October 2002 Archives

October 2002 posts

Previous October 2002
More October 2002

The end of the world .......... Again -- Dochawk, 15:45:39 10/26/02 Sat

Just wanted to say hello from the end of the world, at least thats what the people who live here call it (I am currently in Punta Arenas, on the Staights of Megellan, the southernmost outpost of civilization (unless you count Antartica)). Its beautiful and COLD. Just wanted to say hi as I passed an internet cafe (at like a half cent a minute!). See yáll in two weeks. (unless I find another Internet Cafe along the way)

[> Re: The end of the world .......... Again -- frisby, 17:46:14 10/26/02 Sat

wow, amazing, how small the globe has become -- this must be like one of the biggest moments in the earth's history, how the species of homo sapiens (or the wise being) has assumed dominion (to a degree) over it. This is what provides us dignity but only if we practice true loyalty to the earth (now that god is dead)

[> Hi Doc! -- Masq, 17:47:34 10/26/02 Sat

Now I wish I'd found an internet cafe while I was away. I'm too afraid of spoilers...

Hope you're having fun!

[> Re: The end of the world .......... Again -- aliera, 19:04:55 10/26/02 Sat

Doc! You have been missed. I know you probably won't see this for a while but wanted to wish "safe journey". Also, happy to find that this wasn't a apocolyptic post! Best wishes.

[> I was in Punta Arenas about 3 years ago! -- Sarand, 22:46:01 10/26/02 Sat

And from there we went to the Torres del Paine National Park. It's beautiful there, I agree. Have a great time.

[> Re: The end of the world .......... Again -- Rufus, 23:13:11 10/26/02 Sat

Hi A!!!!!!! Sorry to see you are cold....as a Canadian want to know what cold is to you. Remember to behave yourself and eat all your vegetables.

I would like to know something, would you please share so I can understand -- Blood Luvin Girl, 17:13:48 10/26/02 Sat

Hello.

I am someone who until now has simply lurked, and part of the reason for this is because, though I often feel the need to resond I am unsure how my point of view will be taken.

I am not a troll and the last thing I want to do is offend, so please don't take what I'm going to say personally because my question is a lot about me and not you.

What I want to know is something about Spike and peoples veiws on him. You see he is my favorite character and so I know that makes me take what I hear about him more to heart than say, a post on Xander, but I have always tried to keep his character in perspective.

I am not one of those who think that without a soul he was redeemed. I always knew he was evil and never argued otherwise. And as I have said on other boards, when Spike was souless, if he ran over a complete stranger with his car and no one, namely the Scoobies, were around to see him do it he would probably just shrug it off and drive away. He wouldn't have cared. I understood this, and that is why the events in "Seeing Red" upset me so much. I didn't need to see it, to get it. And it was just a painfull moment to watch.

The question I want to ask is simple and I truely would like some of you to explain where you are coming from.

I have been reading many posts, I can't name names because I never felt the need to keep track of who it was, but I do remember reading them. It's about the fact that Spike now has a soul like Angel, and that there seems to be this strange double standard about the two characters.

I can understand If some people like Angel more than Spike and that they may wish for him to get back with Buffy. I personally never liked B/A, and that was long before Spike was ever on the show. So my disliking of the ship has nothing to do with him, and I never rag on anyone for wanting it.

The thing is I see people saying that Spike is a mass murderer and a sick rapist even with the soul in the same post that they declare that Angel is wonderful and such a hero.

I really don't understand it. The thing is how can they say the soul makes no difference with Spike yet it lets them say that it's not Angel's fault for all the stuff he did when he was souless. It makes no sense to me that they can say that Spike's soul doesn't count or what ever it is they mean when they say he's still a murdering bastard with the soul, yet go on to say that you can't hold Angelus's crimes against Angel. It seem very hipocritical to me.

I mean if Spike had a name for his new souled personality would we be able to do that with him too? -It wasn't Williams fault. Spike did it.

I'm not saying that's what we should do but it seems that's what some people seem to do with Angel.

They also say Buffy should hate Spike for what he did, but her forgiving Angel was fine and understandable. That I also don't get. They can say that when she looks at Spike she sees the face of the man that tried to rape her, but you could use a similar statment about Angel. And yes I do understand the big difference here is that she was openly in love with Angel, and more likey than not wasn't with Spike. So forgiving one is easier that the other.

If they simply don't like Spike fine don't like him but please don't go around calling him a rapist and a killer unless your willing to do the same with Angel. He was a killer and it's not a stretch for me to think of Angelus as a rapist, in fact I'm pretty sure it's one of the things he might have done to Drusilla to drive her insane.

Now don't think I hate or dislike Angel because of this post. I watch his show and think he's great. I am just very bothered by this double standerd that I seem to be seeing.

Please explain to me why it seems to be happening, and if you are one of the ones who feel that way could you please explain to me why other than- I love Angel and hate Spike.

If I could understand your point of view more, such posts my not bother me as much.

Thank you.

