October 2002 posts
Buffy 7.4 and Will to Power -- frisby, 06:33:23 10/16/02 Wed
Xander's explanation (using the 'hammer') to Willow in Buffy 7.4 regarding the trade-off between power and control with regard to magic was reminiscent of Nietzsche's "will (control)" and "power" with regard to will to power. This season continues the theme of back to the beginning (the greek 'arche' or the origin and order, or genesis and cosmos). Again, in a nutshell, it's all about power. Cassie's psychic power revealed that Buffy will (eventually) make a difference (what? end the threat of the forces of darkness forever) and will (eventually) tell Spike (what? her understanding, forgiveness, and love). Buffy's counseling power seems off to a good start. I assume Willow still has the power to bend reality to her will (whether consciously or unconsciously) -- good, Buffy will need her help in the fight against the first evil.
bye
df
From buttons to switches (incredibly minor "Help" spoiler) -- Darby, 06:50:30 10/16/02 Wed
My brain fried trying to isolate my buttons for that thread - this may be more manageable...
During a scene in Help, Counselor Buffy starts to say, "Shit" and switches quickly. My problem is that we, as viewers, see these characters almost all the time and they don't swear in situations not governed by school decorum. It becomes an intrinsic aspect of the characters, the way that the opposite is true of The Sopranos (I've got no problem with the idea of swearing - I always thought that Glory's lines were "partial translations" - but Buffy won't curse at a vamp who punches her but will at a student looking for help?). For me, it was a writers' "C'mon, it'll be funny" tweak that pulled me out of the flow of the episode, and it got me thinking about the switches that generally do that on tv or in a movie...
...whenever a "555" phone number comes up.
...obvious product placement (Apple laptop, anyone?).
...a recognizable actor pops in (Home Improvement kid, anyone?), especially in what is ostensibly a minor role.
...a conversation starts at the beginning of a trip we see beginning and picks up at the same point when we cut to the end of the trip (I've mentioned that one before).
...the science on something is so bad that I'm mad at the whole staff's educators from 5th Grade on.
...a catch-phrase becomes annoying (I'm pulled into a self-debate about how a group of friends might all say "I get that," but I'd wish the writers would quit it, but there's a certain truth to it, and what the hell just happened in the scene??).
...the clothing gets a bit too revealing, especially in what's supposed to be a professional environment (that's, um, more of an observation than a complaint). It was refreshing when Ally McBeal addressed that issue.
Unfortunately, like my buttons, the list goes on and on but at least is less emotionally charged.
Got any?
- Darby, now pulled out of the posting moment.
[>
A personal one... -- KdS, 08:05:31 10/16/02 Wed
When something happens that derails a series's premise to such an extent that you *know* there's going to be a plot reset and the only suspense is trying to work out what it'll be.
Main reason why I gave up watching "Star Trek:Voyager". Also the reason why "I Will Remember You" is one of my personal least favourite AtS episodes. Part of the reason why I like BtVS/AtS is the fact that they do premise-shattering things and follow them up, mostly.
[> [>
Me too! -- Rahael, 08:10:39 10/16/02 Wed
I don't like IWRY at all!! The only part I actually like is the moment that Angel decides to give up the day.
What was the Voyager incident? I watch it on and off when it shows on BBC two, if I happen to be in that early. I clearly missed something.
[> [> [>
Just general, Rah... -- KdS, 08:17:22 10/16/02 Wed
The number of episodes where they find/invent some quick way back to Earth and it turns out to be either technobabblishly unfeasible or morally unacceptable...
[> [> [> [>
Year Of hell (spoilers for the Voyager episode) -- Kitkat, 10:19:29 10/16/02 Wed
'Year of Hell' was a 2 part Voyager episode where they were royally beaten up by this alien who could control time. The ship was wrecked, major characters died, and in the climactic battle Janeway piloted the ship straight at the time changing machine, thus resetting the timeline.
As soon as major characters were horribly injured / died you knew that was what was going to happen - it definitely made it more boring.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Year Of hell (spoilers for the Voyager episode) -- ponygirl, 10:37:15 10/16/02 Wed
And that episode was based on that really excellent Voyager ep. where Kes was jumping to different points in her own life, only to have another reset at the end. Actually now that I think of it the Kes episode reminds me of Slaughterhouse Five which is the book Cassie is reading in Help. Full circle back to on topic!
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Who banishes clocks from their TV room? -- Cleanthes, 10:52:45 10/16/02 Wed
This distaste for premise-shattering episodes reminds me of a similar phenomenon. Just as a premise-shattering plot point makes it certain that some "reset" button will restore the series continuity, so with internal plot points relative to the clock.
If a cool, apparently conclusive fight occurs but there's 15 minutes left in the hour, well, I find myself yelling at the screen: "Check all the bodies to make sure they're dead, and count 'em too, because something's up." OTOH, if there's only 5 minutes left in the hour, then I expect Earl Grey to be served all round.
This is where two-part episodes need to fit into the mix -- unless a show has 'em at least once in awhile, the sine-wave nature of TV drama and the clock is too intrusive.
For my money, I'd like an episode that ended 15 minutes early and we saw an excessive amount of final coda, just to throw us off our guard in future episodes.
[> [> [> [>
Ahh! Thank you all... -- Rahael (who agrees with KdS), 10:51:51 10/16/02 Wed
[>
as a Mac user, I say, viva le product placement! :) -- celticross, 12:00:27 10/16/02 Wed
Observations on yesterday's Buffy/Angel (spoilers) -- Spike Lover, 09:58:24 10/16/02 Wed
1st, a passing comment on Angel. I am liking the Wesley/Lila combination. I like that Wesley has found his 'stones' and got a group on his own. I liked that Angel's group is handicapped because there is no one around to research. I liked that when Angel tried to tell Wesley that he sort of forgave him or that he considered them 'alright again', Wesley just walked away.
One writing complaint. When they were talking about Cordy's disappearance, they failed to say... She and Gru have been missing since this date. Remember, Gru left the night she disappeared. In fact, I think they would be desparately searching for Gru as well or might think them together.
Buffy:
Enjoyed the episode, low key and humorous. Nothing really controversial. I still have complaints about the S/B interaction, (but I would) where he is talking about how he is a bad man and that he hurt the girl. And Buffy says it is not me I am talking about. I am ready for more of a reply than that.
By the way, is anyone else bothered/or even noticed that the AR bathroom incident seems to be the ONLY thing Spike feels substantially guilty about. So much for feeling guilty about killing people for over a hundred years...
Kudos to the scene where Spike jumps on the blond guy and starts beating on him. I thought this was REALLY INTERESTING. He beats the guy through the pain. Now is that MORAL ambiguity? The chip says it is wrong to try to hurt a human no matter what the reason. Ironically, the chip was enough to stop him when he was soulless.
Now with his newly implanted moral compass, he is able to rationalize that either Buffy needs him to do this or that this guy may be human, but beating on him to stop him must be done.
I think this is the most interesting (heroic?) things I have ever seen anyone do. (Right up there with Spock saving the ship in Star Trek II and dying of radiation poison.)
A Special THANKS to the writers for the line "One day she will tell you." I am not certain crazy Spike knew what she was saying, but I have been waiting a couple of seaons to hear it. I wonder what she will say?
Just some thoughts and observations.
[>
Re: Observations on yesterday's Buffy/Angel (spoilers) -- pilgrim, 10:35:48 10/16/02 Wed
Newbie here. De-lurking to make first post. I've been thinking too about how Spike's new soul and the guilt that comes with it will affect his desire to act out in violence. The demon vamp in him loves to beat on people/demons/anything--he gets a happy from the violence. But how will Spilliam behave? Will he opt for a balanced approach to violence--beatings are okay if they're necessary to protect Buffy or to prevent baddies from doing bad stuff? (sound much like a certain President Bush policy?) This seems to be Buffy's take on violence. I think it would be interesting (at least for a few episodes) to see Spilliam realize he can't quite control his demon lust for bloodletting and, in the depth of his new-found guilt and fear over his murderous ways, opt for a pacifist approach. Could be an interesting challenge to Buffy's acceptance of the necessity of violence (part of her dark side? if you've got the power, you've got to use it to help?). And would be something we've never seen from Spike (or Angel for that matter). And might be funny, too--can you imagine Spilliam trying to negotiate a peace treaty between the MOTW and the SC, perhaps only to get frustrated and vamp out ala School Hard Spike.
[> [>
That Would be Funny -- Spike Lover, 11:09:27 10/16/02 Wed
[> [>
Love the word Spilliam -- Tchaikovsky, 14:12:23 10/16/02 Wed
[>
Re: Gru -- Amber, 13:15:28 10/16/02 Wed
Just a little comment here. I'm pretty sure that the Host knew Gru was going back to Pylea (sp?). And if nothing else, the Host would have told Fred and Gunn during one of their telephone calls. The Host and Gru had a pretty serious conversation together near the end of last season. Presumably Gru said good-bye to Cordy and maybe the Angel Gang even helped him open the portal to Pylea. It just all happened off-screen because there were other more important things to show the audience.
I could be wrong, but I thought Gru left before the season finale (which is the ep. when Cordy and Angel both went missing, and the Host took off for Vegas.)
[> [>
Re: Gru -- JM, 15:06:04 10/16/02 Wed
I'm fanwanking this one. Because Gru took off directly before Cordy going to talk to Angel. Maybe he left a good-bye note at AI, since his bags were packed when Cordy got home. Maybe he swung by and said his good-byes to Fredd and Gunn. Maybe they did track him down to ask questions, but didn't want to upset him by letting him know that they had no clue where Cordy and Angel had gotten of to. I'm assuming they had to follow up that lead, otherwise they might have suspected that he got jealous and killed Cordy and ate the corpse. Could happen, he is Pylean after all.
[> [>
Re: Gru -- Vickie, 15:06:09 10/16/02 Wed
Gru left in Tomorrow, the last ep of AtS season three.
Where did you get the impression he went back to Pylea? I didn't think we got anything to tell us where he was going, and I certainly didn't think he had the power to open a portal. Added to the pathos of his departure for me.
7.4 How much more of this are dreck are we gonna put up with? -- Angelina, 10:12:51 10/16/02 Wed
The whole "Spike is Insane" thing is really working my very last nerve! Come On Really - How long is this gonna take? It only took Angel 2 episodes to return to "normal" I also don't put much stock into "he's talking to some big bad" or has multiple personality disorder. He's just nuts from getting his soul back, which, by the way, is getting no play whatsoever. Aside from two fabulous scenes so far, the writers are taking the easy way out and just making Spike nuttier and nuttier and there is soooooo much more they could be doing with his character. James is an amazing actor and should be allowed to explore his "William". Get him out of that basement really quick, or this show is going down deeper than the Sunnydale High Basement. AND to all of you who think Buffy is treating Spike like crap, well, she is, and has been known to do it to all her men - When Angel came back from hell all freaked out and insane, she had him chained to the fricking wall, and then told him she was seeing someone else as soon as he become coherent again. Can we expect her to show any mercy to Spike? I feel Beneath You set a false tone to the series and was a total anomaly. You can see that the ending of BY was re-written, to make Buffy look good. Truth is, they should have left the episode alone, cause now nothing that goes on between Spike and Buffy makes a bit of sense. What started out as brilliant writing in Lessons and Beneath you, has turned to, well, Crap. I am very disappointed with where this show is right now. And furthermore, Dawn the Vampire Slayer? I think not. I think not a lot! She is barely watch-able. Why are they putting all the emphases on Dawn? Why are they making Buffy such a Bitch? Why are they focusing on Anya as Demon, it's just horrible what is going on with her character. Why is Willow not even talking about Tara? Putting a few rocks on her grave simply didn't work for me. AND, why oh why are they wasting the awesome talents of James Marsters?????
[>
Easy now- Someone is going to think I wrote that -- Spike Lover, 10:25:47 10/16/02 Wed
You know me, (perhaps), I think the writers wrote themselves into a corner, and have not figured out how to get themselves out. Buffy (the character) has always been more about actions than about analyzing herself, her feelings, or why she does what she does. They refuse to allow her to love a soulless thing (which I believe is where she is heading.) Since she was not allowed to, they won't allow her to deeply analyze what she feels or why she treats him the way she did (or for you Buffy defenders, they will not tell the audience the above.)
By the way, Buffy needs some guidance on how to deal w/ normal people. (Maybe this is coming?) Because you can't just barge in on an alcoholic and accuse him of being a danger to his child without evidence-- and expect to have a job the next day. In reality, the parent definately would have called to complain and Buffy would have been reprimanded. (possibly fired.) My suspension of disbelief could not cover that one. Of course, the show is not really grounded in reality or else the absente father would at least call- and probably send money.
Re: Dawn - the biggest thing I notice is Dawn's new lighter hair (to make her look a bit more like Buffy.)
I'm tired of Spike living in the basement also. Where is Clem?
I don't know what they have against Anya. They continue to reinforce the family unit of X, B, & D.
[> [>
Lol Spike Lover! (re your subject line) -- Rahael, 10:31:31 10/16/02 Wed
[>
The Save Angelina's Last Nerve Telethon has begun! -- ponygirl who's had lunch and taken off her crankypants, 10:32:25 10/16/02 Wed
Come on Angelina hang in there until sweeps! You can do it!
[>
I'm happy with B/S for now, and I loved Help -- CaptainPugwash, 10:39:15 10/16/02 Wed
I don't like Dawn much and she was by the far the worst thing in Help. However, everything else was fine (and miles better than last week); the B/S thing will resolve itself eventually.
Dawn aside, this was one of the best episodes that I have seen for a while (mainly because of Cassie). I don't know why the board is so quiet; this episode had as much for me as 'Beneath You' did (Lesson was OK).
[> [>
Last Week's Ep -- Spike Lover, 11:14:40 10/16/02 Wed
Last week my vcr freaked out and the UPN station had so much noise on it that I could not hear anything. I had to watch the ep on closed caption.
With that in mind, Buffy is REALLY enhanced by sound effects, background music, and verbal dialogue.
What did y'all make of the intense sexual imagery of Willow being eaten and licked by that thing? It gave me the heebie-geebies.
Also, w/ the X, B, & D family unit, are they suppose to represent the dysunctional family unit of Sunnydale?
[>
Though this be madness... -- Grant, 11:47:55 10/16/02 Wed
Aside from two fabulous scenes so far, the writers are taking the easy way out and just making Spike nuttier and nuttier and there is soooooo much more they could be doing with his character. James is an amazing actor and should be allowed to explore his "William".
Actually, unless it is done poorly having a character go mad is possibly one of the most complicated and difficult things to do, both from the perspective of the writer and the actor. The concept of having a character be driven crazy or go crazy on their own goes back to the beginning of drama. Madness is also a theme that occurs very often in the works of Shakespeare. Most of his best characters go mad to some degree or another (Hamlet, Macbeth, Lady Macbeth, Lear, Edgar, and Othello, just to name a few big ones), and it is in this madness that we as the audience get the best understanding of who the character is. So it is not really taking the easy route to have a character go insane. It is actually using a powerful technique that generally leads to some of the most dramatic and illuminating illuminating scenes of a character's existence (like the scene at the end of Beneath You).
