October 2002 posts
The Wesley/Lilah dynamic -- Masq, 08:22:30 10/21/02 Mon
So what's up with Wesley and Lilah? I'm sorry if this has been discussed a lot, I haven't caught up with the posts from when I was away. Plus, I think "THAW" put a new wrinkle in what we know about this relationship.
Both Wesley and Lilah are up to their usual past times--Wesley has an Angel Investigations-style business, and Lilah knows it. Lilah is up to her extreme evil, and Wesley knows it. Neither seems especially bothered by that, in fact, it's been stated out right that that's supposedly a turn-on for them.
Do people think that's true? I imagine Lilah doesn't see Wesley's continued "Good fight" as anything resembling a threat to her. What does Wesley really think about Lilah's business?
Now, I would put this whole relationship down to hormones over good sense, except I think there's a lot more to it. I don't think either side is trying to convert the other, at least not anymore. Where do people think ME is going with this? Do they even have a plan, or did they just decide to "go with" the chemistry between the two actors and leave it open?
Ep 4.3 brought in a new wrinkle that there does seem to be a power/control dynamic in this relationship, like both want to control the other with their sexuality. I mean, you know Wesley got off on making his enemy remove her panties at work! And you know Lilah got off last week on getting Wesley to service her first in their little sexcapades.
Someone noted below that there was a joke(?) Wesley made about pot-roast that made it sound like they had a real relationship, and not just a game they were playing.
I've got some ideas about this whole dynamic, but I'd love to hear from other people about what they think it's all about and where it's going.
[>
My own wrinkle -- neaux, 08:48:22 10/21/02 Mon
To be honest, everytime I see Wes and Lil together or talking to each other in a sexy way I make the Wrinkly nose "Ewwww" face.
the idea of them together disturbs me yet entertains me at the same time.
[> [>
Really? -- Masq, 09:42:00 10/21/02 Mon
"To be honest, everytime I see Wes and Lil together or talking to each other in a sexy way I make the Wrinkly nose "Ewwww" face."
I think they're pretty hot. Which is weird, considering that individually, they can each play dull-and-bumbling so well.
I guess they bring out the worst in each other. Which is why it's fun!
[> [> [>
Re: Really? -- meritaten, 10:02:37 10/21/02 Mon
"To be honest, everytime I see Wes and Lil together or talking to each other in a sexy way I make the Wrinkly nose "Ewwww" face."
I felt the same way as Neaux - until last night anyway. I guess I just don't like seeing the good guys in bed with the bad guys. Why last night was different, I'm not sure. ...but I have to admit, I'm starting to like the Wes/Lilah Story!
[> [> [> [>
Re: Really? -- Masq, 10:09:54 10/21/02 Mon
My feelings, too, meritaten. I just don't want to see Wesley truly go over to "the dark side"--this is, be seduced into working for Wolfram and Hart. I just wouldn't believe it as plausible character development.
On the other hand, I love the way they are exploring Wesley's own dark side. He has a lot of anger inside him--from powerlessness as a child, and from being rejected by his friends. I believe he sees Lilah as someone he can push around and treat like dirt--because he thinks she deserves it, and because he believes she won't really be hurt by it. That much.
[> [> [> [> [>
See my post below -- Spike Lover, 10:19:42 10/21/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Really? -- meritaten, 10:22:47 10/21/02 Mon
I definitely like the exploration of Wes's dark side! I've always loved how ME explores those dark tendencies. I'm just not always comfortable with what is there!
[> [> [> [>
Oh its makes Good TV that's for sure -- neaux, 10:31:25 10/21/02 Mon
I cant deny its a good storyline. Anything that has that effect on me means the folks at ME are doing something right.
^_^ or better still =X
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Oh its makes Good TV that's for sure -- meritaten, 10:38:19 10/21/02 Mon
"Anything that has that effect on me means the folks at ME are doing something right."
I have to agree.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Really? -- celticross, 10:58:38 10/21/02 Mon
My reason for liking it...it's adult sexuality. It's not being presented with a snicker and a knowing "look how naughty we're being". And I don't see how it's not going to force a confrontation sooner or later.
[> [>
Like Buffy finding out Giles has a sex life "Ew"? -- Scroll, 10:01:23 10/21/02 Mon
Cuz I can see Cordy having the same reaction. Wrinkle nose, think stodgy English guy, sex with who?! Eww! See my post in response to Masq--I basically say that the Fang Gang, even more than the viewers, only see Wesley as the Big Brain, never as a sexual being.
[> [> [>
Re: Like Buffy finding out Giles has a sex life "Ew"? -- meritaten, 10:07:18 10/21/02 Mon
For me the hang-up hasn't been that I don't see Wes as a sexual being. No problems when he was dating that rich woman (I'm terrible with names). I think it troubles me morally. Wes is supposed to be a good guy, but he is literally in bed with evil.
I love that the show challenges the way we view things, but that doesn't mean that it is always easy to drop old ideas of what should and shouldn't be.
[>
Re: The Wesley/Lilah dynamic (No Strings Attached) -- Cecilia, 09:15:35 10/21/02 Mon
I think your right, neither party is trying to convert the other. At least, not seriously anyway. What is it they are doing together anyway? Besides the obvious I mean. Is it companionship? I don't think so. They are not companions, there is no substance to their "relationship". Is it mainly raging hormones? Again, I don't think so. Surely, they can find a sexual partner more easily than that. I think it's about power,trust and vulnerability. They are constantly trying to gain one up on the other, sexually at least. So, in a way, it is not threatening to either of them.
Lilah is ambitious, she's power-hungry but also very afraid of having real power. It's only indicated in a subtle manner. The nervous looks, the worry in her eyes. She's a woman trying to make it in a man's world, a human trying to make it in a demon's world. She's sacrificed her soul and she's okay with that. I'm not sure she is okay with her human vulnerability though. I think it's very difficult for her to keep up the facade of strength all the time. Human beings, even evil human beings, need contact with other humans. They need to be able to trust someone, anyone. It's not necessarily important what they trust them with, as long as they are able to trust. To have an intimate, sexual relationship with someone you must have some trust in them, allowing them to see you when you are vulnerable. So a sexual relationship without emotional connections is something Lilah can use in order to have that connection with another person, to allow herself to be a little vulnerable. She can also play the power game in this relationship because the power she has and the power that she can give to him will not impair or impact her life, or at least she thinks it won't. She can be free to relinquish power, to allow another to have power over her without fear. She can never do this in her Wolfram & Hart world, it is too cut throat-literally! She can let Wesley have this sexual power over her because she knows that she holds the same power over him. She knows that he is just as vulnerable as she is. The playing field is level, no one holds more power over the other. So, while she can drop the facade of strength and solitude she also does not have to worry about whether or not she can regain her power.
Wesley has the same need for trust and vulnerablity, the same issues with power but for different reasons. He has, in his view, already opened himself up to others and was treated poorly for it. He cared more deeply for his friends than he has likely cared for anyone else in his entire life, and they turned him away. Regardless of whether or not he was deserved of their treatment of him or not, it wounded him deeply. So Wesley has learned that the more you care, the more you can be hurt. His need to feel a connection is the same as Lilah's, regardless of how superficial that connection may be. His vulnerability is his emotions. He won't share them so easily now. With Lilah, he doesn't have to share himself emotionally in order to have that connection with her. This is why he can submit to her power over him. He also holds the same power in return. Again, the playing field is level.
The classic no strings attached relationship. It is never that simple though. I am sure that in time the connection that they share will begin to mean more to them. It is inevitable. It is very difficult to sustain any kind of relationship without developing some attachment to the other person.I normally don't quote songs but I am reminded of a line in a song by The Barenaked Ladies
"Thanks, that was fun
Don't forget, no regrets
Made a deal, not to feel
God that was dumb
Everybody know the deal feel through"
[> [>
Wow! -- Masq, 10:13:16 10/21/02 Mon
Mind if I borrow some of these thoughts for my website?
Kind of pondering them at the moment....
[> [> [>
Re:Absolutely use them, I'd be honoured! -- Cecilia, 15:58:47 10/21/02 Mon
[> [>
Re: The Wesley/Lilah dynamic -- Arethusa, 10:29:17 10/21/02 Mon
Why didn't Lilah tell W&H she was sleeping with Wesley for information? That's what she told Wesley. Instead, it sounds as if she's trying to protect him from them. And Lilah is dismayed when Angel tells her he knows about them. She tells herself she's just doing evil, but she's trying to keep Wesley to herself.
I agree with what you wrote about the dynamics of power and control in their relationship. Terrific post.
[> [> [>
Great posts, Masq, Cecilia and Arethusa! (completely-unspoiled speculation herein) -- redcat, 11:34:38 10/21/02 Mon
It's very likely that someone else has mentioned this already. I apologize if I'm repeating, as I haven't been able to read much of the board lately (RL WAY too much in the way...). But reading these posts got me thinking about complicated connections. Comes to my mind, at least, that one of the strong possibilities for the Wes/Lilah story arc is for Lilah to discover she's pregnant. Seems to me to have all kind of juicy, angsty, dramatic, esthetic, moral and philosophical possibilities, just the kind of evil thing that Joss loves to do to his characters....
Have no time this morning to develop this idea, but wonder if others have considered this?
[> [> [> [>
Totally have thought of this! -- Scroll, 12:33:07 10/21/02 Mon
One of the first things I thought of after watching "Tomorrow" was "Hmm, hope Wes and Lilah have birth control!" Because if there was a Wesley Wyndham-Price II running around, Angel could do that whole "do unto others" thing in the less-than-pure-intent sense. Or Lilah could sacrifice the kid to W&H for another promotion or for, you know, a palatial villa along the Danube. And considering Wes' lack of good father figures and knowing how ironic he cost Connor his childhood yet now has his own kid, it would really be the making of a screwed up season. Screwed up in the imminently watch-able sense.
[> [> [> [> [>
But they'd have to figure out another plausible way to age the kid 15 years in two weeks. -- alcibiades, 12:54:33 10/21/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
Plus it's kinda been-there, done-that -- Masq, 13:01:48 10/21/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [> [>
True, but I fully expect *this* kid to die (no fake prophecy) -- Scroll, 13:08:55 10/21/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
With these two...? (speculation with no basis in actual spoilers) -- Solitude1056, 13:32:48 10/21/02 Mon
I would be heartily shocked if Lilah were to get pregnant - after all, she's 1/2 the fun-time, and no dummy. While there have been throwaway lines in the past ("Linda in Purchasing sacrificed her own kid yesterday for a promotion... Maybe I should've listened when Mom said I should have kids"), I doubt Lilah is much interested in the nine months of discomfort just so she can eventually kill the child for some work-related reason. Nor do I see her willing to take the risks - not only of having to be a single parent, but also of inadvertantly getting attached to the baby. (And 'getting attached' is something that ME seems to think will automatically happen during pregnancy - see Cordy's reaction, and Darla's.) Besides, we've done the redemption-through-motherhood thing already, thanks.
If pregnancy were an issue, I'd expect more to see that Lilah gets an abortion, albeit most likely magically. Ie, sacrifice the child way ahead of time... but I don't know if that'd necessarily happen, since it's a little too close to real-world politics for ME. Abortion is a bit too emotional a topic (like was the attempted rape in BtVS) for folks to continue to see it as a metaphor. But in that sort of situation, I would expect Lilah to put herself first, as she always has, and opt for post-coital contraceptives. I'm not sure how Wes would react - the idea that he could've ended up with his own Conor... which carries both good and bad connotations.
On the other hand, I think there's a dynamic being set up already - and one in which Conor may feel, oddly, more at home. The 'mother' being an evil lawyer (if a bumbling one for the most part of her history), and the 'father' being a machiavellian demon hunter (if also a bumbling one until recently). The connections aren't based on unified sense of purpose, but on a simple connection regardless of personal enmity or larger alliances. Conor - having had so much difficulty with the shifting alliances/betrayals between his two fathers, and his reactions - may feel more comfortable in a group where personal beliefs have little to nothing to do with What One Does (as part of the group).
The subtle comparison I noted was at the end of the last episode, where Gunn offered to help Fred wash those hard-to-reach spots. It's one of the first times we've seen any implication of sex; their relationship seems to be predominantly on the level of 'true love' between two very different people. Wes and Lilah, on the other hand, are a couple of two very similar people who lack that 'true love' to drive their relationship. I can't help but wonder if Fred's & Gunn's attempt at parenting, and their relationship, will form one-half of a comparison/contrast with Lilah's & Gunn's interest in Conor, and their own reverse of the 'true love' relationship ideal.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
You're probably right -- Scroll, 13:54:41 10/21/02 Mon
But I wouldn't say no to seeing Wes wig out over having a kid of his very own. But yeah, Lilah would never let herself get pregnant.
Also, I really like your post about the politics of sex. Unfortunately, I don't know how to respond to your points other than to say I also noted that they're always on Wesley's turf. Didn't occur to me about Lilah and keeping her emotional space safe, though.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: With these two II ... (also speculation with no basis in actual spoilers) -- Evil Clone, 20:14:16 10/21/02 Mon
*** If pregnancy were an issue, I'd expect more to see that Lilah gets an abortion, albeit most likely magically. Ie, sacrifice the child way ahead of time... but I don't know if that'd necessarily happen, since it's a little too close to real-world politics for ME. ***
I agree, but if ME did want to pursue this and take the risk, suppose that, as you suggest, Lilah becomes pregnant and immediately wants to terminate the pregnancy. On the way to the doctor, she is accosted by W&H lackeys and soon finds out that W&H emphatically does not want the pregnancy ended. Turns out that there's this prophecy...
Now what? You've taken the usual politics and turned them around-- Lilah wants an abortion, but the 'pro-life' forces here are, uhh, really pro-death. Now, what does Wesley do, since he professes to have no real interest in Lilah, but of course also isn't interested in serving the interests of W&H. If he supports Lilah, he comes into direct conflict with an organization that might otherwise ignore him. If he doesn't support her, he's aiding the 'greater' enemy.
So, is that twisted enough?
:-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Dammit, Joss, stop impersonating OnM! -- Solitude1056, 21:25:39 10/21/02 Mon
Don't give ME any ideas... that'd be an awesomely twisted storyline!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Famous last words--- *...You thought you could just touch the darkness...* -- OnM, 21:44:45 10/21/02 Mon
[>
Re: The Wesley/Lilah dynamic -- Lilac, 09:17:12 10/21/02 Mon
I found the W/L interchange interesting in this episode, because it does seem to indicate that they are sliding into a "real relationship" of sorts. I have mixed feelings on what this could mean. Is Wes stringing Lilah along to keep her close so that he can pick up on W&H's evil plans? Doe Lilah think that dragging Wes into her world will help her finally destroy Angel?
Or is this just an indication that the human need for contact is overwhelming? Wesley has been totally cut off from his created family, he is really alone. Lilah works in an environment where she can't trust anyone -- I doubt the firm is big on water cooler chat. She works round the clock, and even if she had a chance to meet someone outside of the work place, she would have a similar problem to Buffy's with dating someone from the "straight" world. How could a normal guy understand the demands of her job and the hours and activities it requires? And wouldn't someone normal seem boring to both of these people, given their experience? I don't think that love enters into this relationship in any guise, but there is a certain degree of understanding going on.