Blood Luvin Girl

[> Re: I would like to know something, would you please share so I can understand (here's one response) -- frisby, 17:42:12 10/26/02 Sat

Good question. I think the main factor is that Angel has lived with his soul for over a century while Spike (or Will-iam, as I prefer, since Angel is different than Angelus) has lived with his for less than one year. Angel's "brooding" also signifies a very deep integrity, a soundness or existential authenticity that can only be culvitated over a long time -- the real thing so to speak. Spike has a way to go. I too prefer to dream that the romance and eventual marriage (so to speak) of Buffy and Spike is the biggest and best story of the entire series. Like the redemption of Darth Vader becomes the point story arc of the star wars series, but only if one sees the entire thing, a view which is nonsensical if one looks only at episodes four and five. I'm working on my annual poem and the theme is Buffy's recovery of her "fire" and Spike's restoration of his "soul" -- its some really fascinating stuff. I'm sure there are many other factors to consider with regard to the perspective that places Angel in a higher category than Spike (with regard to loving Buffy), but I maintain my hope that she will eventually tell him.

[> Hey! -- Rahael, 17:55:02 10/26/02 Sat

I think you make some very good points, and as my posts may indeed fall under the general description you make, let me explain.

Firstly, I've always thought the soul thing was a metaphor, and that the line is permeable. But this is a minority view!

Secondly, last night, I saw Beneath You, and it made a HUGE difference to me as to how I saw Spike. I loved SR. I thought it was powerful and compelling and well written. I have a personal issue with the forgiveness thing, but I don't think that Giles should have to 'forgive' Angel for the murder of Jenny either. I also wondered how Buffy could be near a person who had tried to do this to her, who *looked* the same, no matter how different he was inside. I couldn't do it, so could the writers convince me of its credibility? It wasn't an issue of change for me, it was an issue of how someone could look at the face which had tried to do that and not always remember.

Well, the writers have done it. I downloaded BY bit by bit last night and my jaw dropped open. I've never found Spike so compelling before. So, perhaps you just need to let people see the process of change, before they start treating Spike like Angel? After all, we join this particular Souled-Vamps story at a different point, and our reactions are bound to be different.

But anyway, sign me up to the Spike-ites. As long as his fans will allow him to be a strong, complex, multi faceted character with responsibility for his choices, I'm with them. Because that's the process that ME have done from SR to BY. And it's that painful process that has given that character a depth and credibility he never had for me before. THey've acknowledged the discomfort that must exist between Buffy and Spike, but they are also showing me how someone like Buffy can overwrite the incidents of SR.

How she can take what happened, write over it, and stop the pain, and reclaim her strength and her heart.

[> [> Re: Hey! -- celticross, 21:06:16 10/26/02 Sat

"As long as his fans will allow him to be a strong, complex, multi faceted character with responsibility for his choices, I'm with them."

See, Rah, that's why I love Spike. Why I always have, way back in Season 2 when he was unquestionably the baddie. I've always thought he was an incredibly well nuanced character. So I must rant briefly and say that's why it drives me up the wall when people assume I'm a Spike fan "just because JM's hot". Grr. Anyway. Stick with the Spike-ites, Rah. It'll be fun.

[> [> [> Re: Hey! I'm in too! Spoiler 7.whatyousaid-- kinda long -- Deb, 01:30:42 10/27/02 Sun

Interesting experience last night regarding this subject. My daughter bought a book on Angels and the Seven Fold Chakra (or lotus, nervous system thing in west, spiritual in east), and according the what has happened over the seasons, Spike has reached the fourth level, or Fourth Heaven.

It has do with enlightenment. The color associated with this level is colbalt blue -- his new shirt color -- that is representative of the angel Michael (strength, protection and truth), St. Michael, and St. George -- patron saint of England. (He's also known as the Dragon Slayer isn't he?)

Gets more interesting: Chief warrior against darkness. "Michael represnts strength in body and spirit, and brings rescue to us in the form of the sword and his cloak of cobalt blue."

Symbolizes Logos (the Word) and all forms of truth, including "being honest with ourselves in our dealings with others, and being loyal to or principles when presenting our own truth to the world"

". . . In the case of rejection, in order to be freed from your hurt."

More interesting stuff: Blue cobolt "cauterizes" wounds as with the self-mutilation and then leaning of the white and blue cross. According to the book, the smoke symbolizes his aura being "cleaned up." The Angel Michael also helps with one other thing that I feel is important:

At the end of the episode with the pre-cog female, Buffy is fighting that "Aliens" like demon who wound tear out her heart, but Spike/William shows up with the torch thingy, which represents Michael's sword. (The same sword Buffy takes to "kill" Anya). Two things happened in that scene.

Buffy takes the torch from Spike, and Spike takes the blood covered knifey thing or hatchet or whatever and cuts the pre-cogs ropes. Both of these things symbolize, according to this book, that Spike has cut Buffy our of his life, and he is healing from his past. Michael cuts the "ties that bind a heart" when one is rejected. He got several mouthfulls of that last season.

I've always felt, this season, that Buffy is afraid that Spike doesn't love her anymore, and I think he does, just not in the same manner. I believe she is really quite afraid of what is happening with him and how it affects her. Not that he will hurt her, or attempt to kill her, but outgrow her.

