in S6 of Willow forcing her magical will on someone else. In
"Him" we see that Willow is up to her old tricks: she almost
succeeds in turning R.J. into a girl without his knowledge
or permission, believing that she'll get what she wants.
Anya robs banks. This is a perfect combination of
Anya/Anyanka. As Anyanka, use of horrific violence that is
out of proportion to the "crimes" of men breaking hearts was
basically the vengeance demon's raison d'etre. As Anya, she
learns (ironically enough from Xander) that in the game of
Life (TM Milton Bradley), lots of money means you're
winning. In "Something Blue," Xander once again teaches Anya
that if he earns lots of money, buys Anya pretty things,
he'll make Anya happy, and she'll love him (or make love to
him) because of it. Anya has basically internalized this
lesson and associates money with safety and happiness.
In "Him," Anya 2.0 perfectly unites the two. Robbing a bank
to get money (thereby buying R.J. pretty things and making
R.J. happy so he'll fall in love with her) is an out-of-
proportion solution to her problem. The human touch is that
she doesn't need to conduct violence to get it, unless you
count destruction and theft of property violent. Anya
succeeds in getting money, but fails to win R.J.'s heart.
What's especially interesting in "Him" is that Anya still
doesn't get it. She clearly has opted to keep the money,
justifying herself that she was under a love spell and can't
be held responsible for her actions. When news of the
robberies hit the radio, she quickly buys the Scoobs'
attention (and their love, if we follow Anya logic) by
offering to buy ice cream for everyone.
Dawn becomes a damsel in distress/offering to die is the
best way to prove your love. Prior to S7, the joke was that
if Dawn needs to be rescued, it must be Tuesday. Being
rescued has always brought her attention and sympathy from
the Scoobs for her plight. While she's moving away from that
behavior this year, it's a new growth. When the chips are
down, she's willing to become the "damsel" again and wait
for someone to save her.
This point is especially clear in "Him" since, of all the
ways Dawn can think of to die, she lays down on the train
tracks as if she were bound and gagged and waits for the
train to run her over. You could almost picture R.J. in the
shadows twirling his big, black, fake mustache. One thing
Dawn has not grown out of, and this is partially Buffy's
fault, is that true love means you are willing to die for a
person. She's partially right: if you're willing to die
doing something proactive, say to push someone out of the
way of a speeding car, then, yes, it can be construed as a
sign of love. However, being willing to commit suicide is
not. To quote Xander, Dawn may know the story about Buffy
jumping from the Glory's Tower to close the portal and save
the world, but she missed the point: sometimes the best way
to prove your love is to live.
What's interesting is that it's the two characters, Xander
and Spike, who are willing to break old habits that crack
the case. Xander hates Spike and would be happier if Spike
disappeared, preferably in a puff of dust, from Sunnydale.
Spike hates Xander equally as much. Yet, at the beginning of
the ep, Xander and Spike wind up being roomies (again). Yes,
they were roomies temporarily in S4, but the relationship
between the two characters is more solidified into a solid
loathing and both men are more dangerous than they were in
S4. However, both Xander and Spike are willing to overlook
their mutual disdain to share living quarters again (at
Buffy's instigation).
Even more startling than the roommate situation is Xander's
and Spike's willingness to work together to solve the
problem. It's that teamwork that uncovers the jacket as the
source of their problems (something Xander actually hit on
earlier: more on that later) and foil the three most
dangerous and deadly plans: Willow's spell, Buffy's bazooka
attack, and Dawn's suicide attempt. Without Xander, Spike
would not have been able to get to all three women in time.
With Spike, Xander would've never been able to stop Buffy
who was, in turn, able to stop Dawn. Anya's plan would not
result in loss of life or limbs, so stopping her was not a
priority.
What's interesting, though, is that while Xander broke with
old habits, he was at the same time relying on past
experience to hone in on the problem. Early in the ep,
Xander speculates that Dawn's in love with R.J. because of
the letterman jacket because when he was in high school,
jocks got all the girls. He deduces pretty quickly that
Buffy and Dawn are under a love spell because of his
experiences in "BBB." He relies on his familiarity with
R.J.'s brother to gain entrance to R.J.'s home and ask
questions.
This theme is literally underscored when Xander and Spike
show up at R.J.'s house. R.J.'s brother, who had everything
handed to him in high school courtesy of an enchanted
football jacked, is unable to battle and defeat life's
smaller slings and arrows. The end result, he never got
beyond his high school experience. He is literally living in
the world Xander occupied in S4. Xander, on the other hand,
who had to earn everything he got, is a successful adult.
R.J.'s brother, like the four female Scoobs, is also trapped
by past habits that brought him success even though it
clearly is not working any more. He even goes so far as to
make reference to Xander's looser/geek status by remarking
that his brother was involved with the model UN and read
comic books (a slap at Xander who doesn't bother to take
offense) and wrote poetry (a slap at Spike who merely rolls
his eyes in response).
Theme 2: No, they really weren't "good times"
I think I've figured out why ME is doing it's "back to the
beginning" theme. It's a reflection of the increasingly gray
world now occupied by the Scoobs. When they were "children"
the world was in cotton candy primary colors. Things were
clear cut. Very little, unless you were Buffy, had serious
long-lasting consequences. This started to change in S3 when
Faith went "bad." It's been increasingly true in each
successive season. This season, there are real, hard
consequences for failure. Each action has an opposite and
equally forceful reaction.
In addition, the Scoobs are now looking at similar
situations they faced in high school through the eyes of
adults. The end result is that each situation has a slightly
more sinister twist. Let's look at a few:
We have on our hands a Souled Vampire. In the Buffy-Angel
day, the line was clearly drawn: soul meant "good" which
means that Angel was good (Xander's suspicions of Angel
notwithstanding). Lacking a soul meant evil, which meant
that Angelus was evil and Angel was not responsible for
Angelus's actions. Ironically enough, ME has been clearly
telling us from the beginning that it really isn't that
simple. Angel wasn't always upright and really did live in a
world of grays, something that none of the Scoobs really saw
(again, Xander being the exception here), but Angel clearly
understood. In "Amends" he held himself responsible for
Angelus's actions, in "Dopplegangland" Angel was stopped by
Buffy when he tried to comment that the vampire version of
someone and the human version are more closely related than
the Scoobs were lead to believe. We are now post-Angel and
post-Angelus and the Scoobs are once again faced with a
souled vampire. Experience has shown them that a soul does
not automatically equal good. The end result? They are
simply not sure what Spike having a soul really means in the
grand scheme of things.
Invisible Girl/Fear, Itself/Same Time, Same Place. In the
world of Buffy, invisibility equals bad. In "Invisible
Girl," Marcy uses her powers to exact revenge on her
tormentors, but she doesn't actually kill anyone (at least
in the episode, although her enrollment in the special
government school at the end of the ep suggests that state
of affairs will change). In "Fear, Itself," Xander is
rendered invisible as a reflection of his low self-esteem,
the feeling that all of his friends are leaving him behind,
and that he'll ultimately be abandoned and alone. When he
becomes visible again, the first thing we hear out of his
mouth is a rant that no one listens to him when he has
something to say. However, in "Same Time, Same Place,"
Willow's invisibility nearly cost her life at the hands of
the Gnarl demon and made her a murder suspect in the eyes of
Buffy.
Reptile Boy/Lie to Me/Help. The comparisons between "Reptile
Boy" and "Help" are fairly obvious. Rich, spoiled,
fraternity-type dudes are willing to sell their souls for
money and power. To make the spell complete, they need a
female sacrifice (or a "pure" female sacrifice in the case
of "Reptile Boy") to seal the bargain. The twist on "Lie to
Me" is less obvious: Buffy's old friend is dying of a brain
cancer, a monster that Buffy can't fight. To save his own
life, he is willing to sell his soul (to Spike,
interestingly enough) to make sure he doesn't die. Buffy is
able to foil the snake demon in "Reptile Boy" and Spike in
"Lie to Me." However, she cannot spare her friend from brain
cancer or evil ways and ultimately leaves him to his fate at
the hands of Spike. In "Help," Buffy believes she's faced
with a similar situation and acts accordingly to save
Cassie's life. However, Cassie has a fatal heart condition,
which is the thing that actually kills her. It's something
Buffy can't fight and can't defeat. She ultimately wins the
battle (stopping the spell and the demon), but loses the
war.
The Wish/Selfless. Yes, there is a connection between the
two and it somewhat ties into my first point. "Selfless" is
twist on Anya's previous actions as a vengeance demon. In
"The Wish," Anyanka cheerfully grants Cordelia's wish and is
excited by the end result. All of the Scoobs are ultimately
murdered (by each other) as the alternate universe plays
itself out. She ultimately looses because Giles smashes her
pendant against her will, rendering her human. It's
interesting to note that not one Scoob is even aware of the
alternate reality until "Dopplegangland." Even more
interesting, there are no long-lasting repercussions from
"The Wish" (unless you count Anya's sudden humanity). Even
Cordelia, the cause of the problem, escaped the fallout. In
"Selfless," Anyanka once again causes mayhem that results in
death, this time Anya is horrified by the blood and
violence. This time she chooses to reverse the wish and
reverse back to her human self. Don't believe for one second
that we're done seeing the fallout from "Selfless." In
"Him," Anya already is ducking D'Hoffryn's vengeance.
BBB/Him. This is the most blatant and startling example of a
dark twist on what many fans consider to be a light-hearted,
funny romp from S2. Xander originally blackmails Amy into
casting a love spell simply so he can break Cordelia's
heart. Not the best of intentions, no. However, he clearly
isn't thinking of having sex with Cordelia while she's under
the influence, so to speak. The spell goes wrong and Xander
twigs to the problem fairly quickly. The end result is that
he goes out of his way not to take advantage of the
situation, even at the near-cost of his life, and admits his
stupid mistake to Giles in hopes that the Watcher can fix
it.
In "Him," we see what could have happened if Xander were
coming from a slightly less moral place. While it's unclear
that R.J. is aware of the jacket's powers, he knows that he
can manipulate girls and women to get what he wants and uses
it to his full advantage. The end result is the "eeewwwww"
scene with Buffy about to commit statutory rape and the four
Scoob women resorting to violent or illegal means to win
R.J.'s attention.
The most interesting part about BBB vs. "Him" is that "Him"
has a far darker sexual undertone than BBB. In BBB, the
focus was on emotion, what the women were feeling. Yes there
were some sexual situations in the S2 ep: Buffy in a
raincoat, Willow wearing nothing but a flannel shirt, Joyce
and Jenny hitting on Xander, etc. However, through Xander's
more innocent and virgin eyes, the scenes are somewhat
played for laughs. We know that Xander won't take any of
them up on it. In "Him," we're far less certain about the
clearly less innocent and less virgin R.J., so it's no
surprise that Xander views the jacket as something extremely
sinister (he even calls it at the end of the episode an old
and dangerous curse). This darker sexuality and the Scoobs'
darker view of the spell is highlighted by the scene in the
Bronze. Willow and Xander lust after the sensually
undulating young body pressing itself against R.J. When they
realize that it's Dawn, they both are horrified by Dawn's
actions and the fact they found it sexually stimulating.
Theme 3: There is no I in team
It has been said over and over that Buffy's strongest assets
are her friends, family, and assorted allies. They are what
keep her tied to the moral realm (literally in the aftermath
of S5) and contribute to her mission. Angel, Riley, and
later Spike all provide necessary muscle and/or knowledge of
demons. Giles provides/-ed guidance, education, and
knowledge. Willow contributes more than just magic, but an
emotional connection. Xander has filled different roles as
Buffy needed them: strategist, comfortador, truth-teller
(even when Buffy doesn't want to hear it), refuge to hide
herself or allies (think S4), and fire to go out and fight
the good fight. Auxiliary Scoobs such as Tara, Oz, and Anya
also bring valuable knowledge and skills to the table. Her
inner circle, time and again, have proven that they can rise
to the challenge, something that was spelled out in both
"Primeval" and "OMWF." Buffy and the Scoobs are more than
the sum of their parts.
The problem is, a Slayer with Friends is just not the way
it's done. The First Slayer is somewhat offended by Buffy's
use of her friends "Restless." Giles is none-too-pleased by
Willow and Xander insistence that they help in WttH,
although he gets over his distaste when both Willow and
Xander turn out to be useful allies. The Council is simply
unsure what to make of the Scoob structure in "Checkpoint"
and calls Buffy on dragging "civilians" into the fight.
Spike comments on it and uses it more than once in the
series: in "School Hard" he complains that a Slayer with
Friends are not in the program; in "The Yoko Factor" he
tries to soften Buffy up for Adam by breaking up the Scoobs;
in "FFL," he states outright that Buffy's friends are her
strength; through most of S6, Spike tries to manipulate
Buffy into cutting off her friends so she can reside in the
dark "with him" alone.
While Buffy understands that her friends are her strength
and that their presence has saved her life on more than once
occasion, she really doesn't know the meaning of "team
player." She has finally internalized the lesson that "the
Slayer stands alone," the problem is that Buffy the Slayer
does not. She can and should make the final call, but she
cannot afford to cavalierly dismiss her friends, their
objections, or their advice. Nor should she take them for
granted. She also has not taken any action to form them into
a cohesive fighting unit nor do the Scoobs undergo any
regular training (as far as we can see) to keep them in top
fighting form.
We are beginning to see Buffy slowly break out that pattern,
although she really hasn't made the conscious decision to do
so yet. She has given Dawn enough training to protect
herself and good advice (run away) if something big and bad
comes after her. She is pulling Anya and Spike into the
fold, partially to protect them, but partially to make use
of their unusual skills and knowledge. In "Him," she
expresses her empathy with R.J. that being the leader is
tough, but it's easier if you have a good team behind you.
She also acknowledges that the "team" needs to train hard if
they are going to play the game and win. Bespelled Buffy got
it right. Right Mind Buffy needs to catch up.
Theme 4: Sometimes the simplest solution is the best
one
Yet another theme this season, but one that was humorously
highlighted in "Him." In almost every single episode (with
the exception of "Help," where there are no right answers),
it's the simple solution that saves the day. To
illustrate:
In "Lessons," Buffy and Dawn are menaced by nearly
impossible-to-defeat zombie-ghost-thingies. Buffy, and to a
lesser extent Dawn, are embroiled in a fight for their lives
in the basement Yet, the solution is fairly simple: get
Xander to break the talisman that gives the monsters
life.
In "Beneath You," the solution to solving Nancy's problem
and stopping Ronnie is to simply ask Anya to reverse the
wish. Once again, Xander manages to make the right arguments
to make it so.
In "Same Time, Same Place," Buffy realizes that the Gnarl
demon and Invisible!Willow are two separate problems. The
Gnarl demon is easily defeated by the Slayer, but the real
problem is Willow's invisibility. The problem has a simple
cause: Willow wished herself that way. The problem has a
simple solution: Willow was willing to face her friends.
In "Selfless," D'Hoffryn hit the nail on the head: everyone
assumed certain things about Anya, but no one bothered to
ask her what she really wanted. When Anya was finally asked
(instead of subjected to confrontations by Willow, Buffy,
and to a lesser extent, Xander), she wished her vengeance
reversed. It was, at the price of Hallie's life. But it was
still done with a snap of D'Hoffryn's fingers.
Now we come to "Help," and episode where Wiley Coyote and
Acme spring to mind. All of the women resort to complicated
schemes to win R.J.'s love (see the first point to refresh
your memory). Willow and Anya begin research to counteract
the love spell, but are unsuccessful.
This twisting confusion is spelled out with Willow's "anti-
anti-anti-love spell spell" comment.
Of all the characters, Xander sticks with simple actions and
simple solutions, rather than resorting to complex schemes
or over-thinking the problem. He instigates research on R.J.
and questions R.J.'s brother to get a handle on the problem.
