November 2002 posts


Previous November 2002  

More November 2002

Machiavellian Thought -- Celebaelin, 10:53:54 11/28/02 Thu

Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) was in essence a civil servant. Whilst it is true that he was self serving in that he wrote The Prince as a combination CV and major work of classical brown-nosing in the form of an open letter to "The Magnificent Lorenzo de Medici" what it suggests is that the Italian Renaissance Wars can only be brought to an end by the unification of Italy by co-ordinated political machinations orchestrated by a man, and in Machiavelli's view a republican (small R), of great knowledge, wisdom and power (my appologies incidentally if the gender specific nature of this piece is offensive, I have two excuses 1) laziness and 2) the fact that we are referring to a society prior to 1527 If it is necessary to appeal to the baser instincts of those around you in order to "liberate Italy from the barbarians" this is considered acceptable. Many, myself included would be inclined to think that the reason The Prince was banned by the Pope was not that it was a work of Satan but rather that if widely read in early the 16th century then it would encourage people to take responsibility for their own actions in a manner that could so easily be termed impious. As I said earlier Machiavelli himself was a civil servant and proposed to use his knowledge of the percieved nature of humanity i.e. the nature of those members of humanity who exploit and or abuse power for what he determined as the good of the putative state (of course if he'd succeeded then we never would have had Garribaldi biscuits as we know them today). His expresed belief that it is in the nature of man to be as loyal to those who are obliged to him as to those his is obliged to is an indication of his popular misrepresentation as being something less than humanistic in his attitude. Whilst this concept is inherent in feudalism and chivalry up to a point it is also central to social interaction on a much broader basis. I think Buffy and any of her friends whose interests are piqued by this mention of Machiavelli could do worse than to read The Prince and see how the moral ambiguities in terms of manipulation of "the enemy" apply with regard to getting the job done (cliche, cliche). Must dash, Buffy's on the telly NOW!
I've got a theory (Buffy spoilers and speculation) -- Cheryl, 12:40:00 11/28/02 Thu

I haven't seen this idea posted here yet, but if it has been, just point me in the right direction.

Okay, IF the Watchers Council is gone (for the most part anyway) they're going to need to regroup and recruit, right? And if BtVS is going to end after this season and ME is looking for a spin off and they're not going to do the Ripper show, then who are they going to use for Watchers? Remember Restless, when Spike said Giles was training him to be a Watcher? Yeah, you see where I'm heading, right? What about a new show with Spike (I know, I know, we already have a show with a souled vampire - but this would be different) as a watcher?

The series could start out in England with Giles training Spike (I refuse to believe Giles is dead) and then Spike could return to the US (or other countries, perhaps). The scoobies could all make appearances, maybe even be recurring characters (even Buffy and Faith) and there could be different slayers-in-training every few weeks to deal with a new apocalypse or something to keep things fresh.

As much as I think JM could be doing great things in the movies or theatre, I would love to see him weekly in his own series.

Plausible? Ridiculous? Never gonna happen? What do y'all think?
[> Where Do They Go From Here? (speccy spoilery) -- ZachsMind, 14:00:58 11/28/02 Thu

"What about a new show with Spike (I know, I know, we already have a show with a souled vampire - but this would be different) as a watcher?"

This could tie in with a "Restless" reference. There's a point in Xander's dream in season four's "Restless" where Giles & Spike are swinging on a swing and Spike says, "Giles' going to teach me to be A Watcher!" and Giles goes, "Spike is like a son to me."

So who knows? It's possible. Whedon's gang of writers may have been contemplating this possibility as far back as season four.

However, what would be more logical if they do a spin-off series would be to make WILLOW the new Watcher. Why? Cuz if you look closely you'll see that the path Willow has taken is very similar in some ways to Giles' own path. They both played with the darkness of magic in their youth, and they're both trying to ride the straight and narrow now, with that strand of darkness still pulling at them occasionally from deep within. Willow's the perfect choice for Watcher.

Here's yet another possibility though. They are now establishing that there have been Slayers In Training all over the world. The Watcher's Council appears to be in ruins, and they'll need a fresh new start. I've thought for years that the Watcher's Council was an old dinosaur that never stepped out of the 19th century. The friends immediately surrounding Buffy were really HER Counsel. So I was actually hoping for a battle between the Watcher's Council and the Slayer's Counsel this season, but that appears to not be a possibility now, since Whedon's writers are effectively destroying the Council for dramatic effect. All that's gonna be left now is remnants.

How's this for a series spinoff premise? By the end of season seven we learn that evil has spread throughout the world (so what else is new) and the survivors of Buffy's Slayer Counsel (aka The Scoobies) will take it upon themselves to put the Watchers Council back together, and bring the institution into the 21st century. Who better to put it all together but a witch, a carpenter and a souled vampire? Giles believed as far back as season four that Willow would be the perfect replacement for him. He basically gave her the mantle at the end of season four. Spike's got the stuff, and now that he's got a soul and is starting to learn more about himself maybe he's gonna start wanting to find a purpose or a reason for existing, to make up for all the pain he's caused over the centuries. And we still need Xander desperately for the comic relief.

Admittedly, this could also be a great premise for an American version of "Ripper" where Giles leads Xander, Willow & Spike as a team. However, ASH has made it rather clear he's not interested in continuing on with the Whedon thing if he can't hang in England and be with his family - a very noble and understandable wish. So I'm thinking the Ripper series will be completely separate, it'll happen eventually and Giles' plot arc will go on a completely different direction from "The Slayer Counsel," focusing primarily on whatever Giles would do on his own in England.

UNLESS of course, Marsters, Brendan and Hannigan have no problem commuting to England for their day jobs. *smirk* OR all of Giles' scenes could be filmed in England, and the other three run all over the world (shot in studio lots in California) looking for the last remnants of the Watchers Council and for new slayer potentiates. They could communicate via cellphones & video conferencing.

What about Buffy? Well, what about her? Sarah Michelle Gellar will be busy filming Scooby Doo Two. (rolls eyes) Personally I think they'd be better off without her.
[> [> Re: Where Do They Go From Here? (speccy spoilery) - - Clen, 14:13:33 11/28/02 Thu

Well, considering this was Xander's dream in Restless, and considering his feelings for Spike, I took the point in the dream to be one of jealousy. Training to be a Watcher -- Xander used to be into that, but has his own thing now. But in the dream, his thing was a nightmare, of being stuck in the basement, of staying connected to the family he hates. His life sucks. So, I think he dreamed Giles has passed his pride onto Spike. Spike has strength, coolness (I also think he's Pike remainder), etc. In other words, he is the clear successor to be the male hero in an otherwise female group. I think the dream was more about Xander's fear he took the wrong path, or is taking no path at all and will never be the next Watcher, or the next male hero for Buffy, and Spike might be taking his place.
So...since he's the one secretly dreaming about it...I think the best new Watcher would be Xander.
[> [> [> Why not all three? (speccy spoilery) -- ZachsMind, 14:46:19 11/28/02 Thu

I've often believed that one of the many things Whedon's trying to say with the Buffy series is that it's not enough just to have one generation's individual pass their worldly knowledge onto the next generation. That alone does not insure the safety and virility of the next generation. A youngster needs peers as well as a parental unit. The concept of the old fashioned 'family unit' is put into question with Whedon's work here. As I believe Hillary Clinton once put it, "it takes a village to raise a child."

In this case, Buffy's the child. Every Slayer throughout the history of Buffy's World is the child of the village, and in generations past the Watchers Council thought it sufficient to give her ONE member of the council to be her mentor, to pull her away from society and train her full force for her destiny. However, previous slayers had a painfully brief life expectancy, and no one in the Council seemed wise enough to understand why.

Buffy died once and was brought back to life not by her Watcher, but by Xander. The second time she died she was brought back by Willow. What KEEPS Buffy alive now is the hope and promise she sees in people like her sister Dawn. And that glimmer of hope in what on the surface appeared to be such a lost cause five years ago. Even SPIKE of all people has potential for redemption. To do penance and yet live. So when you look at the 'village' surrounding Buffy, we see that the real way to train Slayers is not the tradition of a single Watcher per potential Slayer, but by surrounding the Slayer with several potential Watchers, just as one surrounds a King with Knights and Bishops and Queens and Rooks on a chess board. The potential survival rate is much higher.

Xander, Willow & Spike can all be Watchers in a future season. Whatever "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" evolves into IF there is to be a spinoff, I think it'll deal with all three of these characters as the generation to keep the Watchers Council alive for the day when the next Slayer comes around.

Isn't it in that comic book series "FRAY" (forgive me I've only heard about it and never read it myself) that it says after Buffy's time there was a fifty year lapse of slayers? After this season there may not be any slayers ever again, but could be a swarm of potential slayers that Willow, Xander & Spike seek out to try and nurture, only to find there are dark forces killing off all the potential slayers before they can get to them.
Trying to figure something out. -- Sci, 19:46:24 11/28/02 Thu

I'm trying to understand one thing regarding the Seal of Danzathar thing. Now, if I understood it correctly, sufficient quantities of anyone's blood, provided the blood be healthy and non-anemic, would have raised the Ubervamp. So, why did the First Evil spend so much time having Andrew and Jonathon dig it up, then try to have Andrew sacrifice a pig, then try to buy blood, then kidnap Spike to drain HIS blood, when it could have simply had the Harbingers dig the seal up, kidnap a random innocent, and bleed that individual? Any speculation?

Or was it because the Harbingers are said to cause living things to die? Does the bleeder need to have been alive or undead at the time of the bleeding?
[> 7.9 spoilers above and below -- cougar, 20:07:33 11/28/02 Thu

Spike's blood looked remarkably well oxygenated for one with no breathing or circulation don't you think?
[> [> Re: 7.9 spoilers above and below -- Sci, 20:11:40 11/28/02 Thu

D'oh! Forgot to add a spoiler warning! Sorry. Thanks for covering.

Re: Oxygenated blood. Well, it's not actually HIS blood, I'd presume, but the blood of folks he's fed off of, right? Or is that not how vampire physiology works?

Vampire physiology is confuzzlating.
[> [> [> As soon as blood meets air, it gains oxygen, despite what it is inside the body. -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:05:11 11/28/02 Thu

[> Re: Trying to figure something out. -- ZachsMind, 21:32:09 11/28/02 Thu

I'm trying to understand one thing regarding the Seal of Danzathar thing. Now, if I understood it correctly, sufficient quantities of anyone's blood, provided the blood be healthy and non-anemic, would have raised the Ubervamp.

Okay. I'm with ya so far...

So, why did the First Evil spend so much time having Andrew and Jonathon dig it up, then try to have Andrew sacrifice a pig, then try to buy blood...

Uhm... Cuz it was funny?

*looks around the virtual room of the message forum*

Well I thought it was funny.

...then kidnap Spike to drain HIS blood...

Well THAT part was definitely because there's a large number of female (and possibly male homosexuals too) fans who make it very clear to the people at Mutant Enemy that one of the reasons they tune in to see this series is because they like it when James Marsters isn't wearing a shirt. Haven't you noticed that Spike goes topless at the drop of a hat? Every freakin' opportunity -- why wouldn't they ever let Amber Benson do that??

when it could have simply had the Harbingers dig the seal up, kidnap a random innocent, and bleed that individual? Any speculation?

Okay an attempt to be serious for a second. In the context of the storyline, it's not enough for THE FIRST to just cause massive destruction and random acts of evil. It's pissed off at Buffy for some reason and is using people around her to try and give her and her friends a hard time. For all we know, THE FIRST was a little devil on Warren's shoulder all through season six. It seems to have a weakness in that it can only affect the weak-minded, or those easily swayed to rationalize acts of evil, and Warren certainly fit that bill.

I'm not saying that THE FIRST was appearing to Warren in the same way it's been appearing to Spike most recently. THE FIRST could have just been encouraging the darker thoughts already present in Warren's mind, to get him to take risks that a normal wuss like him wouldn't normally do.

Or was it because the Harbingers are said to cause living things to die? Does the bleeder need to have been alive or undead at the time of the bleeding?

Well, Jonathan was alive, standing ON the seal of Danzathar, when Andrew knifed him. Spike's very undead but with a living human soul. So it's hard to say. I'd guess for simplicity's sake, it wouldn't matter. Andrew was also getting blood from the butcher's shop, apparently to pour onto the seal. It could be that blood's blood.
[> [> Once again (spoilers up to 7.9) -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:45:39 11/28/02 Thu

I will say this: the First Evil admitted that its Harbingers lacked subtelety. It probably didn't want to bring them in until it had to because they would tip Buffy off to what was going on.

In "Conversations with Dead People", it was still trying to avoid the Scoobies realizing exactly what was going on. And, if Jonathan's blood had worked to activate the seal, than the uber-vamp would have been raised without Buffy'd attention being alerted. Sending a Harbinger out to kidnap someone may have sent the Scooby Gang investigating.

On another note, the First Evil wanted Andrew and Spike out of the way anyway. It couldn't risk them giving Buffy information. By using one of them for the ritual, it was killing two birds with one stone: raise the uber-vamp and remove an informant.

And, one last theory: the First Evil has appeared to take an interest in corrupting the good to the side of evil (see Angel in "Amends" or getting Willow to repress her magic and go off the brink again). Thus, it might want to have Andrew kill Jonathan simply for the sake of making Andrew more evil than he was before.
[> Re: Trying to figure something out. -- Kitt, 06:41:19 11/29/02 Fri

A thought occurs... if they need a certian quanity of blood from a Souled being to open the seal, and Jonathan didn't have it, sending Andrew out for blood may have been a cover to get one or more of the harbringers into the basement to kill Andrew without him knowing about it, and killing the pig an attempt to get him to fall on his own knife (see, What's his name can't do ANYTHING right!). Once captured by the scoobies, he became expendable (not signed his own death warrant), and the First decided that Spike was up to bat?
sounds plausible, no?
[> [> Re: Trying to figure something out. -- Sci, 09:32:29 11/29/02 Fri

I like! I like! It works!

I'm sticking to this explanation!
Request for ZACHSMIND -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:38:25 11/28/02 Thu

Could you please stop using the phrase "speccy spoilery" in your posts as a disclaimer? The term is hopelessly ambigous. It's pretty clear that speculation for future eps is included in it, but no one can know whether or not it contains actual, concrete spoilers until they read it, in which case it is too late for those trying to stay unspoiled. Suggested alternatives might be "Speculation, spoilers up to *insert episode number/title here*" Or you can simply say "Spoilers *insert episode number/title here*", you don't really need to label unspoiled speculation.
[> Re: Request for ZACHSMIND (speccy spoilery) -- ZachsMind, 22:10:23 11/28/02 Thu

I've taken to putting (speccy spoilery) at the end of all my post subject lines, because I don't like getting yelled at for not putting a warning label on all of my posts. Now I'm getting yelled at for putting warning labels on all of my posts.

There's just no pleasing everyone.

Look. I often respond to someone's posts and in trying to get my point across I find myself pulling from Buffy episodes all over the spectrum of the seven seasons. I don't keep track of the crap coming out of my mouth. I'm looking at and commenting on the overall plot arcs of the series. I often find myself relating events in recent episodes to stuff that happened three or four seasons ago. I have no idea which episodes the given reader has seen. And let's be honest. I ramble a lot. Cuz I tend to type a little fast. So if I were to put in a (potential spoiler up to and including episode 7.1) but then I neglected that sentence in paragraph three where I happened to mention something about episode 7.3, people are gonna ream me anyway. I mean. There's no escape.

I actively seek spoilage online. I make no apologies for that and refuse to apologize for how I enjoy the show. I don't just do this regarding Buffy, but any shows I find interest in. When I read a book I glance at the last page cuz if I'm not gonna LIKE the ending, I'm not gonna read the book.

So just in case there's anyone who has a problem with that, I put the warning label thing on there cuz I'd rather have them not read my words at all then have them read my words and get ticked off if I accidently spoil something somewhere for them and didn't realize at the time that my rambling might spoil something somewhere for somebody. Speccy Spoilery is a general warning that the post in question is coming from a person who can't in all honesty take someone else's concern for spoilage seriously.

Should I add "Enter At Your Own Risk This Post May Cause Cancer In Pregnant Women Proceed With Caution?" No of course not. I'm not trying to sell myself to the entire planet. I'm an aquired taste. I'm just not writing my posts or responses to other people's posts so that it appeases the mainstream.

Some people aren't gonna like everything that comes out of my mouth, or in this case my keyboard. That's what speccy spoilery means. "If you're not a spoiler whore, you might be upset if you click on me." There's only 100 characters available in the Message Subject. Rather than type all this out every single time, I just put in "speccy spoilery" cuz it should be more than sufficient to appease the spoiler puritans.

So if anyone has a problem with my generic spoiler warning label, they're fully free to just not read my posts. I won't be upset.
[> [> Now, now boys -- soul drift, 23:23:55 11/28/02 Thu

What would Thanksgiving be without squabble? Makes it feel like home. Holidays crimes often start with defensiveness, and you two are both so awesome, so lets play nice kids and all be thankfull for the synergy of our happy house.
[> [> How about.... -- Rook, 06:15:11 11/29/02 Fri

If you're posting spoilers for things that have already aired, put (Spec for all aired episodes), and if you're posting spoilers for unaired episodes, just put (Future spoilers).

It'd at least narrow it down some...not to mention that it's a lot more inline with the board's existing spoiler policy. Your post above is pretty much saying "Yeah, I know there are existing rules. But I don't care, I'm gonna make up my own system."

So, unless I'm mistaken and you're the owner/admin of the board, how about following the existing rules, or trying to be somewhat cooperative with simple requests to more clearly label your posts?

A little courtesy goes a long way, and all that...
[> [> [> do we have to be rude to one another? Its not big or clever y'know -- Helen, 06:26:10 11/29/02 Fri

And could Masq please clarify the rules? Personally I wouldn't consider anything about any episode that has been aired to be spoiling. You know whether you have seen aired eps or not - I'm in the UK so I haven't seen any of Season 7, but I'm a spoiler whore who can't wait six months for Buffy - I know you guys can watch it, I want to know too.

Spoilers, unless someone has managed to steal ME's fils, are bound to speculative. Really, who gives a monkeys how people label their posts?

There are a lot of bitchy boards out there, I'd hate to think this was becoming one of them?
[> [> [> [> Well -- Tchaikovsky, 06:38:05 11/29/02 Fri

The big, starred ***spoiler policy*** link will give the exact procedure, although I think it's quite fair of Zach to use his own spoiler warning if he wants to. It seems clear to me.

Spoiler policy:

http://www.atpobtvs.com/faq.html#6

TCH
[> [> [> [> [> Read it - don't see any prob with Zach's post titles - perfectly consistent. -- Helen, 06:41:08 11/29/02 Fri

[> [> [> I AM following the rules. -- ZachsMind, 10:08:17 11/29/02 Fri

I was told to put a warning label on my posts. That's precisely what I'm doing. This, what you're doing, is nitpicking.
[> [> You catch more readers with honey... -- Dariel, 09:22:08 11/29/02 Fri

Okay, that's icky. Anyway, I like your posts, and obviously Finn wants to read them. Labeling them more clearly benefits you and the board, 'cause more people will read your posts.

And it's not that hard: If you've seen up to episode 7.9, for example, you can just say "Spoilers to 7.9." And if they're future spoilers, meaning after 7.9, you can just say "future spoilers." Don't think you need to do much else.
[> Weighing in on Zach's side -- Wisewoman, 06:27:43 11/29/02 Fri

"Speccy spoilery" may have been ambiguous (I didn't think so) the first time we saw it, but not anymore. As Zach says above, he writes about whatever he knows, regardless of spoilers, past or future.

He does follow the rules; his posts are always labelled for speculation and spoilers.

The simple answer to remaining unspoiled is, as he says, don't read his posts.

dub ;o)
[> [> Agree with dub - and I don't think anyone is being bitchy, either! -- Marie, 07:20:58 11/29/02 Fri

All the above posts are perfectly polite. Calling them rude or bitchy only fans the non-existent flames.

Personally, as a well-spoiled Trollop, I think that most people, if they've any sense at all - and this board is a pretty sense-filled one! - if they don't want to be spoiled, avoid anything with the word 'spoiler' in the message subject box. So anyone who goes into a post that has the words 'speccy spoilers' anywhere in sight, presumably realises in advance that they might be spoiled!!!

Marie
[> [> See, that's where I have difficulty. -- Solitude1056, 07:21:41 11/29/02 Fri

I avoid spoilers for future episodes, but I like speculation. Putting something like "speccy spoiler" means I end up having to avoid all such points, because it doesn't clarify what kind of spoilers. Is this just a spoilery post for someone in England, but not for the Eastern Seaboard who's already seen through 7.9? Is this a spoilery post if you've been living under a rock and still haven't seen season 3?

Smooshing them together means some of us miss out on chewy speculation goodness because the label just doesn't specify. I don't think it takes that much extra effort to review one's post and say, anything in here that's a future spoiler? No? Alright, it's speculation.

Or whatever.
[> [> [> Speculation vs Spoilers (no speculation or spoilers) -- Helen, 07:27:38 11/29/02 Fri

Sometimes there's a fine line between the two. I can think of certain developments which have been discussed on the board ie - regarding reappearances of characters - which could be speculative, buit if you happened to know that they were going to happen, would be spoilers? Its speculation to me, but if there is a reliable source elsewhere on the web to back it up, it becomes a spoiler.

Blurry greys everywhere.
[> [> [> Hmm... -- Marie, 07:42:07 11/29/02 Fri

I just think that if a post message subject contains the word 'spoiler', then you go in at your own risk. Where there is purely speculation, most people just put 'speculation - no spoilers'; therefore, I think you can take it that if it says 'spoiler(s)' then that's just what you may see if you choose to read that particular post.

Marie - Spoiler Trollop and Speculation Slapper!
[> [> [> [> I agree, but my point was... -- Solitude1056, 07:48:37 11/29/02 Fri

A spoiler to a Brit-in-Wales who hasn't seen Season 7 yet isn't a spoiler to someone in the U.S. ... so just saying "general spoilers" doesn't tell me who would consider it a spoiler, or how they're spoilers.

Is it really that much trouble to clarify with "spoilers through 7.9" or "future spoilers"?
[> [> [> [> [> Ah! I see what you mean, now. And yes - can't disagree with that! -- Marie - chastened but not subdued!, 08:19:29 11/29/02 Fri

I'm such a Trollop, I read everything, so I hadn't really considered that angle. Thanks for pointing it out, Sol. Didn't mean to sound inconsiderate, if that's how it came across.

M
[> [> [> [> [> [> That's my girl....I'm proud of you.....:):):):) -- Rufus, proud Trollop Queen, 23:32:54 11/29/02 Fri

I'm such a Trollop, I read everything.


Music to a Spoiler Trollop Queen's ears..;)
[> [> [> This right here. This is where I have the difficulty... (speccy & yes maybe spoilery) -- ZachsMind, 10:28:16 11/29/02 Fri

First off, for the record, no one's bitching. I'm on the defensive but that's par for the course for me. I'm used to it. Everyone's being polite and I'm cool with it. People are speaking their mind. I'm defending my position. I do appreciate those coming to my defense, and am thankful. I also acknowledge that those who disagree with me have a right to their opinion, but with all due respect, I AM following the rules and from my position I can't compromise further and I'll tell you why.

Putting something like "speccy spoiler" means I end up having to avoid all such points, because it doesn't clarify what kind of spoilers. Is this just a spoilery post for someone in England, but not for the Eastern Seaboard who's already seen through 7.9? Is this a spoilery post if you've been living under a rock and still haven't seen season 3?

See, to me, it's ALL connected. I can't separate one episode specifically from another because for one thing, I've seen them out of sequence, and another, the storylines bleed and weave together like a tapestry. If I mention "Amends," "Conversations With Dead People" is going to come up. I don't know who has seen what.

I have no clue which episodes are airing in the UK or Australia or on Aljazeera for all I know, and I don't care to keep track. I'd get it wrong anyway. When I speculate, I will probably inevitably spoil, because at least one of my theories is inevitably going to come true.

Back when I was writing a faux season seven over at my website, I theorized that Tara was going to return and I got that wrong, but I also theorized they were gonna bring potential future slayers into the mix that that's something they HAVE done. I blew up the Watchers Council main HQ. Another thing that HAS happened. I brought in The First Slayer as a potential Big Bad. Whedon's writers are using The First Evil. So I was close, there. One of my potential slayers was hispanic and the other was irish. I particularly liked the irish lass. Quite a fiery character. Now, whether the slayers in training are going to be of particular nationalities we've yet to find out. My speculation however may yet prove to be spoilery again. It's the nature of the beast.

Yes you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar but I'm not trying to catch flies. I'm just putting my opinion out there and it's gonna contain everything I know up until now about the series because otherwise I can't prove my point. It's like a teacher telling students to write a thesis about the book "Of Mice and Men" but saying they can't write about anything after chapter seven.

It's all connected, and one can't evaluate the plots if they're crippled and censores.
[> [> [> [> Re: This right here. This is where I have the difficulty... (speccy & yes maybe spoilery) -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:14:19 11/29/02 Fri

Just speaking for myself here: I don't have a problem with speculation, even if it's speculation that turns out to be fact. But, if the information is actual info about what the writers have in store, I'd prefer to know that before clicking to read a post. Generally, if a post has the word "spoilers" in the title, people who haven't seen the most recent aired episodes know better than to read the post unless they wish to be spoiled for those episodes. So putting "speccy spoilery" in the subject line does deter anyone not up to date with recent episodes. However, the term "speccy spoilery" can be taken to mean spoilers for all aired episodes and some speculation for the future. It can also be taken to mean "some spoilers for future episodes and speculation based upon that". Thus, it is possible that people might read one of your posts, believing it to be unspoiled speculation, and they end up finding out something about the future of the season they would prefer to be surprised by. In fact, Masq actually details the board policy on future spoilers, and the "Spoiler Policy" page says pretty much the same thing I've been saying here about labelling future spoilers in posts. All I'm saying is, if there are future spoilers in your posts, putting the words "future spoilers" in the subject line is advisable. I don't have any problems with "speccy spoilery" as long as it's used for posts that don't include spoilers for future episodes.
[> [> [> [> How's about "Possible future spoilers"? - - Slain, 15:02:13 11/29/02 Fri

'Spoilery' has lots of different meanings, but on this board is usually means references to episodes that have already aired, not spoilers. I've always wished that someone would come up with another word, but unfortunately we have one word with two distinct meanings.

So labelling your posts 'speccy spoilery' doesn't mean what you want it to mean. It's ambiguous. Possible future spoilers is not ambiguous - it means what you want to say - that the post might have future spoilers in it, it might not. Under that you can say anything, including things which are speculation, but might become spoilers, or speculation based on spoilers.
[> Do what I do Finn -- Sophist, 07:49:48 11/29/02 Fri

Don't read those posts.

Really. The purpose of the Board is to encourage a dialogue between fans. If people don't label their posts properly, they shut off the possibility of dialogue with many of us here. That makes them the losers in the long run, not you. It's self-policing that way.
[> [> Precisely! What Sophist said. -- ZachsMind, 10:43:32 11/29/02 Fri

It's like I'm putting a door on all my posts with a sign on the door saying "enter at your own risk" and anyone who doesn't want to risk it doesn't have to enter. I'm not posting to people who come in here to read about Buffy but don't want to know everything.

Once I went into an IRC channel that was labelled "X-Files" and I wanted to talk about X-Files, but there were a lot of people in there with admin rights who hadn't seen any of the latest season, and they were purposefully avoiding any discussion whatsoever about the series AS A WHOLE which really was annoying. The ones running the channel were doing small talk and if someone mentioned anything about the series they just got booted.

The system Masq has placed here in this message forum is much more polite and appropriate. Those who want to speculate can. Those who don't, don't. I don't personally see a delineation between speculation and potential spoilers. As someone rightfully pointed out earlier, there's a lot of grey area. What's speculation to one person may be potentially spoilery to another, and I can't read minds over the Internet.

So I put a generic spoiler warning on my posts to keep out people who get upset about spoilage, because I'm trying to avoid getting reamed. Then I get reamed anyway. Really. It's quite laughable from my perch. Please, if you don't like it, don't read it. I won't know you didn't read. I won't take it as an insult. If you don't like speculation, I'm not talking to you anyway.
[> [> [> Speculation and spoilage-- (well-known future cast spoiler inside) -- HonorH, 11:14:15 11/29/02 Fri

Okay, Zach, I like your posts and don't want to stop reading them, but I'm also desperately trying to avoid future spoilers. So here are my definitions:

Speculation--just that. Pure spec. You don't know what's going to happen in a future ep (beyond Faith returning, of course), but you're speculating. You could be way off. You could be right on. Point is, you don't know.

Spoilers--you know. You've read wildfeed, seen shooting reports or shooting scripts, someone in the know has posted tidbits from the future on their sites, but however you know, you *know*.

Speculation is all great with me. Love it. If you turn out to be right, I'll give you kudos instead of bonking you over the head. If you reveal to me a future event that you *knew* was going to happen, however, I will bonk you. Hard. Multiple times.