I have no idea where ME is heading with this. I doubt the final resolution will involve either party completely changing sides. But it is certainly interesting to watch.
[>
Misery Loves Company -- Dasein, 09:21:58 10/21/02 Mon
She's a repugnant bitch queen with aspiration of multi-dimensional destruction. He's the second coming of Judas Iscariot with a neck scar you could fit thirty pieces of silver in. They deserve each other. We all get what we deserved. Clearly Wes feels that he is not worthy to be a part of AI, so what does he do? He gets a group of guys together and goes back to the only thing he knows how do, he fights Demons.
Wes and Angel are interesting in contrast to one another. Each is discovering a new relationship (Lilah/Cordy), Each is trying to rebuild a life that somehow, because the world is harsh, fell apart last year. Each has been deeply wounded (Conner/Justine). Each is incredibly self centered (notice that since Angels link to the powers is gone, he has become a free-agent). And they both fight demons. Wesley is the Human, flawed, weak, constantly flirting with danger, but willing to put himself and others on the line to do what is in his eyes right. While Angel is the Hero, strong, forgiving, willing to himself everything whether he makes a difference or not.
In his own way Wes is every bit as deep as Angel was in that box. He may never get back to a place of belonging again. Ironicly he might end up where he started out, as a "rogue demon hunter" only this time, for keeps.
[> [>
Re: Misery Loves Company -- Spike Lover, 10:16:35 10/21/02 Mon
Don't particularly agree- particularly the Judas comparison. Unless you are thinking that Judas was actually trying to help Jesus and save him from himself and his destiny.
"Each has been deeply wounded (Conner/Justine)."
More accurate to say 'Each has been deeply wounded (Conner/Angel & gang).
Angel was trying to help Conner and was betrayed by misinformation or wrong assumptions. Wesley was betrayed by Angel/gang due to their misinformation and wrong assumptions.
The last couple of eps, Angel has come across as terribly weak. He needs someone, something. Wesley has found his feet.
To know if Wesley has really turned to the darkside, you have to ask yourself why he dug up Angel. Was he trying to make things right? Or was he setting Angel up for his future? Angel could still kill Conner after all.
[> [>
Re: Misery Loves Company -- Miss Edith, 16:23:11 10/21/02 Mon
Self-centered? What about Wesley still fighting demons even after being rejected by his friends and Lilah trying to recruit him for W&H? He spend the summer searching for Angel the man who tried to kill Wesley when he was helpless in a hospital bed. Why? Because he understands Angel has a place in the world. He also helped Angel out in Ground State.
Wesley is bitter and feels wronged but I wouldn't see Wesley as self-centered personally. He is in his current predicement because he was willing to risk everything to protect Conner. He is a rogue demon hunter still trying to do the right thing, he is simply more isolated and darker than he was.
You say Angel is the hero and strong and forgiving but he had his own dark phase in season 2. Just like Wesley he devoted himself to the mission and had little concern for his friends, "I'm her vampire Cordelia look it up".
And I wouldn't exactly say Angel has proved to be particularly forgiving. The only example I can think of is Faith who Angel protected and told Wesley that everyone deserves a chance because it's not their place to randomly choose who deserves redemption. But his attitude was hardly the same with Lindsay in Blind Date or Wesley for that matter.
I don't disagree that Wesley is in a dark place but I don't see Wesley as the "second coming of Judas Iscariot". Wesley never intended to betray anyone. He was protecting Conner because he feared Angelous might return and kill his son. If I knew a person with a dangerous dark side I would be wary of them taking care of a child. Particularly if they had willingly attempted to release their dark side the previous year when depressed (sex with Darla). Wesley had been taught by the Watchers council and would know to take all prophecy's seriously. He constantly cross-referenced his information and did not take Conner into his care lightly. Yes he could have trusted Angel but presumedly he didn't feel it was worth the risk to Conner. He was looking out for a tiny baby so he didn't give Angel the benefit of the doubt. Understandable surely? I fail to see the comparision to Judas personally.
[>
Haven't seen the ep yet but weighing in -- Scroll, 09:34:13 10/21/02 Mon
I'm still staying spoiler free :P but something you mentioned in your post intrigues me.
Now, I would put this whole relationship down to hormones over good sense, except I think there's a lot more to it.
There must be something incredibly liberating for Wes in his relationship with Lilah. I mean, the guy has always been viewed as the Big Brain. People hardly ever saw Wesley (before he got all grim and fatalistic) as a sexy, attractive man. In fact, his friends (even more so than we viewers) never saw Wesley as a sexual being. To them, he was this prim and proper, upper-crust Englishman who, although has loosened up in recent years, is fairly clueless when it comes to the opposite sex (as evidenced in his timid courting of Fred). Cordy and Gunn never saw how comfortable Wes was with Virginia; Angel and Fred weren't even around for that relationship. Instead, his friends see him as an encyclopedia with feet. For many of us, it's still kind of like Buffy finding out that Giles has a sex life. Eew!! For Wesley to suddenly be able to let go and do all the things he's been constrained from doing before (by his family, the Council, his own upbringing and reticent nature), it must feel scary and freeing all at once. Like the shackles and steel bars surrounding him have finally been ripped away (paralleling Justine?). I mean, consider the socially awkward Wesley Wyndham-Pryce of Buffy Season 3, and that awful kiss with Cordelia. Less than four years later, and Wesley is experienced, confident, and (quite possibly) kinky. He's certainly keeping Lilah happy at any rate.
Instead of going with his brain, his intellect, his own good common sense, Wesley is throwing himself into his body, his sexuality, and his hormones. Of course, there is still the element of cunning and ruthlessness. Like someone posted before, Wesley and Lilah are engaged in an elaborate chess game, gaining and losing pawns, sacrificing pieces and leaving traps. (Or I could be projecting.) But I see someone who has always lived up to what people expect of him--a gentleman, an intellect, a thinker not a doer--who is suddenly tasting freedom (oooh, I should erase that but I'm not gonna!) and relishing in his own body.
Oh! Another thought! Perhaps Wesley is also enjoying the control he has in his own body, and by extension, his body's control over Lilah and her body. For someone who has been manipulated by demons and prophecies, who faced two murder attempts in one night from people he rightly or wrongly trusted--it must be liberating to know he has control of his body in this one arena: sex with Lilah. But also that he gains control every time he loses control (when having sex with Lilah). Wesley can't control fate but he can control Lilah, at least to a certain extent. He can make her do things she normally wouldn't do. Considering how out-of-control he must have felt last season (I'm thinking "Loyalty" and his death wish), having Lilah and Justine right where he wants them must be a safety zone.
Just my thoughts. Please let me know if what you think, Masq. I'm finding this relationship to be the most interesting plot in Angel right now (though admittedly, I'm biased).
[> [>
Also, Wes hasn't worn his glasses since "Forgiving" -- Scroll, 13:44:31 10/21/02 Mon
Thought I'd add that maybe his glasses being missing has to do with Wesley's "redefinition" of himself as a more physical/sexual being, and less as an intellectual being. So I predict we won't see his glasses again until after he reconciles with the Fang Gang and he can put on his "scholar" hat again.
[>
Re: The Wesley/Lilah dynamic (SPOILERS) -- Spike Lover, 09:56:17 10/21/02 Mon
Now that we have found out that Lorne was a prisoner, you have to wonder who that was on Wesley's boat, helping him find Angel. Wesley is being played, and he does not know it. He thinks he is playing her, but I think she still has the upper hand (from beneath him.)
I like the relationship. It is fun to watch.
Also like it because neither has the moral high ground. Is Wesley 'rolling in the dirt?' At least both parties know what it is and are truthful about it to themselves and each other. Is this relationship suppose to mirror the B/S 'unhealthy' one? If so, at least there is not the (eye roll here) continuous bleat of 'she does not have a soul so it really isn't happening.' Oh, wait a minute, Lilah is a lawyer, so perhaps she does NOT have a soul and that is how Wesley is rationalizing the relationship.
I guess we will find out later in the season when he is drawing a bath in the bathroom and she comes in and ends up trying to rape him so that he will admit that he does have some sort of feelings for her...
[> [>
Re: The Wesley/Lilah dynamic (SPOILERS) -- meritaten, 10:34:51 10/21/02 Mon
"Also like it because neither has the moral high ground. Is Wesley 'rolling in the dirt?' At least both parties know what it is and are truthful about it to themselves and each other. "
I didn't mean to imply (in my post above) that Wes is on higher moral ground here. I'm just saying that I've had to struggle to enjoy the storyline because in my own ingrained world-view the "good guys" shouldn't bed the "bad guys". I want Wes to be redeemed and to come back to the fold, but this acting out of his dark urges is rather taboo, again in my ingrained world-view. I'm not trying to state that the story shouldn't be written, or to take a moral stand. I'm just saying the the story is uncomfortable for me becuase it takes us on a journey that breaks certain taboos. While that may be good writing, it can also be mildly uncomfortable. I'm appreciating the exploration of Wes's dark side, but it is hard for me to enjoy it. Pushes my moral buttons, I guess.
[> [> [>
Redeemed for what? -- Spike Lover, 10:49:04 10/21/02 Mon
You lost me there. What has he done exactly?
Ok, wait, I am a Christian, and if you look at the Christian moral code, he is a sinner, but so are we all. But I do not even know if the character of Wesley is a Christian so I don't know if that code applies.
Yes, I think every character on both shows needs to go to church. (So far, I think William is the only one who has ever been.)
Never mind. What has Wesley done exactly beside go to bed with the enemy? Has he killed a human being? Is he going to snatch up some of AI's business? Hey, America is a capitalistic nation. He has the right.
I think Wesley is the victim here. Remember, he and Gunn were tight, particularly when he took a bullet for him. Angel was the betrayer. At Angel's return, suddenly Wesley is no longer in charge, and then he is outst by the group without even being allowed to explain himself, re: the Conner thing. And why? Because Angel's feelings are so much more important than anyone else's.
Perhaps you fault him for not groveling and returning to AI? I don't. They clearly don't appreciate him. If he can do better on his own, then so be it. I am told repeatedly on Buffy that only the soulless lack a moral compass and and need to be redeemed, but it is impossible since they have no soul. Souled creatures do not need moral guidance from anyone else.
So say the writers.
[> [> [> [>
Redeemed in the fairytale sense -- Scroll, 11:32:53 10/21/02 Mon
I'm not the best person to explain this since I'm also a Christian and therefore am more familiar with the "sinners need redemption" definition of redeemed. But I think meritaten is meaning redeemed as in "restored" -- to the group, to friendship, to the way things were. The fairytale definition of "redeemed". Of course, I don't think things will ever get back exactly as things were, but the point is to try to recover something from the shambles of the Fang Gang's break up.
As a Wes-lover, I side strongly on his side as a wronged party. However, I can't deny that Wesley has seriously harmed Angel, Connor, and the others with his well-intentioned but disastrous actions. I do think that the Fang Gang don't really appreciate Wesley, but he isn't exactly a model of open emotion either (though I do believe he cares, perhaps more deeply than any of the others, which is why he's hurting now).
For more on the argument of how to define "redeemed", I know there are many threads discussing this subject. We go back and forth, never really settling on one answer. Everybody with their different backgrounds brings something new to the subject.
[> [> [> [> [>
Redeemed for valuable prizes? -- Masq back at work and bored, 11:43:34 10/21/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [> [>
I want a decoder ring! -- Lilac, 11:57:29 10/21/02 Mon
[> [> [> [>
Kidnapping comes to mind. -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:58:54 10/21/02 Mon
[> [> [> [>
Re: Redeemed for what? -- Miss Edith, 16:54:30 10/21/02 Mon
Wesley couldn't grovel to return to Angel Investigations. Gunn visits him in The Price and makes it clear he isn't interested in apologies or explanations. He just wants Wesley's help period. And Fred visits Wesley in the hospital telling him to stay away from them all as Angel is out for blood. What annoyed me was that Gunn and Fred wanted to know the reasons for Wesley's behaviour. They were willing to listen until Angel tried to smother Wesley, and then like sheep they refuse to question Angel. All of Wesley's former friends have made it clear it is too late for him to return to the fold. Cordy has said Angel's feelings are all that matter to her. What exactly do people expect Wesley to do?
And Wesley has hardly been sneaking around stealing clients. Angel was out of town on a jaunt and people still needed help. Wesley was available and offers his services. I see that as fair enough.
I too see Wesley as the victim. Yes he kidnapped Conner but what were his reasons? He was unsure about trusting Angel. He couldn't play russian roulette with a baby's life and give his friend the benefit of the doubt. Angel does have a dark side, and he made jokes about eating his son, his son smelling tasty etc. And his sons blood was making him unpredictable at the same time as a prophecy was predicting Angel would go dark. It is easy to criticise and point out what Wesley could have done differently but he was trying to function on little sleep and he wasn't thinking clearly. He was in a dire situation and did the best he could.
In his place I would be bitter if Angel made an attempt on my life, followed by my so-called friends wanting nothing to do with me, and denying me the chance to explain myself. Wesley was hardly in a position to be able to grovel.
Perhaps some people think he should have returned to the hotel and attempted to explain to his cold and uncaring colleges, one of whom wants him dead? Or perhaps he should have tried to phone knowing they would hang up? Or tried to write a letter knowing it would go straight in the bin? I am honestly confused about what more people think Wesley should have done to reintegrate himself into the group.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Redeemed for what? -- yabyumpan, 00:18:45 10/22/02 Tue
"What exactly do people expect Wesley to do?" I'll try to answer this as someone who's been pissed at Wesley since 'Couplet'.
"I too see Wesley as the victim" I see Wesley as a victim of his up bringing, his training as a watcher and his inability to trust. I certainly do not see him as the victim of the whole stealing Connor fiasco. He believed he was the only one who could deal with the situation, choosing not to share what he'd learned not only with Angel, who repeatedly in Loyalty and Sleep Tight asked how the research was going, asking if he was ok, commenting on how tierd he was looking. I can maybe understand Wesley not sharing with Angel although I do believe that if Wesley had told him that he believed he was a danger to Connor, Angel would have probably given him the child to take away until he could be sure it was safe. Angel is more aware of the possibility of him going bad than anyone.
Wesley cut himself off from Fred and Gunn and allowed his personal feelings to distance him from possible help. That is surely not a good way for a leader to act.
He could have rung Cordy, they had her number. Instead he chose to take it all on board himself.
He beat Lorne up, that sort of thing's bound to piss you off.
In choosing to go it alone he put the lives of the others at risk, first by Holtz's crew, who he'd been told by Holtz were comming and second by, as he believed, the re-emergence of Angelus. Did he think that Angelus, or even just a very dark connor killing Angel, would just leave the rest of them alone once Connor was taken? the prophacy may have only said 'the father will kill the son', but for Angel to do that he'd have to have gone very dark if not Angelus.