She made a comment that Spike did not choose to become a vampire (Oh, and I don't believe Buffy or Anya have told the others that he has his soul back.) But he made the choice to go get his soul back, even if it was for her at the time. He made the choice of personal and spiritual growth, so Buffy chose to accept, fully, the responsibilities of being the Slayer, even though she did not chose to become the Slayer.

Spike: the role model. Oh on the next level of ascension, Spike will encounter . . . Faith.

I just thought this was interesting. Whatever we call them, Angels, Archetypes, Symbols, etc. these same concepts seem to run through most cultures in their own particular manner.

Spike "bashers" obviously don't see the character growth that is so interesting. I find it fascinating that, even without a soul, but with a chip, he expressed qualities of the soul. No one can have that much insight into human relations and life in general and be "empty" and "totally evil" on the inside.

What woman wouldn't just die to see a man go from being, well Spike of season 2 to Spike/William of the present? You just don't see it in real life (I haven't at least), and you certainly can't force a guy to change (been there, tried to do that, got burned badly) All a person can do is change themselves.

So, to those who don't "understand": too bad for you. And, I agree, it is not about Spike's looks, though he certainly does himself no harm in that area. The character change is the thing. As for the "rape." thing. I think it was a mistake on the writers' part, but perhaps the writers wanted to get the greatest contrast possible. I think it brought home the fact that as long as he was a vampire, without a soul, and just a behavioral modification chip in his head, she could never fully trust him. But then again, the writers didn't do Buffy a lot of favors last season either with her "valley of the shadow" or "darkest night" metaphor. (How is it possible that Spike could be hurt by Buffy's treatment of him if he did not have a soul? A soul is much more than just consciousness.

[> [> Wonderful post Rah and some different points on A/S -- shadowkat, 07:38:49 10/27/02 Sun

I read similar thoughts of yours under the Heart, Mind, Spirit thread and am glad you expanded on them.

I agree, I had the same reaction to Beneath You and feel, in many ways, that the writers accomplished in Beneath You with Spike what they tried to accomplish in Amends with Angel but IMHO failed to do. At least for me. Maybe because the person who needed to forgive Angel in Amends wasn't Buffy so much as it was Giles, which would have been harder to show.

I do however have some of the same problems Blood Luving
Girl has with the Angel/Spike double standard. Also Angel as a character, well confuses me. It's what Xander says to Buffy about Spike: He didn't have a choice. Buffy: Anyanka - chose to be a demon twice. But Buff, Anyanka also chose to give it up finally at a horrible price. Angelus never did.
Also Spike eventually chooses a soul. Whether he chose to be a vampire is up for debate - I'm on the fence on that one.

Angelus however clearly never chose a soul. Angel may choose to do good or evil. And may even at one point chosen to lose his soul (with Darla - which did not work).But as the demon? He never made any choice but to be evil. And he was listed as the most vicious and most evil vampire in the world - worse even than the Master - according to the Master in Season 1. Whether Liam chose to be a vampire is also up for debate.

So therein lies my frustration. Unlike Blood Luving Girl - I actually did love the B/A relationship while it lasted.
And I did love Angel and I love the show. My difficulty with the character - has always been - the fact that everyone around him excuses his behavior as Angelus with the line: "that wasn't you." What I like about Angel is that he, himself denies this...he knows deep inside as Anya did when Xander said the same things to her - yes that was me. It still is me - if I ever get to become that again. I'm hoping this year on Angel we will finally explore that problem - and see maybe some sort of integration between the vicious unrepentent vampire and the guiltridden cursed man.

Maybe part of my problem is I also see the soul thing as more of a metaphor and less of a plot-point/canon. I also see vampirism as a metaphor. And I think the writers use these two metaphors to depict different ideas which leads to confusion at times.

In Angel - the soul metaphor seems to be about good/evil, guilt, and ability to love as well as commodities. Vampirism also seems to be about good/evil, desire, sex, etc.

In Btvs - the soul metaphor seems to be more about growing up, and accepting responsibility for past acts and determining who you are. Vampirism is more about arrested development and id.

Since the metaphors are used so differently for Angel and Spike, comparing the two characters gets sort of tricky and a little confusing. But I think this season on Btvs and Ats, the writers may clear up a little of that confusion. Since this season appears to be all about who we are - or rather who each character is at heart - on both shows.

(not quite as well stated as Rah's view...tend to be rambly on Sunday mornings...but hope it added something.)SK

[> [> [> The metaphor of vampirism -- alcibiades, 08:35:01 10/27/02 Sun

In Angel - the soul metaphor seems to be about good/evil, guilt, and ability to love as well as commodities. Vampirism also seems to be about good/evil, desire, sex, etc.

In Btvs - the soul metaphor seems to be more about growing up, and accepting responsibility for past acts and determining who you are. Vampirism is more about arrested development and id.