So my request is: if you *know* about a future event, one that hasn't aired here in the States, either don't mention it or warn "future spoiler" in your subject line. Would that be okay with you?
[> [> [> [> Re: Speculation and spoilage-- (well-known future cast spoiler inside) -- Slain, 14:48:42 11/29/02 Fri

My question to Zach would be - how spoiled are you? That is, do you read spoilers, or have you just caught a few accidentally and want to discuss them?

If you read spoilers, and want to speculate about them, then for me that means all of your posts are 'tainted', so to speak. If we're having a speculative discussion chances are you already know the answers, so to be honest I don't want to read anything you write, because a lot of what you argue which seems like opinion is possibly fact. Which is a damn shame.

If you don't read spoilers, and have just chanced upon them (like most of us do even if we try to avoid them) then chances are you're no more spoiled than me, so I'll just avoid any of your posts which are marked with some kind of warning.

For me a spoiled person on a board which isn't a spoiler board is very much a cat among the pigeons - it knows all the answers, and has a future insight which makes all idle comments possible facts. Okay, so the analogy breaks down somewhat.
The Bad Boys of BtVS(recent episode spoilers) -- Malandanza, 07:23:59 11/29/02 Fri

Andrew in a leather jacket-- how cool was he? Ok, he still doesn't come across as a particularly cool bad boy, but imagine if he were vamped and had a few decades to grow into the role. I think that ME is deliberately making a Spike and Andrew connection -- this was a big time reminder that when Spike was alive, he was Andrew. Same hopelessly inept social skills, same blurring of fantasy and reality (Spike wanted to be Lord Byron and Andrew want to be James Bond -- or, at least, Timothy Dalton), same nonexistent self-esteem and same willingness to be led around (ghostly Warren is Andrew's Angelus/Dru). It's no wonder that they both fell under the thrall of the first.

The gluttonous feeding also reminded us that vampires are repulsive creatures -- previously, we had seen him sipping blood out of novelty mugs (with some cereal for texture), looking very human -- this time we see the monster. We also got to see just how vile our "gentleman" vampire was before he was chipped -- he did go in for torture (his description of how he'd leave just enough blood in his female victims so he could hear them whimper) and there was a strong suggestion that he had raped girls Dawn's age. I don't think it was an accident that the song the First Evil uses to control Spike contains the line "how could you use a poor maiden so" -- it strikes to the very heart of Spike's Romantic illusions about himself. He is not a hero -- he is the villain of the Gothic Romances. Part of Spike must willingly abdicate control when the First begins singing -- permitting the First access to his mind and body rather than face the truth.

We still see Spike blaming Buffy for all his problems. Nice to know some things never change. Apparently free will applies only when he does good (albeit for selfish reasons) and when he does evil, it is someone else's fault. Buffy used him. She mistreated him. He tried to change for her. It's all about Buffy. So, really, when you think about it, Spike's sufferings are all Buffy's fault. Poor little Marionette Spike has no self control -- never has. But Spike plays a dangerous game when he plays upon Judge Buffy's sympathies -- she's no hanging judge, but she does have her limits (and they were almost reached this past episode when Buffy kicked Spike into unconsciousness after the first used him to tear through the wall and attack Andrew).

But back to the Spike and Andrew connection -- I think Spike is a warning of how dangerous Andrew can be. If Andrew follows in Spike's path, he could be a dangerous minion for the First, and, if he ever gets out of Sunnydale, he could even become a villain in his own right, once he, like Spike, gets his act down.
[> Spike & Buffy (recent episode spoilers) -- Darby, 07:45:18 11/29/02 Fri

I had a totally different take on Spike's talk about their "relationship." He just seemed to be sharing a new perspective, a realization that, along with a new ability to perceive his own transgressions, he saw the bad aspects of how she had treated him. I didn't see him trying to connect that to his current fall off the wagon - in fact, since he has no clue what was causing that, he couldn't blame it on Spuffy.

And I suspect that "Dark Andrew" is more an homage to Neo than to Spike - in fact, he probably thinks Spike lifted the look from The Matrix (see early Billy Idol reference - does Joss see a Neo-Spike connection?). There is the butcher line, and the obvious plot connection about not being sure what is real and what is illusion. And Andrew's current arc bagan with dreams.

I did like ME not evading Spike's evil history, and alluding to even more nastiness than we had seen before. Not sure the connection to FE control is as complex as you see it, though. I tend to believe that the soul he got (in a decorated cave under a desert, First-Evil-type-trappings) may have had some taint to it...
[> [> Re: Spike & Buffy (recent episode spoilers) -- Sophist, 08:00:12 11/29/02 Fri

I agree about Andrew, though I think Mal is right to point out the potential for disaster if we treat Andrew as a buffoon rather than as one who might cause serious harm. The SG made that mistake last year with Warren.

I also agree about Spike's comments on Spuffy. In fact, I think Spike's ability to see the moral issues in that relationship were intended as a sign of maturity permitted by the soul.

I did like ME not evading Spike's evil history, and alluding to even more nastiness than we had seen before.

I agree with the first half of this, but I saw the second part as an attempt to retcon elements that should have been shown -- not told -- before last season.
[> [> [> Mmm--not sure about your last statement -- HonorH, 11:03:35 11/29/02 Fri

From ME's perspective, there was no need to show more of Spike's former nastiness. We'd seen him viciously attacking Buffy and her friends from his first appearance in S2 all the way up to "The Initiative". In "Lover's Walk," as in "The Initiative," he made sexual comments to Willow (who was, one notes, around Dawn's age) as well as threatening her with fanginess. It's a tossup as to whether he wanted, in "Lover's Walk," to rape her, bite her, or both. Also, in "Smashed," the first person he went after when he thought his chip had stopped working was a young woman who rather favored Dawn.

The only reason--the only one--that it might have been necessary to show and not tell what Spike told Buffy in the basement was that some people have already retconned Spike's past. They've made him into Fluffy Bunny Spike, who never really did anything terrible. Spike's words should have come as no surprise to anyone. As it is, I fear the Denialists are already rationalizing them as an exaggeration to get Buffy to stake him.
[> [> [> [> Agreeing with Sophist... -- KdS, 11:18:31 11/29/02 Fri

I think that if ME intended not to downplay Spike's evil they did a very bad job. I think there was plenty of evidence for people to consider Spike's past as being about relatively innocent battle killing and not sadistic torture - there's the speed of most of his kills in early S2, the oft-quoted "Not one for the pre-show" line in WML2, and the whole argument between him and Angelus in FFL. Also note that his worst threats against Willow in Lover's Walk were in a context where they could be explained by him wanting her to do something for him and not by motiveless cruelty.

And before you try to write me off as a die-hard redemptionist, I didn't think the attempted rape of Buffy was out of character, and I never believed that doing heroic deeds for people you liked were enough to qualify you as good.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Not agreeing with Sophist... -- ponygirl, 11:39:31 11/29/02 Fri

I think we and ME must bow down to dramatic conventions in portraying the pre-soul Spike. There was simply no way to have Spike as a regular, sympathetic (at least grant him a semi-sympathetic) character if his past crimes had been graphically depicted. It would have made Scooby interactions with him that much more implausible, and given unwanted weight to his every scene. Since we now have a clear line between Spike of seasons past and current Spike - that being the soul-- it is no longer necessary to hold back on his past crimes. It's the same principle that allows Angelus to be depicted as having been the scariest vamp in all the land, while having Angel as a champion of the people- - it shows the contrast between past and present, and gives both our souled vamps more grist for the angst mill. And in Spike's case it makes his decision to seek a soul that much more remarkable.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Does that mean I can't agree with you? (Spoilers 7.9) -- Sophist, 13:45:51 11/29/02 Fri

Cuz I do. I think.

My only point was that Spike's implied references to rape in his past would have set the stage better for SR if we had been given them earlier. That would, of course, have raised exactly the problem you point out. It would be as if we had seen Angel, Darla and the gypsy girl before S2. We'd never have accepted B/A if we had; nor would we have accepted Spike if the basement scene of NLM had taken place in S4.

To me, that's what a retcon is. The writers have taken a point they could not or did not make earlier and tried to re- write the history in order to satisfy current dramatic needs. I understand the dramatic convention, but I also don't see any reason to avoid pointing it out.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Does that mean I can't agree with you? (Spoilers 7.9) -- Sophie, 14:08:30 11/29/02 Fri

Hmmmm...but we did get hints about how evil Angel was back during Season 2 - in "Lie to Me" Angel makes his destruction of Dru quite clear to Buffy and us, the audience.

Thank you for defining "retcon" - it is not in my ancient dictionary.

S
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agreeing with your agreement - sorta -- ponygirl, 14:16:48 11/29/02 Fri

Now was it retcon or just choosing to reveal or confirm character information when the plot calls for? I guess that's where we'll disagree. As Sophie points out we did get to hear what Angelus did to Dru as early as Lie To Me, but we don't actually see it until well into AtS' run, when we had a lot more invested in the character of Angel.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I think I agree with everyone -- Slain, 15:41:50 11/29/02 Fri

So possibly I'm not reading the posts carefully enough!

The introduction of Spike's character has always stuck in my head when I think of him - most people remember the lovey- dovey-S&M of Spike and Dru, but I remember the references to him being 'worse than Angelus'. I've always imagined him as similar to the protagonist of 'A Clockwork Orange' (the book, not Kubrick's film) - not adverse to doing any evil, providing there was fun it. With this in mind, I never understood the assertion that there were things Spike would never do, as they went against his character. So his attempting to rape Buffy didn't surprise me, because I'd always thought there was more to Spike than a little light torture and some friendly brawling.

However, if we deliberately forget the reference to Spike's past in Season 2, and go entirely on what we've seen on screen, then it is a retcon. Spike has rarely had the opportunity to be Spike. In a handful of episodes in Season 2 he's dangerous, but after that he becomes disabled, then lovelorn, then chipped, then souled. Spike has rarely had the opportunity to be himself, to do what he's trully capable of; he's always been in the power of others (Dru, Angel, The Initative, Buffy, The First).

So in this way, Spike's lines are a retcon, a way of reminding us that what Spike has to atone for is not just what we've seen him do by far, but everything that happened before he ever came to Sunnydale. The question is of course, Should we have been told about Spike before, should we have always looked at him and thought of him as a rapist and a sadist (rather than simply a masochist)? I don't think so. I think, up until Season 6, that kind of real evil wasn't part of BtVS. We've had glimpses of it, but until recently M.E. haven't gone that far for fear of compromising the lightness of the show. Marti Noxon, of course, doesn't care about that - which is why BtVS is staying fresh and powerful this season. It's prepared to do things it wouldn't have done before which, for the characters, is probably bad news!

To address Mal's second point, I've always thought that soulless Spike unjustly blamed others for his problems. Initially, I thought souled Spike seemed to be selfish, particularly in BY, and to be concerned only with his own pain. But I don't think that's the case; initially, like Angel, he couldn't get past his own pain, but I think he's rapidly got over this.

For me his desire for death shows explicitly that he is fully willing to take responsiblity for his own actions, even actions another person might claim were without blame (the killings under the influence of the First Evil). While Angel outwardly claims that the actions of Angelus are not lawfully his own, that he is a different person, Spike seems to accept total responsibility for everything he has done, while souled or not. It can seem like self-pity, but I don't think it is. Self-loathing, as Spike says, is more appropriate.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I think I agree with everyone -- leslie, 16:46:05 11/29/02 Fri

I've always thought that there are several aspects of the contrast between Spike's reputation and what we have seen him do. First, as I have suggested before, he is *really* obsessed with reputation, his own and that of "his tribe." What is interesting is that since he got the soul, he really doesn't care so much what other people think about him (except Buffy)--he is too overwhelmed with what *he* thinks of himself, and it isn't good. That's a major change. However, his obsession with reputation means that we have to keep two things in mind regarding his reputation before we have a chance to see his actual actions: 1) he is invested in making sure that his reputation is "good," i.e., good for a vampire, so we have to factor in the possibility that he has exaggerated his reputation and he has not done anything to counteract its inflation by others, and 2) that he would do things that would give him that reputation simply in order to gain it, and doing those things would be enjoyable not only for the pleasure of the moment but for the long- term boost to his reputation that they would create.

However, whatever he may have done in the past and for whatever reasons, he actually hasn't done most of it in the last 6 years. When he arrives in Sunnydale, his sole focus is getting Dru well and doing whatever is needed to accomplish that. From the moment the organ falls on him, he begins, as Slain points out, to be disabled on one way or another. That changes him, but for all we know, he was beginning to change even before he arrived in Sunnydale, perhaps he's been changing constantly his whole vampiric life. Looking for what is going to give him the best reputation, whatever reputation he wants at that time.

At the same time, the things he confesses to Buffy seem to be the things that he is most ashamed of, not just that they are the things he thinks will most shock her. And what they are about is not just killing people--women--but using his vampirism to express his power over them--death, sex, making them do and experience things they don't want to do. Which is exactly what the First Evil is now doing to him--he does not just feel ashamed in retrospect, he is currently suffering what he has inflicted on others. "It's about power."

I really don't see that he is blaming Buffy for his current problems at all--he is agreeing with everything she said to him last year and telling her that he didn't understand her then and he understands it now. Except, she too has started to change and so what she felt last year isn't what she feels now, so she's still in the position of saying "No, that isn't it--you don't understand me."
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I think I agree with everyone -- aliera, 16:58:40 11/29/02 Fri

Thanks for the reminder on the reputation aspect, leslie. (I also very much enjoyed your thoughts in alcibiades thread below). One thing I was wondering (irrespective of the truth of his past crimes)...is there a possibility that either what he told her or how he did it was a serious attempt on his part to get her to kill him? That's what struck me about the cellar scene that he's reached the point of dying again and that what's happening now and in the future with the First will bring us the end of this set of trials and a further transformation.

I am reminded of the criticisms of his trials late last season...some people thought they should have been harder and more in the pyschological arena which is what I think we're seeing now. I also wonder if Spike's souling wasn't part of the plan...of those opposing Buffy that is.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I think I agree with everyone -- leslie, 18:51:05 11/29/02 Fri

Frankly, I think it didn't matter to him one way or another whether she killed him; what was important was that she knew the truth, as he perceived it in his self-loathing.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I think I agree... -- aliera, 06:57:21 11/30/02 Sat

I'll definitely agree that he was trying to convey that. Thanks for the response. :-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'm not so sure -- slain, 09:37:12 11/30/02 Sat

I agree that Spike wanted Buffy to know the truth, and to understand why it is that he hates himself. However I also thing he was telling these things in the hope that Buffy would be able to distance herself from him, to kill him if necessary. In BY he seems to want Buffy to love him, but I think now he's more concerned, in a very selfless way, in allowing Buffy to set herself apart from him.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Leslie - you summed up my problem... -- KdS, 03:43:46 11/30/02 Sat

not just killing people--women--but using his vampirism to express his power over them--death, sex, making them do and experience things they don't want to do

That to me was what seemed to be the difference between Spike and Angelus, and what the retcon was all about. Previously we've seen Spike killing people, but seeming to be enjoying the conflict rather than the pain - he killed people for food and kicks but never seemed to be interested in degrading them in the way Angelus did. Dru had very sadistic tendencies but we always got the impression that Spike allowed her to express them but didn't actually take part. There's very brief hints of it in the way he toys with Wimp!Buffy in Halloween but I dismissed that as early days with the character not fully formed in the writers' minds (and I get the impression a lot of other people did as well).

So I still say retcon.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> It wasn't true retcon -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:14:37 11/30/02 Sat

It would be retcon if they had said before that he specifically never engaged in rape or torture. I always thought retcon was where a writer introduces a new fact that contradicts a perviously established fact. In Spike's case, the writers are introducing that Spike did rape and torture, but they can do it without retconning since they never said otherwise.

Also, well, I always just kind of ASSUMED that Spike did things like that. And, when he said "cause what's the point if they don't cry" that struck me as something that he learned from Angelus, and we all know that a lot of what Spike has done is an attempt to live up to the reputation of his Sire.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I think it was. Here's the definition. -- Sophist, 10:09:04 11/30/02 Sat

From the Jargon Dictionary:

retcon /ret'kon/ [short for `retroactive continuity', from the Usenet newsgroup rec.arts.comics] 1. n. The common situation in pulp fiction (esp. comics or soap operas) where a new story `reveals' things about events in previous stories, usually leaving the `facts' the same (thus preserving continuity) while completely changing their interpretation. For example, revealing that a whole season of "Dallas" was a dream was a retcon.

Given this definition, I'd say it qualifies.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I think it was. Here's the definition. -- slain, 10:33:24 11/30/02 Sat

Assuming it qualifies as a retcon, I think we're agreed that it doesn't contradict anything. In the DVD commentary for 'Innocence' (I think it was) Joss talks about the way he writes, about how he thinks up good ideas, than goes back to fit them in; such as how Jenny Callendar and the revenge of the gypsies makes sense in the context of Angel's curse and going evil. Joss can do retcons, and if he didn't then the series would be rather stale, I would argue. Unlike a film, everything can't be planned; if he wants to make a character more evil, gay, have a sister or be called Aud he has to reconnoitre. I don't see why that's a bad thing, if that's what you're suggesting.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I do agree up to a point -- Sophist, 14:01:44 11/30/02 Sat

There certainly was no contradiction between "Spike raped little girls" and anything we've actually been shown or told. OTOH, that image is inconsistent with the image of Spike I personally had. Not that he wasn't evil, just that I never saw him as evil in that way. Obviously, those who had different images of pre-SR Spike will have different takes on this.

I will say (and I've said this before) that I am not aware of anyone, at any time before SR, describing Spike as evil because he was a rapist. To me, a good story build up allows for the development of story lines in the way you suggest, but before the key event. In this sense, I'm inclined to think that retconning this point at this time is somewhat disingenuous.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I do agree up to a point -- slain, 10:59:13 12/01/02 Sun

I see - whereas for myself, I like storylines which don't necessarily follow with the narrative flow, as they seem more realistic to me.

Perhaps ultimately it depends on how much stock you set on Spike's introduction. Maybe because I've had Season 2 on DVD for some time, I've been therefore watching those episodes in context with Season 6; so my image of Spike has always been that he was worse than Angelus, that anything he could do, Spike could do better. So my image of Spike is based, in part, on the image of Angelus; and Angelus was always portrayed as deeply evil, and not adverse to sexual violence. But I don't think many people would argue that through the vast majority of Spike's time on screen, including Season 2, the idea that he had committed acts of sexual violence was at most implicit, not explicit.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Leslie - you summed up my problem... -- Miss Edith, 09:41:03 11/30/02 Sat

Personally I saw Spike in Halloween as consistent with the character. I have never thought of Spike as a sexual predator but I don't think there's much doubt that Spike does get off on violence and is a predetor in that way. In his first introduction in School Hard both him and Buffy approach each other like wild jungle cats stalking their prey.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Since we didn't really see what he did..? -- luna, 12:11:32 12/02/02 Mon

Of course, one additional thought is that Spike could be the good old unreliable narrator. Maybe the things he did that were so "evil" in his mind were really just the things we've seen him do. The only detail he gives is the one about not killing them quickly. That's horrible, granted, but I don't know for sure that dying from loss of blood is painful, physically.

It could be that the influence of FE is to make him see himself as worse than he really is--for various possible reasons--make him despair of ever being acceptable as human again, etc.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Since we didn't really see what he did..? -- leslie, 13:16:59 12/02/02 Mon

Good point, since the contrast between the flashback scenes and Spike's actual narration in Fool For Love show him to be, indeed, an unreliable narrator--one who explicitly describes what he is doing as "narration" rather than, say, "truth." On the other hand, isn't that aspect precisely what has been knocked out by the soul? On the other other hand, these confessions aren't really "narrations," they're statements, and I think that in the end, what matters may not be so much what he actually did (I'm not being callous here) but how he now feels about it, i.e., completely wretched. No matter what the degree of his previous evil, it seems silly to cavil over the precise degrees of depravity to which he sank; he feels that it was unforgivable, and he needs Buffy to know that.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Since we didn't really see what he did..? -- Tess, 19:52:48 12/02/02 Mon

""Maybe the things he did that were so "evil" in his mind were really just the things we've seen him do. The only detail he gives is the one about not killing them quickly""

Actually this was shown once kinda, in Harsh Light of Day, Spike had chained a human up for his minions to eat. Spike told Harmony to eat him and not go out, and she'd complained because he wasn't fresh.

It actually had always confused me about how quickly most victims are sucked dry, yet when Angel bit Buffy it took forever and still didn't kill her. And I'm not sure what show but I seem to remember either Spike or Angel once saying something about being able to keep someone alive for weeks. Of course, that coulda been Angel talking about torturing someone.

The first time I heard Spike reveal the depths of evil to Buffy in NLM, I immediately thought 'he's channeling Angelus'. Which made sense since Spike learned how to be a vampire at Angelus' knee. I imagine he tried everything Angelus suggested before deciding which way his juices flowed. One of the big conflicts between Spike and Angelus was that Spike lacked the patience to go for the slow pain.

I also don't see Spike raping a victim in front of Dru, but she mighta got into that, and anything Dru enjoyed, Dru got... so maybe. However, I do see Angelus and Spike spending the night hunting and raping while Darla and Dru are out doing their own version of a bloody shopping spree.

I imagine that over the years, Spike's done every evil deed that can be imagine and he's probably so desperate not to feel the guilt of having been the Big Bad, and fearful of doing evil again that he'd fling his worse deeds in Buffy's face and exaggerate them in the process.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Since we didn't really see what he did..? -- Valheru, 00:05:24 12/03/02 Tue

Yes, this is my first post. And yes, you all just blow me away. =P

The "what I did to girls Dawn's age" statement is more than likely a metaphor. I actually find it rather odd that so many astute watchers as yourselves didn't catch that. The vampires of BtVS (and really, vampirism in general, as any "Dracula" scholar would mention) allude to rape not as the sexual act that we humans perceive, but as the fatal act that the vampires perform. They "rape" someone when they bite them.

The first scene(s) that spring to mind in this regard are the "moment of true happiness" in "Surprise" and the "cure" for Angel's poison in "Graduation Day, Part 2." "Innocence" was, in some ways, Buffy and Angel's sexual act. "Graduation Day" was Angelus's sexual act. The imagery in that scene, from the positions that Angel and Buffy take on the floor to Buffy's orgasmic reactions, is all very suggestive of sex. Did they really have sex in "Graduation Day?" Well, no, but the metaphor was there.

Skip ahead to "The Initiative" for Spike's unforgettable scene with Willow. Again, we see the strongly metaphorical allusion that Spike is trying to rape Willow, when in truth, all (heh) he's trying to do is bite her.

Then go to "Fool for Love." Spike's entire relation to the Slayers is reminiscently sexual. They fight. He wins. He tastes their blood ("You ever hear them saying the blood of a Slayer is a powerful apohrodisiac?"). "Dancing" with Buffy started out simply meaning "fighting," but at the end, it turned out Spike was trying to suggest something more intimate.

But...well, I don't need to go into details with you guys (posting on some of the other boards I have, I swear some people will argue until you show them the actual shooting script). Suffice it to say, Spike may not have meant that he actually "raped" girls Dawn's age, just that he did something that, to vampires, it a suitable replacement for rape. In his mind, he did rape the girls, but to Buffy (or at least Xander), what he did might not appear to be anything more than killing. Of course, this also brings up a question of how vampires view "actual" rape, which could open up a can of worms regarding "Seeing Red" that isn't especially relevant to this discussion, so I'll shut up now and let you guys pick me to pieces with your prehensile socks. :)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Welcome. Good point (Spoilers for 7.9) -- Sophist, 08:38:06 12/03/02 Tue

Somewhere in this thread, leslie did make the point about the biting/sex metaphor. Ironically for your post, she used that metaphor to make the opposite point -- that many of Spike's previous kills should be seen as metaphorical rape, so that rape is entirely in character for him (I hope I got that right, leslie).

While I don't doubt the biting/sex metaphor, I don't think it applies to Spike either way. For one thing, Spike's statement in NLM was clearly intended to suggest something different than a standard vampire kill complete with metaphor. For another, rape is a very important social issue. I think it's incumbent on us to make the distinction between metaphor and reality in order not to obscure the tragedy of rape. I would not at all equate the scenes in The Initiative and SR; to me, they are very different.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Welcome. Good point (Spoilers for 7.9) -- leslie, 08:56:43 12/03/02 Tue

"Somewhere in this thread, leslie did make the point about the biting/sex metaphor. Ironically for your post, she used that metaphor to make the opposite point -- that many of Spike's previous kills should be seen as metaphorical rape, so that rape is entirely in character for him (I hope I got that right, leslie)."

Actually, I think that we're both making the same point, that the overlap between biting and sex is so large for vampires that the literal and the metaphorical applications of the term "rape" are somewhat moot.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Okay, I agree with you. -- HonorH, 17:50:19 11/29/02 Fri

Been searching for who to agree with, and I've gotta say, Slain, you appear to be it. At the moment, at least. I'm notoriously fickle.
[> [> [> [> [> What exactly are you saying is new about his actions -- Dan The Man, 11:54:22 11/29/02 Fri

I agree that Spike wasn't the same type of killer that Angelus is. He didn't kill entire families of his victims just to torment them. He did, however; kill a lot of people, and enjoy it. He got off on it. In Fool For Love, the scene with Dru after he kills the slayer is absolutely horrid in its nature (Doug Petrie was surprised they could air it).
One thing that he says in Never Leave Me, is that he know exactly how much blood it takes to kill someone and he enjoyed their screams. The other thing that he said is that he did horrible things to girls Dawn's age. Well, I for one believe that Spike raped some of his victims. The whole idea of a vampire attack is so close to that anyway, remember Spike's attack on Willow in The Initiative(4.7), and also see that enjoying the girl's screams is not out of character for an individual who has said these words: "Somewhere out here is the (cut to Buffy running down the alley) *tenderest* meat you've *ever* tasted, and all *we* have to do is find her first!"(Halloween(2.6))

So I don't see where the problem is. Perhaps, you guys could explain this to me.

Dan The Man
[> [> [> [> [> [> I don't see it either (spoilers for Seeing Red) -- VR, 13:54:49 11/29/02 Fri

For me, personally, I would have loved to have seen at least one thing or at least allude to what he's done to girls dawn's age. Maybe in a flashback. Some people find the bathroom scene with buffy to be disturbing. I, however, thought it was good and was, and still am, glad they had it in. I know a lot of people aren't interested, but I would have been.
[> [> [> [> [> [> The vampire is a twisted version of the human -- shadowkat, 14:26:06 11/29/02 Fri

Okay - first of all, the problem is that we have seen more on Angel, because, well he is the star of his own show and ME has literally told us just about everything about his back story. We know a LOT less about Spike, because Spike is a supporting character to Buffy and we only learn as much as is necessary to reveal more about Buffy's journey.
The difference between a supporting character and a lead in a nutshell.

As a result - humans being what they are - can't help but compare the two characters - and yes, Angel comes across as worse, ensouled and without a soul than Spike does with a chip or without a soul. We see Angel do worse things and more vicious things - why? Because Angel was a lead character. It does not mean Spike didn't do horrible things.
But you have to remember Spike was incapicitated during most of Season 2 - wheel-chair bound and had a chip during the last three years. He's right when he tells Buffy she didn't really see the Real him. She did - but only in four or five episodes. Angel- OTOH - sort of made him pale by comparison. Nothing Spike did in School Hard through What's my Line came close to the pain and suffering Angelus wrought after Surprise. But that's because Angelus was the lead - Spike a supporting role.

Anyways: as Rufus has posted numerous times - and hopefully I haven't memorized it wrong - when the demon takes the human, the soul goes and is replaced by a "beast" - something twisted and connected to evil. Without the personality and traits of the human, we would get the uber- vamp we see at the end of NLM or the beast Angel becomes in Pylea. The pure vampire. But the infection results in a person who instead of a soul now has the evil equivalent of one, a bestial craving, an evil desire to hurt and maim. How that new hybrid - human personality/heart and vampiric craving evil desire decides to maim and torture has to do with what hurt that person most when they were ensouled. What their fears and torments were. And which vampire you identify most with? Depends on what your past and present fears and torments are.

William's fears and torments were NOT his family. What we are shown in FFL is his fears and torments were the result of "peer" and "female" rejection. The girls made him cry. They raped him emotionally. Leading him on then telling him he was beneath them. We get a tiny glimsp of this through Cecily. Also we see how his peers treat him.

Spike is the demonic result of that. "We call him William the Bloody for his Bloody Awful Poetry, I'd rather have a Spike through my head than listen to more of that." How much you want to bet the reason Spike, Angelus, Dru and Darla are in hiding shortly after the siring of Spike is that Spike decided to torture all his former tormentors with Spike's through the head. Heck - I would have fantasized doing it. Starting with the balding aristocrat.

This btw is similar to Anya - who becomes a twisted version of vengence when she is turned into a demon. Taking something mentioned metaphorically and making it a literal hell. I felt as if my heart was ripped out? Okay rip out the heart of those who did it to you.