He also purposfully left them no indication as to why he had taken Connor or the danger they may be in. In fact he did the opposite, he threw away his notes. This is what I don't get about people saying that the gang should talk to him. He made it clear by not sharing what he knew that he didn't trust them when they had totally trusted him. He made it clear by throwing away his notes that he didn't even want them to have the infomation, why should they go to him? It's true that he couldn't go to the hotel but he could have phoned or written (even if they did throw the letter in the bin, at least he would have made the effort and I might have a bit more sympathy for his bitternes).
Wesley also allowed Connor to be taken from him, he didn't keep him safe. yes he was tricked but this is a child who had an enemies list since before he was born. With Wesley's contacts, I'm sure that he could have arranged at short notice to hire a couple of heavies to help him protect Connor, at least until he was out of LA. But once again, he decided that only he was able to protect Connor and he failed.
"It is easy to criticise and point out what Wesley could have done differently but he was trying to function on little sleep and he wasn't thinking clearly. He was in a dire situation and did the best he could."
I don't think he did do the best he could, for all the reasons above. He was functioning on little sleep because he chose to deal with the situation alone.
As for how the gang treated him after, I think it's important to note that according to both Lorne and Holtz in 'Benediction', it was only a week/ a few days respectivly since Connor was taken. I don't condone Angel possibly trying to kill him (although I do think if Angel had actually wanted Wesley dead, he would be), I also can understand why and I don't blame him, and neither, I think, does Wesley. In the week after loosing your only child, the anger and the pain would still be to raw to even contemplate reaching out to person you see as responsable, how ever much you may understand his motives. I think that's true with the rest of the gang, it was all still to raw. Connor may be Angel's child but they had all bonded with him, they must have all felt the loss. They would also still be feeling the pain of the betrayal of trust that caused it to happen. If Angel hadn't gone for a swim and Cordy not done the assending thing then I think it's very possible that Cordy would have gone round there, if only to yell at him for being so stupid and not trusting her. She was angry and hurt that Angel didn't ring her when it happened, I would expect she'd feel the same and them some for Wesley. As I said, I think it's important to remember just how little time had passed.
I don't think his collegues were cold and uncaring just very hurt and angry as IMO, they had every right to be.
Continuing on to this season, he's kept the knowledge of what Connor did to Angel to himself, justifying it by saying that Connor doesn't kill humans. How does he know that? has he even met him? He was raised in a hell dimension by a man who was perfectly willing to kill humans to achieve his goal. He may be Angel's son and Angel doesn't kill humans but his main influence was Holtz, who had no such restrant. Once again Wesley kept them in the dark about something important, almost treating them like children.
I can find no sympathy for Wesley or even any real interest in him now. Good luck to him with the shagging the bad girl and his own gang of fighters. He may have rescued Angel and helped in trying to find Cordy but his continued behaviour leaves me not even wanting to watch him on screen. I don't actually find the exploration of the dark side interesting, been there, done that and in the end it's just boring and pathetic.
I realise that most people won't agree with me but this whole Wesley going dark story line is actually bringing down my enjoyment of Ats. Living in the UK, I haven't actually seen the new season yet and I find myself not really looking forward to it, precisely because of Wesley. And that pisses me off because AtS is my favorite show.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
But by going it alone (Spoilers, AtS Season 3) -- Rahael, 03:33:06 10/22/02 Tue
He took full, sole responsibility for taking Connor. Thereby not sharing the blame with anyone else. He must have done it deliberately, so if things went horribly wrong, the only person that Angel would be furious with was himself.
I have to say that I'm coming around more and more to the Wesley viewpoint.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Disagree about Cordy -- alcibiades, 05:57:42 10/22/02 Tue
If Angel hadn't gone for a swim and
Cordy not done the assending thing then I think it's very possible that Cordy would have gone round there, if only to yell at him for being so stupid and not trusting her. She was angry and hurt that Angel didn't ring her when it happened, I would expect she'd feel the same and them some for Wesley. As I said, I think it's important to remember just how little time had passed.
We don't see any pictures of Cordy checking out Wesley and being worried by him becoming darker do we -- she refers to Fred, Gunn, Lorne as her friends -- but she doesn't even bother to watch Wesley begin to self destruct and be worried about it, so I have to disagree entirely with this line of speculation.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Disagree about Cordy -- Miss Edith, 06:47:36 10/22/02 Tue
When Wesley's name is brought up Cordy immediately defers to Angel's opinion. "Angel is the only person I care about. I get doused with demon DNA for that man". Based on how she was presented after Wesley's fall from grace I can't see her being concerned and checking on Wesley. She specifically said Angel wasn't interested so neither was she. I don't remember her expressing any regrets or looking sadly at photos of Wesley. The only person to even bring him up was Fred.
[> [>
Re: The Wesley/Lilah dynamic (SPOILERS) -- Masq, 10:38:14 10/21/02 Mon
The difference...
Between the Wesley/Lilah sexual relationship and the Spike/Buffy sexual relationship is no one is hoping or expecting one of them to finally "admit" his/her (alleged) love for the other, nor is anyone expecting Wesley to redeem Lilah through their relationship.
At least, no one I know is.
Nope, the fun of this relationship is that they are just rolling around in each other's dirt and we can enjoy it as that. That was the problem with Spike/Buffy. They were just rolling around in each other's dirt, and people wanted otherwise.
[> [> [>
Re: The Wesley/Lilah dynamic (SPOILERS) -- alcibiades, 11:15:01 10/21/02 Mon
no one is hoping or expecting one of them to finally
"admit" his/her (alleged) love for the other
Oh, but one of them will have to eventually or it won't be any fun for us.
Besides, this is the Jossverse, so there's going to be pain, and the big pain doesn't come without the big emotions.
Moreover, they seem to be having daily, intense sex with a B/D edge. Two people, fallible as they are, with at least one of them CRAVING personal recognition, based not on his needs but on his internal self worth, and the other of whom has allowed power and money be the face she presents to the world presumably because the world without power is just too scary and mundane. Lilah was non-connecto girl, like Gwen, but now she is into the touch business.
They may think now that it is about the sex qua sex but this is not an arm's length relationship with an occasional intense shag. It's a constant shagfest and they are influencing each other already.
So, I'm expecting some intense, really unhealthy emotions to kindle right up.
[> [> [> [>
Re: The Wesley/Lilah dynamic (SPOILERS) -- Masq, 11:30:10 10/21/02 Mon
"So, I'm expecting some intense, really unhealthy emotions to kindle right up."
Absolutely. That's the fun for us.
But I don't see either of them ever claiming to love the other one. That's not the game they're playing. It's the "I hate you, come f*** me" game. And neither really actually likes the other. Plus, I don't see either of them feeling any love for each other. If it did happen, I'd vote Lilah falling for Wes before it was ever vice-versa. And Lilah would really hate that if it happened to her. It would mess up her self-image in a major way to love anyone, much less someone who still has his feet on the side of the Good Fight.
I'd hope ME would have more imagination than to bring love into the equation for these two.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: The Wesley/Lilah dynamic (SPOILERS) -- alcibiades, 12:01:50 10/21/02 Mon
But I don't see either of them ever claiming to love the other one. That's not the game they're playing.
Oh God, no.
But the fact that Wesley deals with Lilah's taunts about becoming Connor's future Mrs. Robinson while they are engaging in foreplay by using his mouth effectively to shut her up, when last year he would have kicked her in the head and closed the door on her, virtue fluttering, reads to me like a whole lot of unhealthy need is going to be squacking really loudly near his heart. And did someone mention strings...
[> [> [>
Re: The Wesley/Lilah dynamic (SPOILERS) -- yabyumpan, 11:36:42 10/21/02 Mon
I think, as with most ME relationships, they're being set up for the fall. There is such an emphasis being put on this being just a physical/no strings/no emotion relationship that i think they are going to be MADE to feel. Maybe Lilah's relationship with Wesley will cause her problems at work, maybe she'll go the same way as Linwood. How would Wesley feel if anything happened to her as a result of being involved with him? Maybe he's going to be forced to ask Angel to help rescue her.
This is classic 'all actions have consequenses'. Maybe it's to show them (and us)that all interactions with others have an emotional context, however much we try to deny them.
to repost something I posted below
And what about Wesley? It occurs to me that Wesley's state of mind at the moment could be likened to teenage rebelion. He's left home because of a major disagreement with his 'family', he's now got his own gang, he's not wearing smart clothes anymore nor is he wearing his glasses and he's shagging the 'bad girl'. He hasn't totally broken ties with his family when when he sees them he's sullen and distant. I doubt he had a chance to be a rebelious adolecent, I almost expect him to start going to heavy metal concerts and smoking (not just ciggaretes)
[> [> [> [>
Re: The Wesley/AI dynamic (SPOILERS) -- JBone, 12:45:10 10/21/02 Mon
I think that Wesley is out to prove (to himself?) that his friends at AI need him more than he needs them. He's in the same business as they are, and apparently, is doing better then they are. They're all over the place trying to put the family back together, while Wes has moved on. But is he better off without the friendships that he had there? Their rejections of him can't hurt him anymore, or do they still? His answer for making decisions that turn out badly seems to be to take total control, so all results are directly connected to him.
It's sort of a "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" kind of approach. You misread one prophecy aloud, and when you discover your mistake, everyone hold it over your head. To avoid this same mistake, you keep your research to yourself, trying to find where you're reading the next prophecy wrong, and the damn thing was a fake all along. This time it costs you the friends that ridiculed you the first time. Now, it's just screw it. I'm taking charge. I'm not going to worry about other peoples feelings or what they think about me. I got a mission to take on. They can have their all their little problems, I'm busy.
I see a turf war developing between AI and Pryce, most likely over clients. But, I wouldn't be surprised to see Connor and Wesley's paths crossing in the future, with Connor choosing the Pryce mission over his father's. I'm not going to speculate on the Lilah sex fun, mostly because I like what others are saying about it more than anything that I've been able to dream up. But I love watching it.
[>
the politics of sex -- Solitude1056, 12:21:22 10/21/02 Mon
Ep 4.3 brought in a new wrinkle that there does seem to be a power/control dynamic in this relationship, like both want to control the other with their sexuality. I mean, you know Wesley got off on making his enemy remove her panties at work! And you know Lilah got off last week on getting Wesley to service her first in their little sexcapades.
I think the relationship is working at both levels, and it didn't surprise me that we didn't get to see Lilah on the other end of the convo. Normally, in these things, there are two options for ME, and two they usually use: we either hear what the other person is saying a la 'through the phone' or we jump-cut to the other person responding/reacting. In this case, though, we didn't get either, which leads me to believe that we're not supposed to see how Lilah is reacting/responding, but guage it based on Wes' end of the conversation. IOW, it's easy to assume that Wesley is "in charge" because the last visual is of him settling down on the sofa for some good sex talk... but I think that'd be a misimpression.
(Gawdz, wish I'd taped it, now! Where is that transcript when you need it?)
First, I noticed more of a relaxed dynamic on the phone. Hey, come to think of it, hello, the phone call... was Lilah calling to say she'd be late. The impression I'd gotten all along was that Lilah was having fun on her lunch hour, and if Wes was there, okay, and if not, never mind. The phone call indicates that not only are they setting dates/times ahead of time, but that when one can't make it, they call - and I found it telling that Wes went so far as to crack a joke about it (and one, based on his reaction, that Lilah also thought was funny).
But let's take a look at the general direction of the conversation. Lilah calls to say she'll be late, meetings, etc, and might not be out until midnight. (The assumption was clear that she planned to head straight to Wes', instead of going home first.) Then Wes discovers that he'll be working late as well, and that meeting up that night looks like it's out of the question. Now Lilah's one-down, and retaliates/teases with a come-hither kind of statement. Based on my own experiences *cough* I'd say this is to be expected: she delays, he cancels, she tells him what he's going to be missing. Wes' choice at this point is to either play it cool and 'miss' the tease, or to take her up on it. Seeing what we have of him so far, I'd be surprised if Lilah didn't expect him to respond. So it's not necessarily that Wes has the upper hand, or is treating Lilah like he thinks she deserves... so much as he's treating her like she tells him to. By telling him what she's wearing (and knowing that it's something he's expressed, uh, appreciation for in the past), she's telling him she's ready to have fun even if they can't meet up. The presumed protestations on her part - and his insistence - is all part of the fun.
I would be disappointed if this relationship went the way of Angel/Darla (probably its closest comparison): boy goes bad (or wants to), hangs with bad girl, comes to his senses and throws out bad girl, bad girl comes back with surprise and boy has amazing revelation while bad girl sacrifices herself for some unselfish reason. Boy is now good and redeemed, at the cost of bad girl going against character and doing away with herself, blah blah blah. Same old story. Boy meets girl, boy loses girl, girl gets killed in teeth of combine engine. I mean, really.
And the other comparison - of Buffy/Spike - would also be equally lame. Wes is not Spike; he's not spent the past year being all romantically mopey about Lilah and imagining her on a pedestal (or anywhere else). This really seems to have come out of the blue for both of them, and they're not putting any long-term expectations on the interaction. They're both just enjoying the good sex, and I'll be the first to say there's really nothing wrong with that. It's about time we got to see a relationship between two adults who realize that it's not always about love and white picket fences, but about being able to relate physically, and be in sympatico with, another human being. We've gotta have Ms. Right, but sometimes Ms. Right Now is just fine.
After the past few episodes, I think the best comparison is Xander and Anya, if I'm stuck with Whedonverse analogies. Again, it's two people radically opposed in viewpoints and experiences, but still two people who are able to enjoy each other's company despite appearing completely mismatched to the rest of the world. In the realworld analogy, though, I'd prefer examples like the couple in DC - she's a PR person for the Democrats, he's a PR person for the Republicans. For all intents and purposes, their politics are diametrically opposed, yet they've been married for a number of years now - apparently quite happily - and are also highly successful in their individual careers. They're able to do what many can't, that is, be professional about keeping their work at work, and their home at home, and recognizing that the other person's work is not a personal affront to them. I think that's the best comparison to where Lilah and Wesley are - they both realize the other works for "the other side," but also know that Wes' actions as a demon hunter don't impact W&H, nor do Lilah's actions at W&H necessarily have much impact on the general welfare of the 'little people' that Wes works to help or defend.
Left alone, I think they'd continue to have a wildly passionate and incredibly satisfying sexual relationship that neither would see reason to destroy anytime soon. The problem is that they're unlikely to be left alone. Wolfram & Hart isn't about to see Lilah's involvement with Wes as beneficial; its preferences aren't for sleeping with someone to get information - it goes more for the torture routine. I don't think Lilah's about to turn Wes over to that without some serious encouragement, because doing so would mean she not only has to share Wes on one level but that she loses him on another level. W&H isn't about to tell its Director of Special Projects that her job is to sleep with Wes to get information (especially when she's not gotten any so far). If anything, W&H may (for the time being) take the attitude that at least Lilah is able to keep an eye on Wes, in case he does risk impacting W&H.