He interrupts Willow's spell
my merely covering her mouth; he shuttles Spike over to the
high school so the vampire can stop Buffy by simply tackling
her and taking the bazooka away; he gets Willow and Buffy to
focus on saving Dawn.
However, his final solution to the problem is elegant in its
simplicity: to stop the spell and R.J. once and for all, he
and Spike resort to petty street crime. They tackle R.J. in
the street, rip the coat off his body, and then burn it for
good measure.
Theme 5: What's up with Xander again?
I could get into how S7 is turning into the season of "Weird
Xander," but I'd have to write another book-length post. I
will reduce it to something simple: Xander-as-convenient-
plot-point. It's something, I suspect, that is being done on
purpose.
It appears that Xander has almost consistently been in the
right place at the right time since the events of "Grave."
What I find especially interesting is that, when you really
think about it, Xander has always served this role ("Grave"
being the exception). If you think about all the times
through the years where Xander "happens" to stumble across
something or someone that results in certain actions being
taken, you know it's true. This pattern is laid down right
from the beginning in WttH when Xander overhears Giles and
Buffy discussing her calling as a Slayer.
The difference is that this year there is a lot of onscreen
things going on that seem to highlight Xander role as the
convenient plot point that moves characters from point A to
point B or, in some cases, moves the plot to a final
conclusion. In addition, this season marks the first time we
Xander actively and purposely fulfilling this role whenever
we see him redirect people's attention from distractions to
the immediate problems that need to solved (Buffy gets
distracted by Spike in "Beneath You," Xander reminds her
that Nancy needs saving; Willow and Buffy fight over R.J.
and Xander points out that Dawn needs saving). It's an
additional element that simply wasn't there before.
"Him" all but jumps up and down and screams, "Look at
Xander!"
Almost every major Xander scene in this episode begins with
the character's sudden appearance or the character talking
in mid-sentence. Interestingly enough, the exception is when
Xander is with a "crowd." In the Bronze scene, Xander is
snuggly sitting in between Willow and Buffy, nothing strange
about that. The group scenes at the Summers home are also
rather natural with Xander already firmly encircled in the
midst of others. In the scenes where Spike, Xander, Willow,
and later Buffy tear around town in Xander's car, his is
also surrounded by people.
Yet, when Xander is acting alone or in the presence of only
one other person, we see "sudden appearance" Xander:
We literally start at the beginning. When "Him" begins,
Xander is in mid-rant about what Spike can and can't do in
his apartment. This odd cut lead some viewers to believe
that they missed the first minute or so of the episode.
In Xander's next major scene, he suddenly appears from
around a corner while Buffy attempts to console Dawn through
a closed bathroom door.
When Dawn flees the high school and sits outside, Xander's
shoes suddenly appear in frame. We pan up to see that Xander
is the owner of those shoes and he stops to talk to Dawn,
yet there clearly is no construction going on in the
immediate vicinity.
When we are introduced to the investigatory team of Xander
and Spike outside the brother's house, Xander is in the
middle of explaining to Spike about R.J.'s brother and his
suspicions about the love spell affecting Buffy and Dawn.
The Xander-Spike-Willow scene is literally introduced by
Xander slapping his hand over Willow's mouth. We don't see
the owner until the camera pulls back.
When Xander and Spike prepare to steal R.J.'s coat, Xander
literally cuts his way into the frame with Spike following
close behind. Certainly R.J. considered Xander and Spike
bearing down on him a "sudden appearance."
What I found most interesting is that in two instances,
Xander's sudden appearance is introduced in a somewhat
menacing way. Outside the high school with Dawn, we see his
shoes first, without knowing who the owner of the shoes are
until the camera reveals the friendly face of Xander. The
same thing with Willow. Xander is introduced by simply
slapping her hand over Willow's mouth. Both actions are
horror show clichés that practically shout "there's a bad
guy over here" or "the serial killer whose about to chop you
up."
Another odd "look at Xander" moment happens in "Him" when
Xander hits on the cause of Dawn's problems right away: it's
the jacket. He rambles on that it was always like that in
high school, but as he says it, he's relatively calm body
language suddenly becomes twitchy and "soothing voice
Xander" returns to his babbling ways. Yes, he could be
making an observation, but the transition from Suave Xander
to Jumpy Xander was too sudden to ignore. When it emerges
during Xander's and Spike's visit to R.J.'s older brother
that Xander hit the nail on the head, Xander looks somewhat
disturbed.
The whole paragraph above could be nothing. But then, given
convenient plot point Xander anvils being thrown at our
heads, I think it might be something.
Another underlying thing in "Him" is that at no time to you
get the impression that Xander is in over his head. He seems
actually fairly confident and in control. In point of fact,
he's just about the only person with any sort of control
over himself or the situation.
Theme 6: You really don't know what true love is
Warning ahead: I am not a `shipper. It's not that I hate
ships, but `shippers tend to drive me around the bend. IMHO
and personal experience, shipperness tends to blind one to
the bigger themes that may be brewing in an otherwise well-
crafted television show or book. As a professional writer
and editor, I have a firm belief that all relationships
between fictional characters should be part of a story, not
the end result of it. While I hated Spuffy with the heat
of a thousand suns, I understood what ME was trying to say,
so I tolerated it. (Although I cannot express how
disappointed I will be if ME decides to hook Buffy up with
her attempted rapist.) I cannot get worked up for or against
B/X, W/X, A/X, A/S, A/W, S/W, or even (help me please) S/X.
If any pairing comes to pass, I want to see something
believable and reflects the themes of BtVS's larger story. I
personally am relieved to see the show moving away from the
shippiness that was S6. That is all. Warning and rant ended.
Yes, in a sense, "Him" took a lot of minor swats at the
Buffy-Angel relationship. Buffy's "soulmate affair" happened
when she was Dawn's age, complete with Dawn's histronics,
over-the-top proclamations, and breast beating. That first
experience has literally colored and overshadowed all of
Buffy's romantic relationships since then, something she
somewhat acknowledges in "Selfless." Her love for Angel was
an all-consuming passion and guiding light in her life. She
viewed Angel as the one bright spot in her difficult
existence as the Slayer, despite the trauma of Angelus. She
learned to associate passion and pain with deep, long
lasting, abiding love.
It's that kind of baggage she dumped on Riley when she got
involved with him. While I'm not saying Riley was "the one,"
he certainly didn't stand a chance with Buffy (or viewers)
after the opera that was the Angel relationship. Riley knew
there was something missing in his relationship with Buffy
and descended into the world of Vamp Whores in an effort to
understand her better and ease the pain of real and imagined
tiny rejections. In a sense Xander called it: Riley was the
rebound guy.
Buffy's relationship with Spike was her attempt to shut
down. She was reaching back in time for fire and passion,
but had no interest or desire to get emotionally involved,
failing to understand that "emotion" was the key to her
relationship with Angel. Spike (co-dependent vampire that he
is) was at first willing to take what he could get. When
that proved not enough, he tried to take more through
manipulation and eventually an attempted rape.
Buffy, right now, doesn't actually know what love should
mean to her. However, you know that her sense of what love
means is evolving. It started with "Seeing Red." Spike
appeals to Buffy's earlier belief that love should be all
fire, pain, and passion. Buffy counters that love needs to
include emotion, respect, comfort, and trust. Her sentiment
is dismissed by Spike as something that's "for old
marrieds."
Until Buffy figures out what love does mean for her and what
she needs out of a loving relationship, she cannot and will
not get romantically involved with someone else. It's
interesting that she is now taking comfort in familial love
with Dawn and a completely non-sexualized, non-threatening
agape love with Xander. The big storm clouds on her horizon
is that Angel is still casting his shadow over her heart
four years later.
To a larger extent, Dawn's statement certainly applies to
the rest of the Scoobs.
Xander associates sex with "an emotional connection." (A
mistake similar to the one Buffy makes with one-night-stand
Parker.) His one experience with Faith erroneously lead him
to believe he could reason with her. It nearly cost him his
life. His relationship with Anya literally started with sex,
but evolved into something more. However, the relationship
clearly suited neither party and both Xander and Anya
suffered for that.
In addition, Xander does have some relatively minor control
issues, thanks to emotional baggage left over from an
alcoholic household. For him, the key is too look normal and
look happy, even if you make yourself and everyone around
you miserable doing it. It also doesn't seem to matter if
the life you lead can hardly be called "normal." Anther
Xander failing is that he transmits all his personal
important issues and information through the use of quips,
snark, and sarcasm. Until the events of "Seeing Red," there
were times when Xander seemed incapable of holding a serious
discussion about his feelings or problems.
Since the disastrous end of his relationship with Anya,
Xander is simply unable to romantically connect with women,
a situation that seems unlikely to change if he doesn't
resign his Scooby membership. Like Buffy, Xander is taking
comfort in other kinds of love: his unconditional love of
friend Willow; his big brother familial love with Dawn; his
non-sexualized, non-threatening agape love of Buffy. He is
also putting out friendly feelers to Anya, but is clearly
not pursuing anything more than a friendly vibe.
Willow tends to view love as a relationship where she is the
dominant partner. Oz, while cool in his own right, tended to
follow Willow's lead ("where Willow goes, so goes my
nation"). When we first meet Tara, she is somewhat pliable
and willing to mold herself to fit into Willow's Scooby
life. When she begins to grow a backbone and disagree with
Willow, most noticeably over the use of magic, Willow "fixes
things" so Tara is compliant once more. She does see the
error of her ways when Tara leaves her, but she missed the
point: it wasn't about magic, it was about control. This
need for control is probably a key factor in the failure of
a Xander-Willow romantic hook-up. Xander knows her too well
to let her get away with trying to change him too much. It's
difficult to say whether Willow is actually taking any
comfort from her friends. In fact, in "Same Time, Same
Place" she doesn't have enough trust in their feelings for
her to face them.
In "Selfless," Xander's Lie was unveiled to her, putting a
"distrust worthy" mark against his name.
Anya and Spike are the other side of Willow's coin. The both
are willing to alter themselves to fit into the lives of the
people they love. Anya's issues were spelled out in 10-foot
high letters in "Selfless," so I won't get into it here.
Pre-soul Spike was a bit co-dependent, molding mold himself
to suit the desires of his lover and waiting on her every
whim. When he was thwarted in his desires, he resorted to
extreme measures. William won't get Cessily? He gives up his
soul to Dru instead. Losing Dru?
I'll knock her unconscious and drag her away from
Angelus/get Willow to cast a love spell/chain her up and
torture her until she loves me again. Buffy won't love me?
Well, I'll stalk her, steal her things to make a shrine, and
give her a choice of admitting she loves me or I'll kill
her. Am I not getting enough out of my relationship with
Buffy's? I need to isolate her so I'll have her all to
myself. Did Buffy dump me? Well, I'll get a soul to prove my
love for her.
This is not a hash on Spike. These are things he actually
did. It doesn't negate the good he did do, but this is
looking at Spike's actions in love.
Souled Spike is a question mark. Clearly he is not ready to
deal with romantic love and, in fact, seems not terribly
interested in it. What he wants from Buffy now is comfort,
acceptance, and forgiveness. What he'll get seems to be
entirely a different matter.
Hokay, ducking flames now…
[> I just have to say a quick AMEN!!!!! to blackhearts
views on ships. -- Rufus,
05:14:24 11/09/02 Sat
The preoccupation with ships does blind people to the other
characters on the show unfairly demonizing some and
elevating others to a god-like state. This also goes on with
the writers, if they write what a shipper doesn't like it's
out of character, or done to hurt the shippers feelings. So,
we all have to remember....the show is about a character
called Buffy and there are other characters that serve more
of a purpose than to hold up scenery. I just love some of
the above stated points made about Xander.
[> [> Re: I just have to say a quick AMEN!!!!! to
blackhearts views on ships. -- shadowkat, 21:33:03
11/09/02 Sat
blackheart is a little, what's the word, ranty? harsh? on
ships. But I agree with his overall points. (Although unlike
Blackheart I actually liked Spuffy and wouldn't mind B/S
getting back together, but then my view of the AR scene is
probably different than Blackheart's. Don't worry - I
seriously doubt B/S is going to get back together sexually
at any point this season. The best that I can imagine is
probably some sort of friendship, which may be all that
Spike wants at this point.)
What we tend to forget about the show is BTVS and ATS are
not "romances". "Romances" are a genre where the love
relationship between two or several characters is central to
the story. The whole point of the story is to get the two
characters together. Most soap operas really don't work in
this way - since the point seems to be to get them together
then break them apart. The "romance" genre doesn't really
work well in serialized form - let's face it once X and Y
are together - we're bored. Banter is gone. Conflict is
gone. And the writers have to break them apart again.
It gets tedious fast. So most long-lasting dramas and
comedies do not use "romance" as a central plot point or
story structure.
BTvs and Ats use romance in a way that I personally prefer
which is to further develop and change the characters, as
well as explore their emotional and mental states. Whether
the characters stay together or break apart has more to do
with much broader themes and how each characters traits have
changed and evolved over time than it has to do with getting
them together. Romance is actually not that important in and
of itself.
Now if you are in the "horror" genre - expect to see
horrific results. Not happy romances and couples moving off
into the sunset. Since the horror genre tends to explore
darker themes and wants to look at the dark side of romance,
love, death, life, etc.
I find focusing or investing on ships in shows like Btvs and
Ats to be painfully masochistic and can often blind viewers
to the overall story arc and development of the characters.
It is much better to not worry about ships and try to see
the story as whole. (Because Whedon - as I realized watching
this week's firefly is far more interested in the family
relationship (not biological family, more the existential
view - the creation of your own family) than he is
passionate romance.)
The same problem exists for those viewers who focus
primarily on one character and let's face it we all have our
blindspots. I try really hard to overcome mine when posting,
(don't always succeed, but someone undoubtly calls me on it
when I don't.) Because I think overidentifying or focusing
too much on one character (or worse focusing on our fantasy
image of said character) can blinds us to what may actually
be going on.
[> [> [> Re: I just have to say a quick
AMEN!!!!! to blackhearts views on ships. -- Wisewoman,
16:37:02 11/10/02 Sun
Relationships are an integral part of the lives of the
characters we're watching, whether they're friendly,
passionate, or violently oppositional. They're part of the
story, and they contribute to the movement of the plot. For
the most part the characters are human, and humans
intrinsically engage in relationships. How individual
viewers react to the various on-screen relationships, up to
and including total obsession, is a reflection of what's
going on in their own lives, IMO.
BtVS is not a romance, granted, although it has at times
contained elements of romance to good effect. It's not
really horror either, or sci-fi, comedy or drama, although
it has elements of all of these, and I think even Joss has
said he has difficulty in classifying it.
I'm currently struggling against the looming revelation that
BtVS is ultimately a tragedy; even, perhaps, a romantic
tragedy of Shakespearian proportions. What we've been shown
over and over again is not only that love hurts, but that it
never, never lasts. Things happen, the world wags on, and
love changes, dies, or is killed. Is the point here that
love isn't what's really important, or that it's the only
thing that is important? Perhaps that romantic love
is ultimately unimportant, compared to familial love? C'mon,
that's a gigantic leap to expect a group of 20-somethings
caught in the throes of hormones tuned to the biological
imperative to make. (Not even gonna mention a 16-year-
old.)
I'd think it would be an equally difficult leap for 20-
something fans as well. I'm not taking veiled cracks at the
maturity level of younger fans, particularly our younger
posters; their maturity continually amazes me. And believe
me, I can hear the howls of protest at the cliche now, but
hey, maybe when you're my age, you'll understand what I'm
talking about. There is no "maturity" available to young
people that can take the place of the effect of aging
hormones on the human brain. You just see things
differently. I'm not talking older and wiser here,
just older and different.