I agree that id and arrested development was a heavy vampire metaphor in Season 6 BTVS. But I don't that that is the end all and be all. JM commented somewhere, that least year he kept his weight down (really too much) because vampires are all about hunger. And clearly last year, Spike was also about desire and sex. And I think we had a heavy dose of the immoral/amoral/conscience-development metaphor throughout the season -- particularly with AYW -- where Riley insisted that Spike was amoral -- to Seeing Red, where Spike does something bad and finally achieves enough guilt for transgressing his own code of morality to make him go in search of a soul.

To put this in terms of recent posts you have written -- last year was about wounded spirit -- thus vampirism as metaphor was used to explore id and arrested development.

This year is about the wounded heart. Thus the metaphor of vampirism is going to be different - I don't think we have seen enough to know what it is yet -- a walled off heart - or a heart that is too vulnerable so it needs to grow walls, or removing the walls from the heart.

We don't know what the metaphor of soul will be used for yet either, since Buffy has not revealed Spike's soul to anyone else, and he has only revealed it inadvertently to Anya and to Buffy.

I think the metaphors of soul and vampirism are going to change radically this year as well on ATS but don't know yet what they will mean.

Last year, for example, we didn't figure out the trend of id until the much maligned 6.15 AYW. So I think we have a ways to go yet.

[> [> [> [> Re: The metaphor of vampirism -- aliera, 14:57:56 10/27/02 Sun

I agree alciabides. This reminds me of something else from the stakehouse or maybe the cross and stake. Lately, there is such high volume everywhere that I'm not getting the opportunity to read everything as I used too. I'm also trying to look at internet essays on the vampire and I've been pretty surprised by the quantity of material and also the malleability of the vampire as choice of subject for metaphor. Unfortunately, although I can see similarities in the depiction of characters it's not helping me in terms of future direction for where Joss is going. And yet I think this is probably why I'm so drawn to the show...even knowing, I don't know, so to speak. Nice post.

[> [> [> [> Re: The metaphor of vampirism -- fresne, 11:28:37 10/28/02 Mon

"This year is about the wounded heart. Thus the metaphor of vampirism is going to be different - I don't think we have seen enough to know what it is yet -- a walled off heart - or a heart that is too vulnerable so it needs to grow walls, or removing the walls from the heart."

Which makes me think of a book or rather trilogy by Meredith Anne Pierce, The Dark Angel. Look under the young adult section.

She wrote the first book after reading a dream in one Jung's case studies about a vampire that lived on the moon and was looking for thirteen brides.

In the Dark Angel, (general spoilers) the dark angels/vampires/iccari are the created sons of the Lorelei, who among a great many other creepy things, drains her son's blood and coats their hearts in lead and after a certain point, she drinks their souls.

Up until that point, the young iccarai are beautiful. Seductive, if incapable of love, because their hearts are coated in lead. Capable of dreaming. After they loose their souls, they become ugly and they taint the place where they live.

How the heroine resolves the issue of hearts, seeing and identity in all three books is, actually adjectives would give the story away.

[> Re: I would like to know something, would you please share so I can understand -- Kara, 18:06:04 10/26/02 Sat

before i start, i'd like to say that i do agree with you in that it is hypocritical of people who believe that Angel is not responsible for all things done by Angelus and yet is unable to see the difference between Spike with a soul and without. But i do believe that there is a reason for this.

Mostly, we see both characters from Buffy's point of view, and in life there will always be people that we like more than other, that's just the truth. It is a bias, and i'm not defending the rights and wrongs of it but simply offering an explaination. With people that we love, like Buffy loved Angel, there's an automatic inclination to believe the better of that person. So Buffy, in order to believe that Angel is good, automatically believes that Angel and Angelus are completely different people and Angel is not responsible for anything Angelus has done. Angel was her first, and possibly, only love so she understandibly jumps to that conclusion without questioning anything. And because the audience sees their relationship from Buffy's point of view, many people are also inclined to follow that conclusion. Unfortunately, Spike is not so lucky. the introduction of Spike and Angel on the show is very different. Angel was introduced at the stage of his life where he was ready to redeem himself for the wrongs he did, and while we did see what a terrible being Angelus was, far more terrible than Spike ever was, our first impression of Angel is a positive image. Spike, on the other hand, was introduced as a Big Bad, he's come a long way during the show, but some people cannot forget that first impression, like Xander and Buffy. Because of that impression, we cannot forget what he did because he looks like that same person that committed all those horrible crimes.

[> Polarised fans. -- AurraSing, 18:14:31 10/26/02 Sat

I'm a non-shipper who has also been confused over the vitriol present whenever the pro-Angel or pro-Spike forces begin to argue over their respective vampires.

One thing that always amuses me are the Angel fans who point out that he has had a soul longer and therefore has been a force for good for longer after he made a decision to be a "champion".Well,let's face it-Angel did not espouse the good fight until Whistler had shown him Buffy and he fell in love with her...thus actually fighting alongside her against the evil forces in Sunnydale had as much to do with getting in her good graces as anything else.

Spike started doing much the same because of his love for Buffy even though it grated against his demonic nature and at that point he was souless to boot! So this more or less negates Angel's advantage of having the soul longer,IMHO.