From Wes' side, he, too, is unlikely to want to share Lilah. Angel Investigations tends to take the high moral ground - look at how they reacted to Angel sleeping with Darla after that whole Hell-on-earth/Ring/Lindsey evening. Of course, Darla showing up pregnant kinda shoved the cat out of the bag... but the resentment against Angel 'falling down' was clear. Like those of us safe in our living rooms watching the show, some of the characters (including Wes, prior to this fall) had the luxury of decrying Angel, because they'd never been in the position of feeling so lost and adrift that any port in a storm - even a known evil - looks better than more days alone at sea. I think Angel's ability to relate to Wes' inner sense may be the crux upon which Wes' return is constructed, but I'm not sure how it'll work out (and I'm not guessing, either).
But there is one thing I've noticed: Wes and Lilah are always seen at Wes' apartment. We've seen Lilah's apartment - when she took in the psychic girl, and later when Cordy confronted her about Billy. The first time, Lilah seemed a little freaked about the vulnerability of being unsafe in her own home, and the second time Cordy made a definite point of noting that Lilah had just been crying. Lilah's personal space is probably of utter importance to her, if she's able to cry when she thinks she's alone. That, I think, contains some clue about the dynamics, as well - Wes has a certain upperhand because it's his turf when they meet; Lilah has a certain upperhand because their meetings have not threatened her own personal space by happening at her apartment.
Unless they were at her apartment in the scenes I missed last week... But anyway. Someone, help, please, I've rambled enough!
[> [>
Like Spike and Drucilla? -- Arethusa, 14:42:16 10/21/02 Mon
They share "affection and jealousy." Wes is a good guy gone bad, temporarily at least. Lilah is just bad, although not crazy. The comparison doesn't go very far, but it has a slight superficial charm.
[> [> [>
But Wesley hasn't gone bad... -- Masq, 15:01:49 10/21/02 Mon
He's running a demon-hunting business, raising Angel from the watery depths, helping Angel find Cordelia.
It does seem like he's doing it in part just to spite Lilah and spit it in her face. But I also think he still believes in the Good fight. Or wants to.
But his sheer moral ambiguity is what's making it fun....
[> [> [> [>
I Hope He Does Go Bad. . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:08:54 10/21/02 Mon
Has anyone noticed that every reguler/reccuring character on BtVS or AtS who's turned to the dark side so far has always come back to the side of the good guys? Just once, I'd like to see a good character go evil and STAY evil.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: I Hope He Does Go Bad. . . -- Masq, 15:24:34 10/21/02 Mon
I don't believe a truly evil Wesley is possible, nor would it be satisfying. Wesley is someone who has always tried to do good and has not been respected for it. His father put him constantly as a child and you just know Wesley was probably not a bad kid.
Then he got no respect at all from Giles and Buffy from the moment he stepped foot on Sunnydale campus. Granted, he played right into their disrespect, but still.
Then he's the sort of sexless scholar at Angel Investigations, the butt of Cordelia's jokes questioning his manhood (granted, she did the same to Angel, but I think Angel just ignored her).
Then his friends disown him over a tragic, but well-intentioned mistake.
Wesley is walking on the edge. He's flirting with all the pent-up anger he has at the Good Guys. But he is still a basically good man. He may fall very deep into anger, rage, hate, but he is still spewing it out at the bad guys and those he perceives as being on the wrong side, like Justine.
I like him so much more just exploring his own psychological darkness. He may eventually be driven to do something truly evil, but that will be his wake-up call, the call that tells him he's descended too far. In the meantime, he will continue to flirt more and more with his negative emotions.
And I am loving that journey.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: I Hope He Does Go Bad. . . -- Sophie, 16:48:48 10/21/02 Mon
It's the tension that is so exciting. I would prefer to see Wesley "on the fence" so to speak for as long as possible. When you setup internal dichotomies, you start to get what I call "dynamic tension". The more extreme the two things, the greater the tension.
Examples:
Good Evil
love hate (this one is especially heightened when sex is involved)
Order Chaos
Sophie
[> [> [> [>
No, I agree with you. -- Arethusa, 18:41:07 10/21/02 Mon
Wesley is still working for good, although I'm wondering if he will begin to act like Holtz, and become less scrupulous in his methods. He's always been a "by any means necessary" kind of leader. How about Batman and Catwoman? They work on opposite sides of the law, yet passion and a perverse respect for each other draws them together. (Channeling a True Romance comic, here.)
[> [>
Great post - agree (Spoilers for Ats 4.1-4.3) -- shadowkat, 06:04:08 10/22/02 Tue
I agree with everything you've stated above. And particularly like this statement:
"It's about time we got to see a relationship between two adults who realize that it's not always about love and white picket fences, but about being able to relate physically, and be in sympatico with, another human being. We've gotta have Ms. Right, but sometimes Ms. Right Now is just fine."
I think that is the difference between this relationship and several of the other dark relationships we've seen.
Although I'm not quite sure this relationship is that dark.
They are enjoying sex, without strings or attachments...or so it seems. I truly expect the strings to prop up soon - sex in Whedonverse and to be honest realverse always has consequences. ;-)
"Wes and Lilah are always seen at Wes' apartment. We've seen Lilah's apartment - when she took in the psychic girl, and later when Cordy confronted her about Billy. The first time, Lilah seemed a little freaked about the vulnerability of being unsafe in her own home, and the second time Cordy made a definite point of noting that Lilah had just been crying. Lilah's personal space is probably of utter importance to her, if she's able to cry when she thinks she's alone. That, I think, contains some clue about the dynamics, as well - Wes has a certain upperhand because it's his turf when they meet; Lilah has a certain upperhand because their meetings have not threatened her own personal space by happening at her apartment. "
I've seen the Wes/Lilah scenes more than once and you're right, they are all in Wes's space. We never see them in Lilah's space. Also the phone conversation? That takes place in Wes' apartment/office not in Lilah's office. The POV in this relationship continues to be mostly Wesely's.
We really don't know what Lilah's thinking outside of a few glimpses here and there - like on the roof with Angel (Grounded) or at the office with Gavin and Linwood (Deep Down). Both times she seems deeply disturbed by the other people's knowledge of her affair with Wes. Clearly she wanted to keep it private. When Linwood attempts to use it against her - she kills him instead. (Deep Down). And in her defense it was truly a kill or be killed scenerio.
(Or at least that was my impression.)
I find their relationship compatible to the James Carver/Marilee ? relationship (Dem/Rep) yet perhaps a tad more risque. But instead of looking at Wes/Lilah's differences let's look at a few of their similarities:
1. Both are ruthless - both share the machiavellian yen for ends justify the means. And are willing to carry out those means regardless of the price to their own soul or anyone elses. Granted their ends may be at odds with one another, but their means are somewhat similar. Although Wes hasn't killed anyone yet to get what he wants, he has abused a few people.
2. Both were horribly hurt by Billy. But in opposite ways.
Billy pulled out Wes' dark side (Male anger) - making Wes an abuser and a victim to his own abusive tendencies. At the end of the episode, Wes is seen alone and battered in his apartment unable to deal with Fred. (Season 3 Ats, Billy). Billy victimizes Lilah, makes her feel weak and defenseless to the extent she ends up being the one to kill him. (Not sure, but this may have been the first person Lilah killed on screen). Cordy finds Lilah in her apartment, alone and beaten.
3. Both are lonely and outside. We know little about Lilah's past or family, but I sense she has some major issues - issues that may either be similar or in marked contrast to Wes. Wouldn't it be interesting if we were to discover that Lilah's Mother was a kindly supportive woman to Wes' unsupportive mean father? Doubt it. More likely the mother is the literal equivalent of the sick mother - being kept alive by Lilah's success in a nursing home somewhere. (pure spec on my part).
The reason the Lilah/Wes pairing fascinates me so much is the dark similarities between the characters. Both seem to yearn for human companionship and neither seem to be able to quit obtain it. Both yearn for comfort and love, yet it remains oddly beyond their grasp. (Wait - Wes had that, didn't he? With Angel, Cordy, Gunn and Fred? Did he? Really?
He clearly doesn't believe he did. We seldom see any of the four in Wes' apartment. Wes is seen running the office and studying the prophecies alone in most cases. When Gunn and Fred get together - Wes becomes odd man out. Just like the Cordy-Angel pairing does. The fact he does not confide in them about Conner - makes sense in a way - if you think about it. He's felt outside the group since the others paired off. If you've ever been the single person in a group of friends who suddenly got romantic - you might understand what I'm talking about. Particularly if you had feelings for one of the people who chose someone else - such as your best friend. But it goes much deeper than that for Wesely - from bits and pieces - as far back as Season 3 Btvs - we see Wes as odd man out, or the bumbling outsider, not quite fitting in. And he shows shades of ruthlessness
in this - in Btvs - he's ruthless enough to be willing to sacrifice Willow for greater good and Faith. When he joins Angel, he is a wounded man, bumbling, but wounded, feeling like a failure - it takes two seasons for him to get beyond that - but does he?
Lilah seems to have similar problems. She is also an outside, often the only woman at W&H. Swimming amongst sharks, she can never let down her guard and her ruthlessness keeps her alive. If you've been watching the show closely, you've seen glimmers of what motivates Lilah, her lonliness and a need for approval from maybe some outside source. Even though Lilah continuously proclaims she's evil - I often wonder if she truly is as evil as she likes to think she is. IT often feels like a defense mechanism. She wants to be evil. Being evil makes life easier from her perspective...but is she really?
At any rate, I think this relationship, no matter how dark it may seem to some viewers on the surface, is an interesting means of exploring the hidden facets of both characters. Through Wes, we may see a different side of Lilah and Through Lilah, perhaps a different side of Wesely.
[> [> [>
I think you're thinking of James Carville and Mary Matlin -- Rahael, 06:16:40 10/22/02 Tue
[> [> [> [>
yup, that's the couple. -- Solitude1056, 09:30:09 10/22/02 Tue
[> [>
The gray zone and spit swapping -- alcibiades, 08:53:30 10/22/02 Tue
But there is one thing I've noticed: Wes and Lilah are always seen at Wes' apartment. We've seen Lilah's apartment - when she took in the psychic girl, and later when Cordy confronted her about Billy. The first time, Lilah seemed a little freaked about the vulnerability of being unsafe in herown home, and the second time Cordy made a definite point of noting that Lilah had just been crying. Lilah's personal space is probably of utter importance to her, if she's able to cry when she thinks she's alone. That, I think, contains some clue about the dynamics, as well - Wes has a certain upperhand because it's his turf when they meet; Lilah has a certain upperhand because their meetings have not threatened her own personal space by happening at her apartment.
More than having an upperhand, I think that what ME is illustrating about the W/L interaction is that so far it is not operating on dangerous ground -- it is all taking place in safe territory - territory we became used to inhabiting last year in Season 3 as we spent a lot of time in Wesley's apartment/inner space with Wesley and then with Wesley and Lilah as she began making incursions. And Wesley's inner space is a light gray moral zone with slashes of red, -- that is how his apartment is tricked out, with the slashes of red provided by Lilah (kind of similar to Willow's light gray PJs at the end of STSP minus the red slashes).
So, so far this relationship is on safe territory that we are used to already. Things are still safe.
The really interesting bit will happen once Wesley and the audience moves into Lilah's space - a space we are not familiar with particularly or comfortable in. Once Wesley enters Lilah's moral zone, I'm expecting a lot of audience discomfort because it's not a safety zone at all for us nor for Wesley.
In fact, to date, the entire relationship between Wesley and Lilah has come about because she has sought him out in his space. That is a space he's now operating in fully -- in all senses of the word -- his office is there, his life is there, is gray moral zone is there, the sex is there -- but what will happen when Wesley starts inhabiting Lilah's space?
[>
The reasoning behind Wes's actions -- Arethusa, 07:24:57 10/22/02 Tue
lies with the depth of his insecurity and self-hatred. When you've been told your entire life than you are not good enough, but you are expected to excel, you become deeply insecure, and secretive. Wesley knows he's smart, but has been told by inference that he's not good enough to be successful at anything. And he's proven that right, time and again, in his own eyes. He was a failure with Faith. Giles, his peer, and Buffy, his slayer, treated him with disdain (deservedly so). A vampire was more compassionate and successful with Faith than he was. He nearly starved trying to support himself free-lance (and he would have lost an arm eventually). He mistranslated Angel's prophecy, which Cordy will not let him forget. The very last thing in the world he wants to do was risk being wrong again, risk disappointing the people who seemed to love and respect him. He couldn't bear it. Not again. He would rather keep a dangerous prophecy secret and steal Angel's son than have anyone looking over his shoulder and judging him again, seeing him fail and exposing his unworthiness. Again. He doesn't mind failing and starting over, but seeing the disappointment and contempt (real or imagined) in the faces of those he loves is just too much for him. He'd rather be totally alone. His new crew are simply employees, and he can tell himself he doesn't care what they think. Lilah's an evil bitca, and he can safely have a sexual affair with her without worrying if she's judging him. He's the moral one here, the good man, so who cares what she thinks? The sex is great, so Lilah is not finding him wanting. (This may be why he is appearing to become more adventurous sexually than he ordinarily would. He's got to keep up with Lilah, so he won't be a failure.) He won't get emotionally involved, so he's safe. If she does criticize him, she's evil, so who cares? (Of course, he's forgetting that he is an affectionate and needy person, so he is bound to get emotionally involved.) It's all about protecting himself from further emotional hurt.
Wes isn't just a boring, sexless good guy going gray, shagging a bad girl for kicks. He's one of the walking wounded, covering his massive insecurities with a veneer of arrogance, always moving because if he stopped everyone would find out he doesn't know what he's doing, isn't worthy, isn't wanted. And the most tragic thing? He can't realize that almost everyone else is going through the same thing.
[> [>
Re: The reasoning behind Wes's actions -- Deeva, 10:24:38 10/22/02 Tue
It's hard to realize that everyone else is going through the same thing because he is truly alone. He has no emotional connection to anyone. Lilah is a physical outpouring of himself. I think that in this alone time he will truly realize some great things about himself, how he should not always, as he was from the beginning, be seeking approval and praise from others. In creating his own "agency" he is satisfying something else within him and that is a step.
[>
warming up Lilah's south pole -- skeeve, 15:18:45 10/22/02 Tue
Masq,
If you realy need a euphemism for having sex, my personal favorite is doing the bingo bango bongo.
My explanation for the situation is that they are both stupid and horny, especially Wes.
[> [>
Actually, that was a euphamism for... -- Masq, 16:06:37 10/22/02 Tue
Cunnilingus with an evil bitch ice-queen
[> [> [>
LOL -- Rahael, 16:12:52 10/22/02 Tue
Okay. Now I have mental pictures I didn't particularly want to have.
Roll Call (actually First Evil's idea and O/T) -- Sophie, 10:29:38 10/21/02 Mon
Alright. It seems that there has been mass confusion regarding poster's names and alter-evil-egos around here lately. So, we'll put ererybody on the honor system and just post your screen name with your alter-evil-ego. Feel free to out anybody who fails to participate.
Since I am horribly guilty, I'll start.
Sophie = Sophomorica
[>
Saguaro Stalker = -- Cactus Watcher (CW for short), 10:43:01 10/21/02 Mon
[>
Le Fey -- celticross, 11:00:42 10/21/02 Mon
[>
ponygoyle -- ponygirl, 11:04:54 10/21/02 Mon
[>
Azrahael (and answering for d'Horrible too) -- Rahael (and the absent d'Herblay), 11:13:22 10/21/02 Mon
He's off on his travels.