I postulate that for a truly tragic denouement we will
require the demise of nearly all the characters, but at the
very least Buffy and Spike. If we end up with only Willow
and Xander still standing then the romantic 'ship potential
within the Scooby Gang has effectively been ended.
It might not happen this season, but if SMG doesn't sign on
for another year then I predict yet another Death of
Buffy season ender, preceded tragically-romantically by
Death of Spike in an attempt to prevent Death of
Buffy.
Great post, BTW, but somehow it's made me very
cynical...
;o) dub
[> [> [> [> Actually I think I like your post
better -- shadowkat, 19:34:58 11/10/02 Sun
I think I prefer your response to mine, and I certainly
prefer it to what blackheart wrote regarding ships which
annoyed me for reasons I could not quite figure out until I
read your response.
1. "Relationships are an integral part of the lives of the
characters we're watching, whether they're friendly,
passionate, or violently oppositional. They're part of the
story, and they contribute to the movement of the plot. For
the most part the characters are human, and humans
intrinsically engage in relationships. How individual
viewers react to the various on-screen relationships, up to
and including total obsession, is a reflection of what's
going on in their own lives, IMO."
I think this is very true. Whether you are a shipper or not,
I think the way we re-act to the show says more about us
than we are willing sometimes to admit. I remember one of
the writers commenting on how intrigued they were by the
opposing reactions they got to the Buffy-Spike relationship.
I'm equally intrigued. Since coming online I've seen people
blast each other over this one relationship more than any
other - going so far as to attack individual posters on a
personal level.
2."BtVS is not a romance, granted, although it has at times
contained elements of romance to good effect. It's not
really horror either, or sci-fi, comedy or drama, although
it has elements of all of these, and I think even Joss has
said he has difficulty in classifying it."
Thank you for calling me on something that bugged me after I
wrote it. And doing it in such a polite manner. You're
absolutely right the brillance of the show is that it defies
a specific genre classification. Whedon is doing somewhat
the same thing with Firefly - by combining elements of the
Western with the space opera with the action adventure with
the ensemble drama. Some of us have a need to classify (for
myself? probably comes from working in an indexing library
reference company for too many years ), but truth is? Most
things aren't so easy to classify. The novel I recently
completed and am trying to figure out how to sell to
publishers is an excellent example - it's not exactly
horror, it's not exactly a mystery, it's not exactly a
fantasy yet has elements of each - how in the heck do I sell
it??? I'm sure Whedon had somewhat the same problem pitching
Buffy.
3. "I'm currently struggling against the looming revelation
that BtVS is ultimately a tragedy; even, perhaps, a romantic
tragedy of Shakespearian proportions. What we've been shown
over and over again is not only that love hurts, but that it
never, never lasts. Things happen, the world wags on, and
love changes, dies, or is killed. Is the point here that
love isn't what's really important, or that it's the only
thing that is important? Perhaps that romantic love is
ultimately unimportant, compared to familial love? C'mon,
that's a gigantic leap to expect a group of 20-somethings
caught in the throes of hormones tuned to the biological
imperative to make. (Not even gonna mention a 16-year-
old.)"
Uhm me too. Struggling with the same problem - regarding
Shakespearen proportions. I think it is too some extent a
tragedy. Which worries me a little b/c a part of me yearns
for the happy ending.
But like you? I postulate either a Spike sacrificing himself
for Buffy, Buffy dying anyway and for his trouble as she
dies, he shanshues and becomes human, left alone to see
after her sister and be a watcher to the next slayer.
Or something to that effect.
So I guess we're both far too cynical for our own good.
And once again I find your online name quite fitting.
Thank you for such a wise response, dub. SK
[> [> [> [> [> Hey! Thank you,
Sweetie! -- dubdub,
20:01:11 11/10/02 Sun
I'm glad you responded to my post, because after I approved
it and it went up I thought, "Sheesh, what a miserable old
bat you're getting to be!" (Me, that is, not you.) I was
writing from the perspective of agreeing with you, BTW.
It's reassuring that it wasn't just too grumpy to be ignored
completely, LOL!
And hey, if you ever need a beta-reader for the novel, you
know where to find me!
;o)
[> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks I might take
you up on that. -- shadowkat,
20:27:12 11/10/02 Sun
And your post wasn't grumpy at all. Although it's reassuring
to know I'm not the only one who worries over how my words
are being interpreted. The English Language can be so
limiting. Makes me wish I was better at learning languages -
so I could use another one. But alas...not my skill.
Right now I'm trying to get up the guts to send out query
letters to literary agents to convince them to look at it
and possibly solicit publishers to publish my poor novel.
Unfortunately most publishers will only look at a novel if
you have an agent. Dang thing has five years worth of work
on it. And it does not help that I can't figure out how to
accurately describe it to people. LOL! Last agent
mistakingly thought it was a mystery about art forgeries and
was quite horrified to discover it was about occult rituals,
celtic artifacts, and supernatural stuff along with art
forgeries. (a la Elizabeth Hand's Waking the Moon and Donna
Tartt's Secret History with a touch of Rosemary's Baby and
Ann Rice's Queen of the Damned...see hard to describe.)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hard to
describe, perhaps... -- dub, 20:49:43 11/10/02
Sun
But all of those did very well, as I recall. (I liked them,
anyway!) I find the generic words "Blockbuster" and
"Thriller" work well. And then you can always accessorize
with adjectives, a la "Supernatural Blockbuster," or "Occult
Thriller." The market is definitely there, it's the breaking
in that sucks. (Not that I'm speaking from experience. I've
never finished anything to the point where I could try to
market it.)
But if I can be of any help, don't hesitate to e-mail.
;o)
[> [> [> [> Re: I just have to say a quick
AMEN!!!!! to blackhearts views on ships. -- Rufus,
01:02:15 11/11/02 Mon
I am not a `shipper. It's not that I hate ships, but
`shippers tend to drive me around the bend. IMHO and
personal experience, shipperness tends to blind one to the
bigger themes that may be brewing in an otherwise well-
crafted television show or book. As a professional writer
and editor, I have a firm belief that all relationships
between fictional characters should be part of a story, not
the end result of it.
I reposted what blackheart said because I do agree with part
of his/her sentiments. It has to be frustrating for the
writers to be bashed because they haven't kept everyone
happy...which is an impossible task. I think that "some" and
only "some" fans take shippiness to a point of forgetting
that there are other characters on the show. I think I can
use Spike as a good example (some of what I say pertains to
Angel and Anya as well)...Spike has gone through a
transition that would have been considered impossible a few
seasons ago. For me it's more believable because it has been
visibly evident in the actors portrayal. Buffy is right when
she is hesitant to embrace a character that has spent so
much time doing evil things. Angel was an exception because
she loved him before she actually witnessed his evil
potential. With Spike, everything he has done goes against
what Buffy held to be true about demons. And there is a
reason that she has to revisit this situation again as an
older person. We are seeing the phase of ensoulment that we
missed with Angel, the early part where one has to wonder if
someone has been dark for so long they can never go back.
Spike now can feel the consequences of his actions, and to
me it's no surprise he doesn't have much to say. He is
getting used to feeling not only his love for Buffy, but
understanding that all the things he though he was had been
perverted after his soul left the body. The actor has done
such a wonderful job of indicating what a trauma it is to
realize that you have done horrible things that you can't
take back. Not only that, he now is being haunted by his
past and now what may be an illusion in the form of whatever
is in the basement and appeared to him in "Lessons". One
thing to remember is that the entity considered Spike to be
similar to Buffy in that he wants to do the right thing. If
we only see Spike in an idealized way his current struggle
is only seen as a tedious, boring, display. If you are a
shipper only, this season of Buffy just may be more painful
than the last as Spike has seen fit to take a backseat to
even Xander, but I feel there will be a payoff, that many
were too busy bitching about how the writers have treated
Spike, missed.
Joss Whedon oscillates between comedy and tragedy never
staying in one element all the time. I think dub is right
that in the end there is every chance that the series end of
Buffy will have much tragedy, but as in real life there will
be some who do live on.
[> Thanks Rufus!! -- ponygirl, 07:35:01
11/09/02 Sat
They should film this post and play it before every repeat
of Him! ;)
It also serves as an excellent summation of where we stand
at the end of the "set-up" part of season 7. Strange how the
back to the beginning theme has turned out to be an
illustration of exactly how you can't go back. People have
changed, perspectives have changed, and experience shadows
everything... yet Giles tells us that the true self remains.
Perhaps the lessons learned through experience allow one to
look past limiting doubts and insecurities, to see costumes
for what they are, and to understand the larger picture. As
vblackheart points out, in Him only Xander seems to be at
this stage. I'm not sure if blackheart is implying a more
ominous tone to Xander's s7 behaviour -- Xander as far back
as s2, when he figured out how to stop the Judge, has shown
a lot more inspiration and insight than he or the others
give him credit for -- Xander seems to me to be finally
coming into his own. Of course in the Buffyverse coming into
your own is usually the setup for something horrible so
we'll see.
The amount of heart related imagery this season, which
others, especially shadowkat have detailed, and now Him's
demonstration that the Scoobies have very skewed ideas about
love, seems in contrast to the confidence and assurance of
Xander, the "heart" of the Scoobies. Of course this time
last year Willow was riding pretty high. There seems to be
more evidence for shadowkat's theory that last season was
about spirit and this one is about heart. Of course there's
still the pesky matter of soul and what exactly it means,
but that's something else entirely!
[> Oh, like, wow! *Ahem* I mean, very interesting and
insightful perspective -- Random, 07:42:20 11/09/02
Sat
Insightful much. Some lack of depth, but more tha enough
breadth and width to make this one helluva interesting read
of S7 in general and "Him" in particular. Gonna have to go
back and re-watch "Him." Didn't much care for it the first
time around (seemed a little too farcial and campy
for me in contrast to BBB, which did it much better. But the
points made about the greater complexity and ambiguity of
"Him" -- and S7 in general -- are quite sufficient to make
me want to give it a second go-around.) Thanks, Rufus, for
the re-post. Oh, and a quadruple amen to the
observation about "shippers." I do have my likes and
dislikes -- more the latter than the former -- but the
strength of the show lies in the writing, not the soap opera-
ish cliques. Overly-ardent "shippers" tend to do grave
disservice to the show's strengths by focusing on the
peripheral aspects of the storyline rather than the package
as a whole. Plus they have an annoyingly dogmatic view of
the themes and issues of the show.
[> Re: Because this post is too damn good to
miss...."Him" Themes -- Alvin, 08:36:21 11/09/02
Sat
Great post. I just want to add that when I saw Him I was
struck by how much Xander plays the "father". The scene
where Dawn is crying on the bed has Buffy and Xander
standing together supporting each other and looking almost
like Dawn's parents. It's also evident from this scene that
he's a regular part of the household. Also, Xander talks
about how Dawn used to have a crush on him, and that he
misses it. It made me think of a father realizing that he's
no longer the man in his little girl's life; that his little
girl is growing up. Plus there's the Bronze scene where he
and Willow are attracted to RJ's dance partner. He could
have made a comment like "Hello slutty goodnes" but instead
it's "hmmm, Daddy likes".
I had also noticed how except for the "Nimrod" comment at
the beginning, he didn't insult Spike. He complained about
the towels, but there was no vicious undertone to it.
And I think this was the first time Spike restrained from
mocking Xander. It's amazing how different the Spike/Xander
interaction is in Him compared to Triangle or when they went
to see Doc.
[> [> Spike/Xander interaction (Spoilers for Season
7.1-7.6) -- shadowkat, 16:01:35 11/09/02 Sat
The more I think about it, the more the Spike/Xander
interaction intrigues me. It's almost as if they are working
as a well-oiled machine in this epsiode or like a pair of
long-term detective buddies.
They say very little, Xander actually has the most lines and
exchange lots of meaningful looks.
Watch this episode in contrast with:
S6: Normal Again, Bargaining Part I, Afterlife,
S5: Intervention, Triangle, Spiral, WoTW, The Gift,
S4: Pangs, Hush, Something Blue, Doomed, Where the Wild
Things Are, Yoko Factor,
What do you see that's different?
Is it Xander? Or is it Spike? Or is it both?
Spike says nothing in response to Xander's Nimrod quip.
But he does say - "I don't want your sodding food." Which is
followed by Nimrod. After that Spike does not respond with
smart alec remarks or quips.
Compare to STSP, Beneathe You, - Xander makes a few quips,
spike sort of reponds. But barely. "I'm insane, what's his
excuse?" or "Slayer and her boy."
This is largely understated in comparision to prior
episodes.
Now in HIM - we get Xander saying : "Watch him see if he's
twitchy." Spike nods. Xander comments on his fears of how
charming the guy is. They see Lance - and both look at each
other like god, what were we worried about, who is this
dork? Not a word is said. In the house - they work as a
team, Xander asks the questions while Spike checks out the
stuff sitting around for clues. Spike says one line here:
"Are you wearing your brother's jacket?"
This is it. The rest of the interaction between Xander and
Spike is through glances and rolled eyes. They appear to be
bonding over the waste of space that is Lance and the
basement world neither wants to return to.
The rest of the episode is handled in a similar manner.
Of the characters in this episode, the only two who don't
bicker or fight are Xander and Spike. The only two who seem
to figure out how to solve the problem - Xander and
Spike.
Why?
Also I agree with some of the points in bheart's post -
mentioning how Spike couldn't save the women in time without
Xander getting him there and Xander couldn't have gotten the
bazooka away from Buffy without Spike.
This episode showed how important Xander and Spike are to
the SG, what they give to the group, and how if either were
to suddenly disappear from it? Things might not be so good.
Another interesting thing - this is by no means the only
episode we've seen this year where Xander and/or Spike help
save the day.
Lessons: Spike determines the cause ("Spirits raised by a
tailsman") Xander destroys it.
Beneath You: Xander determines the cause, Spike figures out
what creature is and stops it saving Buffy, Xander solves it
by convincing Anya to reverse wish.
STSP: Spike finds the cave, Xander assists - both know
Willow didn't do it. (Neither saves day here..)
Help: Spike helps save Cassie
Selfless: Xander helps save Anya
Him: Xander/Spike save day
There appears to be a parallel going with the two male
characters this season. Both saved the spirit with their
hearts last year. Xander saved Willow and brought her
humanity back with his love. Spike's love for Buffy
reclaimed his soul.
Last year it was Willow and Buffy being paralleled - Willow
and Buffy saved the world in the gift with their
spirits.
And Willow was on top while Buffy was disconnected and
floundering.
Now it feels as if Xander is on top and Spike is
disconnected and floundering.
Yeah - I know the show is all about Buffy - but often we
learn more about Buffy - through the other characters paths
and how she views them and how it affects her own.
[> [> [> Breakfast: It's not just for Buffy
anymore... -- ZachsMind, 16:40:41 11/09/02 Sat
The show used to be "all about Buffy." I don't think we can
say that anymore. It's an ensemble piece. The core four and
their relationships with supporting roles. When Giles isn't
around, the more recent seasons (perhaps since season four)
are as much about Xander & Willow as they are about
Buffy.
Buffy is the central figure. NO doubt there, but Willow
& Xander still play a key part in the core balance.
[> [> [> [> Re: Breakfast and other things:
They're not just for Buffy anymore... -- aliera,
19:13:11 11/09/02 Sat
I agree. I can't find the quote but I could swear that Spike
(the often insightful one) told us as much in Normal Again.
But perhaps I'm confusing it with a JM interview...the
downside of too much reading. ;-)
[> [> [> Re: Spike/Xander interaction (Spoilers
for Season 7.1-7.6) -- alcibiades, 18:20:59 11/09/02
Sat
Sure the interaction is working, but that is because Spike
has repressed his entire personality so that Xander can
lead.