And some of it boils down to pure fan preference I am sure-some fans love Angel for the dark broodiness and other love Spike for his snark and cheekbones.Since the two characters loath each other,is it any wonder that the fans tend to mirror this and are just about as stubborn about it as Angel/Spike would ever be?

Your question is very valid but I don't think any fan can justify a blind faith in one character over the other since neither one is more measurably pure or perfect than the other in the long view of things....but that does not mean they won't keep bashing,I'm sorry to say.

[> Re: I would like to know something, would you please share so I can understand -- Dochawk, 19:06:58 10/26/02 Sat

Ok I am back at the internet cafe. As a person who has hated Spuffy and will continue to hate that concept forever, I must say a couple fo things. Hating Spuffy is not hating Spike. I love the complexity of the character and the incredible breadth that the actor plays him with. That being said there are a couple of points you must remember, Angel was good from the beginning. When we first meet him he is acting for ˇ§goodˇ§, later he become Angelus but most of his evil he does in vampface. When we meet Spike he is evil. And although chipped he remained evil at heart, willing to fight demons because he liked to fight and because he clearly liked and lusted the Summer˘Ąs women. Additionally sould don˘Ąt provide goodness, they provide the opportunity for goodness. I do think that seeking a soul and forgiveness from Buffy is a step in the right direction, but for him to be redeemed he first must take some actions that are done purely for ˇ§goodˇ§ and not for the benifit of Buffy or Dawn. Once he does that he will be on the road to redemption (which differs from being forgiven by Buffy btw, which is coming far too easily for my taste). But Angel has been fighting for good for at least 5 years, Spike has yet to show that he is willing to for reasons that aren˘Ąt selfish and that is the difference to me.

[> [> Re: actually, -- Sang, 23:40:12 10/26/02 Sat

Angel was fighting for good only for short time.
He was as selfish as Spike at season one. He wouldn't help other people if it was danger to him.

Season two, he helped Buffy but didn't work by himself, and spent quite a time as a bad guy did the damages. Not so helpful for other people in S3 either, if it was not related with Buffy's safety.

He started his quest for good in LA. But he turned it into personal vengeance at S2. He came back to his friend but he didn't spend much time for saving others during S3. Most of his motivations during S2 and S3 were around himself.

I am kind of curious that charactors in Angel keep using 'champion' so many times, almost forcefully, while it is for him to prove that he is one, yet.

[> [> [> Agree with sang on this one. -- shadowkat, 08:03:25 10/27/02 Sun

It wasn't until Whistler met Angel in the gutters of Manhattan that Angel even considered helping people. That was 90 years after he got a soul. When he was first cursed with one - he did the same thing Spike does in Smashed.

In fact - try watching the Spike scene in Smashed next to
the scene where Angel bites a woman in an alley in I believe a flashback sequence from Five by Five. Angel unlike Spike had a soul at that point, Spike just had the chip. Both work themselves up to it. Only Angel succeeds because well no chip. Spike's chip goes off and he gets confused.

Angel tries to go back to the fanged four in 1900 (see Fool for Love and I think Darla). He can't quite do it and Darla pushes him out again. But he makes the effort. Compare this to Spike briefly attempting to rejoin Drusilla in Crush and
the other demons off and on with the chip.

I'd argue that Spike's chip journey and Angel's cursed soul journey are in some ways paralleled by the writers.

I don't buy that Angel is good right now. As I watch each season, it is clear to me that he is a vampire CURSED with as soul which he never chose and at times wished was gone.
He resists the urge to get rid of it. But that urge is with him always. It was with him in Amends. I was with him in Reprise (Ats). To say that Angel is good now. And Spike is evil and just because he chose a soul - doesn't change that and he has to prove himself - is well a double standard.

Angel - cursed with a soul, has done good and bad acts
Spike - cursed with a chip, has done good and bad acts, eventually chose a soul
Anya - forced to be human, has done good and bad acts, chose to be demon again, did horrible acts, eventually chose to give it up - now we'll see.

Not so simple is it? BTW I love Angel. Just as I love Spike.
But I see them as incredibly complex characters - neither entirely good nor entirely evil.

[> [> That road to redemption: Spike may already be in first gear... -- Dariel, 17:51:25 10/27/02 Sun

...but for him to be redeemed he first must take some actions that are done purely for good and not for the benifit of Buffy or Dawn. Once he does that he will be on the road to redemption.

I think we saw the beginings of this in Help. Yes, he does come to Buffy's aid, but he seems to want help Cassie as well. "Don't hurt the girl," he says, with some vehemence. His guilt over hurting Buffy has led him to care about another girl. Not coincidentally, I think Cassie is the first non-Summers/non-Scooby we've seen Spike relate to in a positive way. While he doesn't speak, there's a deeper communication there; something new for him.

[> Re: It's strange and, is an issue I think about also. -- Deb, 19:23:59 10/26/02 Sat

Even the writers and other powers that be in the production arena say the same thing. Like "We just don't understand why so many fans like Spike. He's evil. He's a vampire."