Spike raped, seduced, and dumped women in the same way Cecily did him. "It wasn't worth it if they didn't cry.." he says in a pained voice. Why? Because at one time they made him cry. He loved women, but they rejected him. So as a demon he hurts them back, makes them feel what he did, but a far more twisted literal version of it. The demonic twist. He does to them what would never have occurred to him to do as a human, something he couldn't bear to have done with a soul. Without a soul? No self-loathing. No pain. No problem.

At any rate - I think what the writers have done is an interesting thing - they are showing how without a conscience, without the capacity to feel guilt or remorse, and being filled with evil cravings - we enact those tortures that hurt us most when alive.

Liam - hated his family. His father rejected him. So he stole his father's silver. His father said he'd go to hell, so he sent his father there. But killing his father never resolved the pain. Now he's reliving this anguish through his son. Angel really focuses on family problems. And the most important thing to Angel? Family. Being a part of one.
We see that in DEEP DOWN with the dinner table. And he is in a sense trying to build the family with Cordy and Connor.
Angel's worst crimes? Always against family. He grabs Buffy's father figure - or as he states, "your old man" and tortures him. In fact it is Jenny - Buffy's surrogate mother figure that he kills in Passion - or Buffy's surrogate father's love. And when he becomes Angelus again - he reconstructs his vamp family: Spike (the kid), Dru (the mom). And notice he treats Spike the same way he treats Connor and the same way his father treated him. Even in flashbacks - Angel is a vicious representation of his father.


Spike in contrast is the lust demon. The sexual predator.
He rapes and seduces women. He is also the animus in Jung - or as M.L Franz states the animus as death. Death comes as a suitor to the maiden and she dies. The woman who has a negative relationship with her father? Has a negative relationship with her animus. In Buffy - a negative animus is shown as strong at times self-righteous opinions and a tendency to act first, think later and not move away from narrow-mindedness.

Both Angel and Spike have acted as forms of Buffy's animus.
One as death or the monster lover who wishes to consume you.
One as the self-righteous, rule/dictator, disapproving father who punishes you. We see her negative relationship with Angel in Season 2 and part of Season 3, we see it in Spike in Season 6.

So for Angel - the worst evil is raping and murdering and destroying an entire family. It's what he does to Holtz's family and what Holtz does to his. (Compare Holtz - the human version of Angel to Warren as the human version of Spike - the human version is far more despicable, possibly because the demonic is more metaphorical?)

For Spike the worst evil is raping and hurting a girl. NOT an entire family - to Spike that's excessive. He'd rather take out a frat house. Or kill the slayer. Kill the girl who resists him yet also wants it. The challenge. For Spike it's about conquering the girl. (See Passion - where Spike tells Angelus to kill Buffy and how Angelus is nuts for going after her family instead.) For Angel it's about conquering the father. Both are coming face to face with their monsters - Spike did in Seeing Red - the attempted rape, in Sleeper - with the memory of dead girls and rejection of the girlvamp at the Bronze. Angel did in Tommorrow with his son sending him to the ocean and now in Apocalyspe NoWish with his son betraying him with Cordy.

And like I said - it depends on where your own pain and suffering lies on which characters redeemption and path means the most to you.

For me? I prefer Spike's - that one makes sense to me on numerous levels. Angel's I can't identify with, so I watch it with less emotional involvement. Luckily - they are on two different shows and separate networks. So the two journeys? Really don't effect each other in ANY way.
They run parallel not counter. So you can more or less pick and choose which one to follow.

Not sure if that adds insight or not.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I like your insight! -- HonorH, 14:56:43 11/29/02 Fri

It makes perfect sense for Spike. He does tend to go for women a great deal, and his relationships with women are twisted. Drusilla was his insane mother/lover/child. Harmony was his used and abused girlfriend. Buffy and Spike were death to each other.

Spike was also massively overcompensating his first few years as a vampire. I can see him trying to out-Angelus Angelus, and trying out every perversion he's ever heard of, just to see what it's like. Also, Dru wouldn't be any barrier to him raping women. Heck, she'd probably have instigated it and participated.

So really, there's no reason why Spike *wouldn't* have done exactly what he implied.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I do believe it adds muchly :) -- Slain, 15:49:43 11/29/02 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks SK another great post! -- aliera, 16:32:12 11/29/02 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The vampire is a twisted version of the human - - cougar, 20:57:50 11/29/02 Fri

Shadowkat I had to print that one up to save. Spike as th personification of a negative animus complex. My question to you is how do you see Giles fitting in to that picture. Was he not an excellent father substitute that Buffy could at least partially internalize? Also what would it take for Buffy to psychologically unite with a healthy animus?

I am feeling a little dence and blocked about your post. I recognize something of myself in it but have a hard time clarifying it yet, very curious.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The vampire is a twisted version of the human - - shadowkat, 06:31:25 11/30/02 Sat

First a huge disclaimer: I am no psychologist, what I know I've figured out from a book I picked up again over Thanksgiving holidays which I first read 14 years ago. The book is called: MAN & HIS SYMBOLS, it contains a series of introductory essays explaining how symbols effect our unconscious or relate to it. And it is put together by Carl G. Jung. The essay I was reading and taking the animus from is THE PROCESS OF INDIVIDUATION by M-L von Franz, who actually spends more time on the male version of this - the anima, then the one in the female. For better information on this concept, or rather more reliable information, check alcibades, leslie, and Caroline's posts. I'm a little surprised none of them corrected me yet - I'm always a tad worried about posting on this stuff, since I'm by no means an expert.

This is what I read that made me think of Spike in relation to Buffy and why I think "father" plays a role:

1. "The male personification of the unconscious in woman-the animus-exhibits both good and bad aspects, as does the anima in man. But the animus does not so often appear in the form of an erotic fantasy or mood; it is moore apt to take the form of a hidden "sacred" conviction. When such a conviction is preached with a loud, insistent, masculine voice or imposed on others by means of brutal emotional scenes, the underlying masculinity in a woman is easily recognized. However even in a woman who is outwardly feminine the animus can be an equally hard, inexorable power. One may suddenly find oneself up against something in a woman that is obstinate, cold, and completely inaccessible."

Here are two themes shown: "The only thing in the world that I want is love and he doesn't love me." or "In this situation there are only two possibilities and both are equally bad." According to Franz the animus never believes in exceptions.

Now - I'm not completely sure I agree with Franz on all of this, it feels like a male take on a woman's id, but whatever.

But the above description reminds me of Buffy - in respect to Angel/Parker as well as her dealings with Spike and Faith. She has a tendency at times to see things as black and white, but she fights it too.

2.Franz goes on to state: "Just as the character of a man's anima is shaped by his mother, so the animus is basically influenced by a woman's father. The father endows his daughter with the special coloring of unarguable, incontestably trrue convictions- convictions that never include the personal reality of the woman herself as she actually is."

This may relate to Giles - who has informed Buffy that Vampires= evil. That it is WRONG to do certain things. And she has a sacred duty that rises above all else. She can't love, she must slay. (Although I don't think Giles has really said this - but it may very well be her interpretation of what he said and according to Franz it's our interpretation that forms the animus.)

3.Franz goes on to state: "This is why the animus is sometimes like the anima, a demon of death. For example in a gypsy fairy tale, a handsome stranger is received by a lonely woman in spite of the fact that she has had a dream warning her that he is the king of the dead. After he has been with her for a time, she presses him to tell her who he really is. At first he refuses, saying that she will die if he tells her. She insists, however, and suddenly he reveals to her that he is death, himself. The woman immediately dies of fright."

This reminds me a lot of the scene of Spike killing the women in Sleeper. It also reminds me of Buffy boinking Spike last year. Examples of this negative animus that Franz cites are: Heathcliff,Bluebeard, a 19th century highwayman. Franz states that animus doesn't always just take the form of death-demon but also robber.

The death -demon =psychologically "represents a particular form of the animus that lures women away from all human relationships and especially from all contacts with real men. He personifies a cocoon of dreamy thoughts, filled with desire and judgements about how things "ought to be" which cut a woman off from the reality of life."

Makes me think of the Spike/Buffy relationship in Season 6, where Spike literally separates Buffy from her life and friends. Also makes me think of Angel who in Season 3 - does somewhat the same thing. (Revealations)

4.the robber or hiwayman or bluebeard or in Btvs? Angelus: "In this form the animus personifies all those semiconscious cold destructive reflections that invade a woman in the small hours, especially when she has failed to realize some obligation of feeling." Buffy's anger towards her family and father - could be seen in the form of Angelus and her more positive desires in the form of Angel. Her remorse for feeling this way is represented in Amends.
Just as her remorse for the Spike representation can be seen in Never Leave Me - with the dangerous animus chained once again to the wall.

5.But the animus does "NOT only consist of negative qualities such as brutality, recklessness, empty talk, and silent, obstinate, evil ideas. He too has a very positive and valuable side; he too can build a bridge to the Self through his creative activity."

Example of turning negative animus to postive: Beauty and the Beast, or the prince who has been turned into witchcraft into a wild animal. In Btvs - the vampire who claims his soul - is possibly a representation of the animus becoming positive. A postive animus can aid a woman and be a helpful companion. As Franz states: "if she realizes who and what her animus is and what he does to her, and if she faces these realities instead of allowing herself to be possessed, her animus can turn into an invaluable inner companion who endows her with the masculine qualities of initiative, courage, objectivity, and spiritual wisdom."

I see this happening with Spike at the moment. But like in real life this conscious attention takes much time and involves a lot of suffering.

Spike starts out as the negative animus in Season 6, at the end of Season 6 when Buffy starts to emerge from her depression, Spike claims his soul, he's on his way but not quite - being chained in the basement, yet the fact that she tells him she believes in him and he can be a better man is a sign that she is beginning to accept that part of herself. Possibly Giles' return at the end of Season 6 and her ability to unload and his laughter, helped free her.
It is fitting that it is not until after Giles returns (Giles symbolizes in some ways the positive aspects) that Spike gets his soul, Buffy emerges from her depression and Willow stops her dark magics.

Anyways this was my take. I'm sure the Jung experts on the board will rip it to shreds. (Please don't hurt me.) Also please correct me if I'm wrong. I see aspects of myself in this as well, quite a few actually and discussing it is a way of figuring it out.

(All quotes are taken from The Process of Individuation by M.L von Franz, pp.157-254, MAN & HIS SYMBOLS, edited by Carl G. Jung, (c) 1964 Aldus Books, Ltd.)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The vampire is a twisted version of the human - - leslie, 10:31:29 11/30/02 Sat

Well, I think you did a) a great job of fitting Buffy and Spike into the paradigm presented by von Franz, and b) hitting on the slight problem with that paradigm (it sounds an awful lot like a male view of the female psyche rather than an insider's, female view). I especially agree that Spike + soul = road to individuation--for both himself and Buffy.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The vampire is a twisted version of the human - - cougar, 12:05:32 11/30/02 Sat

Your first quote about hidden sacred conviction sounded like the birthplace of the Buffy character, I am curious to what extent Joss + co. ar consciously aware of these poinnts or is the source of their arcs more archetypal, just arising from their own psyches. I last read any Marie Louisse Franz or origional Jung over a year ago and only discovered Buffy six monthes ago this week. I have now seen all the episodes. I haven't been able to apply Jungian theory too analiticaly yet. Thank you for your superb responce! The quotes you selected are essential and they are well illustrated. You sort of lead me to the right door for some exploration.

I have to give this aspect of the show (and myself) some conscious attention. I lost my own father this last year and have spent a lot of energy since untangling what in myself arose from his influence. It was not since Giles left "wish I could play the father, but now that time has passed" that Buffy could enter her dark relationship with Spike that led to their both integrating new aspects of their selves. I hope the show's writing advances on this level this season.

I have had a few dreams where I become Buffy, Spike says things I need to know but it is Xander who represents something I need to integrate to give me a sence of peace/securiy/ unity. Sometimes he is all encompasing love, sometimes a brave but humane soldier.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> My favorite ML Von Franz quote -- Rufus, 20:25:55 11/30/02 Sat

"The word redemption should not be associated with the Christian dogma and theology, where it is a concept with so many connotations. In fairytales, redemption refers specifically to a condition where someone has been cursed or bewitched and through certain happenings or events in the story is redeemed. This is a very different condition from that in the Christian idea." The Psychological Meaning of Redemption Motifs in Fairytales by Marie-Louise Von Franz


I feel comfortable in quoting VonFranz as Whedon and Co use elements of the fairytale in their work. I think the main confusion about Spike is that people think of redemption in the Christian way. Spike and any vampire is to me the result of a curse, they may act out their human insecurities but they are still the way they are by means beyond the natural.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> More to that quote........Was there a Duck? -- Rufus, 20:42:00 11/30/02 Sat

The type of curse can vary. A being in a myth or fairytale is generally condemned to assume an animal form or to be an ugly old woman or man who, through the process of redemption, turns into a prince or princess again. There are certain types of cold and warm-blooded animals, frequently the bear, the wolf or lion, or birds - the duck, the raven, dove or swan, or owl - or it may be a snake. In other cases someone is cursed and thereby forced to do evil and be destructive, without desiring to act in this manner. For instance, a princess has to kill all her lovers, but in the end, when redeemed, she will say the curse forced her into such behavior, but that is now over. These are the main types of evil fate which befall a person in a fairytale and from which he or she is redeemed. The Psychological Meaning of Redemption Motifs in Fairytales by Marie-Louise Von Franz


For the purposes of the show, I consider the vampire to be someone condemned to be a demon hybrid, and because of the state they are in forced to do things they would not normally do as a human. Angel and Spike have been partially redeemed in that their soul has been returned and they are able to choose their actions. But they are still cursed in that they are still demon hybrids. It is through the trials they endure that they regain their humanity past the return of the soul. Note the animals mentioned in the quote...VonFranz missed out on the bunnies but there are only so many animals she can mention...;)

It is clear that it is through Spike and Angels interactions with other people that the redemption is achieved. They can't do it alone. This is why you see Angel with his friends, and Spike seeking out Buffy.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Great quotes! Much appreciated. -- Indri, 20:58:49 11/30/02 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: More to that quote.......a fairy tale she uses -- shadowkat, 07:23:56 12/01/02 Sun

I agree - and Whedon and Co. do make creative use of fairy tales - Hush's gentleman was taken from fairy tales as were the children in Gingerbread.

Here's an example that ML Von Franz uses from an Austrian folk tale:

"A king has ordered soliders to keep the night watch beside the corspe of a black princess, who has been bewitched. Every midnight she rises and kills the guard. At last one solider whose turn it is to stand guard, despairs, and runs away into the woods. There he meets an "old guitarist who is our Lord Himself." This old musician tells him where to hide in the church and instructs him on how to behave so that the black princess cannot get him. With this divine help the solider actually manages to redeem the princess and marry her."

Franz analyzes the story thusly: "Clearly the old quitarist who is our Lord Himself is in psychological terms, a symbolic personification of the Self. With his help the ego avvoids destruction and is able to overcome-and even redeem- a highly dangerous aspect of his anima."

Interesting. If you are primarily an Angel fan - we can see some of the same elements over in that show, except that the psyche being analyzed is Angel not Buffy. The male psyche.

Cordelia is a positive anima - the mother to his son and to the others in the group...and an invaluable companion until he attempts to initiate a romance with her - and whoops, she becomes weak and no longer positive

Darla is the negative one, who he manages to redeem and lift the curse from, partly by sleeping with her. Nice irony there. Instead of losing his soul by sleeping with Darla, Angel literally implants a soul in her.

Parallel to Buffy - by sleeping with and rejecting Spike - she sends him off to reclaim his soul.

The curse for both Spike and Darla starts to lift - with the reclamation of the soul.

This reminds me of one of my favorite Hans Christian Anderson stories - a less well known one - The Snow Queen.
The story is about two childhood friends, a boy and a girl, the boy gets a shard of an evil mirror in his eye and becomes cursed to see the world as horrible and to hate everyone, his heart freezes and he starts doing nasty things - finally to take off with the evil Snow Queen leaving the girl. The girl goes through many adventures in her journey to rescue him from the Snow Queen's palace. Eventually she does so and manages to knock the shard from his eye and unfreeze his heart - thus lifting the curse.

I see the same metaphors working in Btvs and Ats. With a constant war being fought over the cursed ones.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks, Rufus & S'kat! -- slain, 13:36:04 12/01/02 Sun

I also loved the Snow Queen as a child - I think there was something about the shard of ice in the eye which was unforgettable.

What I like about the fairytale comparison is that it allows the show to be simple; I think BtVS is often deliberately simple, and finds power through simplicity. That is, that the end of 'Sleeper' Spike can be redeemed, as can Willow at the end of the S6 finale, and while there are repurcussions, they don't get in the way of the character's arcs (that is, Willow is still able to be Willow, rather than being totally consumed with guilt). It also rationalises something I've been having trouble with lately; the fact that so many of the main characters have killed humans, or have nearly done so, to the point where I think only Dawn is innocent. The idea of the more self-contained fairytale fits with this, as it allows extreme events to happen in order to get a point across.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The vampire is a twisted version of the human - - JM, 20:27:44 11/30/02 Sat

Cougar,

Condolences.

Good read too on Giles' leaving as father figure. Thought that it might have provided a trigger, too.

Welcome to the world of all things Buffy!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The vampire is a twisted version of the human - - cougar, 21:30:22 11/30/02 Sat

Thanks JM

I just watched a documentary on Young Freud (not so good btw) but he made the point that, even in his intensely introspective life, It wasn't until the loss of his own father that he had to face certain things in himself. So I think that they took ASH 's departure (motivated in real life by the desire to be a more involved father in his daughters lives) and started taking Buffy to a new developmental level. She could never bring herself to wholeness with his unfailing male support. She had to loose it and find that side of herself, within herself.

I have to explore ML Von F over this break to be ready to recieve what ME and this board has to offer in the new year.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The vampire is a twisted version of the human - - Rufus, 02:44:00 11/30/02 Sat

How that new hybrid - human personality/heart and vampiric craving evil desire decides to maim and torture has to do with what hurt that person most when they were ensouled. What their fears and torments were. And which vampire you identify most with? Depends on what your past and present fears and torments are.

We don't get to know many vampires so we only have Spike, Angel, Dru, and Darla to base our opinions upon. I have said before that the vampire is the result of an infection....this infection causes the resulting hybrid to be an outcast in both demon and human worlds...not trusted by either. Vampires kill because they tend to get carried away when they attack unless they decide to make another little vampire. Blood is their food, but it is human blood they prefer. The last demon to leave this reality bit a human and created what we see today....but the vampires we see aren't "real" vampires but a shadow of what they could be. If I were a vampire I'd be getting out of Dodge or helping Buffy cause as they were created as a tool of revenge on humans, they also resemble what the Old Ones resent the most....so after wiping out mankind I could see them doing a little purification in the ranks.

Back to Spike....his introduction in School Hard establishes him as a very bad man, with a crazy girl-friend to impress.....

Willow: We can't run, that would be wrong. Could we hide? I mean, if that Spike guy is leading the attack, (shudders) yeeehehehe.

Giles: Well, he can't be any worse than any other creature you've faced.

Angel: (suddenly appears) He's worse. (they all look at him) Once he starts something he doesn't stop until everything in his path is dead.

Xander: Hmm. So, he's thorough, goal-oriented.

I like that, goal-oriented, and that he is....he wanted to be the Biggest Bad and was willing to do the worst he could to prove that fact. Sure some of his repuation may have been exageration, but I think killing lots of people, no matter how they got that dead, can't be ignored. And now Spike is going down memory lane and finds that all his mortal best qualities were twisted into a horror show. Only he understands fully what he has done and I think that there is so much there he can never fully put into words what he has been capable of. What Buffy is telling him is that it is worth an attempt to be better than he was, and having her kill him proves nothing, except that Buffy would have one less person there to lend a hand at a time when they need all the help they can get. Spike can't undo his bad deeds, but he can attempt to make sure that neither he or anyone he can potentially help stop, will add to the score.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The vampire is a twisted version of the human - - shadowkat, 06:52:13 11/30/02 Sat

(This is sort of a post to two different threads - on one your post regarding the first draft of Beneath You and the shooting Script of Sleeper and on the post above, apologize for any confusion it causes. ;-) )

Hmmm in reading your response - it feels as if this is the literal interpretation of what is going on while mine is the metaphorical/figurative interpretation. Which means both work and complement each other.

I've looked at the Shooting Script of Sleeper now and the part that was left out of Beneath You - the reason it was changed, I believe, is that Joss Whedon preferred more ambiguity - it presents more options, also he wanted to go for the metaphor over the literal, after all as he has said many times on FX blurbs - "demons don't really exist - we use them as metaphors". What I like about Btvs over most other shows on TV is the consistent attempts to be more metaphorical. (I think it is important to remember that Whedon rules the shows and any changes made? Are usually his, Marti is his second in command so to speak and I know from interviews that Whedon has gone over just about every Btvs and Ats script this year. So I've gotten in the habit of discarding stuff that has not made it to the screen b/c it did not fit what Whedon wished to show and present. Beneath You for example was written by PEtrie - Whedon changed it. Sleeper was written by Fury and Espenson, Whedon probably changed it again - going for a English Folk Song over the 1940's hit I'll Be Seeing You. Whedon is the one who decided Spike was madly in love with Buffy and it was true love - the other writers disagreed. Having worked briefly on a collaborative project - I can well understand the arguements, but I think overall I prefer Whedon's vision.)

But as I've said before - the best way of getting the show is to see all three levels of it. Which is very hard to do on your own. I often just catch one or two.

Three levels:
1. Literal - Buffyverse plot/formula/interpretation which you often post so well.
2. Metaphorical Myth, Historical, Literary Illusions - I tend to be better at this one. Although Manchurian Candidate fits here as well - so you've hit it too.
3. Metaphor for Real Life - here we get into Frued, bad boyfriends, teenage fears, etc.

So I agree with what you stated above, but I stand by my more metaphorical interpretation as well.

It's important the show operate on all levels since it gets a wider audience.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'm kinda a mix of both -- Rufus, 14:46:29 11/30/02 Sat

I think part of the reason the end of Beneath You was changed was it simply gave away too much too fast about Spike's state of mind. We have seen a good part of what Spike says in Beneath You spread out over the nine eps. So for the sake of keeping up the suspense over Spike they pared it down to the basics letting us fight over what we think they meant.

I play around with the metaphorical and the literal as it suits me, just like the writers in the show. There are certain terms like rape that people just can't get past in any way so the use of it has to be more carefully considered. I could write lots about the casual use of the term serial killer which for metaphorical creatures doesn't apply in the same way as in a real life character....namely a serial killer is usually sexually motivated and doesn't get an Angel type of epiphany and go on to fight for good. The use of the term in the show only proves how little the writers know about the subject.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I'm kinda a mix of both -- shadowkat, 15:25:23 11/30/02 Sat

I completely agree with you about the writers use of the term "serial killer", which btw only appears to be used by David Fury, who I would like to someday thrust into a room with a real life serial killer and see how the man deals.
You're right - serial killers don't get epiphanies. The closest this show has come to depicting a serial killer is probably Warren, who didn't have an epiphany.

I do have a question though - how do you know the source for that original script of Beneathe You is valid? Has anyone from ME said it was the original? I'm questioning it because when I check it against what happened before and after it - the script doesn't work. And it is completely out of character for Spike to be a) that rational with her,
b) that revealing, and c)that forthcoming.

If it is the original script - than yeah I agree with you, they probably felt the need to spread it out over time. But I have yet to see any proof that it isn't some script that some fan out there wrote and they are passing it off as Petrie's original version. (This came up when I read it to a friend of mine and they said - where did you get this and how do you know it's not just fanfiction? Got me thinking - it actually sounds a lot like some of the fanfic I've read.)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> And the myth persists... -- alcibiades, 15:47:19 11/30/02 Sat

Yes, the script is valid.
Yes, Doug Petrie wrote it.

A friend of mine who was lucky enough to be invited to much of the shooting of BY received a copy of the scene at the time.

I think it is weird that people keep wanting to believe that someone else wrote it, not Doug Petrie.

I actually like the original scene very much -- I like both versions. The first version has much more emphasis on Spike believing himself despised by God, with his inability to touch the cross without it burning him as a symbol of this. Personally, I find that fascinating.

The reason I heard for the fact that the scene was reshot was that SMG was unhappy with the way she came across in the original scene, where she reacts hardly at all to him after his revelation. WTP wrote a number of posts referring to the matter at the time.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: And the myth persists... -- Chris, 16:50:19 11/30/02 Sat

Where can I access the original Beneath You shooting script? I checks the BAPS site, but didn't see anything on the main page. Thanks.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: And the myth persists... -- Rufus, 18:29:00 11/30/02 Sat

Only that section that is already in a post below is what was at BAPS.....the only Shooting Script online at the moment is Sleeper.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: And the myth persists... -- Rufus, 18:32:05 11/30/02 Sat

I had information before the episode aired and it matched exactly what was printed at BAPS.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Keep in mind. . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:11:35 11/30/02 Sat

David Fury believes that a soulless being could not have an epiphany, so, given his stance that without a soul Spike was a permanently twisted and evil creature, the serial killer comparison does make sense.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Keep in mind. . . -- Rufus, 18:54:41 11/30/02 Sat

David Fury believes that a soulless being could not have an epiphany, so, given his stance that without a soul Spike was a permanently twisted and evil creature, the serial killer comparison does make sense.

I think Spike had an epiphany after the scene in the Bathroom in Seeing Red. This caused him to go get his soul. There are too many things to go into as to why a metaphorical creature and the reality of the "serial killer" don't mix. One of my chief objections is that these creeps have been glamorized enough, and if they use the term it also fits Angel meaning they have based a whole show upon a "Serial Killer"......doesn't sit well with me. The term is overused (I've even been an offender on this one)and abused...it trivializes the reality of what a serial killer is. Add on the fact that they have used the term to describe at least two characters who have gone on to "reform" themselves just pisses me off....a vampire is a metaphysical creation...isn't real...the problem with the serial killer is one that is real and if the writers want to use the term they better understand exactly what it means.

The term Serial Killer started out to be descriptive of someone who killed 2-3 or more victims....as the people in the business of catching them learned more about the phenomenon it became clear that the early definition was too simplistic. I find it hard to slap such a specific term on the metaphor of the vampire which is a creation that is meant to be used in the battle between good and evil, the blood drinking compared to an addiction (remember Angels reaction to minute amounts of Connors blood, Spikes use of the term 'juice'). I've seen the pain of the families of victims of real life serial killers and to use the term in a cult show is ignorant as it fosters an unrealistic view of a human reality.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Can we at least agree. . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:57:08 11/30/02 Sat

That the actions of a vampire are at least as morally evil as those perpetrated by human serial killers?

Also, I think that calling vampires "serial killers" was an attempt to de-romanticize vampires rather than to romanticize real life serial killers.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Can we at least agree. . . -- Rufus, 20:56:42 11/30/02 Sat

That the actions of a vampire are at least as morally evil as those perpetrated by human serial killers?

I find it hard to compare the evil acts because of the motivation and natures of the killers involved.

Also, I think that calling vampires "serial killers" was an attempt to de-romanticize vampires rather than to romanticize real life serial killers.

Well, the attempt has fallen flat with me. For one.....they have put attractive men in roles where they get the women they want and though cursed go on the be the "hero"....so as far as I'm concerned the use of the term serial killer has not de-romanticized the vampire as much as it has romanticized the "serial killer" by the association with heroic types such as Spike (even Whedon said he did heroic things to Petrie for The Initiative) and Angel.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I repeat. . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 10:05:01 12/01/02 Sun

I think part of the problem may come from the fact that David Fury used the term serial killer to describe vampires, but he did not believe they were capable of being heroic or being good. The other writers, who haven't used the description "serial killer", believe that unsouled vampires are capable of some degree of heroics or good intention. Thus, calling Spike a serial killer does make sense in David Fury's portrayal of the character, but it doesn't fit the other writers' presentations.

Also, I don't think anyone has ever described Angel as a serial killer. Angelus, sure. In fact, Angelus certainly does fit the profile of a sadistic sociopath. But, in "Crush" (which, if I remember correctly, is the only time the vampire/serial killer comparison was used), that comparison is used to draw a distinction between chipped Spike and souled Angel.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I repeat. . . -- Miss Edith, 10:09:10 12/01/02 Sun

In Ats wasn't Penn portrayed as a serial killer? He was sired by Angelus and from what I remember there was a police search for a serial killer and talk of Penn's ideal victim. I can't think of any other instances though aside from the obvious "you're like a serial killer in prison".
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I repeat. . . -- Rufus, 17:35:39 12/01/02 Sun

Thus, calling Spike a serial killer does make sense in David Fury's portrayal of the character, but it doesn't fit the other writers' presentations.