Xander thinks Spike is so dumb that he needs to repeat what
the plan is about the jacket.
This is Spike, who effortlessly backed Buffy up on numerous
occasions without condescending instructions told in great
detail, because he got the score immediately. And Xander has
witnessed that on plenty of occasions.
Buffy put Spike in his place in Xander's apartment -- the
proverbial closet and -- after that he didn't think he had
standing to say a word. All he did was follow orders. That's
not Spike. He acted like the shell of who he is.
I don't think Xander would have been able to tolerate it for
a minute if Spike had actually been Spike as opposed to the
semblance of a minion on his team he could order around.
It is also very soothing for Xander's ego, because he gets
to be the boss guy with the golden cap.
There were times in Season 6 and in Bargaining that these
two tolerated each other when Spike actually had a full
fledged personality that was a pleasure to watch. But
allowing Spike to have a personality doesn't seem de rigueur
these days.
I don't think it was a well oiled machine. It was Spike
following Xander's command.
Maybe it is what Xander needs to keep his ego in place and
to tolerate Spike, and maybe he'll actually learn from it
and begin to open his mind a tiny crack about Spike, but if
Spike had opened his mouth and exerted his personality
during Him, I'm pretty sure Xander would have snapped and
lost it completely.
[> [> [> [> An alternative: Spike becoming 'a
kind of man' -- Tchaikovsky, 16:39:21 11/10/02
Sun
As a UK person, I haven't seen any of Season Seven, which is
perhaps to balance out the egregious number of DVD's to
which I have access. But just reading a number of posts
above made me consider something about the Spike/Xander
relationship.
Xander and Spike have never got on well. The lowest point
for me is in 'Forever'. Xander has now doubt that Spike's
sympathies are entirely cynical. In return, Spike's
dismissal and world- weariness to Xander is huge if not
disproportionate.
But now, they're both trying to escape the basement. And
Xander has the head-start. Xander has made an attempt, (be
it successful or hollow) to become a grown-up. To forge
meaningful, loving but not lover's relationships with the
Scooby Gang. To deal with being a modern man. No-one else in
the Gang, (apart from absent Giles), has had to do that.
So to hit the main point- maybe Spike is beginning to see
Xander as a role model. Xander has left his basement, and
now Spike sets out on leaving his by moving into Xander's
house. Spike quits the Old Vampire Quips, and in replacement
attempts to be helpful and silent tio Xander. To learn from
Xander.
It would be a neat irony if the character Spike most
despised, and the character who most despised him, became
his new Yoda. Xander never much liked the original Yoda
either. Score one for the Heart
TCH
[> [> Spoilery comments on Nimrod/Spike and
Xander -- Rufus, 17:11:40 11/09/02 Sat
I was reading Regeneration through Violence by Slotkin and
found the following about "Nimrod"
It is striking that the American Myth of the hunter so
closely resembles the creation myths of the Indians. This
resemblance becomes even more stiking when on notes that is
represents a distinct departure from the European mythology
of huntsmen and sacred beasts. There the hunter, at least in
the Christian era and in several pre-Christian cultures, has
traditionally been regarded as an accursed being. His
pursuit of beasts makes him bestial - a figure of lust,
rapacity, and materialism. Esau, Nimrod, and Ishmael
were proscribed in the Bible as "hunters". One of Dionysos'
names was Zegreus ("Great Hunter"), which was interpreted by
early Christian scholars as symbolizing "insatiable
incontinence." The Norse mytholgy and the Arthurian legends
deal frequently with the figure of the "accursed
hunter"; the Greeks' Orion and Actaeon also come to
mind. Most significant is the Christian tradition in which
the hunter is regarded as deserting the central, spiritual
quest in order to pursue ephemera on "the endlessly turning
periphery of the wheel of phenomena." This was precisely the
light in which Puritans of the seventeenth century and
Europeans of the eighteenth century regarded the colonists'
pursuit of life in America.
As I see both Buffy and Spike as hunter types I found this
quote interesting in that Spike could be considered an
"accursed hunter" and Buffy certainly feels like she lives
out a curse instead of a life. Another quote came to mind
when I think of Buffy and her situation....
If man could be a semidivine hero, wielding perfect power
in the universe, then man was alone in his freedom and
power, without the sustaining prop of an external divine
authority. Such lonliness was insuportable: what evils
might man not do if left totally to his own
devices?
The Buffyverse is like a new frontieer where man has
overcome the power of the old ones and taken over the
purchase of this reality, but along with that there is a
price and that price is payed by the solitary Slayer, the
scapegoat that makes life as the Buffyverse knows it
possible. But as times change so has the slayer, and the
prey the slayer eternally hunts. Now we have a time in
history where a great conflict is bound to go up a rung in
tension, the results at this point unknown.
Back to Xander...he regards Spike as a beast, one that must
be tamed or controlled. But Xander is also capable of great
compassion and that has allowed him to open his home to
"Nimrod"/Spike....so what will happen to both as a result of
their interactions?
[> This is excellent -- Jay, 09:11:25 11/09/02
Sat
What's up with Xander again?
I've been wondering about this myself. I'll agree that the
"sudden appearances" (gotta think of another word(s) for
this) would normally suggest something sinister is before
our eyes. But I think in this case - unspoiled spec - it
isn't anything nefarious, not in "Him" anyway. At the most,
it is probably foreshadowing for some ME plot twist later
on. I've posted my specs before, but since I don't have any
confidence in them, I won't bother digging them up again.
Suffice it to say, Xander has been suspiciously helpful and
central to what's been happening this year. That can't be
good. For him, anyway.
[> [> Re: This is excellent -- aliera,
20:25:03 11/09/02 Sat
Wellll...perhaps not in the Jossian sense; but personally, I
've been waiting for another "Xander Story". ;-)
[> Brilliant! -- Rob, 09:30:38 11/09/02 Sat
I just have one tiny, minor nitpick about something I
disagree with, and it's this:
"in "Help," all her Slayer tactics and actions didn't buy
Cassie so much as one extra second of life."
I think that this misses a key point. No, Buffy was not able
to help save her life, but what Buffy failed to acknowledge
is that, had she been there, Cassie would have died a
horrific, gory death. Instead, Buffy gave her the ability to
slip away peacefully, and (it seems) non-painfully. Although
Buffy's intention was not, of course, to just help Cassie's
death be easier, she did accomplish that. So, while I
understand your point that this is another case this year of
Buffy's slayer abilities not saving the day, I think that
this episode was meant to be an exception, in a manner of
speaking. I think it was meant not only to reinforce the
message to Buffy that she can't win every time, but to show
her that even when her skills seem to have been used for
nought, that she may have done more good than she had
realized. I think it was meant as a clue to her that she can
allow her human and Slayer sides to both be used to her
advantage...she doesn't always have to distance herself...a
message that she doesn't seem to have picked up on. Dawn
said it best when she told Buffy that if it weren't for her,
she never would have been friends with Cassie. Dawn didn't
selfishly feel upset for allowing Buffy to talk her into
making friends with a girl who ended up dying only a day or
so later. Instead, she thanked Buffy for giving her even a
short time to know this girl. Buffy did make a difference; I
just wish she could realize it herself.
Other than that sentence, I loved the essay. Thanks to the
author, if s/he reads it on this board, and thanks, Rufus,
for posting it! It, along with some other gretas posts here
this week, have opened up whole new levels of meaning into
an episode I thought had only one.
Rob
[> [> Huh? "Gretas posts"?!? I meant "great".
D'oh! -- Rob, 12:00:29 11/09/02 Sat
[> [> Thanks -- Rufus, 17:32:40 11/09/02
Sat
I was wondering if you had changed my name or something. Now
you know what I'm up to most of the time. I'm usually
lurking to find new goodies for everyone, and trying to keep
that step ahead in the spoilers. Any post I've done is typed
up as I sit with little time for grammar or spelling
corrections cause I'm usually off to do something else.
Everytime I find a new and great article it's like finding
treasure. I've e-mailed the person who wrote this post and
invited him/her to visit us.
[> [> [> Thanks -- aliera, 20:31:40
11/09/02 Sat
Very much appreciated Rufus...I only have time to skim and
I'm sure there's many others in a like situation...so many
thanks.
[> Wow. Excellent analysis. -- HonorH, 10:39:17
11/09/02 Sat
I like how even-handed you are with the characters. No
demonizing, no sanctifying. You're looking at their actions
with clear eyes and a clear mind and coming up with theories
that I, personally, cannot find fault with.
With Buffy: I have to agree that she is trapped somewhat
between states. The problem is, there are so many
contradictions in her nature. She's the Slayer, which
dictates that she must be a soldier, a policewoman. But
she's also a mother-figure to Dawn. The Slayer, so tradition
goes, stands alone. But Buffy's never done it that way, even
though Slayer instinct and tradition say she must. I get the
feeling that Buffy's actions are pretty much unprecedented
in the history of Slayers, and unsurprisingly, she herself
is ambivalent. There's a lot of tension there between what
has been and what is, and even Buffy herself cannot answer
the question of what must be.
[> Anya's actions and TV Guide spoilers for next
week -- neaux, 14:36:42 11/09/02 Sat
Great post.. but as I watched Anya resort to robbing banks..
the first thought that popped in my mind was "The
Troika."
PLEASE DO NOT READ ANY FURTHER IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO BE
SPOILED FOR 11-10-02's episode.
Well as I received my TV GUIDE last week, I wanted to read a
little more about next week's upcoming episode and I was
spoiled. More spoiled than the trailer suggests.
AGAIN DO NOT READ IF YOU DO NOT WANT MINOR
SPOILS>.<
Turns out that Johnathan and Andrew return from Mexico. Now
before I get attacked for revealing this spoil, the point
I'm trying to make is that I believe the whole Anya bit was
just a foreshadowing of Johnathon and Andrew's return.. and
I do believe this action will affect all 3. Anya, Johnathan
and Andrew and to who takes the blame.
[> Re: Because this post is too damn good to
miss...."Him" Themes -- Slain, 14:51:14 11/09/02
Sat
I said somewhere else that it's often the less popular
episodes which generate the best responses, and here's an
exmaple of that; I'm very impressed with this post - I agree
with HonorH in that it's very even-handed - but, more
importantly, even-handedly critical, which I think is
a harder balance to achieve.
There was one thing I wanted comment on. It's usually taken
as rote that Spike moulds himself to fit his loves,
contrasting with Willow or Buffy who change (or don't
change) mostly of their own accord. But I think Spike, in
Season 6 in particular, has tried to mould Buffy to suit
him; as I mentioned in a post below, he claims to see into
her soul and understand her, but invariably this apparent
understanding is based on how he wants her to be,
much as Dracula tried to convince her that she was a
creature of the darkness. In Season 6, Spike tried to to
pursuade Buffy that his lifestyle was what she really
wanted; however Buffy clearly isn't maleable in this way,
and in the end made up her own mind.
But clearly Spike's more usual mode is to try to change
himself; I think his mental confusion in Season 7 is
in no small part a result of his inability to understand
what Buffy wants him to be.
[> [> Agree on the even-handed criticism. --
HonorH, 15:25:32 11/09/02 Sat
All too often, reviewers (and I do not except myself) tend
to justify their favorite characters while leaving less
favored ones to twist in the wind. To be able to set aside
one's inherent prejudices--and everyone has them--and point
out both the strengths and the weaknesses of all, is a hard
thing. Kudos to the author for being one of the rare
few.
[> [> Re: Because this post is too damn good to
miss...."Him" Themes -- aliera, 20:58:05 11/09/02
Sat
"But I think Spike, in Season 6 in particular, has tried to
mould Buffy to suit him; as I mentioned in a post below, he
claims to see into her soul and understand her, but
invariably this apparent understanding is based on how he
wants her to be, much as Dracula tried to convince her that
she was a creature of the darkness."
Spike was at crtain points utilized very intentially for the
that purpose...allowing the audience to see into Buffy's
soul. I think his attempted drawing of her into the Dark
came after...after, the failure of Spike to move into her
world. The reaching for the cross in an early
ep(foreshadowing much? and here I thought he was just
reaching for the Light!) and his attempts to move about in
daylight(shadow) early season 6 were our physical
clues/symbols.
And re: Dracula...well, as they say...always bear in mind
the source (and if he did truly understand the slayer
heritage, maybe he felt he had a lever).
"But clearly Spike's more usual mode is to try to change
himself; I think his mental confusion in Season 7 is in no
small part a result of his inability to understand what
Buffy wants him to be."
Yessss...it is. So as disturbing as it was for the viewers,
this was perhaps a necessary step for Spike (and as a
corallary necessary for Buffy, as the fruit of her
labours...something to face and assimilate/overcome...she
chose to overcome, naturally, LOL).
I agree that he sought change. And perhaps, in part, for
this reason...but, I am seeing Buffy as the catalyst for
Spike's realization more than the sole reason. And I am
seeing much more than this in what he is facing (lest we
forget moulty demon, amongst other things...William predates
Spike and is in there somewhere)...and yet, you are quite
correct, it is a part...an important part (the heart bleeds
sometimes too)and no doubt a very horrific part. Not a
simple show, thank goodness.
Salon article about the recent conference --
alcibiades, 07:02:06 11/09/02 Sat
http://www.salon.com/ent/tv/feature/2002/11/09/buffy_confere
nce/index.html
[> Did Maeve Rigan write a report about it for the
board? -- Rahael, 07:08:53 11/09/02 Sat
I saw Masq asking whether she could, but I may have missed
Maeve's reply.
(Salon premium, grr argh)
[> [> Re: Did Maeve Rigan write a report about it
for the board? -- Doriander, 07:24:24 11/09/02
Sat
Click on the Mercedes Benz banner and you'll have a
sponsored access to Premium for a day.
[> [> [> Thanks! -- Rahael, 07:26:24
11/09/02 Sat
[> [> Salon premium -- ac, 07:34:57 11/09/02
Sat
If you scroll through 4 Mercedes ads you can see the entire
article -- that is how I did it anyway.
This offer may be other places, but I found it here.
http://salon.com/politics/feature/2002/11/07/minnesota/index
_np.html
And then I somehow got taken right to the Buffy article.
[> [> Yes. Now it's Leslie's turn --
MaeveRigan, 17:00:06 11/09/02 Sat
My report was archived almost immediately, but I don't think
Leslie has given us her version yet, so...
[> [> [> Your report will be in the ATPo
archives as soon as they're done -- Masq, 20:11:49
11/09/02 Sat
The ones linked to at under "ATPo Archives" at the top of
the page.
[> [> [> Re: Yes. Now it's Leslie's turn --
leslie
(turning), 10:12:56 11/10/02 Sun
There were two interesting things about the conference: 1)
that it was all about BtVS, and 2) that it was in England.
The conferences I usually attend are Celtic Studies,
folklore, and one or two popular culture conferences, and
the thing is, in those, the overall topic is pretty general
and the papers are about all different things--I mean, at a
Celtic conference, people are talking about Gaulish
linguistics, Welsh history, Irish folktales, Scottish
archaeology, with a time frame stretching from about 700 BCE
to the present. Here, everyone was talking about basically
one television show (there was some attention to Angel, but
not a whole lot), and even within that show, I would say a
good 65% of the attention was given to Spike and Willow.
Someone commented that it was weird that there were actually
no papers specifically and solely about Buffy.