This is not to say that the writers and JM will be able to pull it off. I think they have done a great job so far, but they may not be able to pull it off in the end. Only time will tell. However, I think it would be much more taking the easy way out to have Spike just turn into William. That would be like suggesting that after spending a hundred years or so torturing and killing, and then reaching an incredible emotional low point where you try to prove your love to someone by raping them, you can just slap on a soul and everything is hunky-dory. The situation is way more complicated than that, and I think that the current insane Spike is doing a great job of demonstrating just how complicated it is.
Also, I think you are forgetting that in season three Angel was regaining his soul for the first time, he was coming back from a hell dimension. It took him about 80 years to become sane again after he got his soul back the first time. And during that 80 year period he even tried going back to being evil for a little while. I would also suggest that it should be a lot easier to come back from hell, even after a hundred years there, than to gain a soul. Because the real world is going to be a much better place than hell, and so no matter how crazy you were driven by being in hell you are happy to be back in the real world. Particularly if being back in the real world means that you get to be with the woman that you love, the though of which was what kept you going in hell that whole time anyway. Meanwhile, when you get your soul back you go from having an existence where there is no remorse or regret for any of your actions to one where you are full of pain over just about every single thing you did over the last hundred years or so. I think it is quite easy to see why Spike has gone insane, and why it is going to take him a little while to get over it.
The thing that gets to Spike the most is being told that he is not good enough for somebody. Back in Fool For Love, this actually drove him to want to kill Buffy despite the chip and the fact that he loved her. This also came up a lot in season six, where Spike would always try and end the relationship whenever he felt that he was just being used and that Buffy still felt he was beneath her, such as in Once More, With Feeling and Gone. Of course, he still always came back for more but that's an entirely different matter all together (All: That's an entirely different matter). Spike believed that Buffy only considered him beneath her because he did not have a soul, so he went off to get it back thinking that then they would have a happy relationship. What he did not stop to consider was that his new sould would be constantly telling him that he is beneath her, which is what it is doing. The soul is reminding him of how he is a horrible, evil murderer, and thus he is unworthy of Buffy. This is obviously a major contributing factor to his insanity, and it also means, IMHO, that the B/S relationship will never come back no matter how much Buffy's opinion changes. Spike will feel himself unworthy of her, and this will lead him to not start another relationship with her no matter whether she is willing to start one with him or not.
As for Buffy's treatment of Spike, I would warn against judging it based on the last two episodes. In both she had a very pressing and critical life or death issue that kept her from spending any time trying to help Spike. In Same Time, Same Place, she had to worry about finding a demon that skins people alive, with the added fear that the demon might be Willow. And in Help she was trying to save the life of a young girl who was going to die later that day, and Buffy had almost no idea what was going to kill her. This is also the first time she has seen Spike since he tried to rape her, something that she can't just forget even if he does have a soul now. And, Spike has proven to be much more dangerous with the soul than without. I couldn't see last season's Spike starting a fight with Anya in the middle of the Bronze or continuing to hit the cult leader even with the pain of the chip. So Buffy does have some good reasons to be wary of Spike and to be unsure of how to help him.
I think you are partially letting your own desires as to where the plot should go interfere with your ability to just watch the show and see if what the writers and actors are doing makes sense. If I did this, I would consider any scene that did not, in one way or another, involve Faith dancing a failure. This is not to say that we as an audience should not have our own desires and thoughts as to what should happen on the show. But we should always keep these thoughts separate from our actual analysis of whether what the writers are doing makes sense and works given the rules and continuity that the writers themselves have set up to work with. Therefore even if you want Spike to become William, you would have to admit that it is highly unlikely he could be normal and happy so soon after getting his soul back, and that the insanity having his soul back has created makes sense. And I would have to admit that if and when Faith does return, she will probably be too busy working on the whole redemption thing to worry about doing a lot of dancing.
I guess all I'm really trying to say in the end is give the writers a chance. They did come up with all these great characters that we are all so passionate about, so I would at least give them the benefit of the doubt that they know what they are doing with them.
[> [>
Oh sure, Grant -- ponygirl, 12:02:12 10/16/02 Wed
... be all reasonable and thoughtful and well-written! Where's the fun in that?
And of course you have completely summed up Spike's dilemma. He is beneath Buffy, and his soul has only given him a better understanding of exactly why. The real trouble I think is that Buffy herself agrees that she is above Spike, and possibly a lot of other things as well. Raising yourself up almost inevitably leads to a fall.
[> [>
Faith dancing ... ! -- vh, 12:08:44 10/16/02 Wed
That made me smile ... especially since I found myself thinking last night, "Darn, halfway through and Spike hasn't shown up yet. Hey self, it's not 'The Spike Show,' you know!" That's not to say I didn't really like the episode anyway. Sigh, I shed a couple of tears. For my comments about Buffy's behavior, look down towards the "crankypants" thread (under the longer verdantheart, I think ...).
[> [>
Re: Though this be madness... -- Pamela, 13:10:59 10/16/02 Wed
For those of us who are waiting to see how both Spike's hero journey & Buffy's hero journey unfolds, it's difficult. But as in all heroes' journeys, things take time (and of course many challenges) to unfold.
One thing we already know. In Buffy's life (except for the sibling-like relationship with Xander) virtually every man that Buffy loves, leaves her. From her father, Angel, to a great extent Giles, and even Riley (whom we wonder if she every truly loved). Time and time again, we hear Buffy tell Spike & her friends how she does not love him and never could. Yet, we also know that any attempt Spike makes to get past this, and go on with his unlife...hurts Buffy emotionally. So this reach/repel thing most likey will continue to play on until Buffy decides what it is she truly feels/wants for & with Spike. One thing is for sure, she can't admit yet as to whether or not she loves him -- because if she does, somewhere in her mind she believes he will go away. (Easier to keep the pot stirred up just enough rather than risk being without him -- regardless of what she tells him or her friends.)
As for this basement thing...it looks like the basement at Sunnydale may be complicating the mental healing for Spike/William. So, I look to see Spike change living quarters sometime soon. (Where...now that he has a soul...is a crypt appropriate? And how many empty mansions and abandonned factories does Sunnydale have? We don't want to turn Spike into a carbon-copy of Angel by having him live in the same places Angel lived in Sunnydale? So this will be interesting.)
As my response is primarly regarding the B/S relationship, 3 things struck me in this episode as glimpses into how we're getting prepared for the future.
1) On more than one occasion, Spike referred to himself as a bad "man"...and I emphasize the word man. So is our former big bad -- beginning to come to grips with the soul?
2) Cassie indicating that "she'll tell you" (naturally we think she means Buffy), when she looks up at Spike who rejected painful agony in his head, so that he could aid someone beyond Buffy or even the Scoobie circle? (This looks like personal growth is happening for Spike.) But what will Buffy tell him...that he's forgiven? That he matters to her (which is pretty hard to tell from her actions at this point in the season)? That she was wrong about him? We'll just have to wait this one out.
3) At the end of the episode when Buffy realizes that there are some that she might not be able to save -- in the last scene we see her wearing the black color that Spike has traditionally worn (and the color he returns to when he comes back to help). It's obvious that she is going over some deep thinking and is troubled by this -- is it Spike that she is afraid she may not be able to save? (is it Willow? Is Buffy thinking of her own self-loathing and wondering if she will ever be saved?)
So...I guess all I'm saying is...that I understand your frustration in wanting to move the story along...but I have faith that within the next several episodes we'll have a clearer understanding of how this whole thing is headed...and as always, it will be worth the wait.
[> [> [>
Re: Though this be madness... -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:59:11 10/16/02 Wed
Or Cassie may not have meant Buffy.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Though this be madness... -- Doug the Bloody, 16:07:17 10/16/02 Wed
I thought I was the only one who thought of that option.
Who else could it be?
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Though this be madness... -- Finn Mac Cool, 16:21:21 10/16/02 Wed
Well, any of the female Scoobies is potential, even Dawn. However, I doubt it. It could be Drusilla. Maybe he contacts the spirit of Cecily.
Or, here's a wild thought: Buffy tells him she loves/trusts him, but it's the shapeshifter mocking him.
Though, most likely, it will be something I can't possibly comprehend.
[> [>
Interesting post and agree, Grant -- shadowkat, 07:57:14 10/17/02 Thu
Grant - first off, I'm a fan of your posts. I've been reading them off and on for a while. I may not always agree, but I always find them insightful and I love the Shakespear take.
I agree with both your take on Spike and the fan base. But have a few additional points.
1. Spike
-"The soul is reminding him of how he is a horrible, evil murderer, and thus he is unworthy of Buffy. This is obviously a major contributing factor to his insanity, and it also means, IMHO, that the B/S relationship will never come back no matter how much Buffy's opinion changes. Spike will feel himself unworthy of her, and this will lead him to not start another relationship with her no matter whether she is willing to start one with him or not."
Agree absolutely. I've been thinking this for quite some time. It's not Buffy that will keep Spuffy from reoccuring, it's Spike. (I hate Spuffy as a word but it makes the relationship we are describing clearer.) Spike/William
as is shown in LEssons and Beneath You can't handle her touching him in a sexual way. Too much damage there on both sides. From his point of view - he associates sex with her as hurting her. He used to associate it with love/loving her. He believed up to the AR scene in SR, that she loved him because she loved the sex. He associated sex with love.
He could not grasp the idea that she could enjoy sex with him that much - without love. (Or rather he refused to grasp it). Until the AR happened. He also believed all it took was the physical...realistic actually, I've known some people in my life who've thought the same thing. Now, ensouled he knows that's not true. He knows that their sexual relationship was in fact hurting her and him both. That it was never about love for her. But that's not all - if it was, maybe they could get past that - it's complicated by Spike's repulsion of what he is. He hates himself. The voices inside him remind him on a daily, hourly basis what he is. That alone is enough to keep him from going back there. Unless the writers do something really really major to the character - like an epiphany or something - I can't see Spike ever letting Buffy kiss or have sex with him again.
2. I like Spike's internal journey and I like the fact he's doing it on his own. It's more realistic actually than what happened with Angel (which felt very romanticized). And actually Angel's story didn't get really interesting until Buffy got out of it. With Spike, he's in Buffy's story, but is still struggling on his own, so his story isn't hampered by Buffy like Angel's was. I agree with your points on how the Crazy story is the harder/more challenging path and the far more interesting one. And if you listen closely, you do get snippets of who and what William is.
Spike's story is an interesting examination of how someone handles the dark and light inside themselves. Buffy and Spike's journeys in some ways mirror each other. Buffy struggles with her darkness. Spike with his light.
Both struggling for a balance. Willow is also about this struggle. Who are they? Creatures of light? Creatures of darkness? Or a balance of both? Spike's darkness makes it possible for him to save Cassie from the teenage boys. His lightness keeps him from killing the boy or hurting Cassie.
But the struggle between the two and not to give into despair, or the urge to be evil again is a tough one and very internal. Like you - I'm not sure if they can pull it off - so far they aren't doing a bad job.
3. fan base.
Lots going on here. Part of the fan base's problem is Angel.
Buffy's relationship with Angel. How she treated Angel. The whole Angel arc. The writers unfortunately have to deal with what came before, because their fans are holding on to it like rabid pitbulls. I find both Angel and Buffy sometimes easier to watch without spending too much time over referencing the first three seasons of Buffy. Basically separating them from what is going on now. Don't get me wrong - I think what came before is very important to this season, but we have to realize the characters aren't the same. They've changed. Buffy would not handle Angel the same way now that she did three years ago. And Angel would not handle Buffy the same. They might not even be attracted to each other if they met for the first time now, who knows. Whatever the case, they've jumped on separate if parallel paths.
Spike is not anything like Angel. I agree with your take on this as well. We have to remember that Buffy blamed herself for everything that happened with Angel - from his loss of a soul, to regaining a soul, to sending him to hell. She believed it was ALL her fault. It wasn't of course. But that's what she thought.
She may feel partially guilty for Spike. But Spike getting a soul - was not directly her fault. She didn't ask anyone to curse him with one. And it certainly never occurred to her that he could just go out and get one. She didn't chip Spike. All she did - was participate in abusive relationship with him. (Here's another confusion for the fan base - this relationship which can seriously be viewed from three perspectives. I've viewed it from all three and it's really amazing and I admire the writers for accomplishing it. 1)B is using Spike just for sex and
Spike is getting off on it, but loves her and will take whatever he can get. (Reminds me of S/R conversation in Into the Woods). B gets upset with herself for it. Breaks it off. Spike appears to be the victim in the scenerio. Since he loved her desperately, obessively, she gave him a taste of it - so he fell deeper (sort of like feeding an alcoholic or sex addict the substance they've been without and giving them the best ever) and then just breaks it off b/c it hurts her. So he goes insane. Gets a soul to get it back and she acts like he's just a nuisance. This is the reason the fans are going nuts. 2) Spike has seduced vulnerable Buffy back from the grave, he is kind to her, lets her talk to him, very good at sex, and continues to distance her from her friends, seducing her with her dark desires, telling her she is like him - so he can have her to himself. He loves her - but it is a possessive, obsessive love. He wants her to join him and be one with him. When she only comes as an invisible girl - that's not what he wants so he breaks it off or tries to. What he wants is what he begins to get in Dead Things and the Bronze, she craves him...soon she'll be his. When she spurns him, completely, he tries to force her back - hurts her - this causes the internal conflict that has been brewing inside him for quite some time to finally erupt. Because the reason he loves her - is the hero, the light, the beauty and by hurting her he destroys what he loves.
It's a love/hate thing. So he goes to resolve the inner conflict and win the girl. Get the soul. Except ironically all that does is place more distance between him and the girl and cause him more torment. This is why some of the fans hate him and can't understand the sympathy the first group has towards him. 3) (this is my favorite) Buffy is using Spike but also cares for him and is seduced by him...seduced by the darkness in herself and repulsed by that darkness. The relationship actually is very similar to Buffy's relationship with Faith in Bad Girls. Buffy is seduced by Spike in the same ways she's seduced by Faith - the shadow self. Spike has the same problem - he loves Buffy's lightness but can't stand it. He is obsessed with the death she represents to him but hates it too. He loves her because she is above him yet hates her for it. He would die for her, but wishes he could kill her so he'd be rid of her and the pain his love for her causes him. Buffy uses him to make herself feel better, Spike seduces Buffy so he can have her in his world and possess her. It's the combo of options 1 & 2. Spike goes after the soul to win her love and resolve his conflict. Buffy breaks up with him because it is hurting her and him both. All they are doing in her head is causing each other pain. In his head, he's in pain either way, but the pain with her is better than without her - remember - he experienced her death.
(The reason you have fans react vehemently to this - is it's the impossible anti-love story - we crave the reconcilation (or rather some of us do) because of the
dark and light chemistry and the view that maybe if dark and light reconcile - there will be peace. Probably not.
But what the hey. We also crave the dance between the two,
the sexual interaction...the healthy relationship. Partly because it is so impossible.)
This is hard to understand if you only view the relationship under point 2. If you can't visualize options 1 or 3, you won't get Angelina or the others reactions.
Yes - you're right the fans are upset because the story isn't going the way they want it too. But I think it's more than just wanting Faith to dance or B/S to reconcile.
"But we should always keep these thoughts separate from our actual analysis of whether what the writers are doing makes sense and works given the rules and continuity that the writers themselves have set up to work with. "
I used to think this is possible. But another poster, I believe it was Rah, taught me that it is impossible to keep our subjective views from surfacing in essays. Even yours is by no means completely objective. I know from reading it what you want from the show and your wishes for it. So it comes into play however much we try to keep it separate. I know I've tried hard to keep my subjective views from my essays and I've mostly succeeded. You really can't tell from some of them what I feel towards the B/S relationship or the characters - or that's what I at least tell myself.