I agree with that the writers tend to be all over the place when it comes to the characters. They are presenting demons namely the evil ones as part of a war between the human and demonic for control of this reality.....which does not in my opinion describe the "serial killer" title casually tossed about. Now, if Xander started having sexual fantasies and fixated on a certain type of potential victim then escalated his behavior til he was killing people, then I'd maybe call him a serial killer....but when they originally set up the Buffyverse they set the demons up like they were an opposite side in an ongoing conflict that describes a war better than an exceptionally organised group of "serial killers". It is the casual tossing out of a term that doesn't fit the type of killing that frustrates me and misleads the public and potentially sets up serial killers as misunderstood lads who just need a romp with the slayer to get "all better". Someone who is a "serial killer" doesn't get "better" and are such a risk to those around them that they certainly wouldn't be setting up a shop and supposedly helping the helpless.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Instances where the term is used -- shadowkat, 07:16:24 12/02/02 Mon

The phrase "serial killer" comes up at least twice in Fury's writting and annoys me.

He used it in Crush and Sleeper.

Xander: "So we want an out of control serial killer?"

I would have preferred: "So we want an out of control vampire?" Far more fitting and clear.

Just as this would have worked better:

"You are like a vampire in prison"

as opposed to a "serial killer in prison."

It was meant to be funny. But I didn't laugh and I have a pretty dark sense of humor.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Different ways of watching (or analysing) the show -- slain, 12:30:23 12/01/02 Sun

But as I've said before - the best way of getting the show is to see all three levels of it. Which is very hard to do on your own. I often just catch one or two.

Three levels:
1. Literal - Buffyverse plot/formula/interpretation which you often post so well.
2. Metaphorical Myth, Historical, Literary Illusions - I tend to be better at this one. Although Manchurian Candidate fits here as well - so you've hit it too.
3. Metaphor for Real Life - here we get into Frued, bad boyfriends, teenage fears, etc.

That's an interesting theory; the way I've always thought about the show (and I think I raised this in part in a discussion before the start of Season 7) was that there are two or three main ways of looking at it:

In terms of how it fits in with specific genres, modes, philosophies and ideologies (such as the horror genre or the existentialist ideology, feminism)

In terms of how it relates in an allegorical or metaphorical way to things outside of the mythology (real life: social and political situations)

In terms of how it relates with itself, with the established mythology of the characters and their physchology and morality.

I'm not just rewording your points, I hope. They seem different to me. The first of these is essentially about fitting the show in with existing ideas; seeing to what extent it's feminist, or how it relates to a religion or philosophy. The second is of course how the show deals with specific issues, everything from teenagerhood to race to economics. The third is looking at the show in its own context, issues such as how moral Willow is, or how evil Spike is.

I've always considered yourself to be best at the latter, S'k, at looking at the psychological motivations of the characters and the like; though your S&M essay seemed like a deparature to me, in that it was concerned with how the show fitting in with something external.

But I think everyone does all three of these things, to some extent. I know a lot of the longer things I write, at least recently, have been about how the show conforms to specific ideologies or genres. Certainly one of the main reasons I post here (or more appropriately read here) is discussion of how the show relates to things I don't know about; religions, and specific religious or occult traditions, not to mention philosophies. But also for insight into more BtVS-specific discussion; arguments about the morality and psychology of the characters which are more subjective; which is perhaps why this kind of discussion seems the most popular!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Shooting Scripts? -- Curious (de)Lurker, 18:18:27 12/01/02 Sun

*I've looked at the Shooting Script of Sleeper now and the part that was left out of Beneath You*

I am familiar with Psyche's excellent site, however, when I looked for the shooting script for "Beneath You" I was unable to find it. I was just wondering what was changed between the the original script and what we saw in the episode? That would definitely help fill in some of the blanks on this thread.

If this has already been posted, I'm sorry for the repeat request. I greatly enjoy this board, and I get a lot out of reading the insightful posts. Thank you all so much.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Shooting Scripts? -- Rufus, 18:48:12 12/01/02 Sun

Welcome to the board......the only shooting script that I have seen at Psyche's has been "Sleeper", no other script has been posted there or anywhere else that I know of.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks Rufus! (For the welcome *and* the info!) -- Curious (de)lurker, 19:11:43 12/01/02 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh, news......link to Lessons and Sleeper -- Rufus, 05:00:09 12/02/02 Mon

Shooting scripts

Le ssons

Sl eeper
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: What exactly are you saying is new about his actions -- Slain, 15:46:10 11/29/02 Fri

Doug Petrie was surprised they could air it

Yes, but that was because of the whole 'Dru erotically sucking blood from Spike's finger' thing, I think. Violence is okay, but they have to be careful about the sex!
[> [> [> [> Well, we had long discussions about this last spring -- Sophist, 11:27:12 11/29/02 Fri

I don't think the evidence supports you. Check the archives around May 11, 2002. There are so many posts on this subject I can't link to them all.
[> [> [> [> [> I suppose it also goes down to personal perceptions. -- HonorH, 12:42:50 11/29/02 Fri

I, for one, would not be shocked to discover that Spike engaged in all sorts of experiments in cruelty, especially when trying to make things interesting for Dru. Now, I don't think he had Angelus' "artistic" streak, but I see no reason he wouldn't have raped and tortured, just to see if he liked it. So I need very little convincing and don't see this as a retcon of his past.
[> [> [> [> Re: Mmm--not sure about your last statement -- Rufus, 02:20:57 11/30/02 Sat

The only reason--the only one--that it might have been necessary to show and not tell what Spike told Buffy in the basement was that some people have already retconned Spike's past. They've made him into Fluffy Bunny Spike, who never really did anything terrible. Spike's words should have come as no surprise to anyone. As it is, I fear the Denialists are already rationalizing them as an exaggeration to get Buffy to stake him.

There are degrees of denial out there....some thought Spike was fine without a soul because he had done some nice things and as Buffy said fought by her side. What we get to see now is a Spike (who to become anything more than a cute guy in a coat) is reevaluating his unlife....looking at it through his soul. He isn't too happy with what he has done, and I feel wants to be honest, but even Buffy would rather not know what he has done in the past. We can't take any of Angels past exploits to be true then turn around and say that it's out of character for Spike to do any of the things he saw his sires do. Rape may not have been his forte, but it's not impossible for him to have ever tried it out on his way to becoming the Big Bad.
[> [> [> Nastiness that we haven't seen before relating to Spike?!? -- Dan The Man, 11:33:34 11/29/02 Fri

"I did like ME not evading Spike's evil history, and alluding to even more nastiness than we had seen before.

I agree with the first half of this, but I saw the second part as an attempt to retcon elements that should have been shown -- not told -- before last season."

I think we were shown and told this about Spike from the very beginning. In School Hard(2.3), we see Spike decide that a older man is not fit for eating but he chooses to break his neck anyway for kicks.

"Spike: You don't know?! (lets go of the man) I'm a veal kind of guy. You're too old to eat. (grabs his head and snaps his neck) But not to kill. (looks at vampire#2) I feel better."


Also in that episode, right after he kills the AO, Spike says:

"Spike: From now on, we're gonna have a little less ritual... (stops pulling the chain) ...and a little more fun around here."

Spike didn't kill because it was his duty as a vampire, he killed because he liked it, it was "fun."

Spike continues to appear this way throught most of the season.

"The truth is, I like this world. (pulls the cigarette pack from the officer's shirt pocket) You've got...
dog racing, Manchester United. (pulls one out and drops the pack on the officer) And you've got people. (exhales) Billions of people walking around like Happy Meals with legs. It's all right here." (Becoming, Part II (2.22))

Even when he decides to turn traitor to Buffy, Spike makes it clear that he loves the kill. His love for the kill is part of the reason he wants to help Buffy.

In Lover's Walk(3.8), when Spike leaves empowered and ready to get Dru back, he says: "I've just gotta be the man I was, (stands proud) the man she loved. I'm gonna do what I shoulda done in the first place: I'll find her, wherever she is, tie her up, torture her until she likes me again."

In Harsh Light of Day(4.3)(as well as almost any other episode of vamp Harmony), Spike is absolutely terrible to Harmony, he uses, abuses, even attempts to kill her and would have succeed if it weren't for the Gem of Amara. In The Initiative(4.7), the scene where he attempts to attack and kill Willow is full dialogue about his inability to perform that makes it clear that vampire activity is very closely tied with rape.

I don't really see where ME has ever hidden that Spike has done very evil things and enjoyed ever minute of the acts that he did(I'm not saying that souledSpike does, but unsouledSpike and unsouledButChippedSpike definitely did)

Don't forget the classic Spike Episode, Fool For Love.

This scene occurs right after he kills the slayer during the Boxer Rebellion.

"DRUSILLA
Oh, Spike, look at the wonderful mess you've made. That's a Slayer you've done in. Naughty... wicked... Spike.

She holds out her hand and Spike approaches, lust in his eyes. He grabs Drusilla up in his arms and looks into her eyes.

SPIKE
You ever hear them saying the blood of a Slayer is a powerful aphrodisiac?

She looks at him, wanton hunger in her eyes.

SPIKE
Here, now... have a taste.

He holds his blood-covered finger up and she seductively sucks on it, moaning with pleasure. Spike grins and picks her up, pushing her against the wall and kissing her passionately. She eagerly responds, pulling at his clothes as they sink to the floor in each other's embrace."

This dialogue occurs in the present after the telling of the story.

"SPIKE
That was the best night of my life. And I've had some sweet ones. (off her look) What are you looking at?

BUFFY
(disgusted)
You got off on it."

Spike killed and loved it. In fact at this point you could very easily transfer Angel's classic lines from his revelation episode, Angel(1.7) and apply them to Spike at this point.

"For a hundred years I offered ugly death to everyone I met, and I did it with a song in my heart."

"No conscience, no remorse... It's an easy way to live. You have no idea what it's like to have done the things I've done... and to care."

What is amazing to me is that Spike can be viewed in such a sympathetic light. ME has done an incredible job of taking a character who is a horrible killer transforming the audience of perception of him. Almost too good as some of audience like him so much that they assume, he should just be completely forgiven and praised. Spike is definitely a wonderful redemption figure but he is far from a finished product. Spike has a long journey ahead before he can be worthy of the mantle of a hero. Buffy isn't perfect either, but she comes close to Angel's definition of a champion in Deep Down(Ats 4.1)

Dan The Man
[> [> [> [> Agree and disagree -- Sophist, 14:04:03 11/29/02 Fri

I agree that pre-soul Spike was evil. I agree with all your examples (except your interpretation of the scene in The Initiative).

My point was a much more limited one: yes, Spike was evil. But was he evil in this way? That is, was he a rapist? Sure, we have no difficulty believing he was. I certainly have no such difficulty. The problem is, we were never shown that or even told that. My belief is that it was necessary to give us this background in order to support the bathroom scene in SR.

My snarky comment above was not intended as a defense of Spike as a fluffy puppy, but as a criticism of the writers for failing to establish the proper background. Ponygirl makes a good point above about the dramatic problems involved, and I agree. But as I said in response, it's still a retcon IMHO.

There are, literally, dozens of posts on the "was Spike a rapist?" topic in the archives from last spring, including an embarrassing number of my own. Rather than repeat my points here to the groans of those who read them before, I'll let you go back if you're interested. BTW, I believe leslie and shadowkat agree with your take on The Initiative -- there's a whole sub-thread devoted just to that scene.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Agree and disagree -- Dan The Man, 14:59:55 11/29/02 Fri

Well, ok, you agreed with most of my examples. I understand your disagreement with The Initiative scene. What about Spike's comment at the end of Lover's Walk?

"I've just gotta be the man I was, (stands proud) the man she loved. I'm gonna do what I shoulda done in the first place: I'll find her, wherever she is, tie her up, torture her until she likes me again."

I think tying up and torturing a girl till she likes you definitely echos to intent of the attempted rape in Seeing Red. Also, rape could be part of Spike's torture routine. Additionally, we actually see Spike attempt to court Buffy in a similar fashion in The Crush(He isn't able to actually torture or force himself on her in that scene because of the chip)

Also, shadowkat makes a great point in her post about Vampires being a disorted version of the human, which is that we only saw Spike at full strength for a very brief period. He is at full strength in School Hard and What's My Line. He also plays a small role in both Lie To Me and Halloween at full strength. Pretty much from that point on Spike is either physically broken, broken hearted(Dru), chipped, or souled.

Dan The Man
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Agree and disagree -- Sophist, 17:03:13 11/29/02 Fri

I took the comment at the end of Lover's Walk as a statement about Dru rather than Spike -- he had been too soft (witness his deal with the slayer), but now was going to do what Dru liked. That was the point of his description of Dru throughout the episode.

As for Crush, Spike's only threat was to let Dru kill her if Buffy didn't acknowledge some feelings for him. I don't see that scene as establishing the necessary background for this purpose.

Again, my only point was that I believe the writers should have shown/told us this aspect of Spike before SR. I do understand the point about Spike being both a supporting character and often disabled. But they had 4 whole years to bring it up. That conspicuous failure, followed by intense criticism and then the belated lines here, leads to my view that it's a retcon.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> A point of interest -- alcibiades, 18:08:29 11/29/02 Fri

Sophist, you may not be aware that this "retcon" was originally written into BY much more explicitly than it appears here in NLM.

SPIKE: Yeah. I've been ... well, come on let's face it, been a one-man slaughterhouse, last hundred years. Raping, murdering. And for what? (beat) kicks.

It's interesting that they brought it up in NLM by implication and body language only rather than by uttering the dread R word once again.

Another theme excised from the original church scene in BY introduced in NLM instead -- was the extent of Spike's current self hatred as well as the fact that from his perspective he IS not distinguishing his present moral responsibility from his past deeds when he was soulless.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> That is very interesting. Thanks. (Spoilers fhrough 7,9) -- Sophist, 20:11:54 11/29/02 Fri

Putting aside the retcon issue, the line fits much better in NLM than it would have in BY. JMHO.

I noticed that Spike did blame himself for the deeds done sans soul. I also noticed that Buffy disagreed. I know there have been lots of arguments here about this point, but I've always been of the view that the souled creature is separate and distinct from the unsouled, and therefore not morally responsible (though he certainly may feel responsible for understandable psychological reasons).

Don't you wonder what point in time Buffy was referring to when she said she'd watched him change, become better?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yes, Beneath You was originally more graphic in what Spike said about himself. -- Rufus, 03:10:24 11/30/02 Sat

It was made very very clear the extent of Spikes self loathing over what he had been turned into. I wish they had left it in. It also made it clear that Spike/William had been a good man....and that man became a monster.

Here is the original ending of the show and I wish they had gone with it. It made it very clear just how much Spike suffers with the new perspective on what he has done over the years.
**********************************
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bloody_Awful/message/120495
From: "justincapone2"
Date: Thu Oct 3, 2002 9:16 pm
Subject: The Full Text Of the Origional Final Scene- Thank God for Joss's Changes.

Here is the script of the origional final scene.


Buffys POV: We see at the far end of the graveyard, a solitary church. A single light comes from within. Buffy stares at it a moment, some kind of peace coming over her. Then she walks toward the church...

Int. Church - Night

Twin heavy doors swing slowly open and Buffy enters the church. She hears the sound of sobbing.

She walks in, cautiously, drawing a stake.

Buffys POV: We see a figure, it's back to us, sitting in one of the pews, rocking gently back and forth.

Buffy approaches. It is Spike, sitting alone, looking as lost and frightened as can be. He speaks softly and sanely.

Spike: I figured it out. Took a while, yeah, but... I think the real problem is...

He looks to Buffy, eyes wide, vulnerable.

Spike: I was once this really nice guy.

Buffy remains cautious, keeping her distance.

Buffy: So that's the problem.

Spike: I think.

Buffy: Got news, Spike. You're not that nice.

Spike laughs, quietly, enjoying the irony of a good joke.

Spike: Yeah. I've been... Well come on, lets face it,been a one-man slaughterhouse, last hundred years. Raping. Murdering. And for what? (beat)Kicks.

He stands in the pew, bows his head in reverence.

Spike: William the Bloody awful poet, skipping down the lane... good boy, bad boy, all the sodding same. You like it? Wrote that one myself.

He rolls his head around slowly, up to the ceiling. Staring.

Spike: Is it hot enough in here to burn all your mortal sins away?

And suddenly, vampire-fast, he stands straight up.

Spike: Or am I just crazy?

He laughs, steps from the pew, into the aisle.

Spike: Stuffy. Stuffed. Full, packed, sorry mate, no room, out you go,standing room only and no room for that. We. Are. Full.

Buffy steps back, giving him a wide berth. Spike lurches forward, up the church aisle, zig zagging left and right, but always moving forward.

Spike: Full of sin. Full of guilt. Full of hate and love and loss and feeling. Full of it, quite frankly and its been so long. (laughs) Since we felt anything here. Rusty switchboard sparked to life, bound to be moren a few sharp shocks.

Buffy slowly following behind, never losing grip on that stake, and watching...

Spike: Right? RIGHT!? Shh. Quiet. Church. His house. Place of clasped hands, reverent hymns, and massive raw amounts of BEGGING. On your knees, boy. Beg him. BEG HIM...

And we see where Spike is heading: at the head of tha altar there stands a large, carved-stone crucifix.

Spike: ... for forgiveness.

Buffy: Spike...

Spike: Buffy. I cant sleep. Cant think. There's voices and darkness and blindness and pain and help me, I... I...

He keeps walking, slowly, up the aisle. Gets to the altar's steps and keeps going... straight up to the cross.

Buffy: You have a soul.

Spike stops at the cross. Responds without looking back.

Spike: I do indeed.

He wearily lets his head rest upon the stone crucifix. And steam rises from where his flesh makes contact. He grimaces, but does not scream.

Spike: And it's killing me.

He reaches out and hugs the crucifix with both arms. Steam rises from his palms.

Spike: God...

He releases the cross, slowly pullling back and turning to Buffy.

Spike: God hates me. You hate me. I hate myself more than ever.

Buffy wants to step forward, but does not.

Buffy: But why'd you do it...?

Spike: You know why. I got my soul back...

He keeps turning, now facing Buffy, barely able to stand on his feet, wobbling a bit - and holding his arms out wide.

Spike: ... So I could be the kind of (laughs) ... Person.... you would come to ... the man you could love.

Spike grins through bloody teeth. The burn marks stand out fresh upon his forehead and plams. He looks like death and any second hes going to collapse.

And still, its like somthing terribly sad is actually, deep down funny - and only he gets the joke.

He walks toward Buffy. Staggering gently. Eyeing the stake she still holds in her hand. He's drawn to it - and to her.

Spike: I was the enemy, then I was nothing, and now Im Gods garbage, not even a joke, less than, less than, less than all His creatures combined so tell me, dear Buffy...

Buffy lets him approach, unmoving, but not letting go of that stake either.

He barely makes it to her - and slams straight down, to his knees. And opens his arms wide.

Spike: How ya like me now?

Buffys mind goes a long way trying to come up with the answer, but her mouth can not speak and we:

BLACKOUT
******************************

I think if they had gone with the original end, Spikes insanity would have made more sense. The FE being able to manipulate an insane Spike is understandable, he couldn't sleep, he wasn't eating......all things the FE could use for mind control.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Original end to Beneath You in my post above....got it from BAPS -- Rufus, 03:11:56 11/30/02 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yes, Beneath You was originally more graphic in what Spike said about himself. -- aliera, 07:01:19 11/30/02 Sat

I agree it would have made more sense. I thought they were waiting because they wanted hold off and to incorporate it into this later ep which gives Buffy more time to deal with her feelings towards him and herself from season 6.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I have to agree with you. -- Rufus, 14:48:15 11/30/02 Sat

The original end gave away too much so the info was spread out over more eps. to torture us.....;)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Agree and disagree -- slain, 10:21:48 11/30/02 Sat

There's some more about this in my above post - but my basic point is that it's not entirely a retcon, but rather a result of the viewer's selective memory, to an extent. We forgot that Spike was worse than Angelus, that he did more damage in a few decades than Angelus ever did - not just in terms of the bodycount, either. However the writers also chose to forget that, because they were more interested in showing Spike's more powerless present than his horrifically empowered past.

I suppose what I mean is that it's not objectively a retcon, because there have been some suggestions; but subjectively it can be, depending on how you yourself have remembered and considered Spike. NLM or SR didn't seem like a retcon to me, but rather confirmation of what I'd already thought; for me the signs of what Spike really did were there, but I think M.E.'s only failing was in falling love with the character, to the point where they couldn't make him a hate figure.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Agree and disagree -- alcibiades, 13:58:14 11/30/02 Sat

We forgot that Spike was worse than Angelus

But wasn't it Angel who reported this about Spike? Hardly an objective source. He has huge issues with Spike, as we see by his attempt to subvert and to destroy Spike completely on an emotional level by taking away Drusilla from him as soon as he reverts to Angelus -- the embodied prize Spike won
for killing slayers and making a reputation for himself among vampires - the embodiment of his unique status as a killer of slayers --

What Angelus does is a reverse Oedipus complex, taking his daughter away from his son (since here he is Spike's sire) and re-engaging in a sexual relationship with her.

Furthermore, Angel is not exactly up front in this speech. He doesn't tell the SG what his personal relationship to Spike is at that point. He's withholding important information that only comes out inadvertently.

Moreover, up to that point the gang has never dealt with Angelus, so that when Angel says Spike is worse than what they have dealt with, he is not saying that Spike was worse than Anglelus, just that he is worse than what they have dealt up to then. And in the context, it seemed like they were referring to run of the mill vampires and demons.

I agree with Sophist to this extent about the retconning nature of what we saw in NLM. I don't think ME would have made a point of including in Spike's speech to Buffy in NLM the implication that he had raped teen girls if they had not incorporated the attempted rape in Season 6, so I do think it is a retcon to that extent. And since that is the case, I do think it would have made more sense dramatically to allude to it specifically earlier on.

OTOH, I don't have a problem thinking that Spike raped and murdered for kicks in his glory days. Moreover, it makes his evolution that much more profound.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Agree and disagree -- shadowkat, 09:13:44 12/01/02 Sun

"We forgot that Spike was worse than Angelus, that he did more damage in a few decades than Angelus ever did"

Uh, no. Angel never said that. The show never said that. Actually they said the opposite.

The Master and Darla state : "Angelus was the most vicious vampire to exist."

Angel states that Spike is worse than other vampires and once he starts he doesn't stop. He never states that Spike was worse than him. He knows that he's the worste. Ironic - considering Angel is proven wrong and when Angelus returns we discover that Angel was really talking about himself and Drusilla. It's Spike who wants to stop Angelus from destroying the world, remember. Spike who tells Dru he just wants to leave Sunnydale. Dru and Angelus who get off on using the Judge. Spike is into it but would clearly prefer to go elsewhere.

I'm not saying that Spike wasn't evil. I disagree with Sophist, I saw Spike as a vampire who raped, seduced and murdered - he is portrayed that way in School Hard through What's My Line and in Surprise. He's also portrayed that way in In The Dark and HLOD and The Initiative, albeit metaphorically. I guess if you tend to see things more literally - you may have missed it. But the show has consistently shown that Angelus was the worst human hybrid vamp who ever lived. The Hannibal Lecter of vamps. That is the point. Angelus unlike Spike, Darla and Dru - truly enjoyed torture. Also the show's made a point of showing that Liam was not a good man - he was quite a bit like Angel's son Connor actually. Selfish. And a sexual predator - seducing and dumping women and stealing his father's silver. Darla even states his darkness surpasses hers and he had to start with that. Can we redeem someone who was that dark, that evil? We can bloody well try - seems to be the writers view. And that is why I find Angel interesting.

But like you said - I think viewers have a tendency to be selective about what they see in our vampires. Personally I have the same take that Rufus eloquently observes above - the vampire is a cursed human and thus can be redeemed.
So it's not important to me that Spike not be a rapist or Angelus not be the worst vampire that lived. I find it more interesting and ironic that they were, particularly when we consider what is happening to both of them now.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Actually. . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 10:21:56 12/01/02 Sun

The Master said "He was the most viscious creature I ever met." He didn't say "to ever live".

However, I do agree that Angelus was worse than Spike, because in "Surprise/Innocence" the Judge confirms that Angelus is pure evil, while he said that Spike and Drusilla were not because they shared "affection and jealousy".

Still, Spike must have been pretty terrible before he came to Sunnydale, otherwise Angel wouldn't speak so highly of his evil acts.

Oh, one more thing, Drusilla did seem to enjoy torture at least as much as Angelus, although she was less finicky whether she was the torturer or the tortured.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Agree and disagree -- slain, 11:39:52 12/01/02 Sun

So here's that scene we're discussing:


Cut to the library. Giles and Jenny continue their research while Xander
keeps whittling.

Giles: Oh, there you are.

Jenny: There who is?

Giles: Our new friend Spike. He's known as 'William the Bloody'. Earned
his nickname by torturing his victims with railroad spikes. Very
pleasant. Well, here's some good news: he's barely two hundred. He's not
even as old as Angel is. (frowns) Oh.

Xander: That's a bad look, right?

Giles: I think your suggestion of running away this Saturday might've
been a good one. Spike has fought two Slayers in the last century,
and... he's killed them both.


Round about the middle of this is a part I thought I distinctly remembered, where Giles discusses how Spike, despite being younger than Angel, had killed many more people, and how Spike was recorded as being 'worse' than Angelus. But apparently that part doesn't actually exist. So.

What we're actually told by 'School Hard' is that:

1) Angel thinks Spike is worse than anything Buffy has faced before (which, at this point, pretty much only includes the Master).

2) Spike has killed two Slayers.

Clearly it's been longer than I thought since I've seen that episode (it's not one of my favourites, I must admit), so my memory is blurred - and I don't even have the excuse of not having proper reference material!

So I think if we look at Spike's character overall, discounting Season 6, it seems to me that the defining part of his character is that he's concerned with his reputation, in a way that Angelus isn't. So while Angelus is deeply, inhumanly evil, Spike has more human frailties; he's vain, he can love, and also hate (but not in Angelus' dispassionate way).

To me this fits with the image of Spike as some kind of vampire viking, raping and pillaging. Spike is more visceral than Angelus, but I suppose how evil you judge them depends on your own perception of evil. Angelus' most evil act was mentally torturing and corrupting the seer Drusilla, but up till now Spike's was presumably killing the two Slayers. Angelus worked on an individual basis, whereas Spike I think rampaged less discriminatingly; that's where I have the idea that Spike did more damage than Angelus. I think he probably did, in a numerlogical sense; he probably killed more than Angelus, and killed for the sake of killing.

What is a 'pure' vampire, though? Spike is more savage and bloodthirsty, yet Angelus seemed to have more malice towards mankind; Spike thought of humans as food or entertainment, but Angelus hated humanity. I'm not sure. It strikes me that we have three main images of the relatively pure vampire:

1) The Master. Cold, calculating; not concerned with destroying humanity, but by utilising it. Reminiscent of Sauron from LoTR.

2) The Beast. Angel becomes this in Pilea; it has no real intelligence, except when concerned with killing. It doesn't seem to have the capacity to hate, except perhaps to hate anything that gets in its way. It seems to kill not just for food, like a wild animal, but simply to kill.

3) Angelus. Cold and calculating also, but ultimately a nihilist concerned with the destruction of humanity.

I'd argue that the Beast is a pure vampire, and that both the Master and Angelus filter the beast through their humanity. Both are deeply evil, but they both have human frailties. This doesn't preclude Spike from being a relatively pure vampire; after all, he shares many characteristics with the Beast. But I think the thing which separates him from the Master and Angelus is that, unlike them, he seems to care what humans think of him. That's why he attacks humanity's most obvious defence against vampirism, the Slayer. Spike wants to be known among humans, whereas Angelus and the Master want to be known among demons.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Agree and disagree -- leslie, 11:50:36 12/01/02 Sun

"But I think the thing which separates him from the Master and Angelus is that, unlike them, he seems to care what humans think of him. That's why he attacks humanity's most obvious defence against vampirism, the Slayer. Spike wants to be known among humans, whereas Angelus and the Master want to be known among demons."

I agree with you up to the last sentence--I think being known as a Slayer slayer is a *big* reputation booster for Spike among vampires. It's the first thing he presents about himself on his arrival in Sunnydale (well, aside from that acid trip at Woodstock). Killing slayers wouldn't do anything for him among humans because, until Buffy starts working with the assistance of "family and friends," no humans know about the Slayer except the CoW, and they're keeping her under their hats--and thumbs. But man! The one thing in the world that vampires fear, and he's killed two of them--not by accident, as presumably most Slayers die ("It isn't about how we win, it's about how they lose"; I quote from memory), but because he sought them out.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Agree and disagree -- slain, 12:45:46 12/01/02 Sun

Perhaps a better way of putting it is that Spike wants humans to know and fear him; think of 'Restless', where he poses for the human photographers. Spike wants to be notorious, he wants to be the evil Billy Idol (or the equally evil, some people might say, having heard some of his records).