But the Englishness... I went to a number of papers dealing
with "Englishness" in the series, and as Stephanie Zacharek
pointed out in her Salon article, there was something kind
of odd in the English take on Englishness in the series. For
one thing, they were all quite adamant that "Englishness"
(and they rightly pointed out that "Englishness" in the
Buffyverse is invariably southern Englishness) was marked as
being different while Americanness was just taken for
granted, and this was somehow implied to be the standard
American mindset--yes, George Bush and his minions all think
that the American way is the greatest and we'll make the
rest of the world go along with us or we'll bomb them all
into oblivion, and all American cultural products fall right
in with the party line, seemed to be the implication. Now,
first of all, the oft-repeated rhetorical question of "What
are all these Brits doing in Southern California" reveals
that none of these people have ever been to Santa Monica,
which is overrun with expat Brits. But more importantly, for
all this implied cultural blindness on the part of
Americans, it seems to me that there is some English
cultural blindness here, too: the very presence of people
with "other," non-native accents makes the contrasting
Americanness "marked." It's only when everyone speaks
exactly the same that you can take accent--all accent--for
granted. Another thing that struck me was that while much
appeared to be made of the mutual incomprehension between
the teenage Scoobie's So Cal patois and Giles's stuffy
Britspeak, no-one commented on the fact that none of the
characters have any trouble understanding Spike. You would
think that, on the incomprehension scale, culture-blind
Americans would have the most trouble understanding a
foreign (and often outdated) slang rather than standard,
albeit multisyllablic, English. If the point is that
Americans don't understand anything outside their own world,
that we are so culturally dominant that we don't have to
bother learning anyone else's "langauge," how come no-one
has ever stopped Spike and asked, "What is this 'shagging'
you're always talking about? Do you Brits have some kind of
obsession with 1970's carpet and hair styles?" Finally,
while many of the English academics were all too happy to go
on about the relative cultural weight of Englishness versus
Americanness, I found it interesting that no-one would touch
with a ten-foot pole any question of what it means, within
this American-English dynamic, that Angel is Irish--not only
Irish, but that he appears to acquire an American accent
pretty rapidly upon his aquisition of a soul.
[> [> [> [> Re: oh, and another thing --
leslie (completely
flipping over), 10:43:59 11/10/02 Sun
One of the most interesting papers I heard was on "the
dangerous power of speech acts" in BtVS, especially the act
of wishing, by Jane Hodson. She was talking about the acts
of wishing, promising, invoking, confessing, and inviting,
and their consequences, but this has been making me think a
lot more about the role of prophecy in both BtVS and AtS. I
think there is part of me that is still astonished that
Wesley believed everything that Burger-Legba told him (here
connecting up with the whole Trickster thing--another really
good paper, which was given in the same session as mine).
But... it seems to me that there are two kinds of prophecy
in the Buffyverse: written and visual. Written prophecies
are almost always not what they appear to be, from the very
beginning of the series: yes, the Master does kill Buffy,
but the prophecy has nothing to say about the possibility of
her being resuscitated. Written prophecies are about the
dangers of reading into the text what you hope or fear to
find there. The prophecies that do come true are dreams
(Buffy's) and visions (Dru's), both of which are things
*seen* which do not translate easily into words--Buffy's
dreams are surreal, as dreams always are, and while they
give her a heads up as to danger coming, they are not
particularly useful for information on how to fight it, and
the fractured nature of Dru's visions are reflected in her
insane speech--or is her speech insane because she is
constantly having visions? Again, interesting that Spike
begins both seeing things and talking like Dru when he is
"insane" in the basement, and his speech in the "from
beneath you it devours" mode in Beneath You in the alleyway
has an incredibly prophectic--and Dru-ish--ring to it, but
what the hell does it mean? How does this inchoherent yet
prophetic and "true" speech compare to spells that go awry?
Especially Willow's spells in Something Blue--where it is
her unconscious rather than her conscious intent that is
magically implemented--and Tabula Rasa--where everyone's
"true" nature surfaces when their conscious memories are
erased? Not sure where this is going, but I have a feeling
it's going to turn into a paper sooner or later.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: oh, and another
thing -- Isabel, 12:16:20 11/10/02 Sun
It sounds like you had a great time.
Re: the Spoken/vision prophecies being more accurate than
written. (Cordelia's visions are also very accurate.)
Perhaps this has been mentioned, but one thing that has
occured to me about Willow's Something Blue 'Will be
done' spell is it may still effect the group.
Willow said "You don't see at all!" to Giles, which then
blinded him slowly over the next couple of hours. Giles now
lives in England where he can't see them unless he comes
back to visit and it did take him a while to move there.
Willow called Xander a "Demon magnet" and all the nearby
demons were drawn to him. Now every single girl/woman that
Xander was really attracted to or dated has had or gotten a
demonic aspect. Inca Mummy Girl, Preying Mantis Lady, Faith
AND Buffy (the slayer may be part demonic,) Anya, of
course, and Cordelia chose to become part demon to keep her
visions. Plus the Xan-Man is now doing the Odd Couple thing
with a vampire roommate.
Willow commented that Buffy and Spike 'should just get
married' and they spent the rest of the episode planning
their ideal wedding, and making out when they could.
*Note: During this love spell, Buffy said she 'loved' Spike*
I'm not sure if that means anything in comparison to the
Love Jacket in Him. Perhaps Willow's spell was
stronger or maybe Buffy was still willing to admit to
'love.' Don't know.
Currently, Buffy and Spike have a sexual history, he's in
love with her, she admits she has some feelings for him,
although she's not sure what they are... yadda, yadda,
yadda, we all know this. Last season could have taken care
of their effects from the spell. Maybe. I think it could be
a funny ending to the show if Mr. & Mrs. Randy
Bigpilodust left Sunnydale for their honeymoon.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: oh, and another
thing -- LadyStarlight, 13:11:08 11/10/02 Sun
One of the things I've always found a little off about the
spell and its effects was that with everyone else, what
Willow said happened. (blindness, demons, yada yada)
With Buffy, all Willow said was 'why doesn't she just marry
Spike, then?' (imperfect quote, toddler has control of the
VCR at the moment)
To me, that statement says nothing about love and certainly
nothing about Spike loving Buffy. Had we suddenly cut
to a shot of Buffy hauling a protesting Spike in front of a
minister*, I think it would have made much more sense.
*Imagined dialogue:
B: I know, I know, this is ridiculous. I don't even like
you! But I have to marry you now!
S: Bugger off and leave me alone! HEY, watch the jacket.
(Spike is struggling in Buffy's grasp as she drags him into
a church)
B: Hi, I'm Buffy, and I called about the wedding?
M: Certainly. If you and, uh ...?
S: Spike. And there is no fragging way I'm getting marr --
URK! (Buffy has just put him in a 'friendly' armlock)
B: (with a perky smile) He's just a little nervous. (she
looks around the church) Oh, good. You got witnesses for us.
Look, Spike, other people are here too.
S: Fucking wonderful. (he digs in his duster pocket &
pulls out his cigarettes)
off Buffy's look) What!
B: Spike, dear, you can't smoke in church.
S: Why not? The Good Lord above going to turn me into a big
pile o'dust?
B: No, but I might. (gestures to her jacket pocket) Then me
& Mr. Big Pile O'Dust can get married. It'll make the
honeymoon so much easier if I just have to take a
Dustbuster.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: oh, and
another thing ... LOL!! -- Isabel, 13:43:30 11/10/02
Sun
I love the dialogue. ;-)
Good point. The only thing I can rebut with is they're both
romantics and in this day and age, you cannot get married
without both parties' full consent. No minister would
perform the ceremony if Spike was obviously unwilling.
Plus the gang's reactions were so much more funny. "Can I be
blind too?"
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: oh,
and another thing ... LOL!! -- leslie,
14:10:53 11/10/02 Sun
And the scene in front of the dress shop was the only time,
as far as I remember, that Riley was actually funny.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
really? -- Vickie, 16:27:59 11/10/02 Sun
I thought Ri's introduction was pretty funny. "I've
forgotten my manners in all the concussion."
[> Link to article..... -- Rufus, 16:35:17
11/09/02 Sat
Deconstructing Buffy
Modern and mythical sexuality in "Buffy the Vampire
Slayer"
[> [> Re: Link to article..... -- frisby,
15:53:57 11/10/02 Sun
Thanks Rufus! I wasn't able to read these before your
urls.
Question re: OOS, OOM annotations... -- Rob,
12:08:17 11/09/02 Sat
Hey, guys...I'm working on the OOS, OOM annotation pages at
the moment,
and I came across the note about Buffy and Willow discussing
that Marcie played
the flute in band, just like Allyson Hannigan's character,
Michelle, later did
in "American Pie." I seem to recall in an early season 1 ep
that there was
another reference to band being a geeky extracurricular
activity. And I think I
even made a note about it. But I cannot for the life of me
remember what ep it
was in. Am I just crazy?
Rob
[> Re: Question re: OOS, OOM annotations... -- SpikeMom,
13:00:24 11/09/02
Sat
Just off the top of my head, I think Beauty and the Beasts
had a
scene at the beginning where Buffy, Scott, Debbie and her
boyfriend are talking
about the school's jazz band or marching jazz band.
[> Re: Question re: OOS, OOM annotations... --
Isabel, 16:04:11
11/09/02 Sat
The only thing I could think of was in the Puppet Show
when Buffy was talking to the tuba(baritone?)-playing girl
about Emily, the
dancer who had her heart cut out. The girl mentioned that
she wasn't close to
Emily "'Cause of the whole band-Dancer rivalry."
"The Story of Season Five" - Buffy cast and writers
commentary -- Rahael (Please read and justify the effort
put in!), 12:15:24 11/09/02 Sat
The story of Season Five
[Clip of Buffy meeting Count Dracula]
Marti Noxon: The way we thought about Dracula was
like if a rock star came to your town, like in the Vampire
universe Dracula is David Bowie.
[Clip of the Scooby gang in Giles’ house, telling talking
about Dracula]
[Dracula telling Buffy that he yearned for her]
Marti Noxon: Thematically, what we were going for was
that Dracula represents a kind of dark side that Buffy feels
she has in her.
[clip of Buffy meeting the First Slayer]
We approached it with the primitive in Season Four.
[Clip of Buffy of Buffy feeding on Dracula]
The scene in which Dracula makes Buffy bite him continues to
explore the theme we had explored in season four
[clip of Buffy stabbing Faith]
which was how much of her power comes from inside her that
is a killer. And we went as far as to have her actually take
blood from Dracula because, in a way, we were saying it’s
already there.
[Clip of Dracula saying: Find it. The darkness. Find your
true nature]
This is the side of the Slayer she has to make peace with.
Either she’s gonna go all the way and embrace the darkness
or she’s going to find a way to live with it.
[Dracula says: Always Alone]
Those are constant themes in our show, which is about how
you deal with power, and how you deal with your own darker
impulses without becoming self-destructive or destructive to
other people.
[Clip of Dawn writing in her diary]
David Fury: Real Me is told from Dawn’s perspective
because we thought it was an interesting way to introduce
her character, to get into her head and to see how the other
characters appear to an outside observer.
[clip of Dawn and the Mad man – “curds and whey”]
A seemingly homeless man who’d recognise that Dawn did not
belong in this universe. This was something we knew we
needed to do, because the fans were going to go “why is this
character suddenly here?”. We’d never explained her, and we
kept that going five episodes, as Joss’ intention was. And
at the same time I wanted to connect the references to Dawn
to the mythology of the series, so I made the reference to
“curds and whey”.
[clip of Buffy and Faith making the bed, from Season
3]
For those people who didn’t pick up that Faith’s reference
to Little Miss Muffet was a reference to Dawn, I tried to
connect it by giving him that little catch phrase.
[Buffy, Giles and Willow in the Magic Box]
The magic shop was a place to just ground all our
characters, to give Giles some more meaning in his life, to
make him a shopkeeper as opposed to an ex-librarian. It was
a way for us to bring the Watcher and Slayer back together.
[Scene from Replacement, where real Xander bursts in on
‘evil’ Xander and Anya]
Jane Espenson: The motivation to write “The
Replacement was, to some extent, Nicky has a twin
brother.
Nick Brendon Having Kelly ethere was an added plus
cos he’s my twin brother. He’s my best friend.
Jane Espenson How could you not take advantage of
that? But it took a really long time to come up with a story
that worked. We would talk about it. Joss wasn’t sparking to
anything, so it would get put away. This notion came from
Joss independent of thinking of something to involve Nicky’s
twin.
[Giles exposition scene about the “Ferula Gemina”]
We were just thinking of the notion of “Someone else could
do a better job with my life than I am.”
Nick Brendon: I play both parts on camera, but he had
to know all the lines still cos of off-camera or an over-the-
shoulder.
Jane Espenson We did a very strong mislead in our
episode that the second Xander was evil. We gave him the
flattened coin to play with because we really wanted to have
that moment where Xander goes”Wait, You mean if I had dealt
with my life with confidence, maybe I could make it be a
better life? Maybe it doesn’t take magic to make my life
better”
[Scene where ‘evil’ Xander gets a job promotion]
Nick Brendon That’s where he pulled it all together
and he got the job at the construction site and hasn’t lost
it yet.
[Clip of Riley telling Xander how much he loved Buffy…but
she doesn’t love him]
Jane Espenson We had all been feeling this about the
Buffy/Riley relationship. It had never had the fire that
Buffy/Angel did. It wasn’t really meant to.
Marc Blucas We’ve all had a relationship with where
you care about someone more than they do about you. Whether
they’ve acknowledged it or know it themselves, there’s a
difference. Two people are not at the same place and that’s
where it was. I think Riley cared an awful lot about Buffy,
to the point of probably it being his first love and was so
head over heels, and didn’t feel he was getting that in
return.
Jane Espenson Riley is the appropriate sunny college
boy. I thought it was great that he knows it. And we realise
in this episode that he’s known it the whole time. And to
have Xander be the confidant, to have to walk through the
rest of that season till they broke up with Xander knowing
that this was going on.
Marc Blucas: It was a time when Riley’s friendship
base was being yanked out from under him; he’s no longer in
the military, all his friends have died. He needed a guy
friend and Xander was the natural choice.
[Spike and Harmony at the Hospital confronting
Buffy]
Rebecca Rand Kirshner: Spike is absolutely desperate.
He’s going to kill the Slayer. He and Harmony are like the
sort of “natural born killers”, this crazy couple. He’s not
really paying atteniton to Harmony at all. His focus is
always on Buffy. And you can see throughout the episode he’s
obsessed, and you can see there’s another side to his
obsession. And then at the end, there’s a jolt when he has a
dream.
[Spike and Buffy kissing in his dream]
James Marsters: We’re reminded of what happens when
Spike is truly in love, which was one of the interesting
things a the start when we saw him in love with Drusilla
that there really is real ove in there, and so that plays
out from that moment on.
Joss Whedon: In season four he was the wacky
neighbour – “Can I borrow a cup of sugar and insult you?” We
were sort of feeling our way around about what to do with
him. So I realised that he was madly in love with Buffy and
always had been. The process by which we got to take him to
that realisation was fun cos at first it’s “I’m a bad guy so
it must be lust” and him actually figuring out it’s true
love. And in Family there’s this tiny beat of “Oh, I
want her dead, I have to save her”.
[Spike saving Buffy’s life from the invisible
demon]
Which is different then “ooh, she’s a hottie”. It’s him
trying to be a hero. And of course, because he’s invisible
to her, she never figures out that he actually saved her.
This was yet another increment of “This is more than just an
infatuation with an archenemy”
[> Part Two - Includes Joss' comments on The Gift
-- Rahael, 12:19:09 11/09/02 Sat
[Joyce collapses in the kitchen]
Rebecca Rand Kirshner: Joyce collapses and it’s
frightening. It’s the beginning of Joyce’s larger arc where
we’re revealing and revealing how serious her condition is.
David Solomon: I like that Joyce died a natural
death. Her being killed by monsters or anything other than
her just dying of a brain aneurysm would have cheapened the
story line. I love the fact that Joyce was human and died
that way. My own self, I was very sorry and miss Kristine
because I love her. She’s a terrific woman, a good actress,
a great mom.