[>
shadowdemon (was demon's shadow) = -- shadowkat, 11:19:43 10/21/02 Mon
[>
two part answer -- neaux, 11:30:48 10/21/02 Mon
well when the board did true meanings of your screennames a year ago.
it said that Neaux was the evil twin to Iuss.
so I guess that was predetermined. So I was evil already when I joined the board?
I would like to think with the name "Neaux" that I would be innocent. ^_^
because if I said yes to everything I would be going to hell.
so whether I'm evil or not.. the opposite of me is Yes or Iuss or Ihuss.
[>
The First Evil, of course, = Masq -- But you can also call me Shamless Connor Freak, 11:35:19 10/21/02 Mon
[> [>
Just want to reassure you -- Sophist, 13:31:47 10/21/02 Mon
that I never thought of you as "shamful". Shamless you shall always be.
[> [> [>
ooops -- Masq, 13:36:42 10/21/02 Mon
Of course, now that I think about it, "Masquerade" calling her self "shamless" seems like a contradiction in terms.
Shameless, well, I try to be...
[>
CathSith -- redcat, 12:23:25 10/21/02 Mon
[>
LittleBite -- LittleBit, 12:49:12 10/21/02 Mon
[>
anom thinks "Scroll" is evil enough, so I'll leave it at that -- Prophesying Pain, Death, & Apocalypse - bar graph included, 13:04:58 10/21/02 Mon
[> [>
wow, i feel so influential! -- anom, 23:08:34 10/22/02 Tue
[>
Victorinox=cranky!Vickie -- Vickie, 13:07:51 10/21/02 Mon
Swiss-army-demon!
[>
Daimajin or Bagan (any form theirof) = -- Majin Gojira, 13:18:41 10/21/02 Mon
[>
Re: Roll Call (actually First Evil's idea and O/T) -- Pamela, 13:22:39 10/21/02 Mon
Pamela = Pamela
Hope that's okay? Please don't out me!
[>
Only used it once so far, but The Lady Darkness = -- LadyStarlight, 13:46:34 10/21/02 Mon
yeah, lame, but I couldn't think of anything else.
[>
Whipwoman (like you didn't know...) -- Wisewoman ;o), 14:38:06 10/21/02 Mon
[>
I'm evil enough as is. -- Apophis, 14:42:42 10/21/02 Mon
[>
Medusa (and Her Snakes) -- Arethusa, 14:43:28 10/21/02 Mon
[>
Hippopotomonstrosesquipedalia just the once -- Cleanthes, 15:19:17 10/21/02 Mon
[> [>
Well, almost twice... -- CathSith (no chocolate necessary), 21:15:23 10/21/02 Mon
[>
Honorificus (Her High and Shiny Exaltedness) -- HonorH, 15:44:21 10/21/02 Mon
[> [>
And pronounced Dirty Mindedness.....;) -- Rufus, 17:03:50 10/21/02 Mon
Just in case you forgot.
[> [> [>
It's not my mind that's dirty, sweets. -- Honorificus (The Pure-as-the-Driven-Snow One), 18:51:45 10/21/02 Mon
It's just this aura I've got. People think of sex when I'm around. I can't help it. Not that I would if I could.
[>
Okay here goes -- Rufus, 17:02:07 10/21/02 Mon
Rufus= First Virtue...Grabby Hands of Chocolate (see how nice I can be leaving Spike up for other grabby hands?).....and of course anything about Cats.
[>
HeadMaster (NO TALKING!!!) -- TeacherBoy, 17:31:02 10/21/02 Mon
[>
Jacki here! -- Jacki, 18:55:18 10/21/02 Mon
[>
Re: Roll Call (actually First Evil's idea and O/T) -- Dariel=All evil, all the time!, 19:26:56 10/21/02 Mon
[>
Spiny Norman, Insectivore of A Thousand Young (and no colour sense) -- matching mole, 19:27:21 10/21/02 Mon
Not that I've ever used it. But I had fun thinking it up! And I just realized that I've reversed the order. Make of that what you will - I care not.
[>
The Third Evil / Evil Clone -- OnM, 19:28:53 10/21/02 Mon
And just reminding you... there is no spoon.
Bwahahahaha!!!
[> [>
Hey, that's MY 'bwahaha' - get yer own! -- The Second Evil, 19:35:27 10/21/02 Mon
aka the lone member of the advance guard of the Norman Invasion.
[> [> [>
Oh, yeah, right, like that 'Bwahaha' ain't *SO* public domain!! -- T3E, 21:20:33 10/21/02 Mon
As if true evil ever pays licensing fees!
I am, however, currently regretting that cheesy Voy software does not allow placing the '3' in 'T3E' in it's proper exponentially elevated position!
Bah! (to quote the Great and Most Grovelworthy Sage of Evility, Dogbert)
:p
[> [> [> [>
What, the Evil Clone can't learn HTML? -- The Second Evil, 22:39:16 10/21/02 Mon
After all, if you really want to be evil, ya gotta know Microsoft code...
[> [> [> [> [>
Now boys and girls and/or its... -- The First Evil, 12:54:11 10/22/02 Tue
Play nice. We need to set an example for all the lesser evils on the board!
Concentrate your evil energies, on well, evil!
[>
JBone has always been evil enough for me, but I do need a virtue pseudonym -- JBone - trying to alter the evil persona, just a little bit, 19:41:21 10/21/02 Mon
[> [>
It was decided in chat that my virtue name should be MagicBone -- So there, evildoers, 21:57:45 10/21/02 Mon
[>
I got myself an evil name, everybody, finally! It's RobAndMurder! Whaddaya think? -- Rob, 20:45:51 10/21/02 Mon
[> [>
Re: I got myself an evil name, everybody, finally! It's RobAndMurder! Whaddaya think? -- TeacherBoy, 21:15:45 10/21/02 Mon
I was going to suggest "Thievin'Bastard", but yours is so much more direct and to the point.
[> [>
Howzabout 'Sixfeetplunder' ? -- T3E, 21:24:25 10/21/02 Mon
[> [> [>
I like it! -- Rob, 22:06:08 10/21/02 Mon
But it's a little too unrecognizable from my posting name here. Not everyone knows here about my Six Feet Under site, so that might confuse them.
Rob
[>
demanom...how creative.... -- anom, 21:29:52 10/21/02 Mon
[>
AngelVSAngelus is good. AngelusWillEatYou is baaaaaaad. -- AngelVSAngelus, 21:44:32 10/21/02 Mon
[>
During a seance, LittleBite conjured my darker shadow "Oft-killer" who rarely surfaces otherwise -- O-K and in control of the demon within, 06:41:40 10/22/02 Tue
[> [>
wow! that's a side of lb we didn't see at the meet! (& i like it!) -- anom, 09:45:35 10/22/02 Tue
[>
But wouldn't that be telling? Not very evil -- ????, 08:58:38 10/22/02 Tue
[>
Devilish = an impudent & snappish Deeva -- Deeva, 09:48:34 10/22/02 Tue
But I'm not that way too often. So I'm just lurky Deeva most of the time.
[>
Rochefort = Bizzaro Rochefort (I can see why there was confusion. But which one is evil?) -- Rochefort, 17:24:10 10/22/02 Tue
[>
verdantheart = rottenheart -- vh, 06:00:55 10/23/02 Wed
Actually, I think I used something else recently, but I forgot what it was. Not very evil here ...
"Buffy the Vampire Slayer and the Male Defeat" -- Rahael, 15:29:28 10/21/02 Mon
Interesting article.
Spoilers only up to Season 5
http://eserver.org/bs/61/macrae.html
[>
A few comments (Incredibly opaque 7.2Spoilers ) -- Rahael, 15:43:48 10/21/02 Mon
"polysemic potential of television"
Wassat? No don't tell me. It's probably going to replace foregrounding as the word I love to hate. I swear, some of my family's conversation can be conducted using only postmodern jargon.
"He is able to move beyond conventional masculine structures to create a dynamic identity that can negotiate social changes without shifting into crisis mode. Spike is a productive character who works through the difficulties of masculinity and reconciles them within larger social formations."
Spike's identity is certainly dynamic this season!
"He is only able to reclaim that empowerment when the "Becoming" episode reveals that he can indeed walk and was simply biding his time to eliminate Angelus. Spike does so by bludgeoning him with a pipe; in that moment, he is able to rearticulate his embodied control, and consequently, his phallic power."
Oooh! I hadn't thought of it that way. I missed the phallic symbolism!
I think an analysis of masculinities seems to be even more appropriate for AtS this season.
[> [>
Oh! Oh! I know this one. Spoiler spoiling -- Deb, 18:53:53 10/21/02 Mon
Polysemic, Television and Spike
It means (in as plain English as I can) that because of the nature of television (expanding and contracting space and time . . . lighting and cuts don't hurt either)JM is capable of playing several roles at one time. If they tried this on stage it would be like Emperor Joseph's comment to Mozart that his music had too many notes for the ear to hear all at once. They don't film movies or TV shows (well some television is live) in the linear way the story is presented. More than likely, they filmed all the Spike the smart ass scenes within one stage first, then filmed all the William/Spike scenes, or vice versa.
In short, they are saying he is playing a good schizophrenic, and paranoid one at that. Freud would say his personality has deconstructed (probably because of sexual dysfuntion ) and his Id,
Ego and Superego are fighting for time, and the two later are attempting to contain the ID. (which comes from the Greek for idiot, which is a word Spike uses often). Karl Jung would say his supporting archetypes are acting up, and the Trickster is doing its sacred, but funny, thing
Finally, because all the masculine and feminine forces of his personality are having a blow-out kegger, he has become an androgenous character who is about ready to reconstruct himself by literally or figuratively killing his Shadow and taking in all the characteristics that are useful from the Shadow as his own. The Shadow represents his fears, "bad" qualities and skills, etc. Kind of an anti-hero. After this encounter with the shadow in a dark place like a cave of the "belly of the beast" a balanced personality results who has passed initiation into adulthood.
In short, Spike grows up after a prolonged, and tormented, adolescence. (and he gets his blue --like the color of his new, and seemingly only, blue shirt -- Jedi lightsaber!)
Just a little clarification........... : )
Sorry, I can be annoying but interesting at times. ^_^
[> [> [>
Thanks! -- Rahael, 14:52:26 10/22/02 Tue
Okay, that's actually a word that sounds both useful, and interesting!
Certainly suits the situation that Spike finds himself in right now.
Welcome to the board, btw. Have been enjoying your posts.
[> [> [>
Re: Oh! Oh! I know this one. Spoiler spoiling -- aliera, 16:34:20 10/22/02 Tue
oh not annoying! interesting definitely!
[> [> [>
actually...uh... -- anom, 20:53:13 10/23/02 Wed
Rahael asked about "polysemic potential of television" but then said "Don't tell me." If you meant it, Rah, don't look past the next paragraph!
Deb: "It means (in as plain English as I can) that because of the nature of television (expanding and contracting space and time . . . lighting and cuts don't hurt either)JM is capable of playing several roles at one time."
Merriam-Webster (m-w.com) lists "polysemous" but not "polysemic" & defines it as "having multiple meanings" (the "-sem-" part is the same as in "semiotics"). The writer was talking about how different viewers derive different meanings from what they see on TV.
"Freud would say his personality has deconstructed (probably because of sexual dysfuntion ) and his Id, Ego and Superego are fighting for time, and the two later are attempting to contain the ID. (which comes from the Greek for idiot, which is a word Spike uses often)."
Again from m-w.com, "id" comes from the Latin for "it," & "idiot" comes (through Latin) from a Greek root meaning "one in a private station, layman, ignorant person."
M-W was no help w/"diegesis," though. But Google led to an online film glossary that defined it this way: "The narrative elements of a film [or other narrative] that are shown or immediately inferred from the content of a film. Though implication is not the primary focus, diegesis is a methodological analysis for discerning the exact nature of the film including all of the action and dialogue. Diegesis is related to semiotics."
[>
Whoops, looks like somebody swallowed their dictionary! =) -- BunnyK., 18:36:24 10/21/02 Mon
[>
Re: "Buffy the Vampire Slayer and the Male Defeat" -- JM, 19:12:41 10/21/02 Mon
Ok started to read it, but I'm not going to be able to finish it tonight. One brief thought, forgive if it's covered in the article. Are the men around Buffy truly incompetent or are they learning to chart a fact of modern life? For most men in the industrialized world the life of physical heroism is as much a fantasy as Buffy's super powers. They have spent the last century having to come up with a new discourse of masculine identity that has sources that are connected to, but sometimes distinct from, those that are encouraging the empowerment of women. Is forging that new role the same as incompetence or is it perhaps realism?
[> [>
*sigh* -- AngelVSAngelus, 21:41:57 10/21/02 Mon
If I'm misunderstanding here, forgive my agitation, its just...
I always viewed Buffy from the perspective that part of its empowering message is in gender EQUALISM. Shrugging off stereotypes and breaking the constraints of expectation, we have a group of heroes, male and female, who each contribute in their own individual ways. Buffy saves the world with fists, Xander with his mouth, and so on and so on. I thought the point was that no gender is stronger than the other, that there is no fundamental (read: non-biological) differences, that despite society's boxes this group of friends isn't gender segregated. Perhaps I was reading it wrong.
I find it a little worrisome that some people's idea of ridding the world of patriarchal sexism is to institute matriarchal sexism. Is it REALLY empowering to suggest that the only way Buffy can be the hero is if the men are incompetent?
[> [> [>
I agree with what you say, except one thing ... -- Wolfhowl3, 22:17:10 10/21/02 Mon
Most of the time in Buffy, especially during the earlier seasons, the men are incompetent. Giles was always being knocked out, Wes was a living Joke, and Xander could do nothing but get the donuts.
Equality is what we in the Real world need, but I don't think it's going to happen any time soon.
Wolfie
[> [> [>
Re: Just an observation here.......... -- Deb, 23:35:40 10/21/02 Mon
but I think you "guys" are saying the same thing here. Buffy is about empowering women. If there appears to be examples of demonizing males, the storyline always appears to correct the mistake, eventually. Women are different than men in more ways than the physical. I once thought they weren't, but one big difference is in socialization. Other studies show that communication is different beginning from the moment a child speaks. There are differing instincts. Ask a group of women what "sex" is and then ask a groups of men what "sex" is and you'll get different answers based up gender. Ask a man what is it that determines if a woman is a whore, and then ask a woman the same question. You'd be surprised. The answers aren't even on the same page. One group said that the number of different sexual partners was the determinate. The other group said it was how "far" a woman went with a partner. Guess which group said what.
Besides these things, each individual has a differing mixture of mas. and fem. gender traits .....not sexual traits.
We get hung up on opposites, and then we need to make judgements about which side of the bar is better, weaker, stronger, etc. All of us, male and female, are on that same slinky of life, going around and around and around. A great deal of the problem is language. Language shapes a cultural world view. We need new discourses to create new roles that are equal, but that are not based upon a person's sex.