Now? I think you can.
We are all way too invested in this show to view it or write about it in a manner in which what we want or are obsessed with doesn't crop up. It's different things for different people.
1. Some people are obsessed with the myth metaphors and are convinced that Whedon is unconsciously retelling some old myths.
2. Some are obessed with the whole Campellian Hero's Journey.
3. Some with Spike
4. Some with the comparisons to Shakespearian tragedies
5. Some with ships - B/S, W/T, A/C
It's endless. And everyone has blindspots. Some people - no matter what you post, will always hate Spike, they will always see the character as the two-dimensional villian in School HArd, the serial killer. There's no way around it. Some people - no matter what you post, will always love Spike and see him as the romantic hero who loves the heroine and understands her better than anyone else in the world no matter how horribly she treats him. It's a bit like Faith. Some people will always see her as a psychotic killer who should be killed. Some will always see her as a misunderstood girl on the road to redemption. Doesn't matter what the writers do or the essays you write. You will NOT change these people's minds. People are a bit pigheaded about obsessions. Actually people are pigheaded in general (sigh).
So being online with fellow obsessed fans can lead to these frustrations. LOL! Sometimes, I wonder if life would be easier if we all saw things same way? Easier maybe. But incredibly boring.
At any rate I loved your post. And for what it's worth, generally agree with your take and actually like it. With the exception of Faith dancing of course, she has good moves I guess, but I'd rather watch Spike dance with Dru.;-)
(Those two could move.)
[>
Re: 7.4 A Couple points -- Amber, 13:02:36 10/16/02 Wed
>It only took Angel 2 episodes to return to "normal"
What are you talking about when you say this? Are you referring to Angel's return in Season 3? If so, the comparison isn't fair. At that point Angel was returning from Hell, and he'd had his soul returned after only losing it for a few months.
Spike on the other hand has been without a soul for more than 100 years (I think, I'm not exactly clear on Spike's Vamp age.) It makes sense that he's a little crazy. On Angel:The Series we've had several references that Angel was kinda crazy after getting his soul returned through the gypsy curse. (Up to the late '80's he was living off sewer rats and hiding from humanity.) But in truth, the show has never done an extensive flashback showing us what he was like two days after the soul was returned, three days, etc. Where as, that is exactly what we're getting with Spike.
Not to mention the fact that Spike and Angel have very different personalities, hence it wouldn't make sense for Spike to behave exactly like Angel would. And maybe it's just me, but I think that after playing William the Bloody (the Spike of season 2) William the Buffoon (Spike in S4) and William the Unrequetted Lover (season 5), etc. that William the Crazy (of Season 7) is a pretty good stretch of James Marsters talent and only someone as talented as JM could pull off such a change.
And on another topic:
>Why is Willow not even talking about Tara? Putting a few >rocks on her grave simply didn't work for me.
Putting the pebbles on the grave is part of a Jewish tradition or part of the Jewish religion. (I'm sure there's someone else out there who could explain it better than me.) Back in S2+3 Willow makes several references to her family being Jewish, I think that putting the rocks on the grave says something about Willow's character, and is more significant than any dialogue the writers could have given her at that moment. Willow has just lost the love of her life (in a far more permanent way than Buffy lost Angel) frankly, there are no words to describe the pain she's in and there isn't anything else that the other Scoobbies could say about Tara at this moment that would ease Willow's pain. Nobodies talking about Tara, because nobody knows what to say.
[>
Re: 7.4 How much more of this are dreck are we gonna put up with? -- Sophie, 13:02:38 10/16/02 Wed
Not a big fan of insaneSpike with multiple personailty disorder, either. I was hoping for William to emerge and we would get to learn about him and see him grow and develop or something.
"Lessons" gave me hope that that (sloppy sentence structure here) would happen - he hair was longer and less bleached. Total bum to see that abandoned more or less in the three subsequent episodes.
Sophie
[>
Gee, thanks Grant (plus a few thoughts of my own) -- TeacherBoy, 13:09:55 10/16/02 Wed
Here I am, all set to write my first big piece about the show. Then Grant goes and says every single thing I wanted to say, and says it better than I was going to. Oh well. Somehow, I think that I will be inspired to write something in the future, me now being unemployed and all.
(Just an aside - did you know that teachers can be laid off? I didn't, but I sure as hell know now.)
I did want to say something about what I see as a larger issue here, and that is how each one of us sees this show. I was inspired to think about this because of one of the questions on that survey posted below. The question asked how we see the show - either aesthetic, intellectual or emotional. Of course, it is possible (and likely) that we see the show using all three viewpoints, but I really do think that each of us tends to lean in one direction. I thought about this because rather than writing a long reply that stated I strongly disagree with nearly every point in Angelina's post, I instead chose to go meta. That is, instead of that I disagree, I wanted to write about the why of the matter. To me, it seems clear.
Angelina and I obviously are not seeing the same show. It seems to be that she is seeing the show through an emotional viewpoint. I say this because she seems to be "identifying with or feeling connected to the characters and their struggles", whereas I am seeing the show through an aesthetic viewpoint "enjoying the plot or the effects". I am aware that this is hardly a revelation, but for me, this simple question has made me see things (and posts to this board) in a totally new light light. Allow me to give an example.
I feel like if I read another post about Spike and Buffy, about how she is treating him unfairly, about how she is being a bitch, about how she isn't showing him any compassion...I'm gonna throw myself out of my apartment window (ok, so I live on the ground floor, but still). Also if I read another post about how Willow hasn't shown enough grief about Tara, about why everyone seems more concerned with Warren than with Tara...well, you get the point. The question is why? Why would Angelina and I so fundementally disagree about this?
For me, it's because I could not care less about 'ships. Hate 'em, in fact. Personally, it drives me nuts when it seems that someone only seems to be watching the show in order for their pre-concieved notions about a character or a relationship to be validated on a weekly basis (why doesn't Buffy be nicer to Spike, why doesn't Willow spend 40 out of 42 minutes talking about how much she loves Tara, etc). Because I don't read the show that way. For me, it's not about the *specific* relationships. It's only how those relationsips function within the context of the overall story. To me Spike is the most interesting and dynamic character on screen, maybe ever. Having said that, I couldn't possibly care less if Buffy isn't treating poor Spike nice. I only care if Buffy and Spike's interactions make sense for the story, not the individual characters. Case in point: while I don't care what happens to Spike per se, I do care (and agree with Angelina) that her interactions with him have not been as consistant this season - which I see as primarly a structural problem, not a Spike issue, which makes sense give how I read the show.
This also makes the whole Willow/Tara thing make a lot more sense (in the interest of full disclosure, it must be said that Tara was my least favorite character on the show. I thought she was deadly boring until the end of season six when, well, you know...). Yesterday, just for kicks, I visited the Kitten Board for the first time because I wanted to see what everybody was talking about. I manged to look back in their archives until I found the appropriate posts and - WOW. I was stunned. I had no idea that people were so deeply involved in that 'ship. You would have thought that a close family member or friend had died. Then it hit me. To them, one *had* died. To me, the Kitten Board is the reductio ad absurdum of seeing the show through an emotional lens. I can't possibly understand it in any meaningful way, but at least it makes a little more sense now.
OK, so I guess I wrote more than I thought. I hope this made sense and wasn't something that has been repeated ad naseum.
TeacherBoy
[> [>
emotional vs. aesthetic appreciation -- darvangi, 14:39:48 10/16/02 Wed
The way I usually watch the show is on a very emotional level myself. I'm big with the pathos and like to let myself get taken on the emotional roller coaster the stories often provide. But then I enjoy coming to this board and reading everyone's more intellectual views and it helps me to appreciate the aesthetics of the show as well, so I can see the artistic value alongside the pure entertainment value.
Because my first choice is to experience the emotional impact, I really need the inspiration of other posters' intellectual opinions in order to gather any of my own. But when I get those ideas sparked up in my head, I find that I have very strong opinions of my own regarding the metaphorical interpretations of the actions on the show. I just need to have my brain ignited.
For instance, when I watched this week's ep I loved the humorous montage of students coming to Buffy's counseling cubicle with their problems. I initially just saw it as something very comical. But later that night, after reading some posts (on another board, actually) criticizing the scene as shallow, I found myself able to defend it by pointing out that is was showing Buffy making an important kind of progress in her personal development; applying the psychological strength she has cultivated in physical battles to real word problems, and seeing how the troubles of an ordinary individual can be just as vexing as the troubles involved in fighting literal demons.
So I love the way that the online fan community becomes a necessary part of my appreciation of the show's aesthetic value. It allows me to distance myself from initial emotional reactions which, although enjoyable, can be far from intellectual.
[> [>
Re: Gee, thanks Grant (plus a few thoughts of my own) -- Dariel, 17:41:41 10/16/02 Wed
Hmm. You say that you do not watch the show from an emotional point of view. You then go on to get very upset about people who don't think Buffy is nice enough to Spike. (Something about throwing yourself out your apartment window.) Then you say how it "drives you nuts" that some people only "watch the show to have their preconcieved notions...validated." And then you are "stunned" that some people could be as attached to Willow/Tara as the posters on the Kitten Board.
Basically, you get all emotional when other people don't see the show through the same lens that you do. So, I have to ask: How do you maintain your intellectual or aesthetic detachment about the show when you can't maintain it towards the views of other posters?
Which is probably just my smartass way of saying that even the decision to view something intellectually, rather than emotionally, has an emotional component. And that we are all very attached to our own point of view, and shouldn't pass judgement on that of others.
[> [> [>
Well, sure... -- TeacherBoy, 18:19:28 10/16/02 Wed
Your point is well taken, but let me clairify something. First off, to answer your question, "How do you maintain your intellectual or aesthetic detachment about the show when you can't maintain it towards the views of other posters?" My answer is simple: my attitude toward the show isn't *neccesarily* indicitive of my attitude toward other things (like real people). For example, I could weep like a baby every time Buffy comes on the screen, but could remain cool and dispassionate when talking to a student or a friend. My attitude can be different depending on the situation. But to answer what I think you are trying to get at - do I *really* get upset and crazy about other posters? No.
[see the camera zoom in on the tongue planted slightly in TeacherBoy's cheek].
Hell, I don't get upset about anything. My reaction to getting laid off this week was, 'Hmmmm, more time to watch soccer down at the local.' Jumping out the window? Obviously kidding.
But I will respond to the last comment, which gets to the heart of the matter. And this is where I will say (as maybe I should have earlier) that I am obviously not trying to offend anyone here. Heck, I feel mostly like a visitor or guest here. But passing judgement? Well, sure. Every time someone posts a comment to someone else about anything, judgement is being passed, even if that judgement is "I agree with you". Saying that I disagree the way someone watches the show and they are big stupid idiots is passing judgement, but in an inappropriate way. Saying that I disagree with the way someone else watches the show, *and here's why I think I do* is also passing judgment, but (I don't think) is innappropriate. That is, in fact, what I was saying. So fervently emotional fans of any show drive me crazy. That's not passing innapropriate judgement on others, that's show how much of a dork *I* am. And, yes, how much of a hypocrite I can be. ( I contain multitudes...)
To close, sure I watch from all three perspectives. I'm not an android (though that would explain a lot). I would just say something I tried to say in my original post, but probably said poorly, which is that although I tend to view the show from one perspective, all three perspectives are always present. If not, I wouldn't have teared up during the grave scene with Willow, for example.
Thanks for replying, and pointing out the glaring hypocrisy.
TeacherBoy
[> [> [> [>
Re: Well, sure... -- Dariel, 21:12:35 10/16/02 Wed
I'm sorry if I seemed to be giving you a hard time. Think I was feeling a bit defensive. I tend to be one of those "emotional viewers." (Although perhaps less than Angelina.) Which really is fine with me. I don't watch shows where I can't get emotionally involved with the characters, unless they're news shows, documentaries, science shows, etc. I do love all of the discussion about myth and metaphor on BtVS, but wouldn't notice it if someone else didn't point it out.
Too bad about the no work thing. If you want to be underpaid and teach in overcrowded schools, you could always move to New York City. Inviting, huh? Although teachers here finally got a raise after like 2 years of working without a contract.
[> [>
sympathies on the job situation -- Rahael, 17:46:25 10/16/02 Wed
[> [> [>
Ditto. Hope your downtime is brief and relatively non-stressful -- ponygirl, 13:53:36 10/17/02 Thu
[>
Repeat After Me: BUFFY tVS; Spike serves Buffy's story first, no matter how much you wish otherwise -- Alan Smithee, 13:24:15 10/16/02 Wed
[> [>
Well then. Who will be the first to say Spike deserves a spin-off show? -- KKC, 14:22:27 10/16/02 Wed
[>
Re: 7.4 How much more of this are dreck are we gonna put up with? -- Pamlea, 14:50:03 10/16/02 Wed
Angelina, please take a look at my response which you'll find under s sub-thread re: Though this be madness.
it may not be want you would like to have viewed last night...but there were some glimpses into the mind of both Buffy/Spike and suggestions to where they are going (either independently or together).
Stay tuned for next week's episode...you'll see I'm right!
[> [>
Reply to Pamala Re: 7.4 How much more of this are dreck are we gonna put up with? -- Angelina, 20:18:16 10/16/02 Wed
I hope you are right. I honestly hope the writers will be able to save this show. Remember what happened to the X-Files? That was my favorite show and I watched it go right down the tubes...because they didn't trust the audience to know *crappy* scripts when they are faced with em! I hope that doesn't happen here. I want them to present us, the faithful audience, with a plausable explanation of the way Buffy is behaving. Spike is being meant to suffer all the fire of hell because of his "hurting the girl". Now please believe me, I understand that there is NO excuse for Spike's attempted rape of Buffy - however, Buffy, to a large extent, was following Spike's lead sexually - she enjoyed the rough sex, even initiating it at times. Their entire sexual history consisted of Punch & "Ya Know". At the end, Spike simply thought Buffy was playing with him, yet again, felt she would, yet again, relent and make love with him, and he went way too far in that bathroom. But he didn't rape her. Would he have gone through with it if Buffy had somehow not been able to fend him off? I don't think so. Yet, Buffy almost beat Spike to a pulp, he not lifting a finger against her, and he could have, his chip didn't protect Buffy, but he simply took the beating. To me watching that scene was just as uncomfortable to watch as the "bathroom" scene. Shouldn't Buffy suffer guilt about her actions toward Spike? She was intimate with him, using him, taking the help and devotion he offered her and Dawn, and still she treated him with distain. I personally think Buffy needs to come to grips with her part in Spike's current mental state, how she played a large part in leading Spike on - pushing and pulling his emotions. She has not done that. She has not admited he culpability in Spike's obsession with her. She would rather not admit to one and all what she has done, how she had fueled that fire, that she actually DOES have strong feelings for him. Nope, this "new and improved" Buffy would rather let Spike/William rot in that basement. She, as well as everyone else, is casting Spike as the truly evil one in this play, because he almost raped her. Buffy deserves her share of blame and she needs to admit and accept it. And Spike deserves her forgiveness and compassion. He ASKED for his soul, went through terrible suffering to regain it -and he did it for Buffy, to make up for "hurting the girl" for hurting all the girls over the years. AND...Ya know what - she don't deserve it! I have given up even thinking along the Spike and Buffy relationship. I hope they don't get back together. But I better see an appropriate Spike and Buffy scene real soon - one that finishes the last scene in Beneath You. ME simply cannot allow what transpired between Spike and Buffy to be left hanging with no resolution. My God, the man has a soul now!!! What is she doing? This has to be put to rest ("Can we rest now?")We, the audience, deserve it!