Personally, Angel is not fascinating to me. He's has no wit. He lacks a great deal of insight. And when he was a vamp, he was just plain out and out cruel, mean, yucky.
This is my opinion.

I think a lot of men, and some women, don't understand how women think. (I am not trolling here. This is my opinion, and since my daughter is standing with her eyes glaring into my back because she wants the computer back, I really don't have time to go into this last comment AT THIS TIME. So please, don't get upset because you think I'm attempting to anger you, please.)

I would love to address it tomorrow, though because when I read the interview with Noxon that was linked to on this board it bothered me for several reasons.

I've seen this happen on another show that I shall not mention, and it created a lot of anger within a large fan base, that really ruined the show for me. I don't even watch the reruns.

So please post more of your thoughts, because, like I said, it has been on mind also.

[> Perfectly legitimate question. -- HonorH, 20:41:05 10/26/02 Sat

There does seem to be a double standard sometimes, and I don't understand where it comes from either. Angelus was an evil, murdering, raping psychotic. Spike was once one, too. However, they weren't the same without souls, and they're not the same with souls.

I think that Spike should be given the same chance as Angel--a chance to be someone better than he was. He still has Spike within him, but he's also got a soul, and therefore a choice.

As for Buffy, she's different now than she was with Angel. She loved Angel passionately, with her whole heart, and therefore had little choice but to forgive him. With Spike, she's older, more guarded. Furthermore, as much hell as Angelus put her through, he never tried to rape her. That puts a whole different spin on things. She never felt that particular fear before the bathroom. So it's going to take her some time. And it should--just like it probably should've taken her more time to forgive Angel.

As for why the writers did the attempted rape, I think part of it can be explained by various interviews the writers have given. A lot of viewers were starting to see Spike as ideal boyfriend material, redeemed without a soul, and were ignoring the fact that he could still be quite evil. I think the AR came directly out of the writers' need to get it across that Spike wasn't redeemed, that he still needed to take another step. I think it worked in the narrative, too--it was the only thing that would force Spike to take a look at himself and be unable to kid himself about not hurting Buffy anymore.

All that's just personal opinion, of course, but I hope it made some sort of sense to you. Welcome to ATP!

[> [> Re: Perfectly legitimate question. -- Deb, 03:53:58 10/27/02 Sun

I hope the rape scene was written for a specific purpose of seeing personal growth for both Spike and Buffy. I don't like the way it played out at all. She's the Slayer, she's not an "ordinary" girl. If she really didn't like him, trust him or whatever, she should have dusted him. She was feeling guilty, though, for using him, and she used him up totally. Please, no one believe that I am saying any woman ever "asks" for it, because I'm NOT. I just think it was scene that did not have to occur. There are other ways of driving the point home, and when you break up you don't go back the next day and start all over again and again and again and again.

As for Angel, I really did not like him in the earlier seasons. He was nasty, cruel, yuck, yuck, yuck. His emotional cruelty was so extreme -- and research shows that this type of abuse is the most harmful -- I would have had no problem dusting him very early on. Of course, he's a changed vamp now, but still........

[> Re: I would like to know something, would you please share so I can understand -- yabyumpan, 22:14:01 10/26/02 Sat

Just a quick response before going to work: I'll start off by saying that I'm a BIG Angel fan, he's my favorite character for many reasons I won't go into here (I'll just say 'over identify much!). That said, I also think that Spike is possibly the most interesting character on BtVS. Not over keen on Spike getting a soul, partly because it takes away from the uniqueness that is Angel but also because I'm a redemptionist.
From my perspective, I see that Angel is given a harder time than Spike and I think that it's the perspective that's important. I don't think there's any way to quantify that and I think it's probably due to my love of the character that I register anything negative that's said about Angel and maybe don't notice the same for Spike.
So what I'm saying is that I'm not sure if you're post is correct or whether it's a perception that comes from your love of the character, as I can see that my perception of posts about Angel come from the same thing.

Hope that made sense, i'm one of the least articulate posters here, but I keep plugging away anyway :-)

[> Monsters that love -- Sara, 09:03:59 10/27/02 Sun

...and the slayers that use them.

I can't really explain Spike, any more than I can explain my ability to root for Tony Soprano, or the detective in The Shield. I don't want to like these characters, and yet somehow can't help myself. There is something fascinating and yet horrifying in knowing that the capacity to be a monster can co-exist with the capacity to love. Does not excuse the behavior in any way, but somehow I'm still fascinated by the character, and yet often ashamed of myself. I'd like to think that it is the distance of tv that allows us to connect to attractive characters who are capable of such evil, but that's probably not the case. I worked with someone for many years who was very much a mentor to me, and who I can not help but love, even though he was not a nice person. In fact, he was clearly a racist. I only saw that side of him for about 3 minutes out of the 8 years I knew him, but I knew it was there. How can I still feel affection for him? How is it that Spike has been my favorite character since he appeared? It's not the bad that attracts me, but shouldn't the bad repel no matter how insightful or interesting the character is? Great question, wish I had an answer.

- Sara, who wishes good and bad would always look good and bad.