As a woman, I have no desire to castrate any males to gain power and control. The natural course of events and Nature have their own ways of determining the pecking order in the food chain.
I think one of the main themes in Buffy is the question of how do women become empowered for their own qualities in their own rights while not demonizing the qualities that empower males. One way is by accepting our own faults and learning to love ourselves despite those faults. The way we treat others is a direct reflection of how we feel about ourselves, so until we can accept and love ourselves, we will always find a way to separate ourselves from the "bad others." by projecting our shadows.
Another theme I see, or hope to see, in Buffy is the universal myth of a woman's journey.
Joseph Campbell contributed much to the modern study of mythos, but in one very important fact he was wrong. The universal myth of the Hero's Quest is not universal because all peoples everywhere at all times have and will experience the initiation into adulthood. It is the universal male myth of a boy's initiation into adulthood. The myth gives us clues as to what the traditional mythic role of the girl to woman is, but the Hero's Quest is not about a woman's reality in the modern world, unless one subvert's the hero's story and looks at the subtexts.
There was a Buffy show that did this. It was about Xander not having any special powers, and another apoc. was happening. The story line focused on Xander and what he did while everyone else was out doing who knows what to save the world. That's the kind of thing that needs to be done -- peel the layers off the story, but don't harm what is peeled away, because it will need to be put back if wholeness is to be perserved.
Well, I hope this made sense to someone. My writing skills seem to be constantly taxed because there are just no words. Did you know that the term "sexual harassment" wasn't even in the English vocabulary until the 1970s? They had to name an experience that people had and the emotional crap that came with it. Our society had never acknowledged it so it never named it.
I think we are at a junction where many, many things need to be named and acknowledged. This is the problem when we begin dealing with universals, or all-emcompassing terms. Language might tell us that a red, round thing that you eat is crunchy is fruit just as a round juicy thing with a skin that needs peeling is also a fruit. But cognitively, your brain is saying, "Hold on. There is a big difference here, and there are no words for me to name it."
Opposites like good and evil, black and white, male and female are all-emcompassing terms. What would moral and immoral be without amoral?
[> [> [> [>
So......slight spoiler for ATS "The House Always Wins" -- Rufus, 02:19:58 10/22/02 Tue
Have you read The Heroine's Journey? I think the authors name is M Murdock.....I haven't had a chance to myself, but I think that book does go into the difference between the male and female experience of the Hero's Journey.
One thing I notice is the difference between Buffy as a Hero and Angel as a Hero....in the past Angel ep: The House Always Wins, Angel uses a comeon of a sort to get a woman to do what he wants....I wonder if Buffy ever did the same thing how people would react. I've noticed that Buffy is expected to not only save the world, but always be "nice" doing that. So maybe you could tell me the difference between how females and males are seen as heroes in TV and Film.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: So......slight spoiler for ATS "The House Always Wins" -- Deb, 07:36:23 10/22/02 Tue
Traditionally, women have had very specific "heroine" roles:
Ingenue (Buffy still falls within this catagory for most part simply because of your observation that she must be "nice." Though she's not as nice as she used to be.)
Mother, Martyr, Hag, Whore
Like I said, these are traditional roles and exceptions can be found, but they still have a tendency to fall back. For example, "Alien" presented a good female action hero, but they turned her into a Mother/Martyr in "Aliens" because she spends her time saving a child. Jung would argue, if he had enjoyed and watched films, that she was actually saving herself, because the girl is a representation of her Self, or Shadow Self possibly.
Screwball comedies, like the comedies of Cary Grant or Marillyn Monroe ("Some Like It Hot") and others, the female lead had a rather imcompetent independence, has lived a life of security (being taken care of); and makes the male lead(s) seem, well, laughingly incompetent. (Some eps. of Buffy use some aspects of the Screwball -- what a name -- kinda like the ep where Spike is angry at Giles because he thinks he is his father and he named him "Randy." I like Buffy's choice of the name Joan then proclaims later that she must be a superhero. "You leave Randy alone!")
Martyrs die, or must sacrifice something of great value. (Other eps of Buffy)
Hags or Crones/Whores don't need to be old, they just need to be evil, or use sex as a weapon. You can ID them by the way they are lighted as compared to Ingenues in particular. No soft frontal lighting with filter. Lighting is harsh, -- lighting from the side, top or/and bottom. Great example is Blanche in "Streetcar Named Desire," and an Ozie film "Strictly Ballroom." (If you haven't seen this, it is a must.) Bette Davis' last film (can't remember the name) also.
If you watch Buffy, for the most part she is lighted from the front so she looks "softer, beautiful, nice." She does have side lighting at times to show ambivalance or confusion. The Vamps, part. Spike, are lighted from the side to show shadows and sharp angles. Bottom lighting sometimes too.
One thing I noticed in 7.2 (Spoiler)
Twice Spike/William was lighted with a spotlight or lighting set up to look like a spotlight. He was in Vamp face both times, and he had been decked by Buffy both times, so the camera angle looked slightly down upon him, but not from Buffy's perspective. There were few, very, very few shadows. I think this is real significant foreshadowing. These two scenes were quite in contrast to the bright sidelighting in the church with everything else black; A Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde effect. (and yes, I don't know how to spell.) I could talk forever about all this crap, but I've two exams and a funeral today. . . Sounds like a movie title.
All this is just an extremely brief discussion of the original topic, and keep in mind there are always exceptions to the rules. Also, I am not a professional in the industry.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: So......slight spoiler for ATS "The House Always Wins" -- Deb, 17:00:39 10/22/02 Tue
Didn't find the book on Amazon, but found a couple that might be promising except one of them says it is a woman's life mission to be rescued by a man. Why would I want to be rescued? And from what? I'd much rather escape on my own thank you. I gave up on the bright, shiny knight on the white steed long ago. I have this vague memory of a commercial with a knight in it and my hippie parents playing cards.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
I just translated some what you said......plus a link -- Rufus, 21:03:55 10/22/02 Tue
one of them says it is a woman's life mission to be rescued by a man.
I read as.....a woman's life mission is to rescue a man...LOL
Amazon
The book is "A Heroine's Journey" by Maureen Murdock, but I could only find it by using the words "Heroine's Journey".
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: I just translated some what you said......plus a link -- Deb, 07:43:03 10/23/02 Wed
I don't think I was looking at the same book. It's "The Beggar King." I was told it was published by a Christian house, so that might be why the woman needs to be rescued. I agree with your interp. but don't have the book....Egads! Perhaps I'll try the university library!!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: I just translated some what you said......plus a link -- Deb, 08:00:57 10/23/02 Wed
Oh, I just caved in and bought the book. There will be no Christmas gifts this year! Thanks! Really! I'm already feeling empowered, so much so that I think I will go hop back into bed, pull the blanket up over my head and take a nap. And I won't feel guilty about it. I need to take sinus meds first because we are experiencing a COLD front and my head hurts when the weather changes drastically.
You know, I wish I could get over being so introverted. You seem extroverted, so perhaps you are a good influence.
Oops! Maybe too much?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
LOL.......you should see my husband when the postman arrives... -- Rufus, 16:28:45 10/23/02 Wed
with a package with MORE books. I ordered the one I mentioned and got the "Projecting the Shadow" one you suggested.
I guess you could call me an extrovert...but I do have introverted moments...like when I'm asleep.
So drink some chicken soup which doesn't do much for the sinus but does taste good.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: OFF Topic, but have you read "The Lovely Bones"? -- Deb, 19:22:58 10/23/02 Wed
That's my fiction recommendation of the day.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: OFF Topic, but have you read "The Lovely Bones"? -- Rufus, 21:40:59 10/23/02 Wed
Actually, I've heard of it but no......I'm waiting for it to come out in paperback....smaller package, husband less concerned with getting close and personal with poor house...;)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: LOL!! It's worth the wait. NT -- Deb, 00:55:47 10/24/02 Thu
[> [> [>
AvsA - -- Rahael, 02:49:49 10/22/02 Tue
Don't worry, I don't think that's what the article is suggesting. I think it was trying to say that Buffy, who can be (and is, in some circles) seen as empowering women at the expense of men, but it doesn't, because in the complex figure of Spike, it negotiates the idea of 'male crisis' and the formation of new masculine identities. Of course I think the writer is way too focussed on Spike - he's not the only man in the Buffyverse - but more on that in my reply to JM, below.
One last point - Patriarchy doesn't just imprison women, but men too. Knocking down patriarchal structures frees men to find less restrictive identities - in fact Xander's struggle to find his place in life could be put down not to Buffy herself, but the world the way it is - why should a man be seen as weak because he follows behind a strong woman? Is Buffy seen as weak because she defers to Gile's wisdom?
[> [> [> [>
I totally agree with you -- AngelVSAngelus, 12:10:02 10/22/02 Tue
Although I seem to harbor the most androgynous opinion of the difference between men and women. I don't know, I just look at all people, and subsequently genders, on a subjective level. Every person I come upon, I don't view in a gender category, but foremost as a person acting upon their individual tendencies.
[> [>
Crises in identity (spoilers, Buffy Season 1-5) -- Rahael, 02:43:07 10/22/02 Tue
I think my response is that it is not only 'male' identity and 'masculine' identity which is seen as dynamic and in flux, seeking to find new roles and new identities.
It is feminine identities in the Buffyverse as well. I think both are seen in tandem, 'strong', 'weak', changing and growing. No exploration of masculinity in the Buffyverse can be made without including Angel and Oz etc. I mean yes, Xander is struggling to find his place in life, but he's not the only representative of masculinity. And while I would say that Giles might be seen as purposeless, he has a very strong sense of duty and vocation too. But like Buffy's sense of duty and vocation, it can go through rough patches.
And Buffy's is not the only representative of femininity in the Buffyverse. Willow, Anya, Faith, Cordelia, Dawn, Joyce - they must all be considered too. And I think that Faith is emotionally fragile. She acts all tough, but she's brittle in a way that Buffy isn't.
I know that people often associate Faith/Buffy together as two sides of one identity. I wonder if that's ever been done with Angel/Xander - just because they had so much tension between them, and they were both competing for Buffy's attention. I mean, when Xander splits into two in Season 5, the other Xander is cooler, more suave. Wasn't this role fulfilled by Angel in seasons 1-3?
I think I'd like to see an article which explores gendered identity in the Buffyverse, not one gendered identity exclusively. Because one thing that I think that ME do very well is to show that there are multiple experiences of what it is to be 'man' and 'woman'. Not least in all the doppelgangers and shadow selves running around.
[> [>
Re: "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" art imitating life -- aliera, 05:25:41 10/22/02 Tue
I believe Joss is representing the second...discourse on gender identity seems to continue to be an interesting area, and the Internet has added another aspect to this. The ability to recreate yourself if you wish and I see this reflected in the show. More a case of redefinition.
[>
'A chimeric position within the diegesis' -- Tchaikovsky, 05:01:00 10/22/02 Tue
Wow. What a sentence
Despite sentences like this, I think the writer is being entirely over-simplistic by relating the male problems of the 21st Century to Spike. First, there are other, important characters who need to be considered. Giles is one of them, and, largely, a much more in-control and 'good' role model. Xander is another.
To say that men in general have problems with identity with respect to strong women is a moot point, but I think at least it is unfair to say that Spike typifies a male response. He's very evil. Buffy only 'emasculates' him in 'What's My Line?' because he is evil. Not because he's a man. The getting-out-of-the-wheelchair thing for me has more to do with a vampire's only real power being physical, (Spike can't control Angel and Drusilla while disabled), rather than a man's only real power being physical.
And I have many other arguments which I may give later if I'm encouraged. You have been warned.
[> [>
Re: 'A chimeric position within the diegesis' -- Rahael, 05:18:04 10/22/02 Tue
I agree with you about the multiplicity of male identities in the Buffyverse - see my other posts in the thread.
However, I think the author is saying that Spike is used to show the evolving male response. I.E, by the fragmentation of his identities, by the creativity of his response, it shows that male identity is not static, nor is it 'emasculated'.
I'd have to disagree with you about the wheelchair incident. In that case, it wasn't Buffy who 'emasculated' Spike, but Drusilla and Angel. Isn't Patriarchy 'rule by the elder'? Isn't Angel the father (the Yoda) of Spike? Doesn't he waltz in and take Drusilla from the immobile Spike? And he's always taunting Spike about how Spike can't 'satisfy' Drusilla. It's clearly meant to be in the sexual sense. So there is a dynamic going on in the fanged four where Angel asserts his masculine virilty above Spike's, and Drusilla is shown gravitating away from Spike to Angel.
[> [> [>
Tchaikovsky off the long run-up -- Tchaikovsky, obviously, 09:27:49 10/22/02 Tue
OK. First off. I've realised that this is a cricket metaphor subject title , and therefore no-one will understand it. Except perhaps Rahael, who I'm replying to anyway. Mmmm. I'll let it go.
Here's a deconstruction of the points wrong with the article in my opinion.
"With Buffy colonizing the space of male legitimacy, Spike is persistently problematized within the Buffy universe."
I'll use this line first of all to both outline my argument with the writer, and hopefully discuss some of the points raised by Rahael's reply to my original thoughts. It's over-simplistic. In Season Two, it's not only Buffy doing the hogging of the space of male legitimacy, it is, as you rightly point out, Angel. Incidentally, I used the word 'emasculated' to echo the writer. She suggests that Spike is made to consider his role as a male by Buffy 'gravely wounding' him in 'What's My Line?' In this sense, the writer suggests an emasculation by Buffy. I disagree with this viewpoint. Buffy weakens Spike as an evil not as a man. I would agree that it is Angel's covetousness of Drusilla which is his real bugbear. So he needs to get out of the wheelchair because he feels that physical ability is related to power. He can't win Drusilla over by words. But unless one considers all men to be inarticulate, (playground feminism), then this isn't to do with men in general. It's to do with a vampire's decreased emotional side, (even in response to the loquacious Spike), and increased physical side, (their increased strength; their disproportionate love of feeding). I hope any mis-interpretation of my hastily typed initial argument is clarified by this. If you still disagree, then I am quite willing to expand further. I was a little worried, because I didn't disagree per se with anything you said in response to my post, and therefore felt my original wording must have been unclear.
Meanwhile: other disagreements with the article.
"For Buffy to be the hero, the men around her must be largely incompetent. It is Spike who embodies this conundrum most powerfully within the diegesis."
That's deeply critical of a woman's ability to be a hero! Joss Whedon is quite capable of showing a strong lead female character, (Buffy), without the men being largely incompetent. This overlooks Giles, Xander and Angel, who in the early seasons, (perhaps with Xander to the least extent of the three), all help save Buffy, and contribute to the process of working out what to do in 'Monster of the Week' situations. Maybe Spike is 'incompetent' early on, but his grown character can not be considered this easily.
"White, middle class, heterosexual men are struggling to maintain their legitimacy in light of serious challenges to it not only from women, but also from other men. Within Buffy: The Vampire Slayer the relationship between Buffy and Spike articulates this process"
Well..., are we supposed to accept that Spike is a 'metonym', (as phrased below), for 'white, middle class, heterosexual men'. I don't think so. This ignores the fact that he is, at least to start with, an evil vampire. I would say, if anything, that The Initiative typifies Buffy's struggle against perceived dominant characters in society. Spike just isn't. You can't tack the identity of a billion people on to one character, particularly when he has fang problems.