However I do agree that Spike's chief motivation is being known amongst vampires and demons, or at least amongst the lower echelons; I doubt he'd have much time for the Master, though he does clearly want Angelus to know what he's capable of, and has done. Unsouled Spike is vain, he wants the recognition that William was denied, amongst both vampires and humans; I think Spike would enjoy having a TV documentary made about him, whereas the Master would eat the crew.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Agree and disagree -- Miss Edith, 13:19:26 12/01/02 Sun

He was flattered in Checkpoint when a watcher mentioned writing her dissertation on him "Well well heard of me have you. Isn't that neat".
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Agree and disagree -- leslie, 13:49:31 12/01/02 Sun

Oh dear, my eyes are going all wonky. I read your last sentence this way:

"I think Spike would enjoy having a TV documentary made about him, whereas Marsters would eat the crew."
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Umm... -- KdS, 03:35:51 12/02/02 Mon

I think Spike would eat the crew - but not til after they'd got enough footage to send to the channel :-)
[> [> [> [> The interpretive problems with Spike as a serial rapist (Spoilers through 7.9) -- Sophist, 17:50:43 11/30/02 Sat

I suppose it's kind of late in this thread to bring up this point, but I realized that retconning Spike as a serial rapist creates significant problems with the interpretation of SR-Grave.

Let's start with the assumption that Spike deliberately sought a soul in Grave. I personally didn't think so (and still don't, for that matter), but JW has said so and it now appears to be canon.

The issue is this: how do we explain his decision to do so?

The usual explanation, which shadowkat summarizes very well above, is that he was horrified by his conduct in SR. His recognition of what he had done caused the epiphany which led to the decision to get a soul.

I have a metaphysical problem with this explanation, but I'm willing to accept it for now. It is plausible and seems to be generally accepted.

Now, however, we are to see Spike as having repeatedly raped and tortured young girls. In that case, we have to ask, What was it about SR that so horrified him that he decided to get a soul? If he was long accustomed to rape, it hardly seems likely that a failed attempt would generate the remorse necessary.

The only other explanation I can think of is that he reacted as he did because it was Buffy. IOW, he happily would have assaulted Willow or Anya without regret, but Buffy was somehow different. Frankly, this strikes me as utterly false to the psychology of a serial rapist. In fact, I'm strongly inclined to think it's a very dangerous way to portray a rapist.

I can't think of a way around this dilemma. If anyone can suggest an alternative, I'd love to hear it. If not, then I suggest that the retcon in 7.9 undercuts the most important dramatic theme of S6, the one that provides the foundation for the most important events thus far in S7. While I was originally willing to overlook the passage for the reasons ponygirl suggested, I now think the point is much more serious. Suggestions?
[> [> [> [> [> I think it was "because it was Buffy". -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:53:07 11/30/02 Sat

You see, a human serial rapist to a certain extent tries to justify what they did, thinking that the women "had it coming", or that they were just objects. Most humans have the tendency to try to make their actions seem, if not good, at least not terribly wrong. Vampires, on the other hand, make no quibbles about the fact that they're evil and relish doing wrong for the sake of doing wrong. Thus, while a human serial rapist wouldn't be disgusted at raping a woman, even one that he loved (if the subject in question was even capable of love), that's because he tries to turn the act into one that is morally justifiable. Spike never tried to justify his actions, so raping someone he doesn't really care about is different than raping someone he loves.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I think it was he had already actually changed -- leslie, 21:04:53 11/30/02 Sat

I think we have to accept that Spike is one of the most rapidly evolving vampires in the history of the world. But I go back to the idea of reputation and what kind of reputation he wants at any given moment. If we regard reputation as his driving motivation, then his actions do make consistent sense. He wants to be part of a group--we see this in Fool for Love as something that predates his vampirization--and he is obsessively concerned with how the group perceives him. When he is human, the group despises him and he can't do much about it, but being vamped gives him the power to live up to the group's ideals. Probably the most ironic line in FFL (I am quoting from memory) is "I was through living by society's rules; I decided to make some of my own. And for that, I needed to get myself a gang." Cutting to a scene that shows quite clearly that Spike was part of Angel's gang, and what we see the real leader of that gang doing is berating Spike for not following *his* rules. In order to gain acceptance by the group, Spike does what pleases them--rapes and murders, or helps and protects. I think one of the reasons his attempted rape of Buffy so shocks him is that it makes him see the complete disjunction between what he was and what he has become: he has inadvertantly moved Buffy from "center of his universe, queen of his heart" to "powerless victim on whom he can vent his anger at the injustices done to him as a human and also boost his vampish rep." He's kept telling Buffy that he's changed but when he tries to rape her he realizes that he hasn't changed as much as he thought--and he has, in the process, ruined his reputation with her.

If someone's main concern is his reputation within a group, then you really can only understand his behavior in the context of the group he is in *at that moment.* Spike was forced to move from one group to another as a result of the chip, and his actions changed accordingly. What is fascinating is how vehemently he denies that he needs the group's approbation, how he seems to have convinced himself that he is independent when his actions show otherwise.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: The interpretive problems with Spike as a serial rapist (Spoilers through 7.9) -- Deb, 11:07:36 12/03/02 Tue

I've been thinking about the illogic of this also. I'm in the camp that Spike was attempting to coherce (ah so I can't spell) Buffy into dusting him. Some may say this is the psychologically easy way out, but I don't think so. I've been watching Season one and two for the past couple of weeks (got the DVD player!) I never have seen these eps before. Spike actually has a low "body count" and he seems to believe that you kill to feed or to eliminate a possibly stronger opponent. He seems to have a death wish. He asks Angel (later) is he ever gets tired of choosing battles he knows he will always win? And this was during his first year as a vamp while in China. He becomes obsessed with the Slayer because here is someone who just might be able to beat him -- dust him. Buffy is the only superior fighter around him, and he knows her emotional weak spots, and he has just been kicked quite viciously by Buffy who gave him a death stare before he blacked out. He doesn't realize that she has learned he is being "used" (thank you Xander). So, the most hurtful thing he has done to Buffy he digs up to "get her goat." Sorry, old family expression for intentionally rile someone up enough to react without thinking. Also known as "giving ________ (fill in the name) someone just enough rope to hang themselves."

Then Spike asks Buffy if she wants to hear what he does to girls Dawn's age. The way he asks though is more of a challenge than an opening for unloading his soul.

Now the "but it's no fun if they don't cry" thing. Think about it. If he drank just enough blood from a girl so she would be alive, how in the world is she going to cry if she's raped? Based upon my personal experience at "the edge," the girls would be in shock after the lose of one pint, and he talking about draining about 4 pints? So either the writers have no idea of what the human body goes through at death by loss of blood, or Spike is making up stories. Remember when Buffy was shot by Warren? She was in shock then. Could she have cried if someone was attempting to rape her?

I'm not saying Spike was a *good* vampire. He WAS/IS a vampire afterall, but I don't believe he actually did what he said he did.

Then Buffy tells him she has seen him change and she believes he is a good man and can be a good man. One can interpret his expression to that in a couple of way, but I think it has something to do with Buffy actually "seeing him," which is an important Spike theme. No body has ever really "seen" Spike/William, but those people have for the most part believed him to be "beneath" them. The possible exception to this rule is Dru, and I think we'll see this later in the season.

I have more to say on this, but I've got to go.

One last observation though, Liam and William. Do you see that Liam is the last four letters of William? It is the Irish version of William and William means "the protector."
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The interpretive problems with Spike as a serial rapist (Spoilers through 7.9) -- Arethusa, 11:44:41 12/03/02 Tue

I think Spike had a "life wish." He was enamored of all things living, as his famous Happy Meals with legs speech shows. In OMWF we saw he just wanted to feel, and that includes feeling alive. Spike's comment to Angelus meant he liked a good brawl, not that he wanted to lose.

I'm not saying Spike was a *good* vampire. He WAS/IS a vampire afterall, but I don't believe he actually did what he said he did.

Throughout the same episode, Spike is brutally honest with Buffy. He does want to die then, to end his torment, but that doesn't mean he would need to lie. Spike was famous for seeing what he wanted to see, but souled Spike, as his assessment of Buffy's motives in their relationship shows, is able to face the truth, and talk about it. (He didn't quite realize how much Buffy had changed too, but he is beginning to.) I think we can believe he spoke the truth. It is not at all illogical to think a souless vampire with no chip who moves with bad company might have raped some of the girls he killed.
[> [> [> Sorry for Jumping in Late -- Haecceity, 20:19:20 12/01/02 Sun

Is retcon a bad thing, really? It’s a term I’ve not heard before, so forgive me if I’m misinterpreting, but I think, sometimes, that in our understandable enthusiasm for looking at the show as Shadowkat and Slain have outlined :

Shadowkat:
1. Literal - Buffyverse plot/formula/interpretation which you often post so well.
2. Metaphorical Myth, Historical, Literary Illusions - I tend to be better at this one. Although Manchurian Candidate fits here as well - so you've hit it too.
3. Metaphor for Real Life - here we get into Freud, bad boyfriends, teenage fears, etc.

Slain:
1. In terms of how it fits in with specific genres, modes, philosophies and ideologies (such as the horror genre or the existentialist ideology, feminism)

2. In terms of how it relates in an allegorical or metaphorical way to things outside of the mythology (real life: social and political situations)

3. In terms of how it relates with itself, with the established mythology of the characters and their psychology and morality.


…we forget that there is another viewpoint, one that we refer to constantly but don’t seem to spend a lot of time in personally---that of the writers. Not as on-high creators of a world, as we often jokingly refer to them, but as a group of regular folks who sit about a big ‘ol table and spin stories to themselves, and by extension, us.
*WARNING: highly personal viewpoint* I think the point of art is to tell each other stories, by which we all learn how to find our own path to being human, to participating as fully as possible in our own lives. And the telling of stories that touch not only our minds but our spirits, hearts, and even our hands (by inspiring us to tell stories of our own), is a complicated, concentric, organic process. Did Joss have a grand narrative idea all outlined and plot- pointed to the nth degree on little blue James Lipton cards when he sat down to create the Buffyverse? Maybe. But has the show deviated from these hypothetical rules during the course of the show? Have characters been altered, transformed, re-visioned, killed off because of these deviations, these turnings of the path? Damn straight they have. Which to my mind can only be a good thing. That means that the art form ME is creating is a living thing, capable of the same sort of evolution, transformation and fairy tale redemption that we ourselves are heir to—it is a mirror of our own growth. Were the show to be held to hidebound, backward-looking, rigid rules, or worse—wish- fulfillment fantasies of static relationships, it would cease to be the healthy, vibrant, all soul-having creation it is. It might require a truly skewed imagining to view a television series as a living thing, but it occurs to me that some of the disappointment over last season could be viewed as a response to the seeming stasis-sickness of a dark, dark time in the life of a story.

Personally I find the idea of retconning TO A DEGREE, the most exciting factor in extended narrative arcs. That we are capable of understanding previous events in a new light seems a fundamentally important ability in a creature as adaptable and self-defining as we are. I do agree that retconning in its negative form—i.e. showing an abrupt, irrational about-face as regards character, situation, etc. that undermines completely the growth process of the story shown before—is a pernicious, sweep-the-legs-out-from- beneath-you sort of cop –out, often done for simple shock value.

I do find it funny, though, the amount of “Well, this was foretold in ‘Restless’, they’ve had it planned this way from the beginning” I’ve seen. As though the writers didn’t go back to Restless and BUILD on it.

It seems we have so many writers on this board---don’t you all find yourselves looking at past drafts, noticing things you’d never been consciously aware of at the time of writing, and elaborating on these new insights to make your work stronger, more vital, more reflective of your constantly advancing self?

The greatest art seems (to me, at any rate) to be concentric, not linear. We tell a story from beginning through an arc, to its end, which is at one and the same time a new beginning. And if we are blessed with the ability/time/permission (such as is granted to those in episodic television, comic books, film franchises, and other forms of sequential art), we can use that new beginning to re-examine our story, to swing the arc wider, to delve deeper into the ideas we raised on the first trip round. And as long as we do this in a way that builds upon rather than tears down our first ‘lessons’, then we truly grow from that experience.

As to how all this speaks to the Spike situation:

Angel left, as he needed to—his story was very very strong, and it wasn’t going to go in the same direction as our girl’s. They had fundamentally different needs. But that left our vampire show without its most vital metaphorical counterpoint to Buffy.

Meanwhile there was this guy, this intriguing figure, a vampire character that hadn’t been over-done before, one that *from the very first* seemed (to me, at any rate) a better foil for our hip, flippant, anarchic Slayer than Mr. Broody-Pants.

It seems to be the ‘textbook’ formula that an Animus figure takes its form from a woman’s impression of her father, an Anima figure the image of a man’s mother-idea, but I think that’s a rather old-fashioned, Freud-centric notion. And yes, I know it is Jung’s but recall too that much of his work was created in direct conjunction/opposition to Freud’s ideas. I think a more balanced idea is to see the Animus as that which reads as the initial definition of “masculine” to a woman, whereas the Anima is a man’s first understanding of “feminine”. This lets us understand that where the primary relationship of person to “other” starts in antagonism (an involuntary reaction to “otherness”), there is a growth process by which there can be recognition, embrace and finally, comfort.

Jung said that, “An overwhelmingly powerful attraction that a man/woman exercise on each other is only possible where there also exists an equally strong antagonism.” Thus my reading of why I never found Angel the true counterpart /Animus figure to Buffy. In his Angel nature, there was no antagonism between them. They were caught up in that whole Tristan & Isolde “we two against this situation not of our choosing”—which I’ve always found repellant, the whole death of Self in support of big capital L Love thing. Big capital Y Yuck. (This, of course, is only my reading of it. Others have found great meaning in the B/A relationship. It’s a big world and we are a species of marvelous variation—please don’t jump down my throat ;) )

Okay, time for quotage---the following is from either a) Owning Your Own Shadow, by Robert A. Johnson or b) lady of the hour, Marie-Louise von Franz’s “Archetypal Dimensions of the Psyche”, which I believe contains a reprint of the article, The Individuation Process that Shadowkat quoted earlier. [Those of you who’ve waded through my posts before know that notation was not my strong suit at University, for those who are new, I apologize for my slapdash approach, but assure you that any inaccuracies are mine, and that should I ever find myself at fixed abode I shall dig out the *actual books* so as to avoid causing confusion.]

******Also, a note—I do not ascribe to any particular ‘ship on the show. I tend to think it would narrow the lens through which I see the show, so try to avoid looking at the story in terms of romantic relationships. That being said, I *do* see a lot of story logic/psychological underpinning to how the writers have portrayed the Buffy/Spike interaction over the course of the series, so despite my best efforts, I do tend to get dragged into consideration of their dynamic. I apologize to any who might read this as another pro/con argument. Seems we’ve had plenty of those. But these situations are what the writers are revealing to us, so that’s what I’ll be looking at here.*****

Regarding the Anima:
“The character traits of this figure correspond to the attributes of the feminine side of a man, to the style of his unconscious approach to life. Whenever a man meets a woman who entirely or to a great extent fits this inner image, he falls prey to a helpless fascination. She is the loyalty which in the interests of life he must sometimes forgo; she is the much-needed compensation for the risks, struggles, sacrifices—she is the solace for all the bitterness of life. At the same time, she is the great illusionist/seductress, who draws him *into Life*--and not only life’s reasonable and useful aspects, but also into its frightful paradoxes.” (*emphasis was mine—to underscore the whole undead/souled thing)

“As long as a man has not freed his Anima figure (from his own pre-conceived notions), his beloved often feels that he is only ‘in love’ with her, but does not *love her*--that his feeling is autoerotic and caught up in illusion.”

Regarding the Animus:

“In its negative aspect, a woman’s animus lures her away from all human relationships, especially from contact with men. It tends to drag conversation to a low (base truth) level and to produce a disagreeable, irascible, emotional atmosphere. The conscious attention a woman has to give to her animus problem takes much time and involves a lot of suffering. But if she realizes who and what her animus is and what he does to her, and if she faces those realities instead of allowing herself to be possessed, her animus can turn into an invaluable companion who endows/supports her ‘masculine’ qualities of initiative, courage, objectivity and spiritual wisdom.

4 Stages of Relation Between Man/Woman, Anima/Animus:

1.Purely Instinctual Relations –Witness B/S’s instant attraction/determination to kill one another

2. Romantic and Aesthetic—Characterized by sexual/violent elements

3. Figures who raise love to the heights of spiritual devotion

4. (Rare in Real Life, 1 goal in fiction/mythology) Combined wisdom/being, transcendence most pure.



The amazing thing about BtVS’s treatment of Buffy/Spike is that not only did they make each the other’s anima/us figure, but the corporeal representative of their dark side as well. Buffy is Spike/William’s slaying side, Spike is Buffy’s inner vampire. But they are also the golden selves of the other—Buffy is Spike/William's loving protector, Spike is Buffy’s poetic truthteller/protector. Kind of a double/triple whammy in the interpersonal relationship arena.

Ok, have at it.

---Haecceity

P.S. I want to thank you all for your typical brilliance in this thread—it’s proved vastly thought-provoking. I’m sorry I haven’t been on the board in awhile to respond to your other profundities (Alcibiades’ and Ponygirl’s house metaphor threads being particular stand-outs), but was surprised by my current blondie-bear with a fabulous 2 week, much-needed vacation, far from phones, e-mail, and silly old work obligations. A typical reaction to which would be: “Ahhhhhhhh!”

But the reaction of one who’s recently succumbed to her BtVS obsession and was just starting to get into this whole posting biz?: “Noooooooooooooooooooooo!”

Do you suppose airport security *often* sees folks dragged onto flights by embarrassed loved ones, screaming “But I’ll miss Buffy!!!!!” ?

(I didn’t, btw, the VCR being eminently programmable. Apparently the secret is in selecting the appropriate trigger song;)

But how, exactly, is one supposed to enjoy a vacation fully, knowing that she is to miss the last new episode of the year and reams and reams of printable brilliance?

I managed. I did. But it was touch and go there for awhile.

And then the came the ritual sacrifice, complete with mushy peas and the obligation to visit random and quite possibly demonic relatives who just looked blankly at my suggestion that this year we might enjoy the Buffy marathon as opposed to the traditional gridiron oafishness. I’m adopted, surely. Or possibly up for it now. “I’m telling you, I think she went weird when you let her major in film.”—random demonic relative, whom we’ll call Aunt B.

So, after catching the last bit of the Skewers Choice (anyone else think it *odd* that we “picked” episodes in chronological order? Or that Tabula Rasa is now known as “Taboola Rasa”? ;) and fighting off the effects of a truly epic slaughter (Not a single slice of pie survived), I’ve just been a bit jet-lagged/over-stimulated to respond coherently. Heck, you folks have been so busy I’m still just getting caught up on the *reading*! But I’m glad to be back and look forward to our “Hiatus Holiday”---surely an opportunity to put “Season 7 So Far” under the microscope.
[> [> [> [> Very good post and summing up of numerous threads - - shadowkat, 07:02:11 12/02/02 Mon

Hmmm - I'm printing off again. Although I've printed off other takes as well. From what I scanned? I agree with you.
I think we do tend to forget that television narratives, particularly serials, are not quite that linear and not all drafted out like a huge book ahead of time, plus unlike a book, they are a collaborative process made up of numerous people serving as components. As James Marsters has stated on more than one occassion - I'm not Spike - I'm just one segment of the magic act that goes into creating him, which is made up of makeup artists, custom designers, writers, directors, stunt men, other actors, camera men, etc.

Also in a serial - whether it be a comic book or a tv show - writers usually go back and build on what they've written before. (I think it was Darby who once told me that it was more than likely that the writers referenced previous aired shows when they wrote a new episode as opposed to developing the episode at the same time they wrote that previous show. ) I know when I write - the story goes through numerous permutations and changes numerous times.

I want to thank you for giving me another resource to find ML von Franz (who I discovered was a woman - very interesting since her article on Process of Individuation seems to be slanted more towards an examination of the male psyche and focused on trying to fit the female paradigm into the male one. Not sure that's possible. But again I'm no psychologist - so what do I know. A friend said it made sense she did this since women are often more interested in figuring out the male psyche than their own - after all, my friend stated - don't I spend more time analyzing Spike than Buffy? Well, not entirely - but she made a good point.)

Anyways here's a quote I found towards the end of her article in the section called relation to the Self that you may find of interest:

"In order to understand the symbolic indications of the unconscious, one must be careful not to get outside oneself or "beside oneself", but to stay emotionally within oneself. Indeed it is vitally important that the ego should continue to function in normal ways. Only if I remain an ordinary human being, conscious of my incompleteness, can I become receptive to the significant contents and processes of the unconscious. But how can a human being stand the tension of feeling himself at one with the whole universe, while at the same time he is only a miserable earthly human creature? If, on the one hand, I despise myself as merely a statistical cipher, my life has no meaning and is not worht living. But if on the other hand I feel myself to be part of something much greater, how am I to keep my feet on the ground?" ( p.236 of MAN & HIS SYMBOLS by C, JUNG, Von Franz's essay of Individuation Process).

I think this quote explains Buffy's dilemma in a nutshell or as the vampsychologist calls it her inferiority/superiority complex. It also sums up Spike's dilemma.

In the process of finding our core being - finding out who we are - we can run the risk of meglomania - thinking we are above it all and thus becoming disconnected from humanity like a vampire or in the case of Buffy? Faith. We also want to be careful from falling into the trap of parroting others means of finding themselves - since this can lead to stasis or petrification or in the case of Buffy - the path of Kendra, who parrots the rules given to her and does not come up with her own solutions.

I recently saw the film FRIDA, very good btw - actually one of the best films I've seen this year, the film is about the life of Frida Kahlo and it depicts through action and Frida's art - a woman who sought to be her own person to define herself despite horrible pain, she suffered a trolly accident as a girl and underwent numerous operations but was never ever free of pain. The pain did not make her a cripple nor did it consume her. She rose above it. She did not allow the restrictions of her time (30's-50's) or her own body to stop her from discovering who she is. This reminds me a bit of Buffy in a way - another woman who does not allow outside influences to stop her from being her own person.

Sounds like you had a great break. I did miss your presence on the board. Although I did take a breif breather myself.
Thanks for the great post.

SK (whose been reading too much psychology for her own good recently ;-)
[> [> [> [> Can I agree with you too? (Spoilers through 7.9) -- Sophist, 09:08:12 12/02/02 Mon

I agreed with ponygirl (in part, anyway), so now I'd like to agree with you. Must be the season. I'm not talking about the Jung; I'm no Jungian. Where I agree is with your description about the point of art and the process by which a story is constructed.

Yes to everything you said. My point about this particular retcon (Spike as serial rapist -- sorry SK, I'm sure you won't like this term any better than "serial killer", but I need a shorthand) is this: a good story builds its themes organically. The development over time allows us, looking back, to see a natural trend that pays off in the big finish.

When it comes to SR, ME failed to give us that buildup on Spike. This is not just me -- anyone on the internet after that episode aired could see the controversy over Spike's behavior in the bathroom. What I was saying above is that those few lines from NLM could and should have preceded SR in order to provide the necessary background.

When I watched NLM, my immediate (cynical) reaction was that the lines were added to supply a point that was conspicuously missing earlier. I consider that unfair and disingenuous by the writers. Ponygirl, however, pointed out that they serve a current plot purpose as well -- to contrast VampSpike with SouledSpike. I hadn't thought of that, and I'm glad she pointed it out. To the extent the passage serves that purpose, I think it fits in quite well with your description of how stories develop.

I still believe, however, that no matter which purpose those lines served, whether retcon or current story, they now create a major interpretive problem in understanding Spike's behavior after SR. That problem needs to be solved before I can fully accept the "new" image of Spike. At least IMHO.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Can I agree with you too? (Spoilers through 7.9) -- Malandanza, 09:53:01 12/02/02 Mon

"My point about this particular retcon (Spike as serial rapist -- sorry SK, I'm sure you won't like this term any better than "serial killer", but I need a shorthand) is this: a good story builds its themes organically. The development over time allows us, looking back, to see a natural trend that pays off in the big finish."

I think one of the problems has been that AtS is on a different network -- otherwise we might very well have seen Spike flashbacks during SR showing him attacking girls Dawn's age. I think that Spike in his earlier William the Bloody incarnation who committed the torture/murders and (at least one -- probably not serial) rapes -- when the lack of Angelus would have been difficult to explain. Now we hear about the crimes instead of being shown them because ME cannot show them properly w/out Angelus -- and even then, showing a lead character raping a young girl would be difficult to get past the censers without truncating the scenes to leave them ambiguous (like Angelus with the Gypsy girl -- did he or didn't he rape her before killing her? The scene was suggestive, but open to interpretation). Sometimes saying things is more clear than showing them.

"When I watched NLM, my immediate (cynical) reaction was that the lines were added to supply a point that was conspicuously missing earlier. I consider that unfair and disingenuous by the writers. Ponygirl, however, pointed out that they serve a current plot purpose as well -- to contrast VampSpike with SouledSpike. I hadn't thought of that, and I'm glad she pointed it out. To the extent the passage serves that purpose, I think it fits in quite well with your description of how stories develop."

If season two Spike had mentioned said what season seven Spike said, I don't think anyone would have been shocked. As Haecceity and others have pointed out, Spike has had several different incarnations on the show -- which, I believe, is in character for the eminently adaptable vampire who doesn't have a fixed identity anyway -- he's whatever he thinks people want him to be. The people crying "retcon" are the ones who have had a favorable impression of Spike's most recent personas -- I think it is quite likely and in character that newly vamped Spike, under the influence of Darla and Angelus, did many very bad things. These things happened in the distant past -- and, anyway, the vampire did them, not the newly souled creature.

Which is not to say that Spike wouldn't have been evil without Angelus as his Yoda -- William had issues with strong women -- Cecily was probably second on his list of people to kill (right after his mother). Since then, he has hunted slayers -- the strongest women he can find -- to prove his dominance over them. They're not going to play "kick the Spike" any more -- he'll teach those "bitches" a lesson. He was never a nice guy, no matter how much he pretended to be to please Buffy -- you can see that in the way he treats people who are of no use to him -- like Xander and Harmony (and JM once said -- if he's not nice to other people, he's not going to be nice to you).

"I still believe, however, that no matter which purpose those lines served, whether retcon or current story, they now create a major interpretive problem in understanding Spike's behavior after SR. That problem needs to be solved before I can fully accept the "new" image of Spike. At least IMHO."

I think Indri points out why Spike's confusion over Buffy isn't out of character even though we know have strong suspicions that he's raped before -- he didn't care about any of his past victims. If he doesn't care about a person, anything is justifiable (just ask Harmony -- or Dru from Season Five), if he does care about them and hurts them, there's a problem. His image of himself as Lord Byron becomes muddled.

Finally, to get this topic back to Andrew as a foil for Spike, I'd say that since ME cannot show us Spike's development during the William the Bloody years, they're trying to give us a substitute in Andrew. Creative, sensitive (remember his reaction when Warren inadvertently killed Katrina?) Andrew's "vamping" occurred in Season Six beginning with Katrina's death. He has FE Warren as his evil mentor, pushing him to do things he would not otherwise even think of doing just as Spike had Angelus. Andrew finds himself captured by the Scoobies and needing their protection just as chipped Spike needed the protection of the Scoobies from the Initiative. I don't think the FE is finished with Andrew yet, so I think we'll get to see, through Andrew, just how evil someone without a will and personality who likes to take orders can be -- and we'll have a good idea of how evil Spike was during his early years.
[> [> [> [> [> [> I don't have any problem (Spoilers through 7.9) -- Sophist, 10:57:42 12/02/02 Mon

believing that Spike was a serial rapist. My problem is that ME failed to tell us that. I think that information is critical to developing the plotline leading to SR.

I will also go further and say that the portrayal of Spike prior to SR seems to me inconsistent with his practice of serial rape for the reasons set out quite well by Miss Edith. I see Indri's point -- it could have happened long in the past and as part of his "initiation" into Angelus's gang. I have no problem believing this either. Again, however, this background information was something I consider essential to proper development of the story line leading up to SR. It could easily have been done in S2, as you point out. It could also have been done on AtS. But it needed to be there.

As for his remorse after SR, my problem is that I can't imagine serial rapists (a) loving a real woman, and (b) feeling bad about hurting one particular woman as opposed to the others about whom they care nothing at all. Perhaps my view of serial rapists is too simplistic (I mean that seriously; I'm not being sarcastic here, I truly don't know).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hmm, I think the problem is... -- ponygirl, 13:02:09 12/02/02 Mon

That you are trying to apply human psychological terms to a character who is fictional and non-human. Granted that's what everyone else is doing too with the Jungian discussion, but at some point we have to acknowledge that we are talking about vampires. Vampires, while being motivated by all sorts of complex reasons, are at some basic level just plain evil and despite all the very evil human evil in the world, demonic evil is still beyond our understanding. The problem I and others have with using terms like serial killer and serial rapist is that they are human terms for very real, very non-metaphorical crimes, to use them as blanket terms for Spike's behaviour seems to me to both ignore the richness of Spike's story, and also diminish the real life horror of these crimes.