[> [> Re: Monsters that love -- Pilgrim, 09:51:03 10/27/02 Sun

Yeah, there are "bad" characters who intellectually stimulate me, who I find complex and challenging (Satan from Paradise Lost; Ahab from Moby-Dick; Bigger from Native Son), but who I don't harbor tender feelings for. I think I respond to Spike that way because he so ofen is able to show us his compassion and insight as well as his badness. Even back in the second season he showed us how much he "loved" (okay, I agree his feelings for her were complicated) Dru.

The thing that gets me is that the writers and JM have managed to make Spike such a large character, with so many multiple layers and conflicting movitations. I think some viewers see Spike as inconsistent, confusing, and poorly written for this reason, but for me he works as an integrated and whole, if unpredictable, character. I suppose that's because he seems to have some core characteristics (such as the way he interacts with with strong women, and the very different way he interacts with strong men) that remain consistent through the years. He's the kind of open character that Henry James loved to create--the kind of character who, throughout the story, could develop in many different directions. Think Isabel Archer in Portrait of a Lady. James, that sadist, usually makes his open characters (usually young women) choose exactly the most hurtful path.

Is there anything Spike could do, any path he could take, that would seem out-of-character?

[> My personal problems with BtVS-era Angel -- KdS, 08:03:50 10/28/02 Mon

I hope this post doesn't offend anyone. I suspect that I'm one of the harshest people here when it comes to judging Angel. Hopefully this won't seem to be a "bash" post, as I'll try to concentrate more on the reasons why I hold my opinions than the opinions themselves.

The first seasons of BtVS/AtS I watched properly were BtVS5/AtS2. My impression (and it's only an impression) is that much of the Angel vs. Spike issue comes down to the changes over the years in the portrayal of vampire nature in the two series. For the first two seasons of BtVS the standard position was that vampires are pure demons, with memories of the human's past life but utterly separate personalities. Hence Angel cannot be blamed for Angelus's S2 actions. (Even then this raised the question of why *he* feels guilt for them.)

From "Amends" on this distinction between the human and vampire personalities has been carefully blurred, to the point that "Through the Looking Glass"/"There's No Place Like Pltz Glrb" suggest that *all* higher mental functions in a vampire come from the original human. When I watch BtVS seasons 1-3, I find Angel a remarkably unsympathetic character, but that's because I'm watching with hindsight. I'm watching the character who flatly lied to Buffy about many of the less admirable aspects of his past, and who professes guilt over the manipulative sadism of his past while continuing to treat people around him with the same manipulativeness and insistence on personal control, just in a non-violent way. In the B/A relationship I constantly see Angel making the choices for her - not telling her he's a vampire until his emotions run out of control, deciding how far their relationship goes at any one time without asking her, even talking through their breakup with her mother rather than her.

I also, and I'm sure I'm in a *very* small minority here, dislike Angel's "brood" persona. During the summer, some posters here expressed concern that Willow would adopt a "poor-me" persona in S7, and attract such sympathy from her friends that they would feel guilty about holding her responsible for her little indiscretions. I think that Angel does exactly the same thing, much of the time, because he parades his guilt to such an extent that people feel sorry for him and not for the people he tortured and killed.

I think that much of the B/A vs. B/S shipper feuding would be calmed down if both sides would accept that the portrayal of vampires in general has been significantly altered over the years, and that Angel's own character has been significantly darkened over the development of his own series.

[> [> Manipulative Angel -- Rahael, 08:30:47 10/28/02 Mon

Let me lay my biases on the table...big fan of Angel, but didn't find Angelus all that fascinating.

I think, to be fair, you could certainly make a case for Angel being manipulative within the B/A relationship - he was always the older, wiser one, she always looking up at him.

But I'm not sure whether the examples you quote are convincing me. He didn't tell Buffy who he was because he was scared of rejection. Buffy at that time couldn't even think that a Vampire might not be pure evil. Giles didn't think it. This is the person who finally found a purpose in Buffy after decades of drifting. I think it was natural to take the softly softly approach. And in any case, the entire mystery around Angel and the big surprise as to who he was would have all gone if he'd told Buffy who he was.

As for those who are dead, well they are dead. After someone has committed terrible crimes, all they can do is try live a life of integrity henceforth. I always thought that the soul was a metaphor, and Angelus' shadow always hung over Angel. But in any case, even if they are separate individuals, Angel still has memories of the atrocities. Isn't that enough to cast anyone into a gloom?

The problem for Angel is that Angelus can come back. I don't think he parades the gloom, I think he's scared. I think pretty much it's down to whether angst appeals to you. The reason Spike is suddenly becoming more compelling to me (because 'evil', either Angelus or Spike never was that attractive to me) is because conflict is always much more complex than straightfoward, "hey, violence is fun!"

As for Joyce and Angel's conversation behind Buffy's back, it was Joyce who barged in on him, and if Angel had told Buffy about it, he probably risked poisoning Buffy and Joyce's relationship. Plus, Joyce was right.