[> [> [>
Re: Angelina, thanks for taking the time to read my response about 7.4 -- Pamela, 09:34:12 10/17/02 Thu
Sometimes, with BTVS it's hard to distinguish flesh & blood characters that the individual actors portray...compared to the deeper symbolism each player shows.
I give Joss Whedon a lot of credit to how he has layered each role with complex textures...and of course the cast members who carry these off so well.
In most dramas, when we view an individual scene like last year's bathroom scene with the "attempted rape", in another show that would have been cut and dry. But with B & S, we know that her character set the bar for rough play. It was Spike's confusion on how to communicate with her and the mixed signals he had been receiving that didn't clue him in early enough. Of course he had no intention of harming Buffy! Again...remember Buffy too....pull & push away...says go away, but keeps coming around for more, and won't truly allow Spike to be free of her.
On the surface it may look like she's using him. But stick around. She has never and I mean never really come clean with why she has allowed herself to maintain this strange relationship.
Everyone on BTVS is on their own quest for redemption...in their own way. Each one doing the best that they know how to do with their current state of growth. This year looks like a year for lots of self discovery & coming clean with themselves and others.
Not just Buffy or Spike, but yes Willow, Xander, Dawn, and Anya too. (Personally I'm keeping my fingers crossed that by helping others sort through their emotions through Buffy's new occupation...that it opens her up into shining the light towards her own awareness -- one that she can embrace and share with those she really loves.)
Mark my words...next week we'll see Buffy approach Spike out of concern for him and his wellness(and not just simply out of what he can do for her).
[>
Re: 7.4 Dreck -- Rufus, 20:12:04 10/16/02 Wed
Gee when are people going to become patient enough to let the writers tell their story. The show is about Buffy.....I'll repeat myself here.....BUFFY the vampire slayer. Spike is a secondary character. I also happen to believe that he is doing pretty well considering he has to absorb the impact of murdering hundreds of people over the years because it was fun. If he were anything but on the insane side I'd have to wonder how much he cared about his past actions. You may be sick of his insanity, but if you paid attention to his dialogue over the past few episode you could see an evolving character instead of a stagnant one. It's not up to Buffy to cure Spike but I think she will finally help him more than she has so far. In Help she had a time constraint regarding the death of a student....Spike had a lower priority because his life wasn't in immediate danger. If Buffy rolled her eyes I don't blame her.....she doesn't know what to do for Spike at this point and being very busy trying to keep the world safe may be taking up some of the time she could spend holding Spikes hand.
I'm sure that something for the posative will happen for Spike.....the hints are there in the show....but you have to care for more than just one character to see them. If the show were Spike the Vampire, Vampire Slayer, I'm sure his progression would be on the front burner but it's not, so have a little patience.
[> [>
THANK YOU! -- Rob, 09:58:46 10/17/02 Thu
Not every episode can be about Spike. Further the huge Spike developments that are surely coming soon would require him being the major point of the episode. STSP had to focus on Willow's return. Dropping a Spike revelation would have taken attention away. The fourth episode of the year could have dealt with Spike, but after giving him so much to do in "Beneath You," they probably want the audience's questions about him to simmer for a while. So the episode again gave us a little snippet of Spike. Next week, from the promos, I assume will be Anya-centric, so again probably not much Spike. And that's the way it should be, I think. Spike is important, but is not the most important secondary character. This season so far, I believe, has been very good at showcasing each of the supporting characters, even sometimes pushing Buffy into the background for a while. Give ME time. All the Spike issues will be addressed! Why would they have opened up the whole soul can of worms if they didn't have a plan? Be patient, people!
Rob
[> [>
Uh huh -- Slain, 12:43:24 10/17/02 Thu
Admittedly Rufus' was the only post I read in this thread, because to be honest I'm a little tired of defending the show's narrative direction to Spike fans; particularly as it's making me dislike Spike, one of my favourite characters. So I'll just say I agree, then leave it at that.
[> [> [>
Right there with you, buddy. -- HonorH, 13:07:09 10/17/02 Thu
I've accepted that there's a certain contingent of the fandom that won't be satisfied until Spike becomes the central character/hero of the series, but it's still damned annoying. Not to say I don't find him and his character arc fascinating, but he's not what I watch the series for. There are other characters. Get over it!
[> [>
Re: 7.4 Dreck -- gds - agreed and ..., 16:11:21 10/17/02 Thu
Let's not forget what the getting the soul thing did to Angelus. Angel was in bad shape for a LONG time. He has been insane; he has liven like a derelict; he tried to continue as a vampire (living with the gang), but couldn't. It took about 240 years and Buffy before he became a champion. It's gonna be hard enough to believe that Spike will become a champion within the timeframe of the series. If they had it happen all at once, it would be quite unbelievable.
[>
Re: 7.4 How much more of this are dreck are we gonna put up with? -- Tamara, 20:38:23 10/17/02 Thu
Spike being insane doesnt bother me so much. What really grates my cheese is watching the hero of the show repeatedly going to Spike for help and insulting him whilst doing so. And then she walks away in disgust when shes done with him. I never thought the show would get to the point where I actually cant stand the main character.
I mean what message am I supposed to get? That Buffy wont help Spike and gets irritated with his presence becuase he is annoying and hard for her to use right now.
What does a homeless man begging in the streets deserve? Maybe not unconditional love and forgiveness but surely a helping hand at the very least. Giles was able to help Angel even after he lost his girlfriend and was tortured by Angel. Buffy may not owe Spike anything but her current attitude towards him is telling me a lot about her. She will help people she likes like Willow and Cassie. But if she doesnt believe they are worthy of her help then she will leave them to rot until she requires help from them. She will then start getting in the face of a catonic person rolling her eyes because he doesnt snap to it quickly enough.
I really hope the writers are going somewhere with Buffys unfavourable behaviour. What worries me is that Sarah wanted her unsympatetic scene in Beneath You reshot so perhaps the writers arent having Buffy be so cold for any real reason. If they were going somewhere with it they would not have reshot the scene in Beneath You to show Buffy does have compassion.
[> [>
See Artemis' above thread on "Buffy's Journey" for some responses. -- Rob, 20:40:45 10/17/02 Thu
Suspending my disbelief (7.4 spoilers) -- darrenK, 12:11:08 10/16/02 Wed
Buffy=Death
I can't help speculating on what the Sunnydale police think when they get a call from Buffy or her minions. By season 2 there were already plenty of people in officialdom who'd noted the connection between Buffy and body count, yet she still seems to get away from these situations without serious questioning, being held as a potential suspect, being named as a material witness, etc. In Seasons 2 and 3 this made plenty of sense b/c the writers gave hints as to a vast, coordinated official cover-up. Since then nothing, zippo.
Last night, not only did she overstep her jurisdiction by going to Cassie's father and accusing him of potential murder by drunken fury, but she also assaulted and battered a student and destroyed public property.
While it's within the realm of possibility that she could occasionally get away with anonymous phone calls or saying it's coincedence, she seems to slip away time after time with no one noticing at all. Not even last year when she broke into a full police station to bust Andrew and Jonathan out. No security cameras in the detention areas?
I'm plenty willing to suspend my disbelief, but the suspension of disbelief is like a contract between performers/writers and audience and I'm starting to feel like the performers/writers aren't holding up their side of this. I feel like they're getting clumsy and taking the audiences disbelief for granted. Isn't Joss the one who's always saying "you've got to earn it," when he's talking about inplausible plot points?
While I'm still willing to give the benefit of the doubt, the idea that 7 or 8 good writers can't figure out a way to communicate Buffy's relationship with the police and the law, is starting to wear thin.
On an entirely separate note, last nite confirmed that Tara's last name was indeed MacLay. I know there was a thread about this a few months ago, but I was hoping somehow that it had been misinterpreted and that L was really an I.
It's entirely unfortunate that Tara's last name sounds like what you'd get if our American marketing geniuses could figure out a way to combine prostitution and fast food. Would that cast the Hamburglar into the new role of pimp? Or would they come up with a new character? The Condomaniac?
Just some stuff to think about.
dK
[>
Re: Suspending my disbelief (7.4 spoilers) -- SpikeMom, 12:35:12 10/16/02 Wed
The Sunnydale Police are deeply stupid...nothing new here.
Tara Maclay not MacLay.
[> [>
Re: Suspending my disbelief (7.4 spoilers) -- darrenK, 12:50:35 10/16/02 Wed
Yes, the Sunnydale police are "deeply stupid," but 5 seasons after this quote, even they should be putting 2 and 2 together. In fact, they are so deeply stupid it's surprising they haven't been accusing Buffy of more crimes. She's the perfect excuse for lazy police work.
Not only that, but the police seem well aware of Faith's crimes. Crimes that Buffy was deeply involved in, in one way or another. She might even have been seen as complicitous, especially since her only excuses are unprovable and lame--"Faith killed someone. I was just there hunting vampires."
P.S. The Maclay joke works whether it's spelled MacLay, McLay, or other.
dK
[> [>
The Sunnydale Police are aware Buffy is the Slayer...they aren't evil though -- Charlemagne20, 21:45:41 10/16/02 Wed
like the Iniative the Sunnydale police force exists for the purpose of protecting the citizenry about them. Under the Mayor however people like snyder existed to try and keep things from going to a panic and by making deals with demons...unaware this wasn't for the greater good.
Buffy the Vampire Slayer they're I'm sure either aware that she is a Demon or the Slayer. If she's a Demon they leave her alone if she's the Slayer...ditto
[>
Re: Suspending my disbelief (7.4 spoilers) -- Dariel, 12:37:19 10/16/02 Wed
I agree with you about the police and their seeming ignorance of Buffy and her doings. It's kind of hard to believe. How about that huge tower that showed up at the end of Season 5? How come they didn't notice all of the nutty folks breaking out of asylums and assembling there?
And last night, why didn't Buffy report the cult boys, or at least their leader, to the police? She just walked off and let them go. Kidnapping a girl and attempting to kill her are human crimes, whether one is trying to summon a demon or not.
[>
MacLay is my mother-in-law's last name -- Cleanthes, 12:44:16 10/16/02 Wed
On an entirely separate note, last nite confirmed that Tara's last name was indeed MacLay. I know there was a thread about this a few months ago, but I was hoping somehow that it had been misinterpreted and that L was really an I.
It's entirely unfortunate that Tara's last name sounds like what you'd get if our American marketing geniuses could figure out a way to combine prostitution and fast food. Would that cast the Hamburglar into the new role of pimp? Or would they come up with a new character? The Condomaniac?
There's also a chain of inns in Scotland that I know of.
As a person of Scots descent, I would be offended by this rather excessively radical interpretation of the text were I a person inclined to allow myself to ever be offended.
The surname is common in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and, I suppose the Ozarks and Appalachia, given the ethnic make-ups of those areas.
[> [>
Oops. Sorry (NT) -- dK, 13:03:12 10/16/02 Wed
[> [>
Re: MacLay -- pr10n, 15:40:43 10/16/02 Wed
Also I'm thinking in the guid Scots it might be pronounced as "mac-lye" spoiling the otherwise droll pun.
Gaelic speakers?
[> [> [>
Re: MacLay (is also a beer) -- lachesis, 16:33:09 10/16/02 Wed
Good point about the last syllable, although 'lye' is a particularly nasty kind of soap. Here in the Highlands (of Scotland, not the Ozarks, can't speak for them) we don't tend to pronounce the 'Mac' as separately, or with as much emphasis on the vowel, as you do 'over the water.'
So, I'm not fluent, but here goes: (definitely pronounced as one word) M'klaayy. In Gaelic pronunciation, the emphasis and long vowels generally go at the end of a word, particularly personal and place names.
TMI? Sorry. But it is a guid, and common, Scots name.
P.S. While we're on the subject, maybe someone can tell me whether the third 'a' in 'Appalachia' is supposed to be long or short?
[> [> [> [>
If you're from there, it's Apple-atcha -- oboemaboe, 18:25:30 10/16/02 Wed
For everyone else, it's Apple-ay-chia.
[> [> [> [> [>
Thanks - minor mystery solved! -- lachesis, 11:20:53 10/17/02 Thu
[>
Let's talk about suspension of disbelief (7.4 spoilers) -- Lilac, 14:03:20 10/16/02 Wed
It's funny the things that bother us in works of fiction. My husband is driven insane by Xander's having worked himself so far up the building trades ladder in so little time. Given that Xander seems to be working on big, commercial jobs, he is most likely working in a union environment. At the age of 21 or 22, as he should be around now, he might have made it from apprentice to journeyman status, but he would not be leading a crew, let alone an entire job.
I am having a tough time myself with the idea that a 21 year old college drop out would be given a job in a public school that would in reality probably require at least an undergrad degree in social work if not an MSW. Schools are very particular about who they let near kids these days. All sorts of background checks are required, and to be honest I don't think that Buffy could pass the screening process, not with the fat folder of school related problems let alone some contact with the police.
So, sure the police in Sunnydale defy belief. But I guess if we are willing to believe in vampires, witches, werewolves, keys, and any other creepy that crawls through, I guess we can over look some more mundane discrepancies with real life.
[> [>
Re: Let's talk about suspension of disbelief (7.4 spoilers) -- Vickie, 14:10:38 10/16/02 Wed
If Principal Wood knows about the Slayer, we can excuse the whole issue of Buffy's employment. That's the primary reason I think he may be in the know: a clued watcher, or someone else who knows the score.
As for Xander, we could make some lame excuses that, just as with other jobs in Sunnydale, there's not the usual competition because of the death rate. Otherwise, there's just no excuse. ME wants to show him as competent and successful, probably setting him up for a fall.
[> [> [>
Xander's capability -- neaux, 14:42:22 10/16/02 Wed
Maybe Xander's job position is stretching it, but at the inept company I work for, 80% of my co-workers can barely read their email. If you show initiative, you can get a job promotion.
So if you take Xander's wit to represent his brain, you know he's a smart guy. You really only need be smarter the next guy to get a job advancement in a company. And from his dialogue,I would say he enjoys what he is doing. The fact that he uses a hammer as an analogy, means he has construction on the brain. If you like what you do, the easier it is to learn more about it.
We never see what he does on the summer months, cant you take online courses for that kinda stuff? ^_~
[> [> [> [>
Re: Xander's capability -- Vickie, 14:55:02 10/16/02 Wed
Sure, he could have take online courses. And we know h's "good at that stuff." Your points are well-taken.
However, as another poster mentioned, construction jobs are generally union jobs. As such, seniority counts for as much as capacity, unless there truly are no more senior employees as good as you are at the job. Even then, a junior union member promoted over senior ones can be in a lot of trouble, morale and respect-wise.
I don't know what you do, neaux, nor whether it's a union job. Mine works as you describe, but high tech is notoriously anti-union.
[> [> [> [> [>
ok! good points! -- neaux, 15:25:29 10/16/02 Wed
yeah... to be honest I dont know squat about unions, so everything you say makes sense to me. I didnt want Xander's credibility to get totally hammered (pun), so I figured I'd try to back him up.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Unions... -- Lyonors, 17:14:29 10/16/02 Wed
Okay, I mentioned this same subject when his apparent project manager status became apparent in Lessons. I am familiar with unions. It would be probable that Xander would be a journeyman by now, but completely inprobable that he would be a foreman or a project manager. But the big question is, is California a Right-to-Work state? Because if it is, they dont allow unions, and it would be a mute point entirely. So if anyone can answer that question, we will know if it is really that much to ask of the suspension of disbeief portions of our brains.