You feel that there wasn't enough lead-up to see Spike as as someone who could commit rape. I think we're still going to disagree here. I can accept Spike as a vampire who has done some Very Bad Things in the past, just as I can also accept his evolution over seasons 5 & 6. And I would say that Spike himself shares your confusion over his remorse in SR, after all his line after "what did I do?" was "why didn't I do it?" He is at that point without a clue as to who or what he is, which is why he goes to seek a soul, to try and find a moral compass beyond the chip, which is artificial, and his love for Buffy, which he has just betrayed.

Whew! Hope that didn't sound flame-y at all. It's been an interesting discussion.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hmm, I think the problem is... -- leslie, 13:44:07 12/02/02 Mon

Seems to me there's also a problem in a lot of people's minds about literal versus metaphorical rape. I don't think you can have watched the show for more than about 15 minutes without picking up on vampirism as a sexual metaphor, and unless people are really anxious to be vamped (Billy Fordham, for instance--or, indeed, Darla and Liam and William), I don't see what other metaphor for the process you can use besides rape. But some seem to accept this metaphorical rape, and find the introduction of a suggestion of literal rape offensive both narratively and morally.

Incidentally, as I understand it, many rapists do, in fact, draw a very strict distinction in their minds between the women they rape--who in some way deserve it, in their minds- -and "their" women, whether wives, girlfriends, sisters, or mothers. Often these men have a truly psychotic madonna- whore dichotomy in their perceptions of women, and madonnas are untouchable, pure, and beloved, while whores are, well, not. In many cases, the need to rape is born out of an inability to deal with the sexuality of "their" women; they feel anger at the madonnas for not being the pure, asexual creatures they believed them to be, and they displace that rage onto the anonymous women they rape. Now, you can aruge whether these men really do love the women they claim to love, but they themselves perceive themselves as capable of loving "good" women and punishing (through rape) "bad" women, and indeed regard this punishing as necessary to preserve the purity and goodness of the good women.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Good points, ponygirl and leslie -- Sophist, 14:10:39 12/02/02 Mon

I'll accept leslie's views of rapists as more accurate than my own; I'm sure she has much more expertise than I do. Such a view would, sort of anyway, explain Spike's reaction to SR.

As for the dialogue from NLM, I think the disagreement is much less than others seem to think (as evidenced by my attempts to agree with those who are trying to disagree with me). C'est la vie. My original comment was only intended as a somewhat snarky/cynical reaction to what I perceived as a belated attempt to supply something many people (including me) claimed was missing prior to SR. (And may I add that I'm shocked that what was intended as an offhand comment grew into a thread of this length, while lengthy, well-reasoned posts get 3 responses? Ahh, the magic of a Spike post....).

As I said above, I do now see the current point of Spike's confession, and I like leslie's point far above that the exact degree of Spike's former depravity is less significant for this purpose than his (and Buffy's) understanding of that depravity. In this sense, I am under no illusions whatsoever that he was utterly depraved; I'm only questioning what we were given to understand about the exact types of depravity he exhibited.

So now one more point of (ironic) agreement, this time with ponygirl -- we do agree to disagree about the image of Spike before SR and the need for evidence of sexual predation leading up to that episode.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yes, excellent points, Ponygirl and Leslie -- Rahael, 14:20:23 12/02/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> Sure, Why not? (except for my "but..."face) -- Haecceity, 14:02:21 12/02/02 Mon

I think we do agree on the organic building idea, but I have to admit I saw the whole basement scene differently.

I've wondered if this is a case of Spike giving Buffy a full litany of his crimes. When he was crazycrush in love with her it wasn’t likely that he was going to run down all his past atrocities in detail—the Slayers' deaths, yes, as that put him on equal footing with her, emphasized their “pairing”, but I don’t think he’d ever have brought up the rape motif, especially as regards young girls at a point at which his most effective way of getting through Buffy’s emotional armor was in caring for Dawn.

Maybe it’s just me, but the revelation/admittance coming at this point after SR, after they’ve stripped themselves down to people acknowledging that they’ve hurt each other deeply rings true. If they are each other’s “darkness”, they both have to reveal everything to each other at some point before they have a real shot to come out the other side, integrated, whole beings. I think the basement scene, in fact, much of NLM and even Sleeper to some extent is this balance point.

Re: Spike’s behavior after SR:
I think it’s underlined how much he is different—that even before the souling he had changed profoundly—if the attempted assault ofa slayer can hurt his formerly indifferent vamp heart, he is no longer the “Big Bad Vamp”—he is something else, something undefined, amorphous, confused. And you know how much Spike values character definition. But he is still “young”, adolescent in many ways, and the only “other” kind of vampire he’s ever known is Angel, who has a nice shiny soul, who Buffy loved.

I for one thought his leaving at the end of SR clearly showed his intention to get all souled-up (Despite the clumsy cliffhanger-ness and tough talk). There really wasn’t an alternative—even the removal of the chip wouldn’t have brought back the old Evil Spike. He’s known since S5 that he loves her truly, and as Alcibiades’ post put so well, once he chose Buffy over Dru he acknowleged that he had changed enough to want a truer, more adult sort of love.

That’s the thing about this show---characters may get stuck in bad emotional spaces, treading water and looking lost for weeks at a time, nut *no one * goes backwards. No one. Not Anya, all unhappy as a re-Vengeance Demon, not Willow, home and friendly, but still apt to go black-eyed with surprise, not B, who’s quippy and pro-active again, but far from happy.

You said:
"When I watched NLM, my immediate (cynical) reaction was that the lines were added to supply a point that was conspicuously missing earlier. I consider that unfair and disingenuous by the writers. "


But I have to admit I disagree on this point. I think they play with us deliberately, tweak their tales to challenge our expectations, but I don’t think they “cheat”—it seems to me (hopelessly gullible as I am sometimes) that they just might respect their audience more than that.

So, don't think of me as disagreeing with you totally, but rather agreeing in a totally unusual manner (that's from something, just don't ask me what :)

---Haecceity
[> [> [> [> [> [> Yet again I agree. -- Sophist, 14:15:48 12/02/02 Mon

Except that I didn't think Spike went for a soul after SR. That remains one of my criticisms of S6.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Just curiosity... -- Haecceity, 21:02:32 12/02/02 Mon

...but why not? Where did you think he was off to?

I'm genuinely curious, as (despite an inordinate amount of posts on the board) I couldn't honestly come up with an alternative action I thought made story-sense.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Just curiosity... -- Sophist, 08:45:32 12/03/02 Tue

I thought he intended to get the chip removed and got his soul restored because he phrased the wish badly. Maybe I'm too literal, but that's what the sequence suggested to me. Of course, that's how JM was instructed to play it, so it's not surprising there was confusion. Malandanza had a couple of fine posts on this last May/June, and I agree with him.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Just curiosity...about rape again, not the chip or the soul re: Bargaining II -- alcibiades, 10:29:26 12/03/02 Tue

It has been brought up before, but this time seeing Spike's reaction to the demon bikers in Bargaining II, and the smile that flits across his face as a demon enters a random house near the Summers' and a random woman screams, it really is hard to escape the implication that Spike is kind of getting a visceral pleasure from the looting and destruction and, we assume from the scream, the raping that is going on for kicks in that house. He smiles twice and tells Dawn it looks like fun.

You know, it is an interesting scene because of just how layered Spike is at that moment. Even as pure, unsouled demon, he has the lower half of him responding strongly to the raping and murdering for kicks while the higher part of himself is very much focused on keeping Dawn safe and being her protector.

And he is not derailed in his attempt to keep Dawn safe until he sees first hand the kind of carnage the demons exercised on the figure which was once his stand in for expressing Buffylove. It is a lesson once more that the randomness of violence can be exercised on people or things he loved as well as on strangers. And it takes him out of the moment, and into his tragedy of the loss of Buffy, so that he
temporarily loses sight of Dawn.

Furthermore, although the writers' have told us that the rape was a last minute inspiration of Marti's (thanks Marti), in terms of telling Spike's story, where he began it in the season and where he ended it, I'd have to say now, having reseen Bargaining, that Spike's "journey" in Season 6 works better than I thought originally. It is when his control momentarily fails at keeping apart the upper and lower levels of his personality in Seeing Red -- and he tries to force Buffy to make love to him -- and he no longer can
sustain or enforce a meaningful divide between his two selves -- his reconstituted man and his demon.

So, no, I don't think this was all thought out by the authors at the beginning of Season 6, but I do think it makes sense -- that they reached into the personality of Spike that we saw on screen from the beginning of Season 6. Once he reached the crisis point, he was bound to reach a point where he could
no longer sustain the ongoing mythos of his reconstructed personality from Season 5 on and, with nothing to sustain it, his control was going to fail. So that, his inner contradiction -- which was his demon nature that he had bifurcated by an act of love into upper and lower consciousness -- had to fail for it to become manifest in the world so that he could begin to solve it and move past it onto a higher level of consciousness.

I think being tested by the demon and fighting his own nature as it were -- his own dark half -- and not being sure until the battles were won exactly what he wanted, when he tells Lurky in a soft voice with the fight gone out of it to give Buffy what she deserves -- which is how I read the directorial confusion from last season -- this is the process of his inner contradition becoming conscious for Spike so that he can willfully acquire his soul as a way to solve it.

It does make it ironic however that this season, with the way the First has been making him act, it makes Spike think that even with the soul he is more monster than ever -- and thus his inner contradiction was renewed, not in anyway overcome. To do your best to repair yourself, and over and over you see
yourself worse than ever and you don't understand why. No wonder at that moment he feels despair.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Good points. I mostly agree -- Sophist, 10:55:00 12/03/02 Tue

Actually, I agree with pretty much everything you said (and you said it very well). My only departure from your position is this: I agree that Spike's loss of control vis-a-vis Buffy was essential to his "decision" to seek a soul. I'm still, however, of the view that the expression of that loss of control in the particular form of attempted rape constituted a significant change in the character of Spike that ME had previously presented.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Good points. I mostly agree -- alcibiades, 13:54:48 12/03/02 Tue

I'm still, however, of the view that the expression of that loss of control in the particular form of attempted rape constituted a significant change in the character of Spike that ME had previously presented.

That is why I started by pointing out Spike's visceral enjoyment of the implied rape going on inside the house across the way from the Summers' in Bargaining. He has a very particular smile at that moment that I only remember on his face in NLM, when First/Spike smiles as regular Spike is being tortured on the cross/wheel.

Spike is not committing the rape himself in Bargaining, we don't see him in action, but he does feel that that particular rape looks and sounds like fun. For me, in retrospect, I can take that as read that he has participated in such acts in the past. I think it establishes a basis.

Guess I didn't convince you, huh?
[> [> Re: Spike & Andrew(recent episode spoilers) -- Malandanza, 12:44:38 11/29/02 Fri

"I had a totally different take on Spike's talk about their "relationship." He just seemed to be sharing a new perspective, a realization that, along with a new ability to perceive his own transgressions, he saw the bad aspects of how she had treated him. I didn't see him trying to connect that to his current fall off the wagon - in fact, since he has no clue what was causing that, he couldn't blame it on Spuffy."

I think that you and Dariel are right about Spike taking some responsibility for his past actions -- but distant (pre- season 6) past. I think it is clear that he blames Buffy for the soul-induce suffering he's experiencing. His comment that she was using him (then a quick recanting when he saw here glare at him) and his continued references to having gotten the soul for her -- that everything he does is for her -- is a sign that he hasn't taken responsibility for their past relationship. He's still living the fantasy and wondering why Buffy treats him so badly -- forget the impending apocalypse, what matters is that Spike is unhappy and it's all Buffy's fault. Somewhere in there Spike made some choices -- he isn't Buffy's sock puppet, no matter how much he'd like to be. He is ready to take responsibiltiy for past crimes, done without a soul, but not to take responsibility for his behavior towards Buffy.

As for the jacket, I think that the leather jacket is so inextricably linked to Spike that it is unreasonable to suggest that there was no symbolic connection between Andrew and Spike when Andrew donned the jacket.

Further below, Dariel mentions that William was creative -- I'd say that's yet another Spike/Andrew parallel. Remember that Andrew summoned and controlled demons with music (sort of like the First Evil... hmmm...:). But his creative talents didn't stop there -- he was also an artist. Remember the Death Star he painted on the side of the Trio's van? The impression I had was that he finished it rather quickly and it was detailed enough to spark a debate between Jonathan and Andrew about whether the design was flawed. So Andrew also has his artistic side (but unlike William, he actually has some talent). Also, Andrew was originally on Jonathan's side about murder -- robbery and mayhem was ok, but he had to be seduced to the dark side before he began killing (another Spike/Dru Andrew/Warren parallel).
[> [> [> Re: Spike & Andrew(recent episode spoilers) -- Dariel, 14:43:29 11/29/02 Fri

I think that you and Dariel are right about Spike taking some responsibility for his past actions -- but distant (pre- season 6) past. I think it is clear that he blames Buffy for the soul-induced suffering he's experiencing.

Glad to see you agree about pre-season 6, since that is when Spike's big crimes took place. Taking responsiblity for 120 years of murder, mayhem, and rape is a huge step for Spike. Blaming Buffy for their bad relationship--kind of a minor sin in comparison. Yes, he does need to get past it. Still, he's wouldn't be the first man, on BtVS or in the Realverse, to blame the woman!

He's still living the fantasy and wondering why Buffy treats him so badly -- forget the impending apocalypse, what matters is that Spike is unhappy and it's all Buffy's fault.

This sounds more like earlier season 7 then the present. Yes, he's kind of angry at her for using him. Still, Spike understanding Buffy's behavior is a step forward for him. He's starting to see her as a person with her own motivations, rather than as his fantasy "you belong in the dark with me" version.

As for Buffy's treatment of him, in NLM Spike seems surprised that she's treating him so well. (Me too--I would have chained him up from the beginning!)

As far as the impending apocalypse goes-When Spike urges Buffy to kill him, he's certainly thinking about the safety of others, not about himself.

The journey to becoming a better person does not move in a straight line. (Some people have cited a spiral as a better image.) While we're on the journey, we don't always seem so noble, staring off into the distance with a far away look. Sometimes, we're even a bit whiny!
[> [> [> [> Re: Spike & Andrew(recent episode spoilers) -- Malandanza, 08:09:01 11/30/02 Sat

"Still, Spike understanding Buffy's behavior is a step forward for him. He's starting to see her as a person with her own motivations, rather than as his fantasy "you belong in the dark with me" version."

I think the exchange between Spike and Buffy showed that he still doesn't see Buffy -- his fantasy is evolving, but he still sees her as part of his fantasy. Buffy's rebuke -- that he doesn't even know himself so how can he presume to have all these dark insights into her character (insulting her as she tries to save him) -- highlights the fact that Spike (like Andrew) has always lived in fantasy. What was positive to me about the exchange was that Buffy seems to have shaken off whatever influence he had over her. She's no longer overidentifying with his pysch-101 remarks. Buffy is starting to see herself as she really is, rather than seeing her reflection warped and distorted in the mirror of her friends.

"As for Buffy's treatment of him, in NLM Spike seems surprised that she's treating him so well. (Me too--I would have chained him up from the beginning!)"

I agree that Buffy is treating him remarkably well -- as Anya pointed out, no sword through the chest for Spike. But Spike tried to rape Buffy and he's taking her to task for "using" him. Buffy is the injured party, yet Spike seems to feel as though he's being mistreated.

"As far as the impending apocalypse goes-When Spike urges Buffy to kill him, he's certainly thinking about the safety of others, not about himself."

I think he was thinking about himself just as surely as Angel was thinking about himself in Amends. Spike wanted to die, not to save his future victims, but to put an end to his own pain. He wanted the easy way out so
he wouldn't have to suffer for his sins.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike & Andrew(recent episode spoilers) -- slain, 09:47:35 11/30/02 Sat

I do think, to an extent, Spike feels that Buffy has mistreated him or 'used' him, but I think it's only in a small way - he might be a vampire, but he's still essentially human, and has flaws. I don't think we can entirely expect him to be completely selfless, and to take the blame for everything. But I think these flashes of selfishness are only minor, and transitory; as I've said, for me his dominant emotions seem to be self-loathing rather than self-pity. Spike might blame Buffy, to an extent, but by far he takes most of the blame on himself; he doesn't expect Buffy to apologise or to seek redemption for the way she treated him, but he has already found a soul and saught death, which for me shows that it's himself he thinks is at fault, not Buffy.

As for his insight, I've always thought that Spike in Season 6 showed little insight into Buffy; rather he was trying to mould her, in her impressionable state, to fit into his world. From the season's existential perspective, this failed, as Buffy had to find her own path, not follow someone else's leadership. But I think there are times when Spike has understood Buffy, and I don't think anything that's happened precludes him from understanding her in the future.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike & Andrew(recent episode spoilers) -- leslie, 10:47:42 11/30/02 Sat

"But Spike tried to rape Buffy and he's taking her to task for "using" him. Buffy is the injured party, yet Spike seems to feel as though he's being mistreated."

Jeeze, I just really cannot see this in that scene. Taking her to task? Feeling mistreated? Not at all. Come on, last season he thought that her beating him up was a sign that she loved him! ("Well, I do beat him up a lot--for Spike, that's, like, third base.") He took all of her abuse of him as a sign that she belonged with him, that he meant something to her, that she was his shiny new Drusilla. He's saying that he now realizes she was right all those times she told him he was a dead, evil thing--that it wasn't some kind of sexy talk, that she was speaking the simple truth. (Constrast with the girl in the alleyway and all her "Oh, you're bad--I like it bad" talk.)

A couple of weeks ago, I said that Spike's stunned, virtually silent behavior in Him reminded me of someone coming down from a bad acid trip. This seems to me to follow in that same paradigm: after you've come down, after all the wierdness you've experienced on the drug, suddenly you see yourself in the normal chemical balance of the world much more clearly. You look back at your behavior *before* you dropped the acid and suddenly see what a farce it was--how you were acting in response to what was in your head instead of what was really happening. This is what Spike is seeing now.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike & Andrew(recent episode spoilers) -- alcibiades, 15:17:35 11/30/02 Sat

I think the exchange between Spike and Buffy showed that he still doesn't see Buffy -- his fantasy is evolving, but he still sees her as part of his fantasy. Buffy's rebuke -- that he doesn't even know himself so how can he presume to have all these dark insights into her character (insulting her as she tries to save him) -- highlights the fact that Spike (like Andrew) has always lived in fantasy.

If Spike is fantasizing, I guess I am too, because I think he is right about the Buffy he interacted with up through last year. She says it is no longer true. She may be right -- we'll have to see how she continues to treat the people around her. It has been true in the past however.


Remember Giles' "we all are who we are" from Lessons. So if Buffy has conquered or solved her attraction to pain complex, it is very recently after the multiple traumas that occurred at the end of last year, or it may reappear in a different incarnation in her way of dealing with people.

Furthermore I thought her aggressive "you don't know me, you don't even know yourself," was the superiority complex kicking in. Buffy does not like at all the fact that Spike has insight into all the dirty little secrets about herself she -- like anyone would really -- has kept from her friends. Furthermore, he does know himself. He knows the whole reality of what he has done in the past. I think it is important that Spike has not written that off as something his demon did but thinks of it as what he did. Buffy still has a tendency to bifurcate between the two states. Spike IS NOT taking the easy way out and saying, oh yeah, he did that, not me.

Buffy is right about the fact that Spike being mindcontrolled to kill and all the craziness that has arisen from his dealing with the First is now intruding with his vision of himself trying to succeed at being a better man.

What was positive to me about the exchange was that Buffy seems to have shaken off whatever influence he had over her. She's no longer overidentifying with his pysch-101 remarks. Buffy is starting to see herself as she really is, rather than seeing her reflection warped and distorted in the mirror of her friends.

As she told Holden, she was a monster to Spike last year. So if Buffy can say that about herself, and it is true, what about the fact of Spike telling Buffy that she was using him last year bothers you so much?

She can be monstrous to him for months but he never has the right to comment on it?

It was awfully clear she didn't like being called on it. That was why she tried to make out his comment was about him feeling sorry for himself. It's called defensiveness.

But I don't think it was about him falling sorry for himself. I think it was about something much more basic. At the end of an intense relationship gone awry, haven't you, Malandanza, ever spent time trying like crazy to reconcile what was going on in the other person's feelings/mind/actions - the thing you didn't understand while it was going on - which made the relationship end up that way? Perhaps you aren't the psychologically obsessive type -- trying to figure it all out so that finally the picture makes sense -- but it seems clear to me -- and inoffensive and natural -- that that is what Spike was doing. He finally understood something he didn't last year. He was getting some kind of closure.

Last year, it never would have occurred to him that Buffy was behaving badly. This year, since he is no longer seeing her as a fantasy -- as his superego replacement -- but as a real person, he can see it. And I think that is good. It is a way for her not to be the star he navigates by morally. And he doesn't need her to be that for him now, since he is now psychologically complete in a way he wasn't last year. And, depending on what craziness ensues through the season, Spike, like Dawn, may very much need a way to navigate morally that is not reliant on Buffy.

BTW, this process is a metaphorical dramatized version of something that is a pretty natural thing to happen to two people in a relationship. People start out projecting their desires and fantasies onto their mates and eventually, as times goes on, they have to strip away - a lot of times painfully - everything they consciously and unconsciously wanted the person to be or do or mean for them from the reality of the person they are with.

So the fact that Spike is doing this with Buffy as Buffy is doing it with Spike -- separating him from the monster she wanted him to be for her all last year -- seems perfectly normal and mature and a sign that they both know each other and themselves better now.

I agree that Buffy is treating him remarkably well -- as Anya pointed out, no sword through the chest for Spike. But Spike tried to rape Buffy and he's taking her to task for "using" him. Buffy is the injured party, yet Spike seems to feel as though he's being mistreated.

Well he was mistreated by Buffy. That is now as much objective fact and canon as the attempted rape. Joss showed us very clearly in a scene he wrote and filmed in BY that the relationship and Buffy's treatment of him as a way to satisfy her sexual urges and then kick him around, did have a VERY deleterious impact on him. And then, in case we missed this point the first time, or some of us wanted to discount the fact and blame it on Spike, in CWDP, an episode that Joss helped to write and then spent a lot of time tinkering with and reshooting bits of because he was so enamoured with it, Buffy tells us that she was a monster to Spike.

Spike knew he was a monster to Buffy. He went to deal with that by getting the soul. What he didn't know was that she was a monster to him as well.

So the point is both characters have to take responsibility for all their own negativity and everything bad that they did which results in the AR. It is not sufficient to blame it all on Spike and to say that Buffy has no blame in the cataclysm that occurred because Spike finally acted like the monster she psychologically and unconsciously needed him to be for her all year long. Kick a dog long enough and it bites. And since Buffy had seen Spike's nutty behavior last time his girlfriend left him, she well knew, if she had wanted to access the information, just how dangerous and out of control he could be in those kinds of situations. So she can't even use ignorance as an excuse.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike & Andrew(recent episode spoilers) -- Dariel, 09:45:42 12/01/02 Sun

Good points, alcibiades! Some of this stuff has been rolling around in my head too, but I was too lazy to think it out.

I don't know how anyone can say Spike hasn't taken responsibility for his actions with Buffy, when getting a soul was exactly that. After the attempted rape, Spike didn't hang around, trying to apologize in words and moping about how sorry he was. He took action, to change himself into something better, someone who would never try to hurt Buffy. I can't imagine a better, or more healing, apology.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Disagreeing -- Finn Mac Cool, 10:14:45 12/01/02 Sun

You say that "you don't know me; you don't even know yourself" was an example of Buffy's superiority complex. However, I think that ME intended for us to believe this line and sympathise with Buffy's position. Why? Because she gets the last word of the argument. On television, when you have two characters arguing about an issue, and you want the audience to sympathise with a particular person, that person will be the one to end the argument. Take Spike's "I'm not good, and I'm OK" from Tough Love. The writers clearly intend for us to take Spike's position in the discussion over whether or not Dawn is evil. The same sort of thing happens in Normal Again when Spike accusses Buffy of being addicted to misery, and she has no reply. The person who gets the last word is the one who leaves the biggest impression, and thus is the one the writers want us to side with. Buffy saying "you don't know me; you don't even know yourself" was the end of the discussion that we heard, so it both rings as the correct side and seems to be what Drew Goddard wanted us to side with.
[> [> [> [> [> Mal, you went and made me disagree with you..spoilers up to Never Leave Me -- Rufus, 19:06:02 12/01/02 Sun

I think he was thinking about himself just as surely as Angel was thinking about himself in Amends. Spike wanted to die, not to save his future victims, but to put an end to his own pain. He wanted the easy way out so
he wouldn't have to suffer for his sins.

I consider that vampires are partially the metaphor for substance abuse. The substance of choice human blood that seems to make them more violent that animal blood (again remember Angels reaction to Connors blood). Spike has been on a decades long bender in which he can only unlive for the blood.....it all being about blood for him. With the return of the soul he has been going through a detox of a sort where for the first time he has been able to see clearly about what he has done not just try to figure it out while not understanding why he should care. This was his problem without a soul, he couldn't care for anyone past who he loved and that is what would always seperate him from humans and Buffy.

I don't think that Spike was being totally self serving. The fact that he has been in so much pain makes his desire to die a logical reaction, but not just a selfish one. His comment to Buffy about killing in Sleeper is why....

Spike: NO. NOT THE CHIP. NOT THE CHIP, DAMN IT. YOU HONESTLY THINK I'D GO TO THE END OF THE UNDERWORLD AND BACK TO GET MY SOUL AND THEN...BUFFY, I CAN BARELY LIVE WITH WHAT I DID. IT HAUNTS ME. ALL OF IT. IF YOU THINK THAT I WOULD ADD TO THE BODY COUNT NOW, YOU ARE CRAZY.

Then we have Spike telling Buffy she has to kill him in Never Leave Me.....

Spike: [SIGHS] WELL, THINGS HAVE BEEN WONKY FOR ME EVER SINCE I GOT BACK, EVER SINCE...

Buffy:...YOU GOT YOUR SOUL.

Spike: FIGURED THAT'S WHAT IT WAS LIKE. BEEN SO LONG SINCE I HAD ONE.

Spike: BUFFY, YOU HAVE TO KILL ME.

Buffy: YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND. WHEN I LEFT THE ROOM
EARLIER, I HEARD YOU TALKING TO SOM--

Spike: DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT I'M CAPABLE OF?

Buffy: I WAS IN THE CELLAR WITH YOU. I SAW WHAT YOU DID.

Spike: I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE CELLAR. PEOPLE IN THE CELLAR
GOT OFF EASY. I'M TALKING ABOUT ME. BUFFY, YOU'VE NEVER MET
THE REAL ME.

Buffy: BELIEVE ME, I'M WELL AWARE OF WHAT YOU'RE CAPABLE OF.

Spike: NO. YOU GOT OFF EASY, TOO. DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH BLOOD
YOU CAN DRINK FROM A GIRL BEFORE SHE'LL DIE? I DO. YOU SEE, THE TRICK IS TO DRINK JUST ENOUGH TO KNOW HOW TO DAMAGE THEM
JUST ENOUGH SO THAT THEY'LL STILL CRY WHEN YOU--'CAUSE IT'S NOT WORTH IT IF THEY DON'T CRY.

Buffy: IT'S NOT YOUR FAULT.

Spike: [SNORTS]

Buffy: YOU'RE NOT THE ONE DOING THIS.

Spike: I ALREADY DID IT. IT'S ALREADY DONE. [CHAINS RATTLE]
YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT I'VE DONE TO GIRLS DAWN'S AGE?
THIS IS ME, BUFFY. YOU'VE GOTTA KILL ME BEFORE I GET OUT.

Spike is waking up after a long bender....he now has a soul that hasn't been used for a long time. His request to Buffy wasn't a plea to end his pain..it was an honest attempt to make sure he couldn't add to the total kills he remembers being responsible for, and can now care about.
[> [> [> Re: Spike & Andrew(recent episode spoilers) -- Miss Edith, 10:17:37 11/30/02 Sat

IMO Spike has taken his share of blame for the relationship. When he is first confronted with Buffy he is full of self- loathing. In BY he makes no attempt to respond to Buffy and Xander's snide comments, but rather humbles himself. In STSP he cringes when he sees Buffy and starts muttering about how she is glowing and he can't look at her because she knows what he did. Selfess sees him punching himself in the face talking of how he is a bad man for hurting the girl. I never felt there was much doubt that Spike does feel remorse for his actions. Ironically on other boards a lot of people are actually complaning that Spike is focusing too much on his recent past. I.e he is still only concerned about Buffy and the attempted rape and in the church scene his focus should have been on his more henious crimes.

As for NLM I saw it as some of the old Spike returning along with his habit of telling people the harsh truth whether it's what they want to hear or not. He even tells Buffy with all the guilt he is already struggling with he's not too concerned with being polite any more. There was undoubtly some self-pity being expressed as well. But I felt the main point was that Spike does now have more insight into Buffy. In season 6 he was convinced she she would fall in love with him because they were having sex and the physical intimacy would lead to more in his mindset. He put up with her beating in DT seeing it as an expression of love "You always hurt the one you love pet". Dru was as far as I'm aware his first serious relationship so it's not surprising that he associates true love with pain and intense emotion. He is only now coming to the realisation of what Buffy was telling him in AYW. She hated herself and Spike was the convienient target, "I understand you now. I understand the violence inisde...hating yourself". I would say Spike was finally confronting some honest truths and I never got the impression that he was saying the relationship was all Buffy's fault. Rather he was saying they never had a relationship, there was nothing between them, and he can understand some of what was going through Buffy's head.