Kristine Sutherland: I actually had known for a
number of years. I was out of the country in season four,
and when I went to tell them that I was gonna be going away,
Joss was like “Well you will be back for season five cos I’m
gonna kill you.”
[Riley telling Buffy he was leaving]
Marc Blucas: When Buffy doesn’t tell him first about
her mom’s illness it was another thing, because it’s just
one thing on top of another. It’s a slow build and it was a
slow burn in Riley. He did everything he could, to the point
of allowing himself to visit the dark side, to understand
her.
[Glory knocking down a wall to confront a terrified
monk]
Doug Petrie: This was one of the most fun
introductions of a character that I can remember on the
series that I had anything to do with. Having these giant
doors smash open like King Kong.
Claire Kramer: Her full name is Glorificus,
Glorificus, or Glory, was one of three gods that ruled in
another dimension and was banished by the other two gods
because she was too – quote, unquote – evil, or cruel, to
rule with them anymore and was sent to Earth to live in the
form of a male, which was the Ben character. And as the
years went by, she learnt to manipulate his body to bring
herself out at times.
Doug Petrie: When Buffy meets Glory she just gets the
crap kicked out of her by Glory. Buffy is looking for
answers and looking to find out what’s wrong and she not
only gets more questions than answers, but when she
confronts something, it’s “Give me something whose ass I can
kick”, and she runs into not a monster, or a demon, or a
vampire, but a girl her own dress size and age, apparently,
who throws her around like a rag doll, and Buffy’s never met
someone who looks like her who can beat the crap out of her.
Even Faith was just as strong, but Glory’s a god. Glory can
do much more than Buffy can.
[Buffy talking to near-death monk]
When the monk dies in Buffy’s arms and she learns that Dawn
is the key, Buffy thinks that the attack on her mom is
supernatural and she thinks that if it’s supernatural, she
can handle it. And she sees that Dawn isn’t her sister and
thinks “The answer is Dawn is hurting my mom. If Dawn isn’t
real, she must be the problem.” and what she gets is much
worse which is not only is Dawn not the problem, but Dawn is
completely innocent and you still don’t know what’s wrong
with your mom. It puts Buffy in a position of being greatly
responsible, not just for the fate of the world, which is
the Slayer’s job, but also for this person in her life, and
for her mother. So Buffy really is forced to step up as the
head of the household.
Joss Whedon: When she realises “Dawn is not actually
my sister” and says “I don’t care, I feel a need to protect
this girl” – it’s about accepting that family is part of
your life, even when you think of yourself as independent,
and it’s about the extraordinary love that a family can
bring you. And we’d very much said Buffy’s love interest is
going to be her sister for year five. We knew way back when.
It actually started with a conversation I had with Doug
Petrie in year three, where we said well, they’re going to
college and we’ll do that crazy freedom in year four, and in
year five, let’s bring it back to family.
[Scene from Family – confrontation between Scoobies and
Tara’s family]
This episode was a way of saying that Tara was a member of
it, stating very baldly: family are people who treat you
like family, period, and not necessarily the people you are
related to by blood. And in Family we say it very
specifically because they talk very specifically about “you
know, we don’t really understand Tara. We don’t get her.
We’re not sure why Willow’s going out with her. That’s a new
thing for us, but that doesn’t matter” and that’s the point
of the show – these are the kind of people that even if they
don’t necessarily agree with everything about a person, they
have that person’s back, unconditionally.
[Scene of Ben meeting Buffy, Dawn and Willow in the
hospital]
David Fury: Ben is a tragic figure, ultimately.
Although eh takes a turn towards the end to become a little
bit darker to save himself, ultimately, he is like Dawn. He
is somebody who wasn’t meant to exist, who only exists
through magic.
Doug Petrie: Ben is the counterpoint to Glory. He’s
meek where she is sassy. He’s just this nebbishy guy and you
think that he’s gonna be a love interest for Buffy. He’s
kind of like Xander, he’s got a sense of humour, eh’s a
doctor, a good guy, he’s cool.
Charlie Weber (Ben): I gave her my phone number in an
episode and then she had a liberating conversation with
Xander and decided she didn’t need any romantic interest,
and so she blew me off. I wasn’t told that we were the same
person until episode 13. We found out in episode 13. It was
the first morph and it was kept a complete secret. I knew
that I was related to the villain, but I had no idea we were
the same person.
Stephen DeKnight: The gang almost learns that. We
lear it as an audience, but then Dawn, when she’s relating
the story to Buffy can’t remember what happened. She thinks
Ben got away before Glory arrived. It’s all very confused.
She could not legitimately remember. And we find out in a
later episode that part of the hell god’s punishment of
sending Glory to Earth inside this human vessel was that if
she ever got out, if she ever got free for brief periods of
time, no one would remember Ben equals Glory. No one human.
Later on we find out that Spike, who witnesses the
transformation, does remember, but nobody else does.
Why can’t she figure out Dawn’s the key? There are seevral
reasons for this. One: yes she’s ahell god, but part of the
reason that she’s insane is being forced to live in this
vessel on our plane of existence has driven her mad.
Claire Kramer: She started feeling more as a human
would. Over the season she developed feelings. She couldn’t
put a name to them or pinpoint what they were. She just knew
something was going on and she tried to verbalise them, at
times having conversations with Dawn, at times with herself
or her minions. She actually was taking on some of Ben’s
feeings.
Steven DeKnight: She has very strong moments of
psychosis and she has no idea what she’s looking for. She
has no idea that the Key was pressed into human form.
Because no matter how much she tortured the monks, they
wouldn’t tell her what they did with it.
Jane Espenson: Glory can’t recognise the Key, and the
interesting thing is the people who can are the people that
she’s making crazy. All she would have had to do is realise
that she had perfect Key trackers in her presence the whole
time.
[Willow and Tara cast a spell to make Glory disappear in
the hospital]
Steven DeKnight: Willow’s increasing power was very
important to this story arc because it gave someone strong
enough to stop Glory, or at least slow her down and we’re
also setting up a lot of major issues with Willow and her
power for season six. Specifically in season five we were
builidng up to Willow confronting Glory after Glory
brainsucks Tara
[scenes of black eyed Willow confronting Glory, and Tara
getting brainsucked]
Jane Espenson: Glory has to suck brains out of people
to keep herself sane. We’ve seen that she gets jittery and
irrational and then she’ll put her fingers in someone’s head
and suck out their brain. They go crazy, but she can keep
going a little more. These are her medication. We also know
it’s dangerous for her to do this as it leaves a trail of
crazy people in Sunnydale.
[April meeting Anya and Willow]
The big joke of this that we had in mind form when we
started breaking this episode was that we weren’t going to
do what we did in Ted which is the mislead of “oh it’s a
human being – no it’s a robot” This one we wanted to make
clear from the beginning. This is the first time we meet
Warren, who becomes a main villain in season six. This is
the first time we establish him.
Adam Busch: I don’t see Warren as a villain. I don’t
see him as a typically evil person, that’s what’s so great
about him. I think he’s a human being. He has flaws and he
has positives and he’s always given the chance for
redemption and he’s always given that moment where he can do
the right thing that he never ever does because he is flawed
and he does have a lot of issues and an inability to
communicate or talk to anyone or really explain what it is
that he wants.
Jane Espenson: When Buffy’s talking with Warren about
his break-up with April, she’s actually identifying with
him, because she did a lot of the same stuff with Riley that
he did with April.
[Spike places an order with Warren]
James Marsters: The writers devised a way to get the
characters of Spike and Buffy together because there was a
lot of call to get them together, but structurally it’s
almost impossible. So we get the episode where the spell is
cast in “Something Blue” when they almost get married and
you see the Buffy-bot stuff.
[Buffybot wakes up and kisses Spike]
Jane Espenson: This is one of my favourite things
I’ve seen Sarah do was how she does the Buffy bot. It’s just
hilarious. The cheerfulness, the getting Giles’ name wrong
which was Joss’ idea. He’s aggravated by people who claim to
be fans of the show and then pronounce his name
“Guyles”.
[Real Buffy pretends to be Buffybot and kisses
Spike]
The kiss at the end of this episode is a huge milestone. She
finds out for sure, by pretending to be the Buffybot that
Spike did not betray her, that he did not tell Glory that
Dawn is the Key. Buffy owes him a genuine debt of gratitude
and gives him a kiss at the end of this episode, still in
the guise of the Buffybot.
[Buffy tells Giles’ she’s afraid that she’s nothing more
than a killer]
Buffy is afraid she’s losing it and goes on a quest in the
desert and follows the mountain lion and sees the Primitive,
the original Slayer.
[First Slayer tells Buffy “Death is your Gift”]
This information, “Death is your Gift” is what lets her know
that throwing herself off that tower is going to be the
right thing to do at the end. But at this point she takes it
very badly. She does not yet understand what it means.
[Scene from Weight of the World, where Buffy tries to
smother Dawn]
Doug Petrie: Buffy feels that she killed her sister,
by failing, and she feels that she’s a failure as a sister
and she’s a failure as a slayer. Those are the only two
things she’s got. She’s got her friendships, she’s got her
family, she’s got her job. And she’s not doing those well
right now and she feels that she got Dawn killed. This is
about as close as Buffy gets to self-destruction, I think.
Her body and brain just shut down on her. She just goes
catatonic.
David Solomon: Willow attempts to do a spell to go
into her head and find out what’s going on. In there we meet
Buffy as a young child and we see the memory Buffy has as a
young girl of watching her mom and dad come home, bringing
Dawn home, the baby. It was a great trip through Buffy’s
mind. And when she gets older and watches herself in the
library sequence where she has this moment of clarity and
then she begins to have a conversation with herself and asks
how she felt at the time. And Willow’s in on the
conversation, and the three of them – Buffy, Buffy and
Willow have a conversation about what it’s like to be the
Slayer and live this life she leads and how damaging it is
to be this person all the time, to be human and a slayer.
And it explains a lot about Buffy and a lot about how she
deals with her everyday life.
[Scene from The Gift – Buffy jumps off the tower]
Joss Whedon: I wanted to kill Buffy at the end of
season five. I think originally I had thought about the idea
of ending the series then, and I wanted to make that day
truly different and also sum up the whole series. That’s why
the Gift begins with a very generic vampire killing where
she rescues a boy who’s like, “you’re just a girl”. That was
the original mission statement of the show. And even in the
middle of all this stuff that’s going on with Glory, I
wanted to be able to say that this is what we started with,
because in a way we were finishing. I knew we weren’t
finishing. I knew I was gonna bring her back. And those who
have watched season six have seen it’s about “I was done!
Why am I back?”, and dealing with the pain of “I had
closure, but life continues.” The question of what is a
Slayer which we brought up in the very first episode, what
does it mean, does it just mean being a killer? And
answering that with “No, it means living in a world where
life and death are an issue and putting your life on the
line.” That’s what she learns about being a slayer, and it’s
beautiful thing. Obviously, self sacrifice goes fairly deep
into several mythologies. And it just felt like a way to get
back to the very personal journey of this girl an the huge
mythic 100th episode finale that I felt the 100th episode,
which was just coincidentally the season finale,
deserved.
[> [> Would also help.... -- Rahael (being
shameless), 12:21:53 11/09/02 Sat
if this thing lived for a little, you know? So if you read
it, let me know or something. Remember, replies keep threads
alive!! (I did HTML and everything!!!)
Now I'm off to have a rest.
[> [> [> "I did HTML and everything" --
Vickie, 12:30:47 11/09/02 Sat
What are you, channeling Willow? Still, thanks again.
Read this folks! Really good stuff if you don't live in
Europe (or wherever else they already have S5 DVDs).
[> [> [> Thanks very much, Rah! -- HonorH,
12:36:25 11/09/02 Sat
For those of us who don't have access to the DVDs, it's
great to see what the various Powers have to say about S5.
It was a great season, possibly the strongest (thus far),
and I'm loving getting the inside view.
[> [> [> [> Kudos, Rahael!! -- peitho,
12:57:38 11/09/02 Sat
Season 5 was one of my favorites, and I love reading all the
interesting tidbits. Many thanks!
[> [> [> [> [> Rahael!! So much great
inside info! This is wonderful. -- Briar Rose,
16:34:41 11/09/02 Sat
[> [> [> Thanks! This is great! --
MaeveRigan, 17:19:43 11/09/02 Sat
[> [> [> Adding my thanks to the mix --
Cheryl, 18:10:38 11/09/02 Sat
I also liked that they did a review of the season and not
just reviewed certain episodes.
I know Season 3 is coming out soon on DVD (in the US), but
is there a schedule for when the rest of the seasons will be
out?
[> [> [> thanks Rahael -- tost, 22:24:23
11/09/02 Sat
That there are people here who care so much for BTVS that
they are willing to do this is my first, best reason for
coming.
[> [> Thanks so much for these! -- lachesis,
13:35:15 11/09/02 Sat
[> [> thank you, this is great ! -- Ete,
13:57:30 11/09/02 Sat
[> [> Wow! -- Isabel, 16:46:18 11/09/02
Sat
That's a LOT of work! How long did this take you? Thank you,
considering I can buy Season 3 in 2
months.
[> Thank you! thank you! (enthusastic applause) --
Vickie, 12:22:03 11/09/02 Sat
Amazing, isn't it, how many minutes on screen boil down to
how few pages? Another kudo to all the ME writers, for
getting so much into their allotted pages.
Thanks for doing this. It was fun.
P.S. "the wacky neighbor"?
[> Great stuff. Thanks. -- Sophist, 12:27:22
11/09/02 Sat
[> Fantastic... -- KdS, 12:35:10 11/09/02
Sat
"She's such a cute little [copyright] delinquent"
[> Yay for Rahael! -- ponygirl, 12:48:02
11/09/02 Sat
You are indeed the goddess of transcription, we should take
up a collection to send your tired fingers to a spa!
I quite like this idea of doing an overview for the season,
it's a different perspective than the individual episode
commentaries-- forest rather than the trees. I hope they do
it for season 6.
[> [> Let's not forget Tchaikovsky! -- Rahael,
13:48:12 11/09/02 Sat
His/her fingers saved me from doing a whole commentary.
Usually I do a couple and get really sick of doing them, but
this time, I got around to doing an extra.
[> [> [> A double Yay to the both of
you..... -- Rufus, 16:43:16 11/09/02 Sat
[> [> [> Wow -- Tchaikovsky, 15:46:59
11/10/02 Sun
Dedication and scary computer knowledge. You're up there
with Masq and Rob; (apologies to all other people who
qualify in both groups- I'm too much of a newcomer to
know).
Still thinking about doing 'Real Me', but have been away
from the DVD over the weekend visiting lovely, lovely
parents.
And you don't know my gender yet? Excellent. I'll try to
continue the sexlessness, and see if anyone finds out. (Masq
has my submitted profile, so that would be cheating)
TCH
[> [> Re: Thanks, Rahael -- Brian, 04:52:31
11/10/02 Sun
[> [> Re: Yay for Rahael! -- Pilgrim,
07:58:47 11/10/02 Sun
And for Tchaikovsky too. Thanks for the hard work!
[> Great work, Rah! Thanks so much for bringing some
new enlightenment on my (so far) favorite season. --
Rob, 13:24:22 11/09/02 Sat
[> Thanks so much Rah. And congrats on the HTML stuff.
;) -- LadyStarlight, 13:43:15 11/09/02 Sat
[> Thanks for the hard work-it's fascinating --
Arethusa, 14:23:20 11/09/02 Sat
[> Thank you so much for this Rah! Really appreciate
it. -- shadowkat, 14:56:54 11/09/02 Sat
Was feeling down and out today and seeing this on the board
cheered me up. Cool.