Ly
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
California has unions -- Vickie, native Californiac, 17:27:50 10/16/02 Wed
I don't know the technicalities of a "Right to Work State," but we definitely have unions.
Heard about the West Coast port closure? Unions and management...
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Plus Actors' and Screenwriters' unions are always in the media. -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:32:29 10/16/02 Wed
My personal theory is that almost everyone above Xander has been killed by monsters that the Xan-man is too knowledgable to avoid. Say, maybe Xander keeps "forgetting" to bring up his higher ups' deaths so he can climb the corporate/construction ladder?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Plus Actors' and Screenwriters' unions are always in the media. -- Nic, 19:10:26 10/16/02 Wed
Is it possible that Xander's bosses know something about the Hellmouth and promoted him as a local expert?
[> [> [> [> [>
unions -- SpikeMom, 23:32:18 10/16/02 Wed
Perhaps the unions in Sunnydale are also deeply stupid?
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Xander's capability -- JBone, 08:47:05 10/17/02 Thu
I'm not in California, but I've been around plenty of construction sites. I was at one where we were building an apartment complex when the INS showed up. Half the work force scattered, so I'm pretty sure that they weren't union. It's believable to me that Xander had worked himself in charge of a crew, a couple years ago. If you show some talent and ambition, they'll promote you to be in charge of 4 or 5 other laborers pretty easily. Now in the two years since, to become a foreman, in charge of multiple crews? That would really be shooting up the ladder. But not impossible.
The monkey wrench of course is whether he is union. And a public project payed by taxpayers like a public school project would probably have to have a certain amount of the contracts given to unionized labor. But you probably could satisfy that by giving the plumbing, masonry, electrical, and other specialized subcontracts to unionized labor, while the primary contract was handled by a construction company that's not union.
I can suspend disbelief on this, until other details come to light.
[>
On conspiracies and Scottish surnames (spoilers continue...) -- KKC, 14:17:34 10/16/02 Wed
Darren raises some excellent points. With which I will proceed to disagree in the most friendly way possible. :)
On the issue of Buffy and her legal status? I think that there are unanswered questions about the Watcher's Council that help us to understand how Buffy and her friends can get away with everything that they do. Remember in season five's 'Checkpoint' where it was established that the council is able to manupulate legal and economic processes? Remember also in 'This Year's Girl' where a nurse in Sunnydale General turns out to be a council spy sent to watch Faith. What helps my suspension of disbelief is knowing that the council is still out there and is still (in all likelihood) manipulating legal and economic processes to make sure that nothing gets in the way of the slayer's work. Granted, there's no proof of this in the show, but it's the simplest explanation given the info we have... And by extension it's not realistic to think that the council isn't still involved in the war against evil, even if Buffy is no longer an official agent of the council.
Others have beaten the Scottish surname issue into the ground, but I will point out that Maclay is a perfectly valid name without all the sexual wordplay baggage. The Maclays are members of Clan Stewart, and there are many variations on the name within the clan (including Maclea, Macleay, Macleigh, etc. etc.) A senator from Pennsylvania in the 1800's, an American romance novelist, and a prominent modern-day barrister all share the name. And that's just from the first page of Google listings. :)
If Tara were a Chinese woman named Wang, would you still be bothered by the name? An interpretation says more about the interpreter than it does about the material, in my mind.
-KKC, who is an honorary Henderson in spite of the fact that he's mostly Chinese. I've got a clan tartan around here somewhere...
[> [>
Context is everything -- darrenK, 15:45:13 10/16/02 Wed
KKC--
With all respect, context is everything.
Maclay is a perfectly good name. If I met someone with the name in real life, I wouldn't think twice--even with the overactive part of my brain that you make reference to.
However, Tara's role on the show is/was almost completely as Willow's armpiece. That was the function of her character and until the last few episodes of her life she did very little outside of being Willow's girlfriend/appearing with Willow/etc.
In that context the name Maclay--a perfectly good name--takes on the secondary/humorous meaning that I've--hopefully, in good fun--joked about. If the character had been Willow's male lover and his name had been Wang--another perfectly good name-- that would, unfortunately, be funny too.
I don't and never disputed that Maclay was a realname, but Tara didn't come by the name in the same way that most of us came by ours. Her name was thought of by a writer who had a choice of all the Scottish names--including Stewart and Buchanan (which my Tartan guide lists as the families that legitimate Maclays are septs of)--in the Scottish universe. Writers are, usually, very conscious of the words and names they choose. I can't believe that Joss chose it randomly, without seeing the potential double entendre. Sorry, I just don't.
Even if Joss hadn't noticed what his brain had done, he has 7 other writers that could have clued him in.
Let's also note that Tara didn't seem to have a last name until her role as Willow's lover was well established, so there was plenty of room to name her something that didn't have any sexual undertones.
Plenty.
Buffyguide.com indicates that Family was the episode where Tara's last name is revealed, a full year after the introduction of Tara's character.
I don't remember it before that.
I guess I should say that I'm sorry if I offended anyone. My last name is no gem. Apparently, it means stonecutter in Russian. That means working with a chisel, which is definitely a phallic...
dK
[> [> [>
The most, er, persuasive evidence... -- Darren, 16:11:57 10/16/02 Wed
No one should forget that a year after giving Tara the last name Maclay, Joss wrote a scene for her where she lies or is it lays? (I always screw that up) on the bed she shares with Willow and sings...
"You make me come-plete, you make me come-plete"
as Willow, her lover, disappears from view...
But, I guess I could be wrong about that pun too?
Yeah, right.
dK
[> [> [> [>
Since you ask ... (OT usage commentary) -- vh, 08:20:18 10/17/02 Thu
In this case, it's "lies." As in "She lies on the bed." However, if she were putting something on the bed, it would be, "She lays the book on the bed." "Lie" is intransitive (you do it yourself), whereas "lay" is transitive (you do it to something else).
The confusion comes in because "lay" is the past tense of lie. Its correct to say "She lay on the bed." She did this in the past.
However I fully expect the language to evolve so that "lay" comes to be an acceptable usage in place of lie (that is, for the act of lying down -- although not prevaricating) because I seem to hear the misusage more frequently than the correct usage. It sounds strange to my ears, but, hey, language is a living thing, much as the French might like to deny it.
Sorry about the grammar/usage lesson. But you did ask. Hope that helped.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Since you ask ... (OT usage commentary) -- darrenK, 20:39:28 10/17/02 Thu
So, you wouldn't say that she got laid on the bed?
Just kidding and --to be honest--I just put it in the original post to be snarky, but it really is something that I haven't paid enough attention to and is appreciated.
dK
[> [> [>
Re: Context is everything -- d'Herblay, 16:30:51 10/16/02 Wed
On the subject of embarrassing names: my grandmother's maiden name is Adcock (as a shout-out to KKC, my mother's maiden name is Henderson; though my blood is largely Scottish, there have been times after lunches with Rah when I have been mostly dim sum). In fact, I recall my mother telling me that she had tried registering with some web-based service; when prompted for a password, she was told to choose something easily remembered but not easily associated with her, "such as your mother's maiden name." Dutifully, she typed in "Adcock." She got back a screen telling her that her password had been rejected because the service had detected a possible profanity.
While I can attest that Adcock is a fine name, I certainly would find a fictional character with that surname to be an offense against good taste. So I am sympathetic to Darren's reading; however, I believe that "Help!" was the first time we saw "Maclay" written out (not in the scripts, not in the ancillary material, on the screen). The common pronunciation of Maclay, and the one I believe was used in "Family," is "muh-CLAY." Now, if Joss is intending a resonance, it's certainly more likely to be sonant than visual. Perhaps the name is there to remind us of Tara's connection to the Earth? Is this reinforced by Willow's traditional remembrance? What are you asking me for?
This view may well be idiosyncratic; but then I look at Darren's etymology for his surname and do not think of phallic chisels but rather, "Freemasonry!"
[> [> [> [>
Agreed--I also thought Maclay was an "earth mother" reference -- Indri, a lowland Scot, 18:02:55 10/16/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
And Dawn is taking Ceramics.... -- Scroll, 13:05:09 10/17/02 Thu
So maybe that was a nod to earth religions/earth mother archetypes. Hmmm. Then what does Egyptian History have to do with anything?
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Egyptian history? Osiris maybe? -- d'Herblay, 15:10:58 10/17/02 Thu
Cassie's coming back . . .
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Egyptian stuff -- Cleanthes, 22:47:39 10/17/02 Thu
I think you're on to something with your Egyptian question. We have Willow's association with Osiris, for one thing. For another, I mention Khnum in my double or nothing post infra.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Context is everything -- skpe, 07:55:03 10/17/02 Thu
and pray tell what is wrong with 'ADCOCK'? ... Hi Cuz
[> [> [> [>
Conspiracies everywhere -- darrenK, 08:23:57 10/17/02 Thu
d'Herb--
Believe it or not, at one point my family had a hyphenated last name, the other part was German: Rosenzweig, which means "rose stick," or "single rose."
If you'd like to see it that way, it could point to involvement with the Rosicrucians as well. Or some sinister marriage of the two secret sects and I am their product...
Of course, If this was true then I've seen no financial or worldly benefit from it. You'd think I'd at least be able to change jobs at will or something? dK
[> [> [> [> [>
so 1 person disproves 3 conspiracy theories? -- anom, 13:40:55 10/17/02 Thu
Is that a record? Darren's mere existence--well, & his family's names--disprove 3 conspiracies!
"If you'd like to see it that way, it could point to involvement with the Rosicrucians as well. Or some sinister marriage of the two secret sects and I am their product...
Of course, If this was true then I've seen no financial or worldly benefit from it. You'd think I'd at least be able to change jobs at will or something?"
So neither the Rosicrucians nor the Freemasons control the world's wealth after all! And since Darren is Jewish, that must mean the Jews don't either! (You are, aren't you, Darren? 'cause I'd really like us to be off the hook for this, once & for all.)
Hey, it's as much proof as the conspiracy theorists offer.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Anom--Yup, it's the trifecta. (darren's life spoilers in above post) -- darrenK, 20:41:51 10/17/02 Thu
[> [> [>
I have to disagree. -- HonorH, 11:26:13 10/17/02 Thu
For one thing, that seems too crude for Joss to have inflicted upon Tara. For another, if her name was MacLay, I might wonder, but it's Maclay. The syllable division is Ma-clay, not Mac-Lay. I agree with the others that if anything, it's a reference to Tara's connection to the earth.
[> [> [> [>
double or nothing -- darrenK, 20:34:02 10/17/02 Thu
I'll take your disagreement and raise you one.
I don't think Joss would say "crude," I think he'd say bawdy. And why would the naming be a "crude" affliction but the OMWF lyric and scene not be?
I think that your use of the word "crude" is ironic considering that clay itself is a crude material, the base material for so many strange mythological creations.
Next, for such a benign sexual reference to be a crude affliction, you'd have to consider sex itself to be in some way crude or tainted and from Joss's portrayal of other sexual relationships I don't thing he sees it that way. He shows too many positive sexual relationships for that to be the case.
Not only that, but let me remind you that if we want to talk earth mother references, well, there's gonna have to be some sex before someone becomes a mommy. The sex act is essential to humankind's connection to the earth and women's special role in that connection.
Now, another issue comes up: this idea that Joss wouldn't afflict Tara this way. Why not? This is the same man that wrote that Xander's "penis has diseases from a Chumash tribe." This is the same man that wrote the Willow/Tara sex scene in OMWF and the same guy who let us know that the Parking Ticket Lady isn't wearing any underwear. All through the Buffy story there's sex and bawdiness and double entendres. It's become almost a Joss Whedon calling card. Why would or should Tara's name be any different?
dK
[> [> [> [> [>
Now you're confusing me. -- HonorH, 22:12:31 10/17/02 Thu
If I may, *you're* the one who made me think "crude" in the first place. To wit:
It's entirely unfortunate that Tara's last name sounds like what you'd get if our American marketing geniuses could figure out a way to combine prostitution and fast food.
If that's not you describing something "crude," what is? That's exactly why I said I didn't think Joss would purposely give her a name with that particular connotation.
To the next: Joss certainly isn't above bawdy humor. Never has been. And no, I don't see sex itself as being something dirty or shameful--quite the opposite, in fact. I just never saw Tara's last name as being a combination of fast food and prostitution. I see it as being a reference to the earth and to pure, life-giving sexuality if anything.
But honestly? My overall thought is that her last name means as little as Xander's. Joss pulled it out of a hat, possibly because of an ethnic background he had in mind for her family.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
You're confused? Nah, I'm confused -- Cleanthes, 22:53:03 10/17/02 Thu
Or is it confusing? Both, no doubt.
My butting-in reply took so long that your post occurred while I was in mid-composition. I didn't notice it until just now.
Do you really think there's nothing to "Xander" - which is rather the less common shortening of Alexander? I guess I don't see a whole lot of room to run with "Harris", but let me have a couple more shots and maybe I can come up with something.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Go with God, my friend! -- HonorH, 22:59:54 10/17/02 Thu
I've full confidence in your ability to find some sort of Nefarious Meaning in Xander's name. Or "Winifred Burkle," for that matter.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: double or nothing -- Cleanthes, 22:38:47 10/17/02 Thu
I'll take your bet and turn the doubling cube another power higher.
In reply to HonorH you write:
Next, for such a benign sexual reference to be a crude affliction, you'd have to consider sex itself to be in some way crude or tainted and from Joss's portrayal of other sexual relationships I don't thing he sees it that way. He shows too many positive sexual relationships for that to be the case.
So, NOW, "MacLay" is a benign sexual reference, but in your first post you wrote:
It's entirely unfortunate that Tara's last name sounds like what you'd get if our American marketing geniuses could figure out a way to combine prostitution and fast food. Would that cast the Hamburglar into the new role of pimp? Or would they come up with a new character? The Condomaniac?
Maybe saying that Tara's name is a reference to greasy hamburgers and prostitution is similar to making a benign sexual reference, but it seems a stretch to me.
I personally can see MacLay as a benign sexual reference, inter alia and also a bit preposterously; but then, I hold to the quaint belief that the 20th century, mostly Freudian, insistence on favoring a sexual interpretation of symbolism reflects fatuity equal to the other epic stupidities of the 20th century such as great depressions, world wars, communism and disco music.
Which is to say, now that I feel like considering a radical interpretation of the text, you'll have to allow me to open wide my vastest hermeneutic toolbox and offer an anagogic interpretation, possibly risking an assertoric and therefore insufficiently non-judgmental rhetoric.
The writers have to pick names. The writers don't have time to research all things to a fare-thee-well. Marti says they even make things up from time to time.
Nevertheless, we have Tara Maclay as lover of Willow Rosenberg. Even if these names were merely made up without research, the muse that inspired these choices derived them from somewhere rather than nowhere.
Willow Rosenberg, as played by a distinctly Irish-American actress. A weeping hardwood tree on a rose mountain. Or, I suppose, she will low rose berg, which I could construe as a reference to fellatio, were I so inclined.
The Harp that Once Through Tara's Halls was made of willow wood, as I posted some time ago.