"In the final episode of this season Spike reconciles his crisis in a scene with Buffy where he tells her, "I know you never loved me, I know I'm a monster. But you treated me like a man. . ." The re-negotiation of his power serves to create a matrix of discursive practice where his identity can exist coherently regardless of whether it fits dominant meaning systems. He is able to move beyond conventional masculine structures to create a dynamic identity that can negotiate social changes without shifting into crisis mode. Spike is a productive character who works through the difficulties of masculinity and reconciles them within larger social formations."
I think this is a difficult and ultimately unsatisfying hypothesis. Spike is 'renegotiating' his identity with no-one. He admits that he is a 'monster'. He hasn't stooped to the level of admitting any identity change whatsoever. All he clarifies is the way Buffy makes him feel at this point. Wanted. This use of the word man really means 'human' to me. I think, ultimately, while being a great line, Spike's primary intention is to admit to Buffy that she makes him feel special. It doesn't have anything to do with him reforming. And, even were it to, I would be at a loss to distinguish which 'larger social formations' he is attempting to reconcile his renegotiated status with. The vampire world largely despises him as neutered. And, on the flip-side, the human world still sees him as an un-souled monster at this stage. Except Buffy. And it's for this reason that he feels the need to personally address his feelings towards her. It's not a societal reconciliation in any way. Finally, to call Spike a 'productive' character is misleading in my opinion. His changes are necessitated and in some cases effected as a result of fate- his chip implant, his crippling, his loss of Drusilla, and even Harmony. It is not until the end of Season Six, where he actively seeks the return of a soul, that Spike shows any sign of attempting to change without external forces making the change the only viable option. This as a result of attempting to rape Buffy- letting primal urges get the better of any complicatedly argued structure lurking in his superego, (if vampires even have those).
I argue these points at such length and with such fervour only because I believe the writer to be a very intelligent person, but her argument to be flawed. A more stupid argument wouldn't require such refutation. It's only because this essay comes with both an excellent understanding of the show, and a very interesting socio-historic perspective that I believe it is so important to challenge it.
TCH
[> [> [> [>
"You make me feel like a man" Spoilers for Buffy SEason 6 -- Rahael, 12:43:31 10/22/02 Tue
I'll get to why cricket is appropriate later on!
There is a lot I agree with you about in your post, but
also some interesting points of disagreement.
Certainly, I agree with your criticisms of the article especially the point about feminine heroism!
But I think I disagree with your view of Spike. Firstly, I think he does change his identity, all the time. I think you lay too much emphasis on his 'evil' and do not consider him in any masculine sense at all. I would say that both Angel and Angelus are symbols of masculinity, and that just because one on them is an 'evil' Vampire, it does not deny him any gendered identity.
Spike assumes many costumes throughout the time we see him. He goes from the Poet, to the Vampire, to the New York Punk, to the 'emasculated' chipped Vamp, to the souled Vampire. That in my view is 're-negotiation' though our views of re-negotiation may differ.
I would see his admission to Buffy as a more profound statement about 'masculinity' than you do. What this shows is that Buffy *strengthens* his masculine identity in some way. He is both the "big bad" and a "man", and in this context, the "man" part doesn't mean "weak and puny mortal". It's a statement of pride, it's an expression that a part of him has found some acceptance.
You say that he hasn't *admitted* any identity change. But surely that doesn't matter if his identity has changed? If he wasn't so conflicted he'd never have gone to get his soul. Surely that's a very strong signal to us, to show us about a seismic change within him?
What you call 'fate', the chipping, his loss of Drusilla, of Harmony, I would see simply as events that he'd himself played a part in setting up. If he'd never come back to Sunnydale (a really stupid move as Harmony pointed out to him), he'd never have got chipped. Why did he keep coming back to 'dance' with Buffy?
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but you seem to be arguing that Spike having fangs, being a 'monster' leeches him of masculinity, or even a gendered identity. I'd strongly disagree with you if so. So much of Spike's representation on the show is sexually coded. His attempted 'rape' of Willow shown as an attempted biting in Season 4 (DVD commentary by the writer). His relationship with Drusilla and Harmony.
You said:
"Well..., are we supposed to accept that Spike is a 'metonym', (as phrased below), for 'white, middle class, heterosexual men'. I don't think so. This ignores the fact that he is, at least to start with, an evil vampire. I would say, if anything, that The Initiative typifies Buffy's struggle against perceived dominant characters in society. Spike just isn't. You can't tack the identity of a billion people on to one character, particularly when he has fang problems."
Well, I've consistently argued that Spike can be symbolically read as containing colonial, Victorian symbols. I reproduce the most recent version of the argument cos I'm feeling a little inarticulate today! (This is where the cricket comes into play)
"Many months ago I suggested that Spike could be seen as a symbol of Imperialism, of the Coloniser. Why do I think this? Well he's a white, Victorian Male, and in a seminal flashback ep, in Boxer rebellion China, we see the Fanged Four, looking very White, very European, in a country which is in the throes of colonial tension.
We see him battle the Foreign other. Not only in China, but also in New York, where he is the opposite to Nicky in many ways (white/black, British/American, Man/Woman, Vampire/Vamp Slayer). What does Spike do when he kills her? He steals her clothing. Does this represent a kind of appropriation of blackness? I'd say not. I'd say it's a kind of triumphant loot. The conqueror conquers and kills. Caesar didn't say "I came, I conquered, I felt really bad about it".
I rewatched Pangs the other day. Isn't it interesting that the argument for "who cares, the winner takes all, this is what mankind is like" is made by Spike. Spike, who is closer to the British Empire than any of the others!! Whose family might conceivably have profited! Who might actually have an apology to make! The British Empire wasn't just built by the aristocracy. All sorts of people went over to make their fortune. No wonder Spike says "Who cares". Though he has a slightly more cynical reaction than most Victorians would I suppose - they'd have justified it by saying that the Empire civilised the dark places of the world. But that wouldn't really stand up to the litany of abuses and atrocities that Willow recites in this particular case.
I'd also like to point to the way that Spike showcases his murders of the Slayers as a kind of favour to them. They wanted it. They wanted to dance with him. Many other people have already pointed out that FFL is completely from his perspective. We don't even know what really happened. This is just Spike's version of events. We catch as much a glimpse of the truth as we do of the fight scene in the flickering light of the speeding train."
So yeah, I'd say that Spike has a variety of masculine identities within the show: the poet (rejected by his lover) the man who finds his destiny in an alley at the hands of a woman, the Vampire who fights with and learns from his 'Yoda', the Victorian Vampire who starts dressing like a punk in the 70s, who turns himself into the 'cool' Big Bad, who later falls in love with a Slayer and starts feeling like a man, until he grows so tortured, the boundaries between man and monster burst, into a terrible act. The boundaries break with the AR, and they cannot be mended, so he has to go and find a whole new identity, with the soul.
[> [> [> [> [>
Good lord, I wrote a post all about Spike!! Pass me the smelling salts! -- Rahael, who'd never pass the 'cricket test', 12:48:57 10/22/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [> [>
But an insightful one. : ) -- Masq, 13:03:44 10/22/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Uh oh. Once you start with the Spike analysis you'll never be able to stop ;) -- ponygirl, 13:20:27 10/22/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Really excellent, Rahael! -- Dyna, 14:33:46 10/22/02 Tue
I always think I'm keeping up well with these boards, and then you quote something wonderful from the past and I wonder, where was I when that discussion was going on?
(Hopefully something productive. I'd hate to think I missed brilliant stuff because I was busy rearranging the pantry some weekend.)
Anyway, I really like your take on Spike as a representative of colonial power--I wish I'd had it to refer to when a friend and I were kicking this question around a bit ago. I'm excited to snip your comments and send them to her!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Really excellent, Rahael! -- Rahael, 16:00:57 10/22/02 Tue
Thanks Dyna!
If you missed that discussion, I can tell you that you also missed some brilliant posts, especially by Leslie, who talked about 'silence' and 'speech' in the Buffyverse, a discussion about Christianity in Buffy, and all kickstarted by a very good essay on Existentialism by Slain.
It's a huge thread (tchaikovsky, you were wondering about the longest thread? this is a contender!) and it's the only thread on this page:
http://www.ivyweb.net/btvs/board/archives/aug02_pexist.html
[> [> [> [> [>
Another attempt to hit the ball for six, (or hit a homer? Is that right?) -- Tchaikovsky, 14:20:38 10/22/02 Tue
OK, so if I'd never given away my British roots before, (by skirting round the edge of the issues in Season Seven, which I haven't seen,) I have now. God bless the monarchy.
Meanwhile:
Another beautiful post, Rahael. I feel obliged to defend my arguments just a little bit further. I'll take the points I feel need extra clarification one by one.
'Firstly, I think he does change his identity all the time.'
I didn't argue this point in my previous post. The lines (rather carefully), were:
'Spike is 'renegotiating' his identity with no-one. He admits that he is a 'monster'. He hasn't stooped to the level of admitting any identity change whatsoever. All he clarifies is the way Buffy makes him feel at this point.'
He may change his identity, (even if he is largely doing it in a sense as superficial as fashion, or because of something which happens to him like the chip), but the whole idea in the article of somehow coming to terms with the kind of masculinity he represents, and reconciling that with his 'society' (which is who now?) is false, in my opinion. The point I attempted to make, (possibly rather implicitly), was that the 'The Gift' moment was a personal revelation about his relationship with Buffy, not a redefintion of him in society. [If there is such a thing as society- which according to Margaret Thatcher there isn't- revelling in my new found ability to ramble Britishly.]
In this light, I would agree that it doesn't matter if he admits an identity change if he really has changed. And maybe he has. I'm not convinced, that by this stage in Season Five, he is intrinsically much different from the rebel of 'School Hard', but that's not the point I was arguing anyway.
I think it's a case of splitting hairs about Drusilla, Harmony and the chip. Yes, maybe he was directionless and vague, and shouldn't have come back to Sunnydale, and certainly, this unbeatable Slayer holds, and always held, an attraction for him. But he didn't ask for, or know that, the chip would be implanted. Without it, the storyline culminating in 'Smashed' would be unfeasible. He's being carried along by a current of destiny.
Next to argue:
'Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but you seem to be arguing that Spike having fangs, being a 'monster' leeches him of masculinity, or even a gendered identity. I'd strongly disagree with you if so'.
I would strongly disagree with me if so, too. I do wonder if I came across as a little too Xander-ish, (black and white) on Spike in that last post. The point I was making, in the direct quote that you make, is twofold. I'll make it point by point, as clearly as I can, to save myself feeling so inarticulate again:
1) It is difficult for any character to represent a 'type' of person. They are unique. They have personal prejudices. They have personal experiences. In this sense, saying that Spike represents what is at least four hundredths of the world, (50% male, 10?% white, 80?% heterosexual), is deeply simplistic.
2) Because Spike has killed two Slayers- because he has been soulless- because he has killed so many people- because he is more than 120 years old- Spike is not likely to be a good vessel for exploring average male reactions to Buffy. Maybe Xander is, (although see 1 above), but Spike is very different from your average bloke.
I agree with your very interesting extract about Spike's colonialism. One day we shall get them back to using s in the suffix -ising; we have to.
Thanks for taking the time to argue with me. It's made me think, and made me attempt to become more eloquent
TCH, (off to drink tea, wear a mackintosh, and prepare for The Ashes.)
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Considering we just thrashed Pakistan in the test series...prepare never to get the Ashes back! -- Caroline (avowed Aussie cricket fan taking up the cudgels), 15:06:17 10/22/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I know- please don't taunt though- this is supposed to be an erudite discussion board!! -- Tchaikovsky, 11:51:59 10/23/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Hitting the boundaries..... -- Rahael (standing at the slip), 15:40:35 10/22/02 Tue
Ah yes, society! Almost as difficult to define as culture, lol!
I think that Spike's changing attitude toward Buffy can be related to a wider context than the personal, but I can also see how you might see it as 'personal', because Spike doesn't do it for puppies and Christmas, he does it for Buffy, this one person.
But, since we are talking about cricket and Britishness, let me try to put this differently. I am someone who has 'renegotiated' my identity. When I moved into British society, I had to try and find someway of belonging and integrating while overcoming certain internal conflicts. See, I talk the language that this society talks, and I read the books they read, I study the history that we share, and I love that quintessentially British game. But I 'don't pass the test' according to some. When I was younger, that was quite hurtful. I saw two avenues in front of me - the one that constantly emphasised difference (through politics, through activism, through religion, through dress) and one that emphasised complete integration, i.e Mr and Mrs Kapur ("pronounced Cooper!" in Goodness Gracious Me). They so aren't a parody by the way - I have many distant family members who are just like that!
Looking back now, I can see I chose a path of delicate and complex negotiation. What I've always tried to do is to use my very colonial/British identity to subvert other people's notions of what being a multicultural society is about.
Being who I am, I hope to say "I'm your worst nightmare. I'm the asylum seeker/immigrant who is better educated than you are. I read the books you never read. I study the history you don't bother to look at. Your headlines can scream at me, your hooligans can try and beat me up, but you'll never be able to patronise me, or define me, or put me in my place". (I hasten to add that you are not the person I'm addressing!!! That's the generic "you" I rail against every time I happen to read the Mail.
Cricket is an inspiration. I want to learn the rules of the game, so I can win my identity, my history, my place.
So I think that shifting identity, who you are, what you are, how you define yourself does have enormous implications for your relationship with 'society' - by which I mean not only people, but coded symbols like 'the cricket test' or 'souls' or 'demons' or 'the big bad'. Because, after all, you can only define yourself against others. It's when Spike loses his place in the demon world society that he starts his complex negotiation with the human world. Helping Giles for mercenary reasons. Watching Passions. Living with Xander. Eating all their food.
You are right, every person is unique. But we are also judged against types. I, for my colour, and personal history, which instantly consigns me to that perceieved parasitic group of those threatening "Britishness". Spike, is of course a Vampire, but with enough humanity in him for the judge to burn him. His uniqueness, like all of our individual uniquenesses throws up that creative tension which we use to negotiate our identities (in plural!) within society.
I am really enjoying this discussion - disagreement throws up its own creative tension!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Norman Tebbit used to be my constituency MP... (entirely OT) -- KdS, 09:25:14 10/23/02 Wed
Please accept my assurances that there are people in Chingford who find him and IDS utterly abhorrent.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Mine too!!! LOL. -- Rahael, 10:33:08 10/23/02 Wed
I used to live right on the Chingford boundary that made him my MP, and now I've moved a little way, to pinker waters.
But I know about the sane people too. Of course. They are always there, and this is why I'm politically an optimist.
Nonetheless, your assurance is still most welcome. I like confirmations for my optimism.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Renegotiation vs self-definition -- Tchaikovsky, 01:10:40 10/24/02 Thu
A little bit of a hiatus there while I spent yesterday on a 300 mile round trip to a funeral. But as this thread is still here, I may as well take up the conversation where I left off.