[> [> You too? -- Rufus, 17:24:08 11/09/02
Sat
The bad....went for session FIVE of my root canal.....I
still have one more (they said that last time)....and feel
rather shitty cause they have to give me enough freezing to
fell a horse.
The Good.....I woke up to see this transcript...I of course
saved it on my harddrive with all the others and posted it
over at the Trollop Board....but everytime I see a
commentary be it on tape or just the transcript I feel and
must look like Giles when Willow gave him the pages from the
Books of Ascention in season three.
[> [> [> yup and a little insight on writing
process (spoiler STSP, 7.4) -- shadowkat, 20:42:05
11/09/02 Sat
Ugh root canal. My sympathies. For me? Just squicky
stomach,
depression (ie. came down from euphoria and woke up to grim
reality of unemployment) from aftermath of quitting evil
workplace, and sinus headache from hell.
Came online to calm myself down. ahhh the healing power of
Buffy. I printed it off. Read it. And let's just say - it's
good to know my reading of the show is more or less the same
as the writers.
BTW there's a slightly spoilerly article by Jane Espenson on
the firefly site, can find www.slayage.com which details the
script-writing process at Btvs.
Here's a brief paraphrase of it: (for those of you who are
afraid of the smallest spoiler, there's a teeny one for Nov
10th episode regarding Buffy's character arc, which I've
taken out of this analysis)- According to Espenson: They
start writing an episode by figuring out the idea - this
Joss brings in and it always begins with the main character
(which in Espenson's case) is usually Buffy. They spend a
lot of time discussing her emotional state, and how they
want her to change over the course of the season. Frequently
this in itself will suggest a story area - they will find a
story which we explore her mental state metaphorically.
Example in STSP - they centered around Willow - they wanted
to explore her emotional distance from the other characters
- so it turned into a story in which no one could see or
touch Willow and vice versa.
Once they have the central theme and understand how the main
character will change during it, they start breaking the
story - which is done as a group with the entire staff
participating, except for whomever is writing script for
previous episode. But the breaks are all written on the
white board near Joss office.
What's clearly stated in the article: is the script goes
through numerous drafts, starts with an outline - a detailed
outline, then to script - with dialogue spelled out, then
the first draft is turned in. The writer gets back a set of
notes. These notes rarely result in rethinking the episode,
the broken story remains the same, it's the words expressing
it that may change. Then with the last draft - Joss, Marti
or Tim take the script and make a quick rewriting pass of
their own which produces the Shooting Draft.
For complete article? See www.slayage.com - and Jane
Espenson on Writing Process - also found on Firefly
site.
[> [> [> [> I posted the essay over at the
Trollop Board -- Rufus, 06:43:54 11/10/02 Sun
I just love Jane Espenson, she is just so nice....Canadian
nice..... She has a voice of someone who wouldn't harm a
fly. I've heard a an interview and a commentary from her and
enjoyed them both.
So, sorry to hear about the sinus...yesterday in the "chair"
I'd be tempted to switch with you but at least at some point
in December (I hope) my ordeal will be over...sinus
infections can drag on so. You have to take care of
yourself...the first start was leaving the evil job...I've
done that before and it was a learning experience. In the
end the best thing that happened to me.
The latest transcript Rah has done was just a confirmation
of what I felt about season five. Spike had done exactly
what I thought he would....but the most touching story was
about Buffy. I remember and Masq can confirm it (that will
teach her for thinking she could wrap gifts in peace) that
the Christmas break season five I wrote a simple post "Buffy
is a Killer"....and the dust flew...I'm no writer but I felt
such sorrow for someone who had to destroy, kill, and never
asked for the job. Her fears of becoming inhuman were well
founded. People joke about killing....the usual Buffy was
mean to someone she deserves to die.....but if you've seen
some of what I have, killing is a tragic, final solution
that should never be taken lightly. Buffy worried about the
fact that she had become so accomplished at what she did
that she was turning to stone, becoming somewhat mechanical
at what she did. This seperates her from all others in that
she never gets to stop and like a gunfighter there will
always be someone out looking to kill the Slayer for the
repuation. Combine all this and add in Dawn and Buffy found
just what a slayer could be and as Joss said it was
beautiful. For those who aren't fond of Dawn I think they
miss out on the fact that Buffy discovered something more
than herself in season five, she found her love for her
sister was something worth dying for....at that point on
that tower being the Slayer was exactly what she wanted to
be and the part of her in Dawn that looks at life with joy
could live on. At that moment she was no longer just a
killer she was a bringer of life.
[> Yippie.......the Trollops will be very happy to see
this -- Rufus, 16:38:59 11/09/02 Sat
Thank you for all the work and HTML that went into the
commentary.
[> Great Job!!!!!! -- Sara, 18:18:59 11/09/02
Sat
You gave us lovely entertainment where Darby read it aloud
to me while I lay on the couch in my pjs. Can you think of a
nicer way to spend Saturday night? I can't! Poor Darbs has
no voice now, but I was comfy and happy so he gave it up for
a good cause. (And doesn't really need it, since in all
fairness I should always have the last word.)
[> [> Hey, Sara, did you notice you were quoted in
Masq's analysis of "Supersymmetry"?!? -- Rob,
18:42:10 11/09/02 Sat
[> [> [> Too Cool!!!!! -- Sara, who has
decided that worms are just not tasty at all!, 06:10:00
11/10/02 Sun
[> Many thanks, Rahael... -- aliera, on a quick
pass-through..., 19:05:57 11/09/02 Sat
[> Thanks for the effort Rah. Hope you're doing
well. -- darrenK, 19:23:52 11/09/02 Sat
[> Rahael, thank you so much!! -- Dyna,
12:37:53 11/10/02 Sun
Eden Studios Press Release -- lonegunman, 13:07:08
11/09/02 Sat
Buffy the Vampire Slayer Roleplaying Game—Director’s
Screen.
Buffy: "Are you mad at me?"
Riley: "I’m plotting your death…
in a happy way."
5.2 Real Me
As the Director for Eden Studio’s popular
and visually stunning Buffy the Vampire Slayer Roleplaying
Game, your job is to
plot and plan exciting adventures pitting the Slayer and her
friends against
ever more fiendish forces of darkness. The last thing you
need are those nosy
do-gooders hitting the wrong books . . . yours!
With the Director’s
Screen, released this week for the Buffy RPG, you get a
glorious, full-color
four-paneled display covered with cool Buffy images and
designs. That gives your
players an eyeful, while you keep the action fast and
furious using the charts
and tables handily printed on the other side. And the whole
pretty package can
be set up in front of you to keep those advantage-seeking
players from your
carefully plotted plots!
Included with the Screen is a handy 56-page
booklet. The first section is filled with game-running and
season-mastering tips
and ideas to help every Director create a ratings-busting
series. Whether you
are a novice or a veteran roleplayer, this stuff will help
you become the
storymaster with the mostest in no time. The rest of the
booklet presents three
interrelated, ready-to-run Episodes to pit against your gang
of white hats.
That’s right, it’s a plug-and-play addition. Are you ready
to rock!
The
Buffy the Vampire Slayer Director’s Screen is the first
supplement for the
critically acclaimed Buffy roleplaying game and is written
by Paul Chapman.
For more information about the official Buffy the Vampire
Slayer
Roleplaying Game, visit www.btvsrpg.com.
[> Is there anybody out there playing Fudge? --
ZachsMind, 13:32:21
11/09/02 Sat
Personally I prefer the mechanics of Fudge
Buffy cuz 1) It's a
very 'keep it simple stupid' concept of RP gameplay,
focusing more on roleplay
and less on dice rolls, and 2) it's cheaper - read: free. My
days of spending my
parents' money on a new RPG book every week are over. My
pocketbook can't handle
the Eden Studios addiction.
Oh, and if anyone's got any PBEM Fudge Buffy
RPGing going on lemme know, cuz I've always wanted to try
that but don't have
the time or resources to start one from scratch on my
own.
RJ in Him -- M, 18:52:12 11/09/02 Sat
I've read lot's of people say that they are unsure wether RJ
knew about the jacket. I think it was pretty clear he
didn't. If he did wouldn't he be slightly concerned about
it's theft? And how would he know? He brother obviously
didn't because he wouldn't have mentioned it to Xander if he
had.
[> Counterpoint -- ZachsMind, 21:09:53 11/09/02
Sat
I got the indication he suspected. He made a point to put on
his jacket when Buffy was doing her little "I'm almost a
teacher" speech at him, and he just sat there. It wasn't
like he was about to leave, yet. What? He suddenly got cold?
He was probably never told that it was a magic jacket. His
brother was obviously clueless or else he'd STILL be wearing
it and wouldn't be living with his mom. However, I think if
RJ hadn't already got some clue to the cause & effect
here, he was slowly starting to get it. The mental process
was probably something like, "I don't wear the jacket, and
women don't drool. I wear the jacket. Women drool. Women
must dig the jacket. S'okay, I'll wear the stupid jacket."
The word 'magic' may not even be in his vocabulary.
Certainly he could never spell 'thaumaturgy.' Still, he was
using what he had and workin' it. Kinda makes ya wonder
where the line's drawn. When we mere mortals dress to
impress, are we just doing what comes natural, or if an
individual is capable of getting more than the usual success
in attracting the preferred gender, is it somehow wrong?
I mean, was RJ innocent cuz he was just going with what
works? Is the fact it happened to be a magic jacket what
made it wrong, or should he not have been talking women into
doing his homework for him anyway? Maybe those who have the
non-magical Power of Persuasion should take a page from
Uncle Ben Parker's book: With great power comes great
responsibility.
[> [> Re: Counterpoint -- Darby, 06:27:01
11/10/02 Sun
This is part of the metaphorical juiciness here:
The fact that it was a magic jacket made it easier to
see the problem with using it to influence honeys.
But Xander, quite rightly, brought a focus to the fact that
the jackets have a "magic" all their own - is the
implication here that one should not use some sort of
external trappings to attract the opposite sex? Is it always
wrong?
It better not be - our whole societal structure revolves
around such signals. If I can slide tangentially, it's an
evolution thing, like a peacock's tail - they're all semi-
indirect signals of some sort of advantage that really could
(from an evolutionary standpoint, really should)
influence mate selection. A letter jacket, a cool car, being
part of a band, a set of implants (or the real items they
represent), a position saving the world, a military uniform,
lots of money, these all imply powers of resource
acquisition that mean something down the road to a
family.
- Darby, who often sees the world through two prisms:
Buffy and evolution. How geeky is that???
[> [> [> Re: Counterpoint -- Copper,
10:20:03 11/10/02 Sun
There is another way to see the world? :)
[> [> [> Evolution, schmvolution -- Sara -
devolving as we speak, 11:31:53 11/10/02 Sun
Yea, yea, evolution - fine to a point, but hopefully not
what we base ethical behavior on. Its all very fun to be
attractive, have people drooling all over you (I least I
assume it is, it always looks fun on tv) but evolution
doesn't give you any get of jail free cards in how you treat
other people. Projecting an image that inspires people to
like you is one thing, manipulating that image to inspire
people to allow you to use them is another - having girls do
your homework isn't cool even if you appear reproductively
fitter than the guy at the next locker over.
- Sara, who's proud of her prehensile toes
[> [> [> Re: Counterpoint -- Jarrod Harmier,
04:13:47 11/11/02 Mon
Darby, it doesn't matter that "our whole societal structure
revolves around such signals." It doesn't matter that many
people practice it, it's still always evil. (I refuse to use
the word "wrong", because I feel it sanitizes the
discussion.)
Anyway, when questionnaires ask men and women to rank order
what they are looking for in order a romantic partner,
statistical analyses show that "kindness" is listed first
for both populations.
Jarrod Harmier
Caffeine fuels my body, B/X fuels my soul.
[> [> [> [> Re: Counterpoint -- Copper,
07:04:01 11/11/02 Mon
Evil?! Much trouble with shades of gray?
The first thing anyone notices is appearance. Kindness is
desirable, but that comes later, after you get to know
someone, someone you've picked on the basis of
appearance.
[> [> [> [> Evil? Statistics are evil! --
Darby, 07:46:43 11/11/02 Mon
Kinda underscores the old saw that anything can be supported
by statistics.
It's not that I'm denigrating kindness, but I've
never seen such a study where kindness was even
mentioned among the top 5 attributes. One wonders what sort
of meta-analysis could put it at the top.
I'm with Copper on the black-and-white thing, though. How
can our biological make-up - I'd contend that "many people
practice it" should read "virtually everyone practices it" -
be classified as evil? Even something like self-interest,
connectable to way more evil acts, can't be blanket-
described that way.
[> [> [> [> [> Lies, damned lies, and
statistics -- Sophist, 09:24:00 11/11/02 Mon
OTOH, lying is almost certainly "part of our biological make-
up", and we don't hesitate to call that wrong or evil in
many cases. The mere fact that we are biologically capable
of an action doesn't constitute a moral justification.
I don't see the connection at all between moral judgments
and our biological make-up. JH's description of the sending
of signals as "evil" strikes me as overly moralistic (women
wearing high heels or lipstick are evil??), but the
challenge to that conclusion comes not from biology but from
ethics. JMHO.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Lies, damned
lies, and statistics -- Darby, 10:46:44 11/11/02
Mon
I don't equate the two (lying and reacting to physical
signals) - deception isn't really a biological attribute,
although it relates to the human ability to empathize (I can
only delude you if I understand the differences between what
I know and what you know). As a biological attribute,
empathy has an upside and a downside, just as reacting to
attractiveness signals does. I'm differentiating a
capability from a prerogative (or as close as you can get to
one with humans). I'm a firm believer that ethics have a
firm biological underpinning (but you knew that about me,
right-?), where we differentiate individual prerogatives
from social / group ones.
And, of course, there are those who don't see lying as
wrong, necessarily. But I figured that wasn't really the
point here.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOL --
Sophist, 12:20:49 11/11/02 Mon
I chose lying for my example for 2 reasons: it's close to
the sort of deception in mate selection that was the
original example; and evolutionary psychologists argue that
lying is a behavioral characteristic subject to natural
selection. I thought you'd appreciate the example. Instead,
you gave me a perfectly Gouldian response. Poetic justice, I
suppose.
In any case, regardless of examples, I'll stick with my main
point: the fact that behavior might be (or be based on) a
biological attribute tells us nothing about its morality.
That's a separate question altogether. Ethics are mental
constructs, not things existing in the real world. Biology
tells us nothing about ethics and vice versa. But you
probably knew that about me.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I gotta
ask -- Darby, 12:49:47 11/11/02 Mon
How broad a "never the twain shall meet" between biology and
ethics do you subscribe to? Are societal rules, many of
which are close enough to universal to be seen (well, maybe
only to me) as biological constructs, different from ethics?
Are we having another of those syntax game moments?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You
gotta ask, I gotta answer -- Sophist, 13:09:34
11/11/02 Mon
Broad. I don't see that biology provides any foundation for
ethics. Nor that it undermines ethics. "Ethics" exist, as I
said, purely in the realm of ideas. Natural selection
operates purely on tangible physical things. Even if there
are univeral social rules, I wouldn't agree that univerality
implies a biological construct (I'm not quite sure what that
term means). There are far too many easier explanations for
most rules than that.
The twain can meet, but only at the most tautological level
that everything we humans do is a reflection of our human
biology.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
He answered tentatively... -- Darby, 13:44:06
11/11/02 Mon
Okay, not going down that road again, but "biological
construct" involves some inherent (but not necessarily
genetic) trait that could define a species. It's assumed,
for instance, that the universality of music implies that it
is the nature of the human beast, and therefore a strongly
adaptive trait dating back to or before the first humans.