Maclay, which does seem to mention clay, although that denies the "Mac" prefix common to Scots and Irish names. (so much so that "Mick" is a unPC slang term for a person of Irish descent). Tara is an earth-mother figure, though, no doubt. Khnum molded humans from clay - sacred clay as one might find on a regal hill such as, well, Tara.
Maclay, a name associated more with Scotland than Ireland, as indeed the Maclay's we saw in `Family` played to the stereotypical Scotch-Irish hillbilly image. But such folks are orange.
"Tara", the place, is distinctly green, not only in its verdent grass but also in political association. The hill is also kinda shaped like a bazoomba, for those non-anagogically inclined.
I think Tara's mom played a fast one in picking the name. Dad perhaps had seen `Gone With The Wind` and that was the most he understood of the Irishness of the name Tara. Mom knew of the detour through the rushes where one meets the fairies. Ian Paisley would not approve.
Tara, whose harp is made of willow, and from whom the soul of music shed -- Maclay, whose lays and idylls she's borne as fardels. Ah, lay - at rest, or not clergy, or ... or, if one's mind cannot rise above junior-high level humor, vulgar sexual intercourse. But then, no doubt one can snicker at the Lays of Ancient Rome. No doubt Lars Parsena of Clusium conceals many a distorted jape.
A character invented as an intended, at least after `Hush` revealed Amber's talents, but actually before because Amber would not have been cast except for anagogic muses working on Marti and Joss's minds. Such a character's name carries much freight.
After Tara blew out the candle,
Then drawing in her breath aloud,
Like one that shudder'd, she unbound
The cincture from beneath her breast:
Her silken robe, and inner vest,
Dropt to her feet, and full in view,
Behold! her bosom and half her side----
A sight to dream of, not to tell!
And that from the poem which gave us the word "sire" for the parent of a vampire.
And that's a benign sexual reference.
And that's how one lays a bet.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Cleanthes, may I ask you something? -- HonorH, 22:51:04 10/17/02 Thu
Do *you* understand what the heck you're talking about?
LOL!
[> [> [> [> [> [>
That was lovely! -- lachesis, 05:26:26 10/18/02 Fri
"fatuity equal to the other epic stupidities of the 20th century" lol!
And Alex-ander ('he who wards off men,' a prophylactic if one wanted to be Freudian) was the ultimate conquistador. But poor Xander has had his protective function removed except for the X. He's just a guy, maybe, except in TR, when he stakes the vampire as Alex?
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: double or nothing -- darrenK, 06:04:03 10/18/02 Fri
While ignoring the more personal pokes you've taken at me (is that really necessary?), I've got to ask how you feel about the other sexual humor in BtVS? So many small and, um, large jokes/images/plot-devices/villians over the years have been meant to have a sexual interpretation or purpose. Even a few things that weren't jokes have a credible sexual interpretation.
Joss himself has said that Angel feeding on Buffy at the end of Season 3 was meant as a "rather thin" metaphor. Then, there's a catalog of other words, images and moments...Xander's addition of the word-part, "...bator" to the end of the word "master" in Buffy vs. Dracula, the up-and-down hand motion during the av presentation in Hush, the phallic shape of the worm-god in Reptile Boy, the teacher who is literally a sexual predator in Teacher's Pet. Do I need to go on? I could.
I should especially draw attention to the end of Season 6 where Buffy emasculates Warren by crushing his orbs of power. It's the orb-crushing's Freudian interpretation that becomes Warren's motivation for shooting Tara and Buffy. Your Tara died for Freud.
Do you ignore them? Or, because you feel those jokes/scenes/images/plot-devices are more purposeful on the part of the writers, they are ok and it's only the references and symbols that become sexual when interpreted that "reflect fatuity equal to the other epic stupidities of the 20th century such as great depressions, world wars, communism and disco music?"
(By the way, there might be posters who've lost family, friends, homes, and livelihoods to world wars or communism who might take offense to what they very possibly could perceive as the glib fatuity of your comment)
To be honest, when all the sophmoric, sexual or bawdy humor is piled up, I'd say the writers prescribe to the Freud lite school of humor. Or you could call it Shakespeare lite or Lenny Bruce lite; there are so many ways of describing the type of humor that attempts to get laughs based on the human discomfort with sex.
As to whether Maclay is a benign sexual reference on Joss's part, I believe it is. The joke in my original post was not so benign, but that was my joke, not my interpretation of Joss's intention for the name.
Alyson Hannigan's mother is Jewish, of the Eastern European variety, and she was raised as a Jew. This does not preclude an Irish heritage, Hannigan is her father's real last name and Jews have been famous Irishpeople before. Sometimes even bawdy Irishpeople. At least in fiction.
The other elements of your interpretation of Tara's name are most welcome and a fine counterpoint to a joke that was never meant as serious interpretation.
dK
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: double or nothing -- Cleanthes, 11:59:23 10/18/02 Fri
While ignoring the more personal pokes you've taken at me (is that really necessary?),
Without answering the question of necessity, which would be very hard, I can answer partially, as to purpose. Because my purpose matches, I think, your purpose in your intitial gadfly-like characterization of the name Maclay, perhaps you'll agree with this purpose.
Taking insult involves surrendering control of one's self to external forces. Consider: if the insult is intentional then the insulter wants you to feel insulted. So taking insult means doing what the insulter wants and it's easy to see that the insulter doesn't have your best interests at heart.
Alternately, the apparent insult may involve miscommunication of some kind. In that case, taking insult will normally impede correcting the miscommunication.
If I sin against you, do not lay hold of this by the handle of my injustice, for in that case the fardel cannot be borne. (love the word fardel, don't you?) Instead, do as Tara did and lay hold of this through whatever justice there may be. If you check the subject heading (you wrote it), you'll see a challenge that I guaged to be "can you top this?". Did I not do this or at least give it the old college try?
I've got to ask how you feel about the other sexual humor in BtVS? So many small and, um, large jokes/images/plot-devices/villians over the years have been meant to have a sexual interpretation or purpose. Even a few things that weren't jokes have a credible sexual interpretation.
I do not object in any way to sexual humor. Rabelais and Aristophanes are high on my list of great comedy writers. Few, nowadays, of Aristophanes jokes about genitalia would be allowed uncensored even on European TV. I fully agree with you as to why people's sexual discomfort is often funny.
Tara's song in `Once More With Feeling` contained sexual references that I should try to match up with Aristophanes. He often alluded to lesbian sex, which few of the dead white males since have done. He obviously admired lesbians, IMO. Hmm, I think I'm getting off the subject.
Do you ignore them? Or, because you feel those jokes/scenes/images/plot-devices are more purposeful on the part of the writers, they are ok and it's only the references and symbols that become sexual when interpreted that "reflect fatuity equal to the other epic stupidities of the 20th century such as great depressions, world wars, communism and disco music?"
I think I may have been unclear as to what was fatuous about the 20th century's obsession with reading symbolism as sexual. The fault lay [sic] with privileging the sexual interpretation above all else, often completely disregarding other possibilities entirely. (Of course, Communism's eagerness to read class struggle into everything erred in a contrasting way, so I wouldn't want to push this too far.)
Privileging of the sexual interpretation of stuff is commonplace among adolescent boys. It's only one arrow in the quiver, though. When Aristophanes takes his hero to Cloud-Cuckoo land on a dung beetle, much of the humor of the images lies in the contrast of the sexual and the scatalogical with peace and order and poetry.
(By the way, there might be posters who've lost family, friends, homes, and livelihoods to world wars or communism who might take offense to what they very possibly could perceive as the glib fatuity of your comment)
You neglect to mention the poor sods who lost their lives to disco music. For shame, for shame.
Point taken, though. My comment about the assertoric nature of the rhetoric I was about to use was meant as a kind of "spoiler space" for the sensitive, although as I point out above, taking insult is a far graver sin than giving insult. Few agree, but then, this, I think, will be looked back at as a fatuity of the 21st century.
It seems to me error in some fashion to mention the true fact that I have lost family to world wars and communism, but it doesn't seem error to call world wars, communism and great depressions by an insulting term. For some reason this reminds me of a debate I read long ago about Spike Jones and his parody "The Fuerer's Face". (a quick googling didn't yield a good site for the lyrics but I bet they can be found with a longer search)
I suppose it's a stretch to see anything about OUR Spike in that earlier Spike. Our Spike is only an earnest character, right? Just as Spike the vampire's pathos preclude, for some, any jokes or insensitivity (and you can never be too sensitive), so the criticism of Spike Jones - you can't make fun of what's silly if it's also Evil. I disagree. Do you?
Thanks for the information on Hannigan's mother, although I'm unsure of the relevance. I hope I can use it when I fly off to Cloud-Cuckoo land doing Jewishly absurd interpretations rather than Irish.
Did you think I was commenting negatively on casting an Irish-looking actress in a Jewish role? Not my intention - instead I was shoe-horning Hannigan into the wild Irish rose mountain I erected. See, just as the father in "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" can make any word out has having a Greek origin, so I could make everything fit into a Celtic-fest of fairy poetry. In this way, I would meet your challenge of "double or nothing".
I don't think the name Maclay was chosen for the sexual meaning you suggest. I suggest that my absurd analysis is at least as likely.
Okay?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Agreed -- darrenK, 13:37:10 10/18/02 Fri
[> [> [> [>
One thing to keep in mind... -- Darby, 05:40:37 10/19/02 Sat
The Evil Trio's dialogue was often lifted directly from the ME writers' room, so we have some insight into the personalities working there...
Her name is what? McLAY???? *Snerk*
There's no way that name slipped in accidentally.
I was the one who brought this up a coupla moons ago, in noticing that they had pointedly avoided using it after Family. It was one of those throwaways that comes back to haunt - there really was no way to avoid having it on the tombstone, though.
On other topic in this thread, one has to see Sunnydale as a breezy version of a dangerous ghetto - in the Buffyverse, it would have a reputation that might make getting and keeping qualified workers really tough. Or maybe it could be compared to a fictitious middle-ground, Gotham City. The cops would take any help they can get (but try not to admit it).
On a related note, why would any graduate of a Sunnydale High School, happy just to have survived, go to UC Sunnydale, except dire economic circumstances? I bet it has the lowest matriculated-townie ratio of any college anywhere!
The idea that the principal is associated with the Watchers is intriguing...will we see a Giles-Robin smackdown? If Wood shows an interest in Willow, something's definitely up!
[>
Re: Suspending (7.4 spoilers) also please help, smarter people -- JM, 14:19:07 10/16/02 Wed
Actually I'm thought Joss meant earning the emotional moments. He's said before that his mission statement is emotional realism and rocket launchers. I think he's also stated before that's he's pretty uninterested in the accuracy of the "how" portion, they explain just about everything with "it's in the computer and we're on a hellmouth." My biggest suspension of disbelief is a thriving main street and an upscale mall.
I think the real world elements are there to function in a mainly symbolic way. A shorthand that refers to certain archetypal situations and institutions and also to create a certain small town/suburban atmosphere. I think it may be a very comic book thing, like in the early Batman movies, or even a noir convention. I have a larger point I'm trying to convey but my brain/lack of higher education refuses to support it. Maybe I'll be back later with illuminating illustrations. Probably not.
[> [>
Re: Suspending (7.4 spoilers) also please help, smarter people -- DEN, 16:13:52 10/16/02 Wed
JM, I strongly agree with the essentially symbolic nature of The show's real-world elements. And while they remain symbolic, suspension of disbelief is facilitated. A major problem of s6, IMO, was its strong "real world" element on everything from plumbing to social workers. That in turn invited criticism in real-world contexts, and the habit is hard to break.
[>
Plus, no one ever wears shorts. It's California for goodness sake! ; ) But seriously... -- Dichotomy, 15:37:33 10/16/02 Wed
I'm willing to overlook this mostly because Buffy herself mentions her lack of educational qualifications. Up to this point her being offered the job sort of bothered me too, but her acknowledgement of the strangeness of the situation made it easier to swallow.
I think if Xander made mention of his meteoric yet unlikely rise in the construction biz, that would help too. I'm sure there've been other instances where the unlikeness of a situation (like the complete cluelessness of the police) have been referred to, although I can't think of one off the top of my head. Anyone?
Over time, I've been able to overlook more minor but nevertheless annoynng unliklihoods, like Buffy being broke but able to afford a seemingly endless array of leather garments. Or Buffy and pals being bundled up against the freezing California nights in caps, mittens and wool peacoats, but never, ever wearing shorts in the warm weather. : )
[> [>
Re: Plus, no one ever wears shorts. It's California for goodness sake! ; ) But seriously... -- DEN, 17:10:45 10/16/02 Wed
Some fanzines have described SMG as disliking her legs, whic if true might help explain the general absence of shorts on the show.
[> [>
buffy's job -- anom, 21:43:07 10/16/02 Wed
"I'm willing to overlook this mostly because Buffy herself mentions her lack of educational qualifications. Up to this point her being offered the job sort of bothered me too, but her acknowledgement of the strangeness of the situation made it easier to swallow."
I thought they covered that when Wood said, "We already have a guidance counselor." Buffy isn't expected to be a professional & doesn't have that kind of qualifications; her position is more informal, as reflected by the "won't even fold" money she's being paid. (The actual guidance counselor probably has an office rather than a cubicle.) The background check, or lack of it, remains an issue, though.
Also, I would've found the job offer itself more believable if Wood & Buffy had had some lines about the growing up she's had to do since her mother died & she's had responsibility for Dawn. If Wood had gotten some feeling that she was turning her life around after the troubled earlier days he read about in her school record, maybe it'd've been more plausible to have him think she could help other troubled kids do the same, rather than basing it on his observing a moment in the hall when she has Kit & Carlos hugging, making friends, & heading to rather than skipping class.
[>
Re: Suspending my disbelief (7.4 spoilers) -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:59:26 10/16/02 Wed
What about the fact that Sunnydale probably has the highest per capita murder rate of anywhere in the country? Unexplained deaths and dissapearances occur almost daily. In the real world, the national guard would have been called in. There would be a nationwide media frenzy. It could simply be that the police, coming across murdered people so often, and probably more than a few dead demons, have decided that they're just gonna step back and not get involved with anything unless they have to.
[> [>
Averaging across TVland -- Cleanthes, 06:23:40 10/17/02 Thu
One way to look at the murder rate in Sunnydale and the police and the teachers, ambulance drivers, medical personal, etc. is not in context of our real lives, but in context of other TV shows.
The real police solve less than 50% of murders in many cities in America. That's not how it works on NYPD Blue though. The real doctors let 100% of patients eventually die, but that's not how it works on ER. In real life, half of all doctors graduate in the bottom 50% of the class (and, sometimes I have to suspend disbelief about real life because at least 85% of the doctors I've ever met have to have graduated in the bottom 10% of their class) In real life, high school problems don't meet with quite the caring response they get on Boston Public.
If you average the ridiculous competance of the doctors, lawyers and Indian chiefs seen on the rest of TV with the folks on Buffy, you'll see that a show like BtVS is REQUIRED, in order to restore the cosmic-realism balance.
[> [> [>
Sxary addendum -- Darby, 06:02:21 10/19/02 Sat
As I understand it, Medical School classes are graded pass-fail, so class position doesn't really exist. I want to know what happens when the grade is "F"...
But I've taught enough pre-meds (some with admittance to med schools in their trembling hands) and I can tell you to be afraid. Be very afraid. Great talent in memorization does not a critical thinker make.