The renegotiation which you speak of is an interesting thing. There are still attitudes expressed in this country, (both in the Mail and by Norman Tebbit, who I hope is not lurking), that are beyond small-minded, and I have sometimes have real difficulty believing can still be around But they are.
I watched yet another re-run of 'Fawlty Towers' last night. It was the one about class. Basil is desperately and cringeworthily sycophantic to the apparent Lord Melberry. Meanwhile, he is extraordinarily rude to a tracksuit wearing, h-dropping Cockney. Melberry turns out to be a scam. The Cockney turns out to be a highly intelligent undercover member of the police. Here, the superficial identity of the titled member, is enough to convince Fawlty that the Lord is somehow better and more deserving of attention than the other man. It's like an earlier in the century class comedy.
I mention this because both in the case of Fawlty, and in the case of people who judge you, (being Rahael here, rather than the generic you), on no more than colour, we have people whose sense of a person's identity is completely superficial. It denies the common humanity of people, and seeks to distinguish between people based solely on prejudice.
So what about Spike, then? Are we right to hate him for no other reason than he is a vampire? I suppose not. He could, (just about feasibly), be a vampire who turned against his blood-sucking ways, lives off pig's blood, and attempts to save people from demons. ['A vampire with a soul? How lame']. Using the generic term 'vampire' on Spike is to undermine an individuality which we all would agree is well-established through the story. My hang-up is that Spike has renegotitated his place within a society of sorts.
Negotiation is two-sided. It often involves two somewhat different ideas, and a compromise in the middle. There would be no point Manuel trying to re-negotiate his identity with Fawlty. Fawlty would always have the opinion that he is a useless idiot. Similarly, there are factions of British society which, despite you being well-read, and understanding history better than they will ever do, will never allow you to negotiate your Britishness, because of their small-minded idiocy. Ultimately, you write:
"Your headlines can scream at me, your hooligans can try and beat me up, but you'll never be able to patronise me, or define me, or put me in my place".
Well, exactly. It shouldn't be about categorisation. It shouldn't be about putting people in their place. Other people can't define you. It's self-definition which is important. It's a personal experience, guided by people who do not share the viewpoint of the extremists. Society's view in general is irrelevant.
So I would argue that 'renegotiation', in the way I would use the word at least, is not Spike's ambition . It is self-definition. Learning to become who you want to become, regardless of perceived stereotypes. Spike is not some everyman figure, wrestling with the complex social spheres of Sunnydale society. He's a person finding a niche for his personal relationships, trying his best to struggle through the mire of life. He's leaving social expectation to one side. He neither attempts to conform to it, nor to alter it radically. He's just trying to come to terms with those primal human emotions- fear; love; anger- in the best way he can. He is no Nelson Mandela.
In 'Beneath You', the line at the end of the show, buried somewhere in the middle of Spike's beautiful monologue is:
'To be a kind of man who would nev-. (Pause). To be a kind of man.'
This is about him simplifying. He wants to be a kind of man. Nothing more. He wants to be free to define himself. He realises that rape goes on, even amongst humans. His is not a negotiation with society, which being ensoulled will complete. It's a struggle for self-definition.
TCH
PS Maybe as a trade-off, I could teach you the finer points of the lbw law, and you could explain to me the subtle plot-lines of Season One which I seem to have forgotten so badly, (see Buffy v Outsiders thread).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Whos Norman Tebbit? -- Tamara, 01:14:01 10/24/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Oops, too British! -- Tchaikovsky, 01:20:27 10/24/02 Thu
As mentioned in a couple of posts above, (although obliquely), he was a very right wing Conservative MP, who came to prominenece in the 1980's. He was particularly famous for his views on Britishness. He composed the 'cricket test', whereby people could only call themselves English if they supported the English cricket team. Among many English people who supported the Indian, Pakistani or any other cricket team, this caused a furore. He's been a soft target for liberals ever since, and has been confined to history as a Great British fool.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Oops, too British -- Miss Edith, 05:51:44 10/24/02 Thu
I've never heard of him either and I'm British. Guess he's just before my time. Well that and I've never taken the greatest interest in politics.
But I must say his views are bizarre. How many British people even follow cricket? It's hardly the same as football in which most of the country get involved in cheering the team on waving their flags about. With other sports it's usually just a minority who even care. I don't have a clue about cricket and couldn't care less if we won or not. But I have always had strange views on sport. My classmates at school found my attitude utterly bizarre when they all came in the day after some Euro 96 football match that was apparently lost. I remember it vividly because morons were shouting all day about how Germen people were all Nazis and it didn't matter if we lost to them anyway as we were the better country etc etc. Unfortunately there were a lot of morons in my school.
I didn't even know there had been a football match ongoing as I didn't get out much then lol. Anyway all the people who learnt German in language classes were oustracised as traitors (well for all of one day anyway). And I committed yet one of many social gaffs whilst attending that fine establishment. I was asked how I felt about the German's winning and shrugged I didn't particularly care either way. So if we do win we can what say we're the best at football in Europe big whoop. My peers were singurly unimpressesd.
I guess I've just never got the appeal of sports. My mum is glued to wimbleton every bloody year. She has it on all afternoon whilst I am treated to a running commentry of how she is convinced a British player will win for once and do I know how long it's been since a British player has won etc etc and isn't it just so terribly exciting. I honestly couldn't care less. So some bloke called Tim Henmen might win one year. And? So we get a British player winning so not caring or finding it relevent.
And this has become very O/T but I do just find all the patriotism behind sports very puzzling. Probably just me though. And sadly although I was born in Britian I guess I have failed this rather quaint cricket test of Norman Tebbits. Am I no longer really British. Oh dear thats my day ruined.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
It's a deal! Though you have the harder job! -- Rahael, 06:24:50 10/24/02 Thu
Glad to find another cricket enthusiast.
I think we both agree, it's just that we define society differently. I think I would include culture in my view of society, and would say that the 'vision of society', the imagined community, are all part and parcel of my view of society.
When Mrs Thatcher said "there is no such thing as society", she was simply expressing a different vision of society - she was not denying it in essence, just redefining it through her ideological vision. And that's the context I view the author's comments as being made in. Therefore, I think we are both right. Just using different models.
Can I just say what a pleasure it is to discuss race and Britishness on this board (by which I mean with you, KdS and Miss Edith) and not to be torn apart and humiliated and railed against. I had one of my worst experiences on this board when this subject last came up.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Armistice post -- Tchaikovsky, 07:19:09 10/24/02 Thu
Yes, I see your point. As so often, when you strip away all the different layers of meaning in arguments, it all comes down to pesky semantics.
I shall let the argument 'Rest in Peace' now, unless anyone else wants to go off in a different direction. I need to head for the fresh pastures of 7.5 discussion, which, apart from Shadowkat's thread, I haven't had any time to read yet.
TCH
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Another attempt to hit the ball for six, (or hit a homer? Is that right?) -- aliera, 17:14:06 10/22/02 Tue
First crashing kudos to both of you. There are more than a few good points in all the posts. I think I tend to lean to what T is saying except that I see Spike's struggle as primarily about identity about need for change and his attraction to Buffy as rooted in that subconscious need. She's the catalyst. The spark. The impetus. The need was already there and it echoes the needs and the metaphors in the other vampires, the ones we see in so much fiction today. Erotic anti-heroes cut from the cloth of Byron. Tortured, twisted, brooding, magnetic, gifted with superpowers, gifted in the sack. Metaphor for the Outsider. Archtypes with power to rebel against the rules. taste beyond the limts. Symbols of our hopelessness in the face of society's faceless wielders of wealth and institutional power. Turning their faces against the last thing...life humanity. Reaching for something effulgent and finding their hands grasping ashes in the emptiness the wasteland of eternity. Valuing the fragility the Warmth the Heart the Life of humanity after it's gone. I wrote something further about this today after reading the earlier thoughts but left it at the office, longer but probably not any more coherent...in a nutshell, I find considering Spike's character from a primarily gender POV to be too limiting. Yes, gender is a component a piece of our struggles today but only a piece. I view the discussions on gender identity, as prolific as they are, more as symptom rather than the disease and Joss's use of gender flexing more as the gravy rather than the flesh.
Buffy's on now but I'll try to stop back later.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: "You make me feel like a man" Spoilers for Buffy SEason 6 -- Rufus, 16:43:58 10/23/02 Wed
I'd also like to point to the way that Spike showcases his murders of the Slayers as a kind of favour to them. They wanted it. They wanted to dance with him. Many other people have already pointed out that FFL is completely from his perspective. We don't even know what really happened. This is just Spike's version of events. We catch as much a glimpse of the truth as we do of the fight scene in the flickering light of the speeding train."
Of course we know that every murderer has their own reasons for killing to justify it not only to others but to themselves. Killing for Spike has always been about becoming someone to "SEE" an identity that takes him far from the poet who had been non-existant and humiliated. Funny just how extreme a reaction can come from humiliation....like the Poe story The Cask of Amontillado. Has Spike been trapped in that basement by something that doesn't want him to find an identity that would make him useful to the Slayer?
So yeah, I'd say that Spike has a variety of masculine identities within the show: the poet (rejected by his lover) the man who finds his destiny in an alley at the hands of a woman, the Vampire who fights with and learns from his 'Yoda', the Victorian Vampire who starts dressing like a punk in the 70s, who turns himself into the 'cool' Big Bad, who later falls in love with a Slayer and starts feeling like a man, until he grows so tortured, the boundaries between man and monster burst, into a terrible act. The boundaries break with the AR, and they cannot be mended, so he has to go and find a whole new identity, with the soul.
One think about Spike, he is consistant in that he may grow with the times but his vampire identity causes that growth to be reflected in rebellion. In stead of fitting in and blending like Angelus suggests in FFL, Spike goes for the "look at me I'm bad" presentation. The AR is one factor that will necessitate a change in Spikes persona, the main influence now the soul. I wonder what the new Spike will end up looking like?
To Kill A Mockingbird (Spoilers for 7.4) -- Sophist, 17:48:55 10/21/02 Mon
I re-watched the episode again. Did Spike's role here remind anyone else of Boo Radley in To Kill A Mockingbird?
[>
Been too long - could you flesh out the comparison? -- Darby, 20:49:00 10/21/02 Mon
[> [>
Is this flesh? -- Sophist, 09:10:47 10/22/02 Tue
Ok, brief review of TKAM. Small town Alabama in the 50s. Atticus Finch (Gregory Peck in the movie) is the lawyer and father of 2 kids. There are several stories intertwined here, but 2 of importance for us.
One is the impending trial of Tom Robinson, a black man accused of raping a white woman. Atticus is defending Tom Robinson. The defense is that someone else attacked the girl.
The other is the mystery of Boo Radley. To the kids, Boo Radley is the inhabitant of a haunted house. They tell stories of Boo sitting in the dark, crazed. They say he did something awful in the past with scissors (I'm keeping this very general). They believe Boo capable of frightening things and they give his house a wide berth. Could Boo be the attacker?
At the trial, Atticus proves (to any unbiased observer) that Tom Robinson did not rape the girl; in fact, her father did it. The jury, of course, convicts anyway (this being Alabama in the 50s). The father is humiliated and seeks revenge on Atticus by attacking the children. They are, of course, saved by Boo Radley.
Boo seems to be the town's hidden dirty secret. In fact, as Tchaikovsky notes below, that dirty secret is racism. Boo is a good man who has hidden from the town for reasons I won't spoil.
The mental picture I had was of Spike/Boo sitting crazed in the dark (remember Boo with the scissors). At the key moment, he rescues the girl (using a cleaver instead of scissors). There is also the misdirect of the real danger --the kids believed it was the crazy man, but in fact it was someone else entirely.
Make sense? Am I stretching?
[> [> [>
I'm with you -- Tchaikovsky, 09:32:01 10/22/02 Tue
[> [> [>
Is this flesh? Very kaboomy -- Caroline, 15:11:44 10/22/02 Tue
[> [> [>
More than flesh. -- aliera, 16:11:11 10/22/02 Tue
[>
Nice analogy -- Rahael, 02:05:06 10/22/02 Tue
My problem is the opposite of Darby's - it's the Buffy parts I need refreshing on!
But Spike the madman as the misdirect - originally the focus for mysterious menace turns out to be an innocent, nothing comparable to the real darkness in Sunnydale?
Is this what you were thinking of?
Or you know, we could go down the Jane Eyre route - Buffy, ashamed of her dark romantic past locks up Spike in her attic...basement, whatever.
[> [>
Heh, how wide Sargasso Sea -- fresne, 08:57:34 10/22/02 Tue
In which case, Buffy is Mr. Rochester and Spike is the denied Other.
The knotty bit of WSS's reimagining is that I get to Jane Eyre and it seems the idea that the wife is the Other of Jane's Other. Is the Other of my Other myself?
[>
To Kill A Mockingbird thoughts (spoilers to 7.4 and kind-of for TKAM) -- Tchaikovsky, 04:42:43 10/22/02 Tue
Danger- this is very rambling
Well, I suppose Boo Radley is a misdirect in a book sense, (unless you're watching the film of course), I suppose we could call it a mis-write, but that just sounds like a mistake.
As Rahael says, it's not Boo Radley, who is built up as being almost supernatural from our childish perspective, but racism which is the underlying evil in this town. As we so often have to learn from Buffy, it's not scary monsters who can cause the deepest emotional hurt, (physical maybe).
Think of Parker in Season Four. Not superhuman. Think of Warren in Season Six. Not superhuman. But it's arguable that these are the two least like-able characters ever portrayed on Buffy. In 7.4, Cassie believes entirely that she will die, and she does. But not from the scary monster in the basement, (Spike), or even from the Reptile-Boy-like gang, but from a heart failure.
It might also be worth mentioning that the deaths of characters recently which have really stung have not been supernatural. Joyce in 'The Body'. Tara in 'Seeing Red'. And Cassie.
To Kill A Mockigbird comes at the topic from a slighly different angle than BtVS, but I believe there's an overlap. In 'To Kill A Mockingbird', it's not a monstrous entity who causes pain, it's the darkness in 'normal' people's hearts. In Buffy, the supernatural is tangible, and can cause pain, but often the most painful moments are to do with human failures. Also, in Buffy, the most chilling moments where people are hurt by the supernatural tend to be deeply metaphorical to real life. Angel's horrid 'bad boyfriend' scene in Season Two is heart-wrenching. Buffy later must move on, and has to do it in 'real life' by sticking a sword through him. Adam may be supernatural, but he has a strong link to dictatorship, and the power and evil of it. And, ultimately, for supernatural reasons, Buffy must martyr herself for her sister and the world. An apt metaphor for the single parent and employee of Doublemeat Palace a year later
[>
Re: To Kill A Mockingbird ...odd RL notes -- aliera, 05:04:28 10/22/02 Tue
My son's freshman English class is reading TKaMB and Achebe's (sp?) "Things Fall Apart." Tomorrow, they are off to the City to see Interview. Just a guess... but, I think the teacher's a fan.
Current board
| More October 2002