I would therefore disagree with your interpretation that Spike still refuses to take responsibility for his behaviour towards Buffy. I felt he was not wondering why Buffy treats him badly but actually came to the realisation of why she was so contemptous towards him last season. Not living in a fantasy land but seeing the situation as it truly was.
[> Selective memory, Mal? -- Dariel, 09:03:53 11/29/02 Fri

What about the fact that Spike took responsibility for his own evil, both in Sleeper and NLM. The minute he realizes he may be killing, he calls Buffy, confesses. When he starts remembering, he doesn't run away, or try to make excuses; just submits to being dusted.

Again, in NLM, he urges her to tie the ropes tighter, not to give him any slack. After he realizes that he's hurt (not killed) Andrew, he urges Buffy to kill him, and tries to taunt her into doing so. Here again, Spike is not trying to hide, not trying to make excuses for what he is, but to take responsibility.

The relationship talk just seemed honest to me too. He's become clear on what happened, why Buffy was with him, and no longer holds onto the belief that deep down she was in love with him. He sees the real person, the real Buffy, not the one on a pedestal. He's no longer projecting his own desires/needs onto her. Sounds like growth to me.

Speaking of William...a week or so ago, there were some posts about POV, by Shadowcat and Rufus. Talking about what Darla saw when she looked at William, and what Dru saw. Don't know if they covered this, but they got me thinking about Spike's POV. In FFL, we mostly see pre-vamp William through Spike's eyes. Spike is still holding tightly to his Big Bad image, and recalls William as weak, an embarassment, a foolish man spouting bad poetry.

The problem with accepting this view at face value is that it's Spike's POV, not exactly the most unbiased observer. If William had any good points, any strengths, it's not likely that Spike would value or remember them.

Even if what we've been shown of William is meant to be taken for truth, he's clearly not Andrew. William at least attempts to be social, however inadequate he may be in that department. He writes bad poetry, yes, but at least he does something creative, something that comes from his own mind. Andrew is clearly a follower who obsesses over other people's creations (film and TV); his one skill, summoning demons, is borrowed from his brother.

And there's the obvious point: William had to lose his soul and gain a demon before he killed anyone. Andrew, still souled and human, is already an accomplice in one murder and has committed another.
[> Re: The Bad Boys of BtVS(recent episode spoilers) - - Miss Edith, 11:42:23 11/30/02 Sat

Spike got off on the fight, a physical challenge. When he takes down the slayers he seems to have little interest in degrading them with rape and making them cry. He seems to want to respect them as powerful warriors and beat them in a tough fight all fist and fangs. The artistry of torture was beyond him. His response to Angelus describing it was to call Angelus a poofter. "That stuffs for the frills and collars crowd. I'll take a good brawl any day". And "don't you ever get tired of fights you know you can win". Therefore we are given the clear message that Angelus liked the drawn out torture of his victims whereas Spike got off more on the action of violence. That makes sense to me as not all vampires are serial rapists or torturers, they are individuals with differing personalities. For example Dalton in season 2 is Spike and Dru's minion and just as much a wimp as he presumedly was in life.

In WML Spike is sexually jealous of Angel yet he is uncomfortable with joining in with Dru's torture. Note I did not say he had a moral dilema with torture, he smiles and is perfectly happy for Dru to torture Angel. It's just not Spike's thing, "I'll see him die soon enough. I've never been much for the pre show". When Angel taunts him that Dru enjoys torture the most and Spike isn't enough of a man for Dru, Spike does not try to cause sadistic pain. He flips and goes to stake Angel without thought. In the Ats episode In The Dark we know how much Spike hates Angel. Yet he hires someone to torture Angel for information. Yes Spike does join in on one occasion but I would still say him hiring someone suggests that Spike could not get the job done himself.

In Crush Buffy was chained up but I never got the feeling it occured to Spike to rape her. Rather he lost his temper in the end and started ranting about cutting her up into little pieces. Not nice behaviour but consistent with Spike's character. Not the type to relish torture but acts on the spur of the moment. I also accepted his tale to Dawn in that episode of killing off an entire family including the little girl hiding in the coalbin so I would like to think I am not in denial regarding Spike's past. I would say him murdering little children is worse than him being a rapist in fact. My problem is not that I have a fairy tale view of Spike. My problem is with character inconsistency and suggesting Spike raped for kicks without prior evidence. Just because he was a vampire we are supposed to accept they were all monsters and did every terrible thing you can imagine, but Spike was not just a ravashing beast, he was an individual person with preferences and I simply never saw rape or torture as one of them.

Surely the point of SR was that Spike's behaviour was unusual for him. I saw it as Spike being appalled not just because he hurt Buffy but because he had passed his own personal limits. He had committed an act no gentleman ever would and been brought face to face with the monster inside. If he had tried to kill Buffy I don't think his sickened reaction would have been as extreme rather he would have simply felt bad for hurting Buffy and been pissed at ruining his chances with her. What I saw in SR was revulsion aimed at himself. He is haunted by flashbacks and simply cannot believe what he has done. Remember his previous attitude to Dawn was "well I'm not good and I'm okay". He thought he had control over the monster inside and could control his reactions. He had always excused his past actions as "Hello vampire I'm supposed to be treading on the dark side". But rape was not something that was part of being a vampire in his experience.

I have several problems with Spike's admission. One if Spike is meant to be seen as a serial rapist I find it cowardly of ME to only bring it up at this point. In season 5 we had FFL detailing Spike's past with the clear indication that torture was Angelus's thing and Spike never got behind that. It is suggested that his new family may have influenced him by causing him to torture his former enemies but such behaviour had not continued with people Spike had no grudge against. Angelus is frustrated because of that.
In season 6 ME said they wanted to show an evil or at least morally ambiguios Spike so we had to put up with stupid stories about demon eggs and Spike being an international arms dealer. Now Spike has a soul the writers suddenly find the courage to mention what their real vision of Spike apparently is.

Also I am getting the uncomfortable feeling that ME are trying to hard to have viewers dislike the old Spike and accept William. Hence they are saying you though Spike was okay before and Buffy was wrong to despise him as a thing. Well he raped young girls and was a child molester/serial rapist so now you must know he was evil. It was the same feeling I got after the AR in SR. I felt the scene was consistent with Spike's mental condition I just didn't like the reason why I felt ME were using it. It's fine for the audience to believe that Spike terrorised and killed families but to prove he was really evil ME will bring up rape. There is something about that which does bother me especially as I would call murder worse than rape and I do get tired of attempts to demonize characters by mentioning rape.

And then there's the whole character inconsistincy and the fact that it doesn't IMO fit with the characer of Spike. I do think it was likely that he did earn his nickname by torturing with railroad spikes the party guests who depsised him. I would just not say it was a regular thing for him. In that same year he was made we have the mine scene in FFL with Angelus scolding him for not prolonging the pain.

I see the character of Spike as an unpleasant one with a lot of amends to be made. In School Hard he does kill an innocent teacher for the pure fun of it and both Giles and Angel note that Spike loves killing everything in his path. But in that same episode we see Spike has kept some of his humanity and dotes on Dru. When Sheila is kidnapped she is tied up in their room yet is fully clothed and Spike makes no move towards sexually violating her. He simply gives her to Dru to eat.

Dru dumps him because she saw his association with Buffy as a betrayel and I always saw Drusilla as keeping Spike on a pretty tight leash. He is fuming when she develops an interest in Angelus and that to me suggests that they were generally faithful to each other. I know people often say in LW Spike was going to torture Dru and therefore he was dominant over her but that episode gave me an entiraly different impression. Drusilla tells Spike she is dumping him because he doesn't hurt her the way Angelus does. She is not interested in Spike's worship of his princess, Angelus has given her a taste for pain and that isn't in Spike's nature enough to satisfy her.

Again with Harmony Spike is on the rebound and looking to hurt someone. He is scornful to Harmony and hurts her with vicious verbal attacks. Yet he still has his innate romanticism at his core. There is no suggestion of rape, he seduces Harmoney in THLOD after she winds him up and causes him to shout at her. He turns around, sees her being flirtatious and rather than staying angry and having sex with her in that way (overpowering, dominance) he crawls seductively up the bed. Yes they used sex games and chains but I wouldn't say there is evidence that he abused Harmoney sexully despite of having no respect for her. Again with Buffy harming her sexually is a concept which disgusts him. With Anya he is gentle and kisses her passionately. I can't fit that portrayel of Spike in with a sadist who likes to rape. Spike is like the fox in the henhouse. He will kill the ones he wants and rip the throats out of the others for malicious fun leaving them to suffer and die. Spike has never been shown to enjoy the slow infliction of pain through torture or the dominance and fantasies of rape.
[> [> Well said. -- Sophist, 14:48:40 11/30/02 Sat

[> [> Re: Well said indeed! (NT) -- Silky, 08:00:05 12/01/02 Sun

[> [> I agree but... -- Indri, 10:41:20 12/01/02 Sun

I still think it's possible that Spike tried out quite a few things under the tutelage of Angelus that he soon realised he had little innate interest in. Perhaps he mentions torture and rape to Buffy now precisely because they are the acts he's committed that he's most ashamed of. He is, after all, trying to persuade her to kill him in this scene. His reaction to the attempted rape in "Seeing Red" would still be in character because he is appalled that he has hurt someone he loves.
[> [> [> Re: I agree but... -- Miss Edith, 10:53:51 12/01/02 Sun

I'm going by this quote,
"Do you know how much blood you can drink from a girl before she'll die...you see the trick is to drink just enough, to know how to damage them just enough, so that they'll cry when you...Cause it's not worth it if they don't cry".
That quote to me sounds as if Spike torturing and raping was a regular thing and if that was how the writers envisioned the character I just wish they had made the effort to show us that in FFL for instance, instead of creating the exact opposite impression with Angelus scolding Spike for not prolonging the pain.
[> [> [> Exactly -- Malandanza, 19:04:56 12/01/02 Sun

"I still think it's possible that Spike tried out quite a few things under the tutelage of Angelus that he soon realised he had little innate interest in."

I think that newly vamped William the Bloody was a bit like an uncool pledge desperate to join a prestigious fraternity who is put through all sorts of hazing rituals to prove himself when the frat boys know very well that they'll never admit him into their ranks. I think Angelus spent quite a bit of his time devising tests for Spike to prove himself and the worst of Spike's crimes were performed at Angelus' (and Darla's) instigation. I even think Spike's ghost story for Dawn (with the child hiding in the coal chute) happened, but happened with Spike as an observer -- that it was Angelus who stalked through the house searching for the missing child and Spike merely watched with admiration, repeating the story later with himself as the lead. In any event, these were the actions of an unsouled, evil entity, not a souled (and chipped) creature. Spike was evil -- well, yeah -- why else would Dru have stayed with him?

"His reaction to the attempted rape in "Seeing Red" would still be in character because he is appalled that he has hurt someone he loves."

And it would be consistent with the way he treated Harmony. If he doesn't care for someone, he doesn't mind if they suffer unduly at his hands. There was no epiphany after he staked poor Harm -- he didn't go running off to Africa to get a soul for her. Similarly for Dru -- once he had transferred his affections fully to Buffy, he was perfectly willing to dust his dark princess to get Buffy to "admit" she liked him and might, sometime, maybe, go out with him.

There is much commentary on the vamping process creating a dark, distorted reflection of the original. Liam had father issues as a human, Angelus has them as a vampire (only more so). Similarly for Penn. For William, it was unattainable women
. I have a feeling that Spike reveled in his newfound power over women who would not give him the time of day when he was alive. It would make sense and be in keeping with his character. Like Warren at the bar, exulting in the magic orbs. I suspect that Spike's torture and/or rape of beautiful women ended about the time he found out what a slayer was -- the ultimate unattainable woman (or possibly after the Darla/Angel breakup -- I doubt Angelus and Darla would have allowed Spike to pursue slayers in their company). A new obsession -- or rather, an old one, with a dangerous twist. We really saw it last season when Spike crowed that he "knew the only thing better than killing slayer was f---".
[> [> It's up to personal opinion - I'm someone between yourself and Mal on this -- slain, 13:20:27 12/01/02 Sun

[> What I *Meant* to Say…(A Little Retcon of My Own;) Really Really Long -- Haecceity, 23:06:25 12/01/02 Sun

Okay, so on the consequences of hasty posting—when you assemble your super-long posts via cut & paste, make sure to paste as well as cut! I just read through this thing and realized that those paragraphs directly pertaining to the subject at hand were of the cut, not pasted variety, whilst the rambling and fluff stood front and center.

Irony, again, ironic.

Therefore, here is my Director’s Paste version of this ramble. I apologize to those of you who read the rush- release, screening version. I’ve starred off those new sections if you want to skip ahead.

Again, my apologies—still a little new to this threaded posting thing, which made my seeming off-topicness look worse as it’s slotted between several hard-hitting, to-the- point posts.




Is retcon a bad thing, really? It’s a term I’ve not heard before, so forgive me if I’m misinterpreting, but I think, sometimes, that in our understandable enthusiasm for looking at the show as Shadowkat and Slain have outlined :

Shadowkat:
1. Literal - Buffyverse plot/formula/interpretation which you often post so well.
2. Metaphorical Myth, Historical, Literary Illusions - I tend to be better at this one. Although Manchurian Candidate fits here as well - so you've hit it too.
3. Metaphor for Real Life - here we get into Freud, bad boyfriends, teenage fears, etc.

Slain:
1. In terms of how it fits in with specific genres, modes, philosophies and ideologies (such as the horror genre or the existentialist ideology, feminism)

2. In terms of how it relates in an allegorical or metaphorical way to things outside of the mythology (real life: social and political situations)

3. In terms of how it relates with itself, with the established mythology of the characters and their psychology and morality.


…we forget that there is another viewpoint, one that we refer to constantly but don’t seem to spend a lot of time in personally---that of the writers. Not as on-high creators of a world, as we often jokingly refer to them, but as a group of regular folks who sit about a big ‘ol table and spin stories to themselves, and by extension, us.
*WARNING: highly personal viewpoint* I think the point of art is to tell each other stories, by which we all learn how to find our own path to being human, to participating as fully as possible in our own lives. And the telling of stories that touch not only our minds but our spirits, hearts, and even our hands (by inspiring us to tell stories of our own), is a complicated, concentric, organic process. Did Joss have a grand narrative idea all outlined and plot- pointed to the nth degree on little blue James Lipton cards when he sat down to create the Buffyverse? Maybe. But has the show deviated from these hypothetical rules during the course of the show? Have characters been altered, transformed, re-visioned, killed off because of these deviations, these turnings of the path? Damn straight they have. Which to my mind can only be a good thing. That means that the art form ME is creating is a living thing, capable of the same sort of evolution, transformation and fairy tale redemption that we ourselves are heir to—it is a mirror of our own growth. Were the show to be held to hidebound, backward-looking, rigid rules, or worse—wish- fulfillment fantasies of static relationships, it would cease to be the healthy, vibrant, all-soul-having creation it is. It might require a truly skewed imagining to view a television series as a living thing, but it occurs to me that some of the disappointment over last season could be viewed as a response to the seeming stasis-sickness of a dark, dark time in the life of a story.

Personally I find the idea of retconning TO A DEGREE, the most exciting factor in extended narrative arcs. That we are capable of understanding previous events in a new light seems a fundamentally important ability in a creature as adaptable and self-defining as we are. I do agree that retconning in its negative form—i.e. showing an abrupt, irrational about-face as regards character, situation, etc. that undermines completely the growth process of the story shown before—is a pernicious, sweep-the-legs-out-from- beneath-you sort of cop –out, often done for simple shock value.

I do find it funny, though, the amount of “Well, this was foretold in ‘Restless’, they’ve had it planned this way from the beginning” I’ve seen. As though the writers didn’t go back to Restless and BUILD on it.

It seems we have so many writers on this board---don’t you all find yourselves looking at past drafts, noticing things you’d never been consciously aware of at the time of writing, and elaborating on these new insights to make your work stronger, more vital, more reflective of your constantly advancing self?

The greatest art seems (to me, at any rate) to be concentric, not linear. We tell a story from beginning through an arc, to its end, which is at one and the same time a new beginning. And if we are blessed with the ability/time/permission (such as is granted to those in episodic television, comic books, film franchises, and other forms of sequential art), we can use that new beginning to re-examine our story, to swing the arc wider, to delve deeper into the ideas we raised on the first trip round. And as long as we do this in a way that builds upon rather than tears down our first ‘lessons’, then we truly grow from that experience.

As to how all this speaks to the Spike situation:

Angel left, as he needed to—his story was very, very strong, and it wasn’t going to go in the same direction as our girl’s. They had fundamentally different needs. But that left our vampire show without its most vital metaphorical counterpoint to Buffy.

Meanwhile there was this guy, this intriguing figure, a vampire character that hadn’t been over-done before, one that *from the very first* seemed (to me, at any rate) a better foil for our hip, flippant, anarchic Slayer than Mr. Broody-Pants.

************************************************************
So they bring back Spike, a serious threat from Season 2, but a wild card, a vamp that went against destructo-vamp nature to get his girlfriend back from the “Real Big Bad and Destined For the Serious Redemption Storyline”, Angelus/Angel, but not until after we’ve seen him funny, and pathetic, and maybe a little endearing in the way Angel never was. (Face it, goofy is kind of endearing when it comes from a vampire—in moderate doses anyway) And boy is this new sort of vampire a great Wacky Neighbor—not to mention a new thing in the whole vampire genre, so let’s play with that, kids.
So Ruthless!Spike became Mercenary!Spike, then PlotPoint!Spike, AntagonisticFoil!Spike, ComicRelief!Spike, CrazyKidinLove!Spike, then HelpfulAround the House!Spike. But when it came time for Buffy’s story to darken, all of a sudden there wasn’t a good vamp around to provide that sort of “Darkness Within” contrast Buffy needed. Meanwhile, Angel was over there on the WB being all reveal-y about his Mean and Nasty past, setting the stage for a whopping big Redemption arc. And redemption, man, that’s where it’s at when heroism and apocalypse and sacrifice are the order of the day.

So how do you go about setting up the mutual evolution of vampire and Slayer? He’s got to haul himself up to a level where she can see him as the mirror he is to her. If she’s got a hidden dark side, his day-to-day persona’s going to have to be more threatening, more dangerous, more of what she’s afraid of. But that shouldn’t be hard, right? I mean, he’s a *vampire* for crying out loud—over a hundred years of murder and mayhem to pull from. Trouble is, the audience’s been seeing past all that(easy enough, when it wasn’t dwelt upon, never shown explicitly, etc.)—they’ve gotten a good glimpse of his once-human heart and they like what they saw. They may have gotten the (mistaken) impression that he’s already been redeemed. Gonna have to nix that in the bud, ‘cause the redemption of a demonic being, that’s a showstopper—it can’t happen O.S.

So he’s got to be “bad”, and not nicking cigarettes bad, either. Every new darkness revealed about his demon self has to speak directly to the things she fears/despises the most. And all of this can get really dark, really messy, because all along Spike has been Buffy’s “other”. Spike has to be revealed as the real show this time round---in this rotation it is Angel who was the warm-up act. Angel slept with her and went demonically evil. But Spike fell in love with her, and went humanly evil. Which one speaks most strongly to Buffy’s fears about her inner darkness?

So maybe the sudden revelation of Spike as rapist is clumsy, but I think the problem is they have a limited time frame in which to raise the stakes, to make Spike’s arc resonate as epic, which seems to be the theme of this (maybe) final season.
********************************************************

Regarding Anima/us Discussion:

It seems to be the ‘textbook’ formula that an Animus figure takes its form from a woman’s impression of her father, an Anima figure the image of a man’s mother-idea, but I think that’s a rather old-fashioned, Freud-centric notion. And yes, I know it is Jung’s but recall too that much of his work was created in direct conjunction/opposition to Freud’s ideas. I think a more balanced idea is to see the Animus as that which reads as the initial definition of “masculine” to a woman, whereas the Anima is a man’s first understanding of “feminine”. This lets us understand that where the primary relationship of person to “other” starts in antagonism (an involuntary reaction to “otherness”), there is a growth process by which there can be recognition, embrace and finally, comfort.

Jung said that, “An overwhelmingly powerful attraction that a man/woman exercise on each other is only possible where there also exists an equally strong antagonism.” Thus my reading of why I never found Angel the true counterpart /Animus figure to Buffy. In his Angel nature, there was no antagonism between them. They were caught up in that whole Tristan & Isolde “we two against this situation not of our choosing”—which I’ve always found repellant, the whole death of Self in support of big capital L Love thing. Big capital Y Yuck. (This, of course, is only my reading of it. Others have found great meaning in the B/A relationship. It’s a big world and we are a species of marvelous variation—please don’t jump down my throat ;) )

Okay, time for quotage---the following is from either a) Owning Your Own Shadow, by Robert A. Johnson or b) lady of the hour, Marie-Louise von Franz’s “Archetypal Dimensions of the Psyche”, which I believe contains a reprint of the article, The Individuation Process that Shadowkat quoted earlier. [Those of you who’ve waded through my posts before know that notation was not my strong suit at University, for those who are new, I apologize for my slapdash approach, but assure you that any inaccuracies are mine, and that should I ever find myself at fixed abode I shall dig out the *actual books* so as to avoid causing confusion.]

******Also, a note—I do not ascribe to any particular ‘ship on the show. I tend to think it would narrow the lens through which I see the show, so try to avoid looking at the story in terms of romantic relationships. That being said, I *do* see a lot of story logic/psychological underpinning to how the writers have portrayed the Buffy/Spike interaction over the course of the series, so despite my best efforts, I do tend to get dragged into consideration of their dynamic. I apologize to any who might read this as another pro/con argument. Seems we’ve had plenty of those. But these situations are what the writers are revealing to us, so that’s what I’ll be looking at here.*****

Regarding the Anima:
“The character traits of this figure correspond to the attributes of the feminine side of a man, to the style of his unconscious approach to life. Whenever a man meets a woman who entirely or to a great extent fits this inner image, he falls prey to a helpless fascination. She is the loyalty which in the interests of life he must sometimes forgo; she is the much-needed compensation for the risks, struggles, sacrifices—she is the solace for all the bitterness of life. At the same time, she is the great illusionist/seductress, who draws him *into Life*--and not only life’s reasonable and useful aspects, but also into its frightful paradoxes.” (*emphasis was mine—to underscore the whole undead/souled thing)

“As long as a man has not freed his Anima figure (from his own pre-conceived notions), his beloved often feels that he is only ‘in love’ with her, but does not *love her*--that his feeling is autoerotic and caught up in illusion.”

Regarding the Animus:

“In its negative aspect, a woman’s animus lures her away from all human relationships, especially from contact with men. It tends to drag conversation to a low (base truth) level and to produce a disagreeable, irascible, emotional atmosphere. The conscious attention a woman has to give to her animus problem takes much time and involves a lot of suffering. But if she realizes who and what her animus is and what he does to her, ad if she faces those realities instead of allowing herself to be possessed, her animus can turn into an invaluable companion who endows/supports her ‘masculine’ qualities of initiative, courage, objectivity and spiritual wisdom.

4 Stages of Relation Between Man/Woman, Anima/Animus:

1.Purely Instinctual Relations –Witness B/S’s instant attraction/determination to kill one another

2. Romantic and Aesthetic—Characterized by sexual/violent elements

3. Figures who raise love to the heights of spiritual devotion

4. (Rare in Real Life, 1 goal in fiction/mythology) Combined wisdom/being, transcendence most pure.


The amazing thing about BtVS’s treatment of Buffy/Spike is that not only did they make each the other’s anima/us figure, but the corporeal representative of their dark side as well. Buffy is Spike/William’s slaying side, Spike is Buffy’s inner vampire. But they are also the golden selves of the other—Buffy is Spike/Williams loving protector, Spike is Buffy’s poetic truthteller/protector. Kind of a double/triple whammy in the interpersonal relationship arena.

Early Season 6 spoke to this, I think, with their sort of mutual refuge in each other—a refuge that wasn’t real, that was in fact based on fantasy fulfillment on Spike’s part, emotional exhaustion on Buffy’s, and loss of identity on both sides. There’s a quote from, Rumi, I think, that encapsulates this mutual desperation:

“In you I hide, escaping from my ruin. Please,
do not give me back to myself.”




Ok, have at it.

---Haecceity

P.S. I want to thank you all for your typical brilliance in this thread—it’s proved vastly thought-provoking. I’m sorry I haven’t been on the board in awhile to respond to your other profundities (Alcibiades’ and Ponygirl’s house metaphor threads being particular stand-outs), but was surprised by my current blondie-bear with a fabulous 2 week, much-needed vacation, far from phones, e-mail, and silly old work obligations. A typical reaction to which would be: SAhhhhhhhh!”

But the reaction of one who’s recently succumbed to her BtVS obsession and was just starting to get into this whole posting biz?: “Noooooooooooooooooooooo!”

Do you suppose airport security *often* sees folks dragged onto vacation destination flights by embarrassed loved ones, screaming “But I’ll miss Buffy!!!!!” ?

(I didn’t, btw, the VCR being eminently programmable. Apparently the secret is in selecting the appropriate trigger song;)

But how, exactly, is one supposed to enjoy a vacation fully, knowing that she is to miss the last new episode of the year and reams and reams of printable brilliance?

I managed. I did. But it was touch and go there for awhile.

And then the came the ritual sacrifice, complete with mushy peas and the obligation to visit random and quite possibly demonic relatives who just looked blankly at my suggestion that this year we might enjoy the Buffy marathon as opposed to the traditional gridiron oafishness. I’m adopted, surely. Or possibly up for it now. “I’m telling you, I think she went weird when you let her major in film.”—random demonic relative, whom we’ll call Aunt B.

So, after catching the last bit of the Skewers Choice (anyone else think it *odd* that we “picked” episodes in chronological order? Or that Tabula Rasa is now known as “Taboola Rasa”? ;) and fighting off the effects of a truly epic slaughter (Not a single slice of pie survived), I’ve just been a bit jet-lagged/over-stimulated to respond coherently. Heck, you folks have been so busy I’m still just getting caught up on the *reading! But I’m glad to be back and look forward to our “Hiatus Holiday”---surely an opportunity to put “Season 7 So Far” under the microscope.
[> [> Ahh! Excellent thank you -- Rahael, 04:12:38 12/02/02 Mon

Now, finally, something I agree with!
[> [> [> Why I Want to Be Like Rah -- Haecceity, 09:41:45 12/02/02 Mon

…all over this board, contributing to tons of threads—and the secret? Concision. (A word? Sounds a bit like small incision, which would be “short cut”, which is amusing, no?)

As to your post: Thanks. I’m glad to feel someone else who feels this way—with all the Dis/Agreement going on I wasn’t certain if anyone else was hanging out in the middle ground—glad to know I’ll be in good company.

Look, it’s taken me at least 10 times as many words to answer you. I think I may need help.

---Haecceity
mumbling, “New Year’s Resolution 1—Ramble Less. Think Precision. Think Poetry. Think…”

Stop! Enough Already! Just send the darn thing!
[> [> [> [> Shifting walls... -- Rahael, 10:44:21 12/02/02 Mon

Well, complex ideas often require lots of words....sometimes still waters aren't all that deep...

Watching Buffy makes my heart leap up in a kind of inchoate emotion; it's this board which turns feeling into concrete thought and opinion.

Oh, and I thought you were very perceptive and were something more than just being in the middle. Form often dictates content, and I take great pleasure in art where form and content are beautifully married. I think BtVS does this often.

So, the relatively simpler storylines of the past deepen as our characters leave adolescence. The bad guys become more human, but simultaneously, more alarming, more frightening. I'm rereading Tristram Shandy at the moment (what a wonderful work of art that is! I haven't sat down to read properly for nearly a year, and all I had to do was pick up Shandy, and I sat and read for about 5 hours straight). Your comment about BtVS as living art made me smile because that's what Shandy tries to offer us. We accompany him from conception to birth (2 books in, I'm still waiting for him to be born) and he promises that as long as he lives, he will publish 2 volumes of his life. His is a never ending task, because his life story will keep on being told while he still breathes.

I love Shandy because he is a human narrator (argumentative, witty, warm, polemical, subjective). I love books with a narrator who doesn't stand above the action but is fully enmeshed within it.

And I think Joss is enmeshed in his work, and his narrators are fully enmeshed. What they tell us, what they see - we do not look to them for objective truths about the world we live in. But through the evolving world of the Buffyverse, we see memories cast in a new light. Older events ironically counterpointed. Since the current action is telling Buffy to lose her superiority complex, her disconnection, well then, we learn that there are no hard and fast truths, but subjective perceptions. They can give us the grand Romance, but they can reuse that story to give us a glimmer of a new theme of mature, stable love. With only a sentence. With one scene.