Agreed, you can't overthink this without going loopy. Heck, we know from Season One that the High School was located on an archeological site with an entire sunken church - they wouldn't in this age have been able to just dig up the place and sink a haunted basement into it! There's also a big honkin' hole under there that should have caused some concern...maybe the Hellmouth is pissed because it's full of concrete,
When Did Buffy Jump The Shark? (spoilers through B7.4 and Angel 4.2) -- shark_shagger, 14:36:33 10/16/02 Wed
Buffy jumped the shark when Angel left Sunnydale (for good). I'll give it to ME, they've made a good show of it, but I really don't think this is THE BUFFY we were meant to see. While the two shows were on the same network and doing episodes like "I Will Remember You" a mythology was built. An Apocalypse was coming, and Buffy was going to die if Angel wasn't there to help. Well guess what, Buffy moved to UPN, Glory came to Sunnydale, Buffy died, and Angel-who had given up his salvation (a HUMAN life)-to be able to help Buffy, was nowhere to be seen. What, did they expect us to just forget that Angel made a HUGE sacrifice for her? He got shafted. And buffy got a line of Angel fill-ins who all turned out wrong.
(Note: I'm secretly holding out hope that in the end we'll learn that Connor was a gift from the PTB, the child that mortal Angel would have fathered with Buffy were the events of IWRY not taken back. That would be cool, though it would raise all sorts of Cordy -issues)
It gets worse. Spike, realizing that Angel was the perfect blend of soulful brooding hero and bad-ass creature of the night to prime Buffy's hump-pump, decides that he can be Angel, and he goes off to get the show what it needs, A vampire with a soul. Only it blows up in his face, and leaves Spike looking a character out of "One Flew Over The Cukoo's Nest."
And now there is this strange blurring of lines with Buffy's new job. As Angel eloquently says, the whole world is set up to protect people like Cassie and Dawn's Classmates (the day-time people, handling things like Alky parents)so much so that it "can't see the hurts ones, lost in the night." Buffy and Angel exist to help people with problems no one else would believe. An abusive father? What Cassie needed was a good social worker, not a slayer.
What it all comes down to this. Angel is just a better more compelling character on a better more compelling show. Wolfram & Hart are the best and most compelliing of all the BV big bads, I mean c'mon if there really is an evil plot to bring about Armageddon, who wouldn't bet their bottom dollar that lawyers MUST be behind it. And the whole Lilah/Wesley/Angel thing is far more interesting than listening to Buffy whine about her dreams. Damnit sometimes a cigar should just be a cigar. Right now Buffy is little more to me than a midweek pick me up between Angel eps. All I can say is "thank God (or the PTB) that Angel got off that ship before it sunk." Who's with me.
[>
Re: When Did Buffy Jump The Shark? (spoilers through B7.4 and Angel 4.2) -- JM, 14:58:13 10/16/02 Wed
No, I'm not sure I agree. I love Angel the show quite a bit, but I still think there things that BtVS can do that AtS can't. Only BtVS could have a "Hush," "Restless," "Body," and "OM,WF." Conversely, I couldn't see a AYNOHYEB, "Reprise," "Lullaby," "Sleep Tight," or "Deep Down" on BtVS. And I liked "Help" a lot.
I thought "Innocence" and "Becoming" were stunning, but I never very much liked the B/A romance. Different strokes? So I'm just as happy that they're not together again. Not jumping shark just yet in my opinion. I'll let you know though.
[> [>
Re: When Did Buffy Jump The Shark? (spoilers through B7.4 and Angel 4.2) -- shark_shagger, 15:07:53 10/16/02 Wed
JM...point(s) taken.
However, I think what I was driving at was that, to me, Angel is more compelling on a number of grounds. One, the noir feel. Two, the moral conflict, struggling with your inner demon. Three, Lorne. Four, Lorne. I could go on. I just think ATS has more scope, and better writen arcs. But like I said ME has made a good show of carrying on with Buffy. OMWF is great (actually one of my 2 fav buffy eps) but Passion, it rules then all.
[> [> [>
Re: When Did Buffy Jump The Shark? (spoilers through B7.4 and Angel 4.2) -- JM, 16:02:25 10/16/02 Wed
"Passion" does rule. I was a lost cause after that ep, I just didn't know it.
OK, I admit I love AtS a little more. I horde my tapes and make a little pile under my bed. And sometimes I check to make sure they're OK. But my reasons are pretty much Wes, Wes, Wes. I'm such as Wes-whore that I really can't trust my objective judgement of the show.
The only reason I'd argue with the jumped the shark estimate, is that BtVS has somewhat gracefully acquieced to the need to change. And the worst examples are the shows those that attempt to hang onto the formula and not acknowledge those changes.
Thank you for the gracious response.
[> [>
Re: When Did Buffy Jump The Shark? (spoilers through B7.4 and Angel 4.2) -- Dee, 17:53:13 10/16/02 Wed
I must be the only person here who doesn't like AtS. At all. I think the characters are weak, the storylines even more beyond belief that BtVS (which I love), and the direction that the writers have taken Angel, Wesley and Cordy questionable, to say the least. Sorry, but after all this time, I had to let my feeings about AtS out! However, I very much respect and enjoy the writings of posters to this site about the series-for me, they are the best thing about AtS!
[>
Funny you should say that... -- CaptainPugwash, 15:04:43 10/16/02 Wed
I lost interest in Angel when it became a pile of poorly written convoluted drek (sometime during Season 2). I live in the UK, and get my Buffy fixes via USEnet. I actually had the 4th Season premiere of Angel (700Mb), but I deleted it so I could unpack the latest Buffy instead - I never saw the Angel ep in the end, and I really don't care If I ever do.
Buffy has several well defined characters, whereas Angel has one crucial character (played by a lousy actor) and a load of minor character trying to mix it large (Gunn, Cordy, etc.) I used to think Angel was the better show when Buffy was going through a low point, but now it is clear that Buffy kept all the talent (particularly JM). I actually want to know where Buffy ends up; I couldn't give a **** about Angel.
[> [>
Re: Funny you should say that... -- marcus, 18:25:15 10/16/02 Wed
The last Angel I watched was "Birthday" last January (simply because I didn't have the energy to program the VCR every Monday). Although I do regret missing the entire Connor being taken to Hell and coming back aged and Justine and Holtz and all those cats, the show was really frustrating me. Since the beginning, it seems plot strands are formed and are not pursued and are forgotten about. I understand that Joss is all about foreshadowing and I LOVE that on Buffy, but all I have seen on A:tS seems sloppy and haphazard. The aspect concerning the Mohra demons and the upcoming apocalypse mentioned in " I will remember you" has not been alluded to since (unless I have missed something), what did it mean when the bestial symbols on the tome in Pylea at the end of season 2 spelled out "Wolf, Ram, and Hart", etc. I don't know--maybe it's just me, but it seems that they keep introducing all of these potential apocalyptic or revelatory situations or whatever and they are never followed up. And I HATE the lack of continuity between the shows. I realize there can't be crossovers between actual characters, but COME ON. I enjoy the idea that somewhere in the world at any given time a demon, etc. might be attempting to instigate an apocalypse, and the show even mocks itself by pointing out that even if angel averts the apocaypse, they'll always have "the next one to look forward to," but (for example) there should have been some talk in the demon underworld of L.A. or in Pylea at the end of season 2 of ANGEL about Glory almost breaking down the walls that separate all dimensions. I mean they were on the same network then. We could have seen crazy goings on in as the Angel Investigations peeps were in Pylea as meanwhile in the Earth realm the Key was activated. Sorry, I am just rambling. I will stop.
[> [> [>
Re: Funny you should say that... -- JM, 20:12:35 10/16/02 Wed
Sigh, if you don't love AtS, you don't. This town's big enough for the two of us. I did start watching it out of blind loyalty. In days when I was far less obsessed than I am now. But I have to argue some quality issues. Angel is beautifully shot. I'm not very visual but even I notice the beautiful use of color and huge expanse of the airy sets.
Angel also sees to have a very different structure. Not one based on big bads but on those big bads never quite being defeated. Not any less a metaphor for real life but a significantly different one. For continuity's sake W&H has repeatedly mentioned their investment in the future apocalypse and Angel's ambiguous role in it. And also there has been indications that Connor might have some end-times roll. There also been some discussion about the fact that it's AN apocalypse, not THE apocalypse. So Angel may make a difference for Buffy, we just don't know when. (Plus, ME wanted the dragon from "The Gift" to fly in the sky in Pylea and then disappear but they ran out of money and time. Kind of like the no stacks scene in "Welcome to the Hellmouth.")
They have at least twice since indicated W&H has a multi-dimensional existence: "Loyalty" and "Down Deep." The Shanshu discussion came up explicitly in "Judgment" and "Offspring" and implicitly in "Happy Anniversary." Issues brought up about Cordelia's vision pain in "Dead End" came up again in "No Place Like Plrtzz Glrb," "Heartthrob," "That Vision Thing," and "Birthday." The demonization of Cordy came up in "Birthday" and again in "The Price" and "Benediction" especially. Gru from Pylea reappears in "Waiting in the Wings" and recurs till the end of the season. Gunn's gang recurs in "Thin Dead Line," "Belonging," and "That Old Gang of Mine." The destruction of Lorne's club is referenced again in "Fredless" and the baby arc starting in "Offspring." Wes's issues with his family were first mentioned in IGYUMS then again obliquely in "Belonging" and "Fredless." I like this continuity.
Character development, Angel got reintroduced to Liam, Cordy stopped the pursuit of popularity and learned to love her fellow man, and a combination of acceptance and trauma allowed Wes to find his inner child and bludgeon it to death. You're pretty much caught up.
There are things that Angel can do that Buffy doesn't. Buffy is ultimately about a group of people who are friends and love one another and have been through a lot together. In the end that's all that matters. Angel is about a group of people who have been through a lot together and are sometimes friends, and it's open to interpretation whether they all love each other at all. In the end, that may not be enough. It's a set-up that allows for a lot more extended alienation than we are allowed to endure on BtVS. I can't help loving it quite a bit. But I've learned that YMMV.
[> [> [> [>
What's a no stacks scene? -- oboemaboe, 21:41:57 10/16/02 Wed
[> [> [> [>
From another Wes-whore and AtS lover, thank you! -- Scroll, 09:57:00 10/17/02 Thu
I can understand how some people might enjoy/love "Buffy" more than "Angel". Clearly there are those who love Spike much more than I do. While I recommend it, I won't even bother to argue that you need to watch "Angel" in order to truly appreciate "Buffy" (and vice versa). However I do believe that the two shows are bound up together in ways that will never allow one to extricate itself from the other without some incredibly delicate surgery. "Buffy" and "Angel" have different tones, different characters, different story arcs to pursue, but sometimes (like last year and so far this year) themes continue to resonate. One show expositions an idea, the other expands and elaborates. The parallels and contrasts are striking. Spike/Angel. Wes/Giles. Wes/Spike. Buffy/Angel. Dawn/Connor. Fred/Willow (if we get into the pressure of living in a constant battle field and the psychological trauma). Angel/Cordelia/Wesley versus Buffy/Xander/Willow. Holtz and his vengeance gig/Willow and her vengeance gig. Being a hero/champion and living life as if you do make a difference, even when you can't help.
Buffy is ultimately about a group of people who are friends and love one another and have been through a lot together. In the end that's all that matters. Angel is about a group of people who have been through a lot together and are sometimes friends, and it's open to interpretation whether they all love each other at all. In the end, that may not be enough. It's a set-up that allows for a lot more extended alienation than we are allowed to endure on BtVS. I can't help loving it quite a bit. But I've learned that YMMV.
Totally agree, JM. The characters on "Angel" aren't quite as transparent as the ones on "Buffy"; they keep you guessing as to their emotions and motivations. Wesley is still a good guy, he's carrying out the mission - but he's sleeping with the enemy. He rescued Angel and researched ways to rescue Cordelia - but does he even care about them anymore? We can't tell. His motives are opaque (or at least translucent :)
And I totally agree: the production and quality of "Angel" is far superior to "Buffy". Do they get more money? Or is L.A. just more condusive to beautiful shots?
[>
In its seventh year, Buffy is still as fresh and vital as it ever was... -- Rob, 15:30:32 10/16/02 Wed
...and even more so. Angel's departure paved the way for Buffy's finest seasons. I always loved the show but my favorites are the fourth and beyond. Yes, the show changed after Angel left. But it evolved. Change does not equal jumping the shark! I can't even describe how much I hate that phrase, and the whole idea that someone could just totally write off a show because of a single problem or a slow period. So far, the seventh season is "Buffy"s best yet.
Rob
[> [>
Buffy not only *hasn't* jumped the shark-- -- HonorH, 17:37:00 10/16/02 Wed
It's caught the shark, killed it, drained its blood, and served it to Spike while the rest of the crew dined on shark's-fin soup. Angel's doing fine on his own, yes, but Buffy has grown in a way that would've been impossible if they'd clung to the B/A relationship. Not to say I didn't love that relationship and hope that someday, the Joss will get those two crazy kids back together, but they both needed time apart.
[> [> [>
None of the ships may make it to the end of the series, either series. -- Rufus, 20:23:06 10/16/02 Wed
Have to say again how glad that I'm not a shipper. I liked Angel with Buffy, but it is over. If they ever happend to smoosh them back together I wouldn't mind that either. If she ends up with a soulled Spike I'd be fine with that too. But lookout you never know.......someone could reconstitute The Master and a new ship could be created out of fruit-punch-mouthed ashes......then again never count out Mr. Gordo....;)
[> [> [> [>
And Clem. Don't forget Clem! -- HonorH, 21:06:57 10/16/02 Wed
Saggy skin, big heart. Any girl would be privileged to have him.
[> [> [> [> [>
Shhhhhhhhh careful about Clem, he's dub's..... -- Rufus, 00:49:13 10/17/02 Thu
Don't say I didn't warn you....don't even hint that you think Clem eats kittens...;)
[> [> [> [> [>
Hey! -- dub ;o), 06:40:04 10/17/02 Thu
That's my guy you're talkin' 'bout!
Coming soon to Clem's Corner, a song by Ramones1 dedicated to Clem's "flesh puddles." Oooooooh!!
;o)
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Yikes! Wrong site! -- Clem's #1 Kitten, dub ;o), 06:42:31 10/17/02 Thu
Clem's Corner isn't my site! That's the other one. D'oh!
The song will soon be posted to Clem's Homestead.
Damn brain damage...*grumble* *sigh*
[> [> [> [> [> [>
My read of Clem -- Cleanthes, 11:44:48 10/17/02 Thu
I think Clem's a clemency demon. He wins kittens in order to let them go. His greatest evil is not always checking to see if they're neutered.
Clemency is in short supply on the Hellmouth, so Clem's presence in Sunnydale is indicative of his good-guy nature.
Evil clemency demons induce governors to grant murderers pardons thereby setting up the "Willie Horton" conundrum.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
You got it, Cleanthes! -- dub, 12:32:54 10/17/02 Thu
Would you like to be a Clem's Kitten? You would be #47 and (I think) the first and only lawyer kitten. We are a very prestigious group, those of us who love and understand Clem...
;o)
http://clem.homestead.com/index.html
[> [>
My problems with the JtS thing.... -- cjc35, 01:48:28 10/17/02 Thu
Problems with the Jumping the Shark concept:
1) It assumes artist entropy is a given. Is it? Isn't each artistic endeavor a unique 'chance' to get 'it right?' Sure, sometimes cast/crew get tired toward the end of a show's run and just phone in their work.