Everyone doesn't have to be individually musical for this to
work. Then the fun begins - adaptive how? I've read articles
trying to answer the same questions about humor and grief,
as well as one about rape that most here are aware of. But
some rules of ethical conduct, if agreed upon as "universal"
(that's tough, and usually involves some questionable
syntax), could be considered as constructed adaptively. It
maybe wasn't such a great term for it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: He answered tentatively... -- Sophist,
14:01:52 11/11/02 Mon
I can see humor, grief, and music as traits, and
therefore subject to adaptation, but I don't see any
particular ethical principle as a trait. "Having ethical
systems" could be seen as a human trait and could well be
adaptive (though how one would show that is beyond me).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: He answered tentatively... -- Darby,
15:40:04 11/11/02 Mon
I'm having trouble coming up with a universal ethical
prohibition - brain's fried today, but I'm sure others can
think of some. In the same way that "grief" is a subset of
"emotional" and can be a specific trait in and of itself,
specific ethical rules - if you stick to within a group,
things like requirements for honesty and fidelity and not
indiscriminately hurting others could be seen as adaptive
(and so could negative variants on them, enough to keep them
around but only in limited play).
I know that last part makes no sense, so let me give an
example of a "dishonesty" trait that is only adaptive
restrictively. Male sunfish clear and defend nesting sites.
When females come by, they inspect the site and if it looks
good for their offspring, they do a mating ritual "dance,"
during which they lay eggs to be fertilized. Some male
sunfish are marked like females and "crash" the dance (the
first male just figures he's attracted 2 females),
fertilizing the eggs without setting up territory. For those
2nd males, individuals, it's a terrifically adaptive trait,
but there's a limit to how far it can apply in a population
before obvious limitations kick in - dishonesty, though
prohibited, can be used by some adaptively but there is a
limit to how widely it can apread before selection pressure
against it reduces it again. Whether the dishonesty is
abstract or literal seems irrelevant.
Okay, done now.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> You don't have to stop... --
Sophist, 16:36:15 11/11/02 Mon
Your example is a good one. It's an example of
behavior (since, I assume, we agree that sunfish lack
ethical systems and your use of the term dishonesty was
anthropomorphic). I agree that "dishonest" behavior
can be the subject of selection. Where I'm having the
problem is the claim that a belief system emphasizing
honesty in general could be subject to selection. In other
words, I'm distinguishing between the behavior and the
belief which led up to it. The former can be selected. The
latter cannot (by nature, I mean; I'm not resurrecting our
meme debate here).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Okay, taking a sunfish-like
nibble... -- Darby, 20:25:19 11/11/02 Mon
I'm trying to avoid memes, but the concepts are the same -
the deceptive behavior of the sunfish, inherited through a
gene combination, and human deceptive behavior, a
combination of genetic personality and epigenetic (passed
down from parents nongenetically) inherited societal values,
are to a large extent treated as adaptive and equally
subject to individual variation, selection and mutation.
Y'see, it's primarily this well-accepted part of biology,
that epigenetic traits can be equivalent to genetic ones,
that memetic theory is based upon, so I can't expound
without touching on it again, but specific ethical ideas,
and not just the tendency to have them, can be treated as
separate heritable traits, as grief can be treated as a
separable heritable emotion.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Lies, damned
lies, and statistics -- Jarrod Harmier,
11:15:17 11/11/02 Mon
1) I know some would see many of my views as overly
moralistic, but then I'm an moral absolutist and not a moral
relativist. I gave up on moral relativism a few years
ago.
And it's probably a shocker for any one to know I'm an
atheist, too. (I'd probably get labeled as a "fundie" if I
didn't mention that.)
2) Also, to be clear, I have in the past judged some females
that I've known based on purely on attractiveness and I'm
not proud of myself for it. I still do it but I try to keep
it and check because I know it's wrong.
3) Sophist, your example of a woman wearing high heels or
lipstick would not be evil if the woman did these things
based only on the fact that she enjoyed doing them for
herself.
The same thing goes for men as well. I had a friend several
years ago who loved to wear suits. He wore suits just all
the time. Was that evil? No. He wore suits based only on the
fact that he enjoyed wearing them. (I didn't get it, though.
I wear a t-shirt, shorts and a pair of tennis shoes even
during the winter.)
The reason that dressing up in a certain way that is
designed to attract someone is evil is because if you look
at it there is an intent--which I forgot to mention in my
original post (sorry)--to manipulate another person into
thinking about you in a romantic sense that is governed by
external qualities rather than internal qualities (kindness,
humor, intelligence, etc.). Of course, it is certainly not
as evil as trying to get someone drunk.
Jarrod Harmier
Caffeine fuels my body, B/X fuels my soul.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> But... --
Darby, 12:29:33 11/11/02 Mon
My original point is that the external signals are
indicators of internal qualities that have definite
relevance to a long-term relationship and so cannot be
"wrong" in any absolute sense. There is a reason that
virtually all cultures share many aspects of what passes for
"beautiful" or "attractive" in women and men. What's being
hinted at is health, strong genetic traits and prosperity,
which are not evil things to consider. I'm not suggesting
that they should be the sum total of what makes a
prospective mate desirable (that is definitely misplaced
absolutism, and I doubt you see yourself as absolute that
way), but there's nothing inherently wrong about that being
part of the process.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
But... -- Jarrod
Harmier, 13:24:35 11/11/02 Mon
I get what you're saying. If an external quality is an
absolute reflection of some internal quality, I have no
problem with it.
Jarrod Harmier
Caffeine fuels my body, B/X fuels my soul.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Appearance and
evil: a "fundie" perspective -- HonorH, 12:36:03
11/11/02 Mon
Hiya, Jerrod. I'm also a moral absolutist. I'm also a
fundamentalist Christian. Just FYI.
Here's where I draw the line: dressing up in hopes of
attracting someone's attention isn't evil in itself. Doing
it in hopes of stealing someone's spouse is, but in the case
of a simple man/woman equation? No problem. Dressing up,
making yourself attractive, is simply a way of getting
attention. Once the attention is gained, you can go on to
demonstrate your inner qualities, which, hopefully, will
spur on a romance. Dressing up merely shows interest. It
shows you care. The purest form of your thesis would be the
man who never bathes because he believes that a woman who
truly loves him will accept his stench as well, which
totally ignores the fact that if he loves her, he'll take
her feelings into account and clean up so she won't turn
green while hugging him.
In other words, I don't think that RJ's putting on his
jacket because he realizes it makes him attractive to women
is evil in itself (just as I don't think Dawn making herself
up to attract RJ is evil). His manipulation of those women,
however, is. The fact that he uses girls to do his homework,
appears to pit them against each other and his rivals, and
generally goes through them like candy, is evil.
[> [> [> [> [> Statistics are the truth
and the way! -- matching mole, 20:23:59 11/11/02
Mon
Being more or less serious here. Sure you can mislead with
statistics; that just makes them the same as any other
method of communication. The populational, probabilistic
world view of statistics is the causal equivalent of the
shades of grey in a morally complex world. I see the world
through the lenses of frequency distributions and scatter
plots and varying levels of uncertainty.
Back to the topic at hand. It seems to me that all
communication is manipulation in the broadest sense of the
word. The sender of the 'signal' is trying to get the
receiver to do something or change in some way. Obviously
this isn't always immoral but when it starts being immoral
seems like a pretty fuzzy line. To use the example of dress
from this thread it strikes me that you can't make a perfect
distinction between dressing for yourself and dressing for
others. Clothes are a big part of the self image for many
people and how they dress might have a big effect on their
interactions with other people. Is that dishonest?
I have known a few (thankfully only a few) people who
believed that following social conventions of civil behavior
was fundamentally dishonest. Not much fun to be around.
[> [> Use of costumes in HIM -- shadowkat,
12:19:23 11/10/02 Sun
Haven't seen anyone bring this up yet...but did you notice
that there are two characters who use their siblings
uniforms in this show but with quite opposite effects?
1. RJ who we learn is using Lance's jacket, a jacket passed
down through the family, continuing the legacy so to
speak.
Dad = football player, letter jacket, marries the most
beautiful cheerleader type he can find - Ms. Arkansas.
Lance = football player, letter jacket, considered the king
of charm in high school, now jacketless pizza manager
RJ = geek/awful poet prior to jacket, now all girls love him
and football player.
2. Dawn hunts down Buffy's cheerleading costume, puts it on.
She is the only person trying out in a cheerleading costume.
The other kids even comment on the strangeness of it. But
unlike the letter jacket, the cheerleading costume does not
win the day for Dawn. She does not acquire her sister's
moves, high kicks, ability to do cartwheels and somersaults,
or the opposite sex's attraction to her sister.
Buffy's cheerleading costume does not contain these things,
Buffy does. Unlike Lance - Buffy didn't get her slayer
powers or her natural atheletic ability and charm from a
costume, they are part of her and can not be traded down to
her sister. Dawn has to find her own strengths. Dawn's
reaction? To tear up the costume. She shreds it and when
Buffy complains, she says she'll buy her a new one. She has
realized it has no meaning, it can't help her.
Similarily we see the letter jacket destroyed - but not
because it has no strength or power - it does but it's power
and strength has been used in a destructive manner and in
the long run does not do the wearer or those around him any
favors.
RJ - may have gotten girls attention with the jacket, but
clearly he only really wanted the one girl - the girl on
crutches he keeps helping and is walking with. The girl who
probably liked him regardless of the jacket. All the jacket
did was doom him to follow in Lance's footsteps and we all
see where Lance ended up.
[> [> [> not sure about that last part --
anom, 14:13:04 11/10/02 Sun
Good parallels. I think even the colors of the 2 "costumes"
were similar, although, since I forgot to tape this ep while
I watched it, I can't go back & check. Interestingly,
the jacket didn't seem to have anything to do w/how well RJ
played football--all it influenced was the perception of how
well he did that & everything else. And only women's
perception, so I'm guessing that whoever put the enchantment
on it in the 1st place (or had it put on) was only
interested in getting women interested in him. Xander &
Spike don't see RJ as anything special, & he complains
that Principal Wood is always riding him, so he (Wood)
probably didn't either. (BTW, anyone else notice the
frequent use of "riding"/"on my back" by RJ? I thought this
was going to turn out to mean something, maybe a sexual
metaphor, but nope. Only thing on his back was the jacket.)
I'd say the original user of the jacket didn't take
lesbianism or witchcraft into account, either. He'd probably
have been shocked at Willow's plan. Magic seems to be as far
off the radar screen in Sunnydale as homosexuality would
have been in RJ & Lance's dad's time (or even longer ago-
-we don't know how old the jacket is).
Well, I got off on a tangent, didn't I? More like several!
Anyway, what I originally meant to respond to was this:
"RJ - may have gotten girls attention with the jacket, but
clearly he only really wanted the one girl - the girl on
crutches he keeps helping and is walking with. The girl who
probably liked him regardless of the jacket."
Maybe I'm just more suspicious than you, but I wondered if
she'd hurt her leg trying some outlandish stunt to impress
RJ, or in a fight, possibly w/the same girl who attacked
Dawn. Am I the only one who thought she got a look on her
face like "wait--what's so great about this guy?" as soon as
Spike & Xander got the jacket off RJ? Again, I can't
check this on tape, so I may be off base, but that was my
impression when I was watching it. I couldn't tell if RJ was
any more interested in her than in any other girl.
[> [> [> [> Re: not sure about that last
part -- shadowkat, 14:54:43 11/10/02 Sun
"Maybe I'm just more suspicious than you, but I wondered if
she'd hurt her leg trying some outlandish stunt to impress
RJ, or in a fight, possibly w/the same girl who attacked
Dawn. Am I the only one who thought she got a look on her
face like "wait--what's so great about this guy?" as soon as
Spike & Xander got the jacket off RJ? Again, I can't
check this on tape, so I may be off base, but that was my
impression when I was watching it. I couldn't tell if RJ was
any more interested in her than in any other girl."
You're probably right. I'm probably being far too lenient on
good ole RJ and knowing Whedon and Company and their dislike
of jocks and letter jackets? I wouldn't be at all surprised
if your take is the correct one. Couldn't really tell from
my viewing of it. Except that RJ offers to help the girl
with the crutches the first time -saying I can carry that -
when Dawn shows up and seems annoyed at the interuption. And
it was odd to me that of all the girls he'd be walking with
he had picked that one. The injured one.
On the other point? The colors are similar. Orange and
Red.
Both sunnydale uniforms.
[> [> [> [> [> Episode Six --
Tchaikovsky, 15:55:58 11/10/02 Sun
Mentioned this before; but-
Season Six, Episode Six:
'All the Way'. Dawn is seduced by a vampire in a (numbered)
jacket. She wears it while she has her first kiss. She
nearly surrenders to the vampire's other kind of kiss later
on, immediately before Giles finds her.
Season Seven, Episode Seven:
'Him'. Dawn is attracted by a jock with a (lettered) jacket.
She wears analagous clothing, (her older sibling's schools
clothes), in an attempt to seduce him. She nearly commits
suicide to consummate her true love, immediately before
Buffy finds her.
It's probably just pretty and coincidental that these
episdoes fall at exactly the same point in the Seasons, but
it acts to strengthen my point, so why not mention it?
TCH
[> [> [> [> [> [> Just for fun... -
- Rook, 17:23:44 11/10/02 Sun
Season 2, episode 2 also deals with the theme of Jocks and
the female attraction to them, and what happens when that
goes away, in dead Darryl's case.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Jackets and Buffy and
Dawn -- shadowkat, 19:58:54 11/10/02 Sun
In All The Way - Dawn makes the comment to Buffy - "You did
it with a vampire" Buffy states that's different. Dawn
states - it always is when it comes to you.
Buffy is referring to Angel in this scene with Dawn btw.
In HIM - Buffy tells Dawn that you shouldn't die for a man.
No man is worth dying for. Yet in Season 2 and Season 3?
Buffy was more than willing to sacrifice herself for
Angel.
She also considered doing it in Season 4 - in I Will Always
Remember You - Ats.Season1. Yet, ironically the only person
she dies for is Dawn. Turns out the love of Buffy's life
wasn't Angel. Angel is NOT the person she loved more than
anything. Dawn is. Question is? Has she figured that out
yet? She certainly risked her life in HIM even under the
influence of a spell to save her sister (a rival).
Romantic love may not be worth dying for. But a child?
A sister? To protect them?
Dawn's infatuation with jackets may go as far back as her
infatuation with Spike and the black jacket. Who knows.
Except it's interesting that Spike no longer wears a jacket.
In fact neither Xander nor Spike wear jackets of any sort in
this episode.
[> [> [> [> Re: not sure about that last
part -- Lyonors, 20:40:02 11/10/02 Sun
"Maybe I'm just more suspicious than you, but I wondered if
she'd hurt her leg trying some outlandish stunt to impress
RJ, or in a fight, possibly w/the same girl who attacked
Dawn."
On this point, didnt the other girl make some comment about
being nice to crutches girl because she hurt herself when a
vending machine fell on her? Now, I know those little
stickers on the coke machines say that you can tip it if you
try to tilt it to get free coke, but comeon...how on earth
did she have a vending machine fall on her? Some RJ rival
push it over on her maybe?
Ly
[> [> [> [> [> umm...yeah. -- tim,
21:02:15 11/10/02 Sun
I didn't catch it till the second time I watched the ep, but
Crutch Girl gives a rather unfriendly look to Uninjured Girl
when Uninjured makes the comment about the vending machine.
Put it together with Uninjured's catfight later on and with
RJ's comment about "what a shame it is when these things
happen out of the blue" (he sounded to me like someone who'd
seen enough of those situations to be able to recognize
them), and I think it's pretty clearly implied that
Uninjured was the one who tipped over the vending machine,
in an attempt to knock Crutchy out of the picture.
But I've been wrong before.
--th
Current
board
| More November
2002