This is the show where the characters have entirely false memories - to them, it feels as if Dawn was always there. But she wasn't. When Fate and prophecy appear, they are subverted. The future, the past, become quicksand. The firm earth trembles with promises of new and earthshattering events.

It's as if the Buffyverse (going with the current House motif) is a large and ever expanding structure. The walls shift around us. When we turn, we see new doors which didn't exist before. Rooms become larger, richer. We stumble upon new wings, hithertofore unexplored. Some of them contain terrible things, full of blood. Why only expect the terrible from the future? Sometimes there are dead bodies lying underground, buried long ago, unnoticed. But these guilty dead will rise to accuse.

(and now it's my turn to stop rambling and press send.)
[> [> [> [> [> Why I Really, Really Want to Be Like Rah... -- Haecceity, 21:19:06 12/02/02 Mon

...what with all the mad brilliant insights, poetic turn of phrase and spare time to sit about re-reading Tristram Shandy (one of my favourites as well;)...

You wrote:
"we do not look to them for objective truths about the world we live in. But through the evolving world of the Buffyverse, we see memories cast in a new light. Older events ironically counterpointed. Since the current action is telling Buffy to lose her superiority complex, her disconnection, well then, we learn that there are no hard and fast truths, but subjective perceptions. They can give us the grand Romance, but they can reuse that story to give us a glimmer of a new theme of mature, stable love. With only a sentence. With one scene."

--gods, this is lovely. All inchoate emotion here.

But then you *continued*:

"This is the show where the characters have entirely false memories - to them, it feels as if Dawn was always there. But she wasn't. When Fate and prophecy appear, they are subverted. The future, the past, become quicksand. The firm earth trembles with promises of new and earthshattering events."

If this happens to be the final year, these are suitable remarks for the wrap-up, don't you think? Along the lines of "It Enriched Our World. A Lot."

Okay, off to search Amazon for a "Brilliant in 100 Words or Less" 12-step program. ;)

Thanks,

---Haecceity
[> [> [> [> [> [> Right back at you! -- Rahael, 09:49:23 12/03/02 Tue

I must confess, that much like BtVS, Tristram Shandy is a kind of litmus test for me. I once remarked that the moment I really started liking Angel was when he was shown reading Satre but I would have liked him even more if he had happened to be reading Tristram.

But then if he had, he wouldn't have been all down and moody would he? He'd have appreciated life, in all its absurdity, sadness, sweetness and humour.

Nice summation of yours: - "It enriched our world. A lot"
[> [> [> [> Re: Why I Want to Be Like Rah -- leslie, 13:54:08 12/02/02 Mon

I've just received the copies of my book _Myth and Middle- earth_, and after reading through it, my New Year's Resolution is: Write Shorter Sentences. (As well as my newly revealed motto: Writers are inherently somewhat evil.)
[> [> See my response to your first post of this above. - - shadowkat (who should have read farther down first), 07:32:28 12/02/02 Mon

[> [> [> Mine too. -- Sophist, 09:21:54 12/02/02 Mon

[> [> [> All My Fault -- Haecceity, 10:06:11 12/02/02 Mon

Chalk it up to newbie clumsiness or the fact that one shouldn’t post in the wee hours, but I should have made amends in the same spot. Just forgot which message I’d responded to earlier—there are so many in this growing thread of wonders. I do apologize for any confusion.

SK—want to talk and talk and talk about your neat ideas and all about how I adore MLvF’s wicked sense of humor, but returning to work puts a damper on quality posting. I’ll try to work out responses to all over lunch, then engage in a bit of covert typing this afternoon.

---Haecceity
[> [> [> How's This for Synchronicity? (*very* vague spoiler/spec CwDP) -- Haecceity, 19:21:38 12/02/02 Mon

I dug through my storage closet after work—27 boxes of books—just for you, S’kat—well, okay, I didn’t go through ALL the boxes;) And came up with my dog-eared old copy of “Man and His Symbols”. Turned to p.236. Found your quote *very* easily—as it had been thoroughly underlined by my undergrad self!

For those of you without a storage-closest-refugee, moldering, dusty old paperback to refer to, or if you couldn’t find the original thread line from our above (somewhere) posts, here’s Shadowkat’s quote once more:

"In order to understand the symbolic indications of the unconscious, one must be careful not to get outside oneself or "beside oneself", but to stay emotionally within oneself. Indeed it is vitally important that the ego should continue to function in normal ways. Only if I remain an ordinary human being, conscious of my incompleteness, can I become receptive to the significant contents and processes of the unconscious. But how can a human being stand the tension of feeling himself at one with the whole universe, while at the same time he is only a miserable earthly human creature? If, on the one hand, I despise myself as merely a statistical cipher, my life has no meaning and is not worth living. But if on the other hand I feel myself to be part of something much greater, how am I to keep my feet on the ground?" ( p.236 of MAN & HIS SYMBOLS by C, JUNG, Von Franz's essay of Individuation Process).

I agree with your thoughts regarding this idea and Buffy/Spike’s dilemma, except for one thing—I don’t think they are *quite* there yet. The “no meaning, not worth living” has certainly been seen at different points in both of them, but I think the “something much greater” is still on its way. Moving quickly, coming from beneath. One could look at Buffy’s being Chosen as a greatness, but I’m not certain that’s how we’ve seen her regard her calling. The whole slayer thing’s never been shown as AWEsome—in the original, protest-obliterating, terrifying meaning of the word. Maybe if we get to see more re: the origins of The Slayer, the wishes of the BBW, what all of these mighty forces are striving *for*, exactly.

In this vein, let me toss you a quote. Again von Franz, from the same article, even (it’s not about textual integrity; it’s about being too lazy to dig for something else ;). From the second section, “The First Approach of the Unconscious”:

“One is seeking something that is impossible to find out or about which nothing is known. [a recipe for a successful life as a souled vampire, a way to live a long, full life as a Slayer—not Chosen, but Choosing] In such moments all well- meant, sensible advice [Clem to Spike, Scoobies to Buffy] is completely useless—…There is only one thing that seems to work; and that is to turn directly toward the approaching darkness without prejudice and totally naively, and try to find out what its secret aim is and what it wants from you.
The hidden purpose of the oncoming darkness is generally something so unusual, so unique and unexpected, that as a rule one can find out what it is only by means of dreams and fantasies welling up from the unconscious. [It has been much too long since we’ve seen any of Buffy’s really prophetic dreams, hasn’t it?] If one focuses attention on the unconscious without rash assumptions or emotional rejection, it often breaks through in a flow of helpful symbolic images. But not always. Sometimes it first offers a series of painful realizations of what is wrong with oneself and one’s conscious attitudes. Then one must begin the process by swallowing all sorts of bitter truths.”

Any other tingly spines out there? If this doesn’t speak directly to CwDP, I don’t know what could. Makes me rather wonder if ME’s got a musty dusty underlined copy of this book in* their* storage closet ;)


---Haecceity
[> [> Great quote from Rumi, Haecceity and more on the anima/animus -- alcibiades, 08:16:54 12/02/02 Mon

“In you I hide, escaping from my ruin. Please,
do not give me back to myself.”

I love this, and it does explain Season 6.

I think a more balanced idea is to see the Animus as that which reads as the initial definition of “masculine” to a woman, whereas the Anima is a man’s first understanding of “feminine”. This lets us understand that where the primary relationship of person to “other” starts in antagonism (an involuntary reaction to “otherness”), there is a growth process by which there can be recognition, embrace and finally, comfort.

Jung said that, “An overwhelmingly powerful attraction that a man/woman exercise on each other is only possible where there also exists an equally strong antagonism.” Thus my reading of why I never found Angel the true counterpart /Animus figure to Buffy. In his Angel nature, there was no antagonism between them. They were caught up in that whole Tristan & Isolde “we two against this situation not of our choosing”—

I agree with your anima/animus analysis of Buffy/Spike. I too think with you that is why they work so well together. Oddly enough, Spike's "you'll fight and you'll shag speech from Lover's Walk not only didn't fit the model of Buffy/Angel, which he was commenting on at the time, as many people have already noted, but it also didn't fit the model of relationship he and Drusilla had either, from what we saw of it. So it is no wonder that after 100 years, the fantasy finally fizzled out of their relationship and wasn't able to sustain itself any longer. That is not what he needed or wanted unconsciously all along.

So it is not surprising that in Becoming II Spike thinks about putting Dru down to help Buffy, but doesn't, because at that point he still thinks Dru is the relationship he always wanted/needed. But in Crush, when he has Buffy and Dru together, his sense of what Buffy could mean to him if she would ever see him versus the old model of relationship with Dru which has now proved non-essential to his sense of self, he chooses Buffy over Dru. By then, in psychological terms, the relationship with Dru is revealed to him as fantasy, not real.

The interesting thing about the Spike/Buffy anima/animus dynamic is that Spike has had a sense of this for so long in his awareness of Buffy -- the knowledge came to him in a dream "which manifests in symbolic form the basic structure of the psyche, indicating how it will later shape the destiny of the individual concerned." [Franz, Process of Individuation] Now Franz, here is talking about childhood dreams, but Spike's journey from the beginning of Season 5 as a movement beyond pure id to individuation, is a journey out of childhood, symbolically speaking. In any case, Spike has understood intuitively, and for a long time, first unconsciously than consciously through the dream that the sparring between himself and Buffy was an indication of intense attraction between them.

I think both of them confused this at times with the natural relationship between a vampire and a slayer as natural enemies. After the AR last year, when Spike is confused, he temporarily reverts to that interpretation of their relationship -- vampire, slayer, vampire kills slayers, uses her bones to pick his teeth -- but ultimately, the significance of the real attraction between them bleeds through to consciousness again.

Buffy, otoh, spent last year denying the significance of the attraction to her own essential nature. The reason for her self-hatred vis-a-vis Spike was that she could not see past slayer - vampire, slayer kills vampire. So the fact that she was sleeping with a vampire felt like an abomination to her.

Buffy has denied the personal significance of their attraction as much as possible -- and because of this, last year, only permitted sex with Spike -- which was her admittance of this overwhelming attraction -- to be rough and unloving, thereby expressing the essential act which proved her attraction to him as the essence of antagonism. She could only admit attraction as antagonism and thus kept it stymied or stillborn -- unable to evolve and move beyond its first level. Obviously this had a ramification on her animus -- or perhaps the other way -- because of her ongoing anger at her father/Giles/Angel/Riley for leaving her, she did not have the will/desire/ability to deal with her animus in any other way.

It is ironic, though, given this is the case, that this year from Lessons on, she keeps on articulating her attraction for Spike's physicality -- as though that was her big "epiphany" about their relationship over the summer, and saying outloud that her expression to him was "skin deep" and now she can admit as much puts a closure on this great and primal attraction of the anima/animus going on between the two of them.

Really interesting post, Haecceity, and thanks for your positive comments on my thread in NLM.

I would have had to be dragged through airport security saying, "but I'll miss Buffy," too. ;-]
[> [> [> Clarity is Your Gift -- Haecceity, 19:40:32 12/02/02 Mon

It's funny, all this Buffy/Spike tunnel vision has allowed a great deal of side note-age on Angel, but not as much examination of Dru's importance to the current dynamic. Your post really clarifies the significance of "Crush" for me. It truly was a watershed moment, when Spike, still not quite aware of its power, committed himself to a new life.

And this, too, is very helpful:

"Buffy has denied the personal significance of their attraction as much as possible -- and because of this, last year, only permitted sex with Spike -- which was her admittance of this overwhelming attraction -- to be rough and unloving, thereby expressing the essential act which proved her attraction to him as the essence of antagonism. She could only admit attraction as antagonism and thus kept it stymied or stillborn -- unable to evolve and move beyond its first level. Obviously this had a ramification on her animus -- or perhaps the other way -- because of her ongoing anger at her father/Giles/Angel/Riley for leaving her, she did not have the will/desire/ability to deal with her animus in any other way.

It is ironic, though, given this is the case, that this year from Lessons on, she keeps on articulating her attraction for Spike's physicality -- as though that was her big "epiphany" about their relationship over the summer, and saying outloud that her expression to him was "skin deep" and now she can admit as much puts a closure on this great and primal attraction of the anima/animus going on between the two of them. "


I've also been suspicious of Buffy's constant referral to the physical attractiveness of Spike as a reason for her involvement with him, rather than admitting her emotional attachment. She still "has feelings". Nice, safe, non- comittal that statement. Like an unexploded bomb.

---Haecceity
[> [> That was great! Printing merrily away. -- ponygirl, 08:26:26 12/02/02 Mon

I'll admit I got a bit lost amongst all the agreement and disagreement above, but your post sums up a number of points wonderfully. I think for me I take retcon to be a negative term, associating it with the shock value you mention and hating that it can sometimes require a total disregard of everything that has gone before ("well, so what if we've known this character for years, turns out they were actually a robot/double agent/my longlost brother all along!"). I like the evolution, transformation and nuance you describe, it's like a layering, or perhaps an excavation that goes on with the characters over time.

I think you've done a beautiful job explaining the B/S dynamic. For whatever reason the story of Buffy requires a vampire, a partner in this dance she has with death, sex, and darkness. It seems necessary for her to be able find both the best and the worst within herself.

BTW "Taboola Rasa" made me think of developing a tabuli rasa, a curiously blank salad.
[> [> [> Now There's A Thought -- Haecceity, 09:47:28 12/03/02 Tue

Advanced Apologies for the following (it’s a slow day at work)

Perhaps an ATPOBtVS Cookbook? What with Tabuli Rasa, Hush Puppies, Stake Tartar, Brilliant Bloomin’ Onion, Organ Kabobs, Gnarl’s Famous “Potato” Skins, Plump Succulent Baby____, One-Two Punch, Mmmm Cookies, Cuppa Tea, Fillet of Soul, Got To Be Blood Pudding, Go Fish! Sticks, Prophecy Grill, Double Meat Tasty Treats, Bad Egg Omelet, Chocolate Anything… You get the drift.

Any further suggestions?

---Haecceity
coming perilously close to downright goofing off
[> [> [> [> Could we call it Scooby Snacks? -- ponygirl, 11:07:09 12/03/02 Tue

... or is that getting into copyright problems?

What about Taramisu? And from AtS we could grab the recipe for roast Rough Beast.

We could get the fabulous cookbook with the Order from Far Away home delivery service - for those times when you really can't leave the house.

Okay now I'm definitely going back to work.
[> [> [> [> [> Definitely! Though we may have to fudge the spelling. -- Haecceity, 17:28:26 12/03/02 Tue

Say... "eXistential Scoo-B SnaX", like that old "avoiding the litigation of selling plastic as foodstuff" classic-- Cheez Whiz. Though our stuff would be infinitely better for you. Except maybe for "Mayor Wilkinson's Crispy Strips" ;)
[> [> [> [> Blood Red orange Smoothie... -- alcibiades, 11:49:39 12/03/02 Tue

Weetabix with Red Sauce, Pizza with burning baby fish, Total Bologney sandwich with an electric boost to aid in digestion, and Connor's junk food survivor's pack.
[> [> [> [> [> Correction: Blood Red orange "Juice" Smoothie... -- alcibiades, 12:29:20 12/03/02 Tue

[> [> [> [> There's always the Scooby Thanksgiving Day Platter... -- cjl, 15:36:58 12/03/02 Tue

With Sham Yams and Roast Chumash Pie.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: There's always the Scooby Thanksgiving Day Platter... -- Haecceity, 17:14:14 12/03/02 Tue

"Roast Chumash Pie"

Is that of the Four and Twenty Blackbirds variety? ;)
[> [> Re: What I *Meant* to Say…(A Little Retcon of My Own;) Really Really Long -- aliera, 09:09:44 12/02/02 Mon

Chiming in belatedly to add my appreciation:

H: "I do find it funny, though, the amount of “Well, this was foretold in ‘Restless’, they’ve had it planned this way from the beginning” I’ve seen. As though the writers didn’t go back to Restless and BUILD on it."

I agree with you Haeccity…I think some arcs may have been envisioned way back when but equally that the writers mine the past eps (particularly Restless) for references.

H: "The greatest art seems (to me, at any rate) to be concentric, not linear. We tell a story from beginning through an arc, to its end, which is at one and the same time a new beginning… we can use that new beginning to re- examine our story, to swing the arc wider, to delve deeper into the ideas we raised on the first trip round. And as long as we do this in a way that builds upon rather than tears down our first ‘lessons’, then we truly grow from that experience."

I agree here also…in fact, I've seen the series described in terms of a spiral more often than a straight line approach and this symbol seems more appropriate. In a sense, there are even visual representations in the show itself…the snakes…the labyrinth, are two that immediately come to mind. I'm not a writer; I draw and also garden…especially in the latter there is the sense of continuous change and adjustments as things grow and die and grow. In drawing there is for me more of a tendency to work thematically in a series of pieces and then move on to something else. In OMWF, I had some kind of a sense that Joss carried those feelings that he had developed a story to an initial ending which was the Gift and (JMO) that he (not just Buffy) was ready to move on. I had a sense of discontinuity in Spike's speech and immediately started thinking of other reasons why it may have been done. So I can't say that I didn't feel the same problems that others have noted here. One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is that the Spike's speech may be a prelude to further back-story for either him or William…it's really too early to judge after only one ep (again JMO) so although it bothered me it's not to the point that I think it bothered other posters.

I too am loving your take on the B/S. And I'm loving all the Jung references; but, I believe (not my area of expertise) that there's been a bit of work done by the Young Jungians, people who have followed Jung and Von Franz and others. Just like our show is growing and changing,I would think that Jungian pyschology is building and evolving also. Not all meant to criticize all of the lovely references everyone is making; it's a wonderful thread.

And, postscript, glad to see you're back on the board. I didn't have a chance to read most of your previous posts until they hit the archives; but I very much enjoyed them. ;-)
[> [> [> OT: to Aliera on Kushner -- alcibiades, 09:38:23 12/02/02 Mon

Thanks for asking about the Kushner book. Actually I was a little disappointed. They were trying to depict a much richer, more mythic world, which could have been very interesting -- although a great deal of it was a retcon (g). But, to my mind, the main characters were not drawn as sharply and the depictions did not slide off the page and come to life anywhere as well as the characters in Swordspoint did. I wonder if she does better with a stand alone effort, or if she hit that note early on in her career and can't duplicate it so well again in that world.

I think it concentrated on too many characters -- although, ultmately it was about two men who did not really understand their true selves or the nature of their own power - they were both weak in ways neither Richard nor Alex were. And their self - destructiveness and their edginess, consequently were less interesting.

What about you?
[> [> [> [> Re: OT: to Aliera on Kushner -- aliera, 10:03:08 12/02/02 Mon

I whizzed through it and stayed up too late! Swordspoint is one of my all time favorite works so I'm probably not a good judge...if you go to Terri Windlings Endicott studio site (I can link you later if you like; I'm at the office right now) there are links to Kushner's radio site (what happened to her post-Swordspoint) and also interviews w/ her... and deLint's review of the book. From my foggy memory the professor character and much of the ensemble dialogue came from Sherman who did the award winning Porcelain Dove (which I tried last month but couldn't get into). I also read "Death of the Duke" after, a short story about Alex's last days, which I loved and I think there's a book in the work's about either his daughter or his niece, not really clear to me which one. My tastes are extremely eclectic, so again, I'm not usually the best person to ask for the popular sentiments...BUT I enjoyed this work very much and yet, I completely understand what you're saying about the departure...also rebel that I am... I kept wanting to shake the main characters, just between you and me!
[> [> [> Re: What I *Meant* to Say…(A Little Retcon of My Own;) Really Really Long -- Shambleau, 10:53:00 12/03/02 Tue

I agree with Haecceity that great art, at least on a long running show like Buffy, is concentric, with new arcs building on what comes before. I think this is true even if additional information is added clumsily, or is seemingly at odds with what we'd known before, as long as the overall result is more depth. That's why the charges of bad retcon regarding Spike's comments in NLM don't resonate with me.

Giles, before Halloween, had been shown as a gentle, stuffy, and somewhat ineffectual man. Then, we find out that, underneath, resides Ripper, dangerous and ruthlessly willing to use force to get the job done. There had been not an inkling of this side of him before. It wasn't led up to with hints, it just suddenly appeared. This fits the definition of bad, or at least clumsy, retcon. And yet, it has been used beautifully since then to give depth to Giles.

In the third season arc, for example, they added sexual experience to Ripper. The man who'd been embarassed and a little shocked by Jenny Calendar's sexual teasing turns out to have been the kind of teenager who would have sex with a strange girl on top of a police car, and who'd had what appeared to be a primarily sexual relationship with Olivia when he was in England. This sexual side of Giles didn't fit with what we'd seen in the first two seasons, so if thats your benchmark, it's inconsistent writing. I see added complexity and I like it.
[> [> [> [> Your second example is the better one. -- Sophist, 12:45:07 12/03/02 Tue

There are 2 important differences between Giles/Ripper and Spike. First, we saw our first evidence of Ripper in episode 18 (Halloween). That's less than one full season into the series. Our images of the characters were much less fixed then than they were in S6, by which time Spike had been a regular character for 4 full seasons. Second, while I agree that Ripper did change our image of Giles, it was understandable that he would have concealed that aspect of his life from the SG and from us, and we were specifically told that he had done so. In contrast, I don't see any reason to have concealed any aspect of Spike's evil past.

I agree with your second example. I can't see any way to reconcile Giles's behavior towards Olivia in Hush with his behavior towards Jenny in SAR or Joyce in Band Candy. I would call that a small retcon on a minor point; not something I'd worry about. I think the contrast in importance (both thematically and plotline) between that and Spike in SR is pretty clear.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Your second example is the better one. -- shambleau, 17:35:45 12/03/02 Tue

Well, 18 episodes where a person is characterized as a certain kind of man was enough to fix him, in my mind at least, and I wasn't alone. I remember the board I was on at the time had a number of nasty things to say about this sudden new persona and how cheesy it was to change him with no warning. I agreed at the time. I was wrong.

Also, although it's a minor point, by episode count, Spike was in about two-and-a-half seasons, not four - one ep in season three and less than the full complement in seasons two and four. He even missed one ep in season five - The Body.

It also seems understandable to me, in the same way that Giles wouldn't want to bring up shameful incidents from his past, that Spike, the ex-Victorian, wouldn't necessarily bring up rapes he'd committed as a way to impress the Scoobs or Buffy. It may be bad, but it's not heroically bad.

I don't know why Lover's Walk is never brought up as at least strongly implying that Spike had raped before, by the way. He's terrorizing Willow by holding a broken liquor bottle to her throat. Then, he smells her perfume, (or her hair, it's not clear) and lifts the hair at the nape of her neck, saying something like "That smell!" and then, "I haven't had a woman in weeks". The vibe becomes heavily sexual for a moment. He then qualifies his statement and veers back to being simply menacing with "Unless you count that magic store clerk". Willow freaks and says "There will be no 'having' of any kind!" Of any kind. Why is Willow saying that unless she's aware of at least two meanings for having? And why is she more alarmed than she'd been when he'd already very convincingly threatened to kill her while holding the bottle to her neck? Why is Spike not counting the magic store clerk as "having" somebody unless she didn't really count because he didn't drain her almost to death or rape her or some other inventive variation? I agree this interpretation is just that, an interpretaion. Still, I don't think it's an egregious violation of the meaning of what we see onscreen, and so can count as a validation of Spike's statement in NLM, if you're so inclined. And I am.
[> [> Belatedly joining the praise (and more on anima/animus) -- Caroline, 11:44:14 12/02/02 Mon

Ahh, the concerns of the non-virtual world have me in their grip but just wanted top chime in with my appreciation of this post. I've long been a exponent of the view that Spike and Buffy have projected essential parts of their psyche's onto each other and seeing that process work in the show has been incredible. I agree with you about the writers and I'm sure that they think deeply about the psychological ramifications of their stories and plots.

I just wanted to make the point that I would be less gender- specific about the anima and animus and its effects. One sees many examples in the modern world with the breaking down of gender-based roles of women who are more consciously allied with their masculine self and reject the feminine and it is possible to find men more in touch with their feminine side. Part of the legacy of the movement for women's liberation has meant an increased potential for psychological complexity that is not based on physical attributes. One also has to realise that there are dynamics that occur in homosexual relationships that are similar (ie projections) that are not based on the physcial attributes of the partners.

As for Buffy and Spike, I think that in season 6, Buffy was Spike's projected goodness and Spike was Buffy's projected darkness. The compulsion of the attraction was precisely because they were not seeing themselves or each other but rather what they wanted to see. That's why Buffy had to eventually break away. When Spike sought his soul, he metaphorically regained a goodness that Buffy could believe in, it was symbolic of the the journey he had undergone since season 4. Before that, he was only part of a man, now he has the capacity to be a complete one. And the fact that Spike made the journey as he did and won his soul also is symbolic of Buffy's journey - she too can now believe that there is a way out of the confusion of identity that she suffered in season 6. We don't really know how Persephone and Hades sorted out their problems but it appears to me that Buffy is getting closer to the stage of eating the pomegranate symbolizing knowledge. Once she has completed that journey, she can give a great gift to the world that, this time, will not be death.
[> [> [> Wonderful Point! -- Haecceity, 12:35:56 12/02/02 Mon

Caroline Wrote:
"I just wanted to make the point that I would be less gender- specific about the anima and animus and its effects. One sees many examples in the modern world with the breaking down of gender-based roles of women who are more consciously allied with their masculine self and reject the feminine and it is possible to find men more in touch with their feminine side. Part of the legacy of the movement for women's liberation has meant an increased potential for psychological complexity that is not based on physical attributes. One also has to realise that there are dynamics that occur in homosexual relationships that are similar (ie projections) that are not based on the physcial attributes of the partners."

I think this is one of the most important things to have come up in our whole Anima/mus discussions. Speaking to Aliera's point--the world is changing, and so to must we shift our perceptions of our own psychology, adapt our definitions to explain our ever-evolving nature. Caroline, your point is deliciously representative of the ground- breaking nature of this show--that we do not only define ourselves in terms of opposites, but in parallel arcs as well. Romance, long the litmus test of psychology as regards anima/us integration is no longer the pre-eminent defining movement of the Self. Self-definition/articulation is also explored on BtVS through friendship as family, through male/male and female/female dynamics, and past/present/future selves.

Thank you for snatching a few moments from the clutches of "real life" (don't remember who first intro'd that concept here, but it's lovely) to add to the musings.

---Haecceity
[> [> [> [> Well said, both of you. -- Arethusa, 14:23:38 12/02/02 Mon

I find the division of personality characteristics into masculine/feminine to be puzzling, whether it's just the use of such loaded words, or the actual division of human nature into male/female catagories. Examining Buffy's relationships with the men in her life to explain the integration of her "masculine" side misses the point that her darkness (and strength, courage, etc) is a part of her as a woman. The whole anima/animus thing seems to imply our relationship to our fathers/mothers provide the misssing characteristics to round out a whole person, with masculine or feminine characterists. I say personality can't/shouldn't be divided into male and female, both are part of the person at birth, because first of all we're people, not males or females. I had no male role model at all (except for one extremely negative one). Does that mean I'm incapable of "initiative, courage, objectivity, and spiritual wisdom"?

Of course, I could be massively confused. I'm still pretty high from all the medicine I'm taking.
[> Re: The Bad Boys of BtVS(recent episode spoilers) - - verdantheart, 09:19:56 12/02/02 Mon

Haven't read everything above, and coming in late, but ... everything I saw seemed to be about Spike, not Andrew, and it was Andrew who was emulating Spike by wearing clothes like Spike's. Yes, I thought that spoke to Andrew, but not as a comment so much that he was like Spike, but that he was trying to be bad. Andrew was trying to screw his courage up, after all, and Spike is someone that he actually had contact with whom he knows to be "bad." Further, it's clear that Andrew was strongly attracted to Spike, a fact which cannot be entirely ignored here. Andrew seems uncomfortable admitting his homosexual leanings and seems more comfortable emulating those he's attracted to (Warren, Spike) than approaching them.

While the drawing of a deeper parallel between Spike and Andrew can't be entirely discounted, I think that the similarities are more surface: both are deeply under the influence of the FE; both are held and questioned by the Scoobies; both are connected to the pig's blood.
[> [> Re: The Bad Boys of BtVS(recent episode spoilers) - - Freki, 09:40:41 12/02/02 Mon

It looked like FESpike was also wearing the duster in NLM, so I agree that the parallels were intended. However, Spike doesn't wear the duster any more. It's something that he left behind when he went to get a soul. He no longer has the need to walk around being cool, he's chosen to grow up and leave that adolescent persona behind.
[> library on the hellmouth -- cougar, 18:20:36 12/02/02 Mon

An epic thread. Much gratitude to the creators of Season one of a new arc in our understandings of self and soul. Am surfacing from the depths with my highlighter clenched in my teeth and a new set of holds at the library. Someone has all the M.L. Von Franz books out of the library (Victoria BC) and I suspect the the "evil book-sucking fiend" is from this board!

Current board | More November 2002