2) But what of shows/bands/artist(s) who decline, only to improve beyond all expectation and go out on top? Rare, sure, but not impossible.
3) JtS, as I understand it, refers to Fonzi jumping the shark on Happy Days. I take this episode, which I haven't seen since I was, what, 11 years old, to mean more than just starting to suck. It means selling out: Sharks were hot then, I guess, and Fonzi jumping one was 'upping the ante' in terms of demonstrating his 'coolness', but it just collapsed in on its own silliness.
Few shows fumble this badly, IMHO, with one single moment.
4) Art isn't structural engineering. One cannot point to a single episode/scene/plot as a stress point or predictor of future lack of quality. Maybe when all shows are in the can and the series has gone to syndi heaven, but not before.
[> [> [>
Actually, I'm cjc36....35 is my cousin.....:) -- cjc36, 01:50:28 10/17/02 Thu
[>
Re: Sorry, I am not with you. -- Sang, 18:57:38 10/16/02 Wed
I started watching Angel in S2, since I was hooked in Buffy S5. Then I kind of lost interesting in at the end of S2. But I kept watching S3, I almost stop watching it after about 10 or some more eps.
I could finish all S3 (even the awful Gunn's soul ep) only because I loved Buffy S6 and that gave me a little more motivation to watch Angel.
I still give a shot for Angel S4 (partly because Greenwalt is not there anymore and DeKnight, one of my favorite Btvs S6 writer is taking charge in Angel), but I haven't had feeling to watch Angel ep again after I finish it for a long time. While I usually had a dire urge to rewind my Btvs tape.
[> [>
It's all just a matter of taste -- yabyumpan, 19:53:39 10/16/02 Wed
I much prefer AtS to BtVS and have done since AtS started. I actually like all the characters on Ats, (even if I'm not liking Wesley at the moment) where as I don't care about or like any of the characters on BtVS anymore.
But, as I said, all a mater of taste. I like that both shows have changed, I don't really think of them in the same universe anymore and would be happy with never having any more crossovers (althoug it might be fun to have a: you slept with who? You've got a what? You're part what now? type of ep, just to tie everything up)
I can still appreciate the writing/directing/acting on BtVS even though it's not my cup of tea anymore. But for me, AtS is the better show, meaning i like it better.I think both shows offer something very different now and I'm looking forward to seeing Firefly to see what that has to offer.
Even though i don't like BtVS anymore, it's still head and shoulders above all the other dreck that's out there. I've been catching up on other shows lately like Alias, Dead Zone etc and although they're an ok hour of tv, boy do they make you appreciate Whendonverse. In fact I was thinking of posting an open letter to Joss the other day, berating him for ruining my enjoyment of other shows. I can watch other shows and no matter how good they are, I know what's going to happen, the relationships between the characters are obvious, the conclusion is always signposted. Mind you it's probably all for the good, if all shows were as good as BtVS and AtS I'd never get anything done :-)
[> [> [>
Re: absolutely -- Sang, 21:14:23 10/16/02 Wed
It is a matter of taste. I prefer Btvs much better than Angel, but I don't think every one has to agree with me.
[> [>
Agreeing with you and Rufus below and Buffyboy -- shadowkat, 11:46:13 10/17/02 Thu
It is all a matter of taste is absolutely true.
I have friends, actually most of my close friends, don't like Buffy. I have one friend who prefers Seventh Heaven.
Another friend likes Buffy since Season 6 but hated the earlier episodes and hates the whole high school theme she sees it as juvenile. (Not me, my friend.)
If you wander about online - you will discover something interesting - no one agrees on what is good and what is bad on a day to day basis. There is no clear consensus.
Example for as many people who loved this week's episode of Buffy, just as many hated it. I loved Grounded. My friend hated it - she's an A/C shipper. I don't ship for anyone on Angel. (Btw it's easier to watch these shows when you don't ship.)
I'm also not really into "Angel" as a character. I grew bored of him in Angel Season 2 actually. It wasn't until Sleep Tight in Season 3 Ats - that Angel got interesting for me again. And actually it was the character of Wes
that started to grab my interest. Angel himself? Doesn't do it for me. Don't really know why. I used to love him in Season 1 -3. Now don't really care that much one way or the other.
Spike, Willow, Anya, Buffy, Giles and Xander - yes I care.
Spike fascinates me. I have no clue what he'll do next. He's the only character outside of possibly Wesely that I can't predict at the moment. I like that in a character.
I'm also on pins and needles wondering if they will redeem Spike. Can't honestly tell. Could go either way. And the actor's performance blows me away.
If you closely read the boards? You'll discover the vast number of people who didn't pay any attention to Buffy or really get obsessed with it until literally Season 5 or Season 6. Most people i've interacted with started watching in November 2001 with OMWF or with Bargaining and played catch-up. Some began in Season 5. Now I've seen it since the beginning, but I didn't start writing or posting about it until after Smashed and Wrecked. So clearly my love of the show grew and my preference is for the later less high school oriented episodes.
Jump the Shark is a phrase that came about when Fonzie did a motorcycle jump over a huge number of cars and Happy Days went downhill. I liked the early Happy Days. Later day Happy Days was truly bad - hence the term Jump the Shark.
I try to be careful about mentioning my opinions towards other shows online. For every show I hate, there are millions who love it. Hate to offend someone by bashing their favorite show. But there are times...like when people start complaining about the horror elements or dark elements on Btvs and Ats - that I want to scream at them - go watch Seventh Heaven or Gilmore Girls or Touched by an Angel...leave my horror shows alone. Btvs and Ats are "horror" shows after all. Ships aren't supposed to sail off happily in the sunset in a "horror" show, they are supposed to sink brutally while the audience screams or cries its eyes out. Horror is all about pain and suffering
and the bits of beauty and wonder that show up in between.
Good horror is hard to find. So when I find it - yay!!
So much of it is either weird anthology like short stories or slasher pics.
While there are a couple of relationships on the shows that turn me on...I'm really not a shipper. I ship - they kill off a character, write them out, or ruine the ship. Much safer not too. (Or just innocently indulge with fanfic, actually the best ship I've seen is between the fic writer's madeup character and a Btvs character - it's a story by Herself and is not for kids.) And ship posts generally annoy me, I try to veer away from them unless they do a cool riff on a myth or something. It's one of the reasons I left a posting board I was on - the board was nothing but B/s and B/x ships, it got tiresome. So while I may care who Buffy ends up with, I care a lot more about discovering how the writers define the characters and the overall arc. I'm far more interested in seeing how Spike handles this soul and his insanity over it and dealing with rejection and possible redemption - than I'm interested in whether or not he and Buffy get back together. Right now?
Can't see it. Of course I didn't expect it last year either, so what do I know. What I love is I don't know.
One of the very few tv shows I can say that about.
I'm also far more interested in how Angel deals with Connor, W&H, Wesely and his own internal struggle than I'm interested in Angel and Cordy or Angel and anyone else.
I don't really want A/B together again - it feels tired and been there done that to me...and from what I've read of the writers? I think they tend to feel the same way. But truthfully? If the writers went there and made it unpredicatable and workable? I wouldn't mind.
So I guess I'm with Sang, Rufus and the others. Btvs hasn't jumped the shark, if anything it has gotten much better over the years, just as ATs has. I like it much better now than when it started.
[>
Buffy hasn't jumped the Shark -- Rufus, 20:17:31 10/16/02 Wed
It's clear that you have a preference for the character of Angel, and most likely can only like the character of Buffy if she is involved with your character of preference. I'm not a shipper, I love Buffy more now than ever, I don't care who ends up sharing her bed. Our preferences do tend to colour our feelings about both Angel and Buffy....both are great shows....I just wish some fans could see past the ships and look at each show for the whole storylines of both. If you don't like Buffy....don't watch it....many of us here love and continue to love BOTH shows.
[>
What is jumping the shark? And why would you want to shag a shark? I'm very confused! -- Caroline, very confused and feeling unAmerican, 20:41:02 10/16/02 Wed
on the day she applied for citizenship.
[> [>
What is jumping the shark? -- Darby, 21:09:24 10/16/02 Wed
It's pop culture shorthand for "crested the quality hilltop and started the long slide into oblivion." It's based on the assumption that Happy Days hit that point with a show about Fonzie jumping a shark tank on his motorcycle.
There's a website, www.jumptheshark.com, that deals with the details. Pretty snarky.
[> [> [>
Weird trivia bit -- oboemaboe, 00:29:06 10/17/02 Thu
To the best of my recollection, this board is the only place I've ever heard the word "snarky." And you guys use it all the time.
The only time I've seen the word in print is one instance in _The Language Instinct_.
For a Buffy board, there seems to be a fair bit of Pinker discussion here.
Just thought it was a weird coincidence.
[> [> [> [>
A quck check shows -- Cactus Watcher, 07:15:05 10/17/02 Thu
that the word 'snarky' as we use it, goes back to at least 1906. I guess you could say we are tradtionalists or just old fogies. ;o)
[> [> [> [>
Re: Weird trivia bit -- pr10n, 09:57:25 10/17/02 Thu
My writer friends, especially those with dual roles in publishing, use "snarky" a lot. And I know this board has more than it's fair share of writer-types.
Coincidence? Yeah, probably.
[> [>
Welcome, Caroline! -- Vickie, 21:26:44 10/16/02 Wed
I know you've been around the board a while. But we crazy Americans are glad to have you here.
[> [>
Just imagine how the poor violated Shark feels....;) -- Rufus, 21:28:28 10/16/02 Wed
[> [> [>
Wait, hasn't the "jumped the shark" concept -- Cleanthes, 06:35:00 10/17/02 Thu
jumped the shark? That's the word on the street.
[> [>
mazel tov, caroline! hope your citizenship process navigates the bureaucracy quickly! -- anom, 23:44:52 10/16/02 Wed
[> [> [>
Thanks all for the definitions and the welcome to potential American citizenship -- Caroline, 07:10:40 10/17/02 Thu
I was not a Happy Days watcher, which explains my ignorance of the concept. As for the being American thing, I hope to hold my certificate of naturalization in my hand in less than an year. Yay! And I'll get to celebrate with anom and LittleBit on Saturday. Yay!
[>
LOL! This is ironic! Jump the shark? Buffy? ROTFLMAO!!! -- ZachsMind, 22:56:51 10/16/02 Wed
I was just talking in a previous thread how Buffy hasn't jumped the shark, I even linked to www.jumptheshark.com, and then I scroll down and see this.
Buffy hasn't jumped the shark. Angel left at the perfect time. Had things continued between Buffy and Angel, THEN the show woulda jumped the shark. There's been a few close calls, but this series has not jumped the shark and I don't think it's going to. It's stayed true to Joss Whedon's vision of what the show is about. He's constantly replenished the show with new blood and new ideas and explored new territory without losing sight of the core concept or the lead characters. Yes there has been change but change is good, and like Giles said in the season opener, no matter how we change we still are who we are. That's one of the cornerstones of what makes this series great.
This show is doing fine. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. The only problem with this show is there's not enough potential viewers out there who have given it a chance. I think it's what one might call a 'cult phenomenon.' It's not mainstream entertainment. If it tried to be mainstream, THEN it might jump the shark. It's fine the way it is and there's no indication it's gonna jump the shark any time soon. No worries. =)
[>
Fool for Jumping the Shark -- Buffyboy, 02:54:41 10/17/02 Thu
Whenever I hear or read any discussion about "jumping the shark" I usually just want to toss my cookies. Playing the parlor game of trying to determine when a particular show has "jumped the shark" holds no interest for me. Composing a rant against the game itself, however, does. Here goes.
(1) The vast majority of television programs could no more jump the shark than produce a good episode and obviously without the later, the former makes no sense. To say that a show like Happy Days or Charmed (I actually watched that show two week ago before AtS--what am I doing?) jumped the shark is completely ridiculous for there is quite simply no shark to jump. To say that one of these programs has gone from bad to worse is to drastically over value the earlier episodes. I begin by assuming that any television series is absolutely worthless and need to be convinced of the contrary. As an aside, I must admit that although operating with this assumption saves me from wasting an incredible amount of time, it does make it far less likely that I will actually find the few good shows out there. Witness the fact that I never watched BtVS until Nov. 6, 2001. (Oh my--my first anniversary rapidly approaches.)
(2) To maintain that that rarest of entities, a good television program, has jumped the shark while it is still producing new episodes is equally ridiculous. Since this program was once good and now has become bad (at least according to the person claiming the program has jumped the shark) it cannot be ruled out that it will change back to being good again. After all it changed once (from good to bad) so why can't it change back to good again? Since the program was once good there is simply no way to be reasonably sure that the program will not return to its original quality. It is only after the fact, after the program is dead an buried, that one might be able to look back over the run of the series and determine when the show jumped the shark for only then will it be possible to maintain that its downfall is irreversible. Now how often does this actually happen? One needs two rather unlikely conditions. First, the program has to be good-a very unlikely with which to start. Second, the program needs to take a serious turn for the worse that is not reversed at some point before the show ends its run. I recently looked at a "book" in Barnes and Noble titled Jump the Shark. In this tome the author informs us that BtVS jumped the shark when Dawn entered the program even though a number of the episodes like The Body, The Gift, Once More With Feeling and a couple of other which I can't remember were in fact good. This author concept of "jumping the shark" is so vaguely constructed that a show can jump the shark and still produce many (not just one) good episodes. A fine concept indeed!
(3) Most of the time the claim that a particular program has jumped the shark is little more than saying: "I don't like this program any more." It's simply an attempt to make this simple statement of lost love sound profound and maybe even scientific. The idea is that if one could somehow determine the exact point in the life of a series when it jumped the shark, then by a veritable law of nature the program would be doomed to lousy episodes for the rest of its miserable life and the wise, like the one making the claim, will have long abandoned the series to the rubbish heap of history. To analyze this second rate rhetorical strategy may or may not be worth while but to engage in the game itself surely is not.
[> [>
Bravo! -- Rob, 08:57:08 10/17/02 Thu
[> [>
Nice rant! *applauding wildly* -- HonorH, 13:41:15 10/17/02 Thu
What I especially love is that some people decided the introduction of Dawn was "jumping the shark" before S5 actually got started! That's keeping an open mind for ya. Deciding something's going to suck, sight unseen.
[>
There is no 'when'! Only 'did'! -- Slain, 12:24:25 10/17/02 Thu
For me, Buffy has got progressively more complicated, and therefore more interesting whereas AtS has continued on an even, though consistently fairly good, keel. People who prefer AtS seem to like its 'lightness'. I don't really agree with this, as I find AtS just as dark (though not as deep) as BtVS. But ultimately AtS doesn't hold my interest like BtVS does, and I rarely think about it after the episode has finished. It seems too conventional to me, whereas BtVS is unique.
[>
Re: When Did Buffy Jump The Shark? (spoilers through B7.4 and Angel 4.2) -- Kendra, 12:26:03 10/17/02 Thu
The "invention" of Dawn!
[> [>
Oh, please! -- Rob, 13:41:55 10/17/02 Thu
[> [>
Oh, please! -- HonorH, 16:08:57 10/17/02 Thu
[> [>
You kidding, right? Dawn rejuvenated the series! -NT -- ZachsMind, 21:12:45 10/17/02 Thu
Current board
| More October 2002