I think both Spike and Angel have acquired a certain nobility/dignity with their soul. I like such characters. I think there is a false dichotomy presented in terms of fans of Angel/fans of Spike. Spike's souled version has only been around for a couple of eps. I think people's attitudes to the souled version will differ to the unsouled. A true comparison might be: Angelus versus Spike. And I think those who argue for moral responsibility will take a consistent line whatever the character.

[> [> [> Spoiler for "Grave" (Season 6) in above post -- Rahael, 08:42:29 10/28/02 Mon

[> [> [> Re: Manipulative Angel -- alcibiades, 09:14:07 10/28/02 Mon

I think KdeS is onto something.

Manipulative ANgel still exists.

Looks at how Angel treated Connor last season. He sends him away so Angel can deal with Holtz behind Connor's back. ANd that is the reason that Connor assumes Angel killed Holtz. If he had been upfront, as Cordy begged him to be, it wouldn't have happened.

then, last night, Angel repeats the same blunder he made with Connor with Cordy. And amnesia Cordy reacts much better to Connor telling her the truth than Angel hiding it and only letting it out once he realizes, again, that he is in trouble.

This is a definite facet of Angel's personality, one he pays for again and again, but that he doesn't learn to get beyond.

[> [> [> Re: Manipulative Angel Spoilers for angel 4.4 -- alcibiades, 09:15:29 10/28/02 Mon

I think KdeS is onto something.

Manipulative Angel still exists.

Looks at how Angel treated Connor last season. He sends him away so Angel can deal with Holtz behind Connor's back. And that is the reason that Connor assumes Angel killed Holtz. If he had been upfront, as Cordy begged him to be, it wouldn't have happened.

then, last night, Angel repeats the same blunder he made with Connor with Cordy. And amnesia Cordy reacts much better to Connor telling her the truth than Angel hiding it and only letting it out once he realizes, again, that he is in trouble.

This is a definite facet of Angel's personality, one he pays for again and again, but that he doesn't learn to get beyond.

Buffy's decision about Anya (spoilers for 7.5) -- jbb, 17:19:05 10/26/02 Sat

How I miss Giles.

I am from the camp that Buffy acted appropriately in her decision to try to kill Anya. I also believe Willow and Anya would agree.

Willow didn't tell Buffy about Anya's involvement until she was sure who killed the Frat boys because (according to Buffy), Willow knew what Buffy would have to do. That alone does not imply concurrence on Willow's part, but I think when Buffy articulated that fact, Willow's stoic reaction does.

Anya reinforced this conviction with her lines (paraphrased from memory)

"Xander, stay out of this, Buffy has a job to do, and I have a job to do"

If Giles had been present at the debate among Buffy, Willow, and Xander perhaps he would have said something to the effect of:

"Xander, how would you feel if we stayed Buffy's hand, and awoke to more slaughter in the morning. A slaughter that could have been prevented. Yes, you and I and Willow will spend the short time we have searching for an alternative but Buffy must act now. And don't forget, a Slayers victory is not always assured, it may very well be Buffy's body that we find tomorrow"

Thoughts?

Did I mention how much I miss Giles?
jbb

[> Re: I miss Giles too (spoilers for 7.5) -- frisby, 17:51:54 10/26/02 Sat

Giles was my main attraction when I began my Buffy addiction (is there a better way to refer to it?).

I think of him as the super-librarian and he's had more of a positive impact on the librarian profession than most anything else I know of.

Please hang in there Tony Head at least to some degree until the end of the series (his new bbc show manchild is entertaining but nothing like the character of Giles -- who reminds me more of Marvel's Dr. Strange (master of the occult), or perhaps Gandalf (keeper of the secret fire), or actually I'm quite content with Buffy's watcher.

Yes, I miss Giles too.

[> I MISS GILES!! -- Kara, 18:09:53 10/26/02 Sat

I miss Giles all the time now.

Also, i'm still angry that no one made a reference to Giles during Xander's almost-wedding. Why would they NOT invite Giles? at the very least, Gile should've gotten a line explaining why he wasn't there...

Does anyone know when his show will start airing?

[> [> Re: I MISS GILES!! -- Alvin, 18:48:08 10/26/02 Sat

I've heard that in HB there was a line in which they mentioned that the flowers were from Giles, but it was edited out when the episode aired.

[> [> [> More -- aliera, 18:57:34 10/26/02 Sat

Ahhh...heard where?

I have NO discipline.

What's your television schedule this year? -- Rob, 18:59:50 10/26/02 Sat

Thought it might be fun for everybody to post what they're watching this year. You can include both the great shows, and the guilty pleasures. I'll start.

SUNDAY
9:00 PM--The Sopranos--HBO
Angel--WB
Alias--ABC

(Sidebar Note: My Sunday viewage is greatly boosted by the magic that is the VCR!)

10:00 PM--The Anna Nicole Show--E!

(Sidebar Note: Yes, I'm a sick, sick individual, and the show is just wrong wrong WRONG. But watching it feels so good! I'm addicted. Help me. Please.)

MONDAY

Night off.

TUESDAY
8:00 PM--Buffy the Vampire Slayer--UPN
9:00 PM--24--FOX (beginning this week)

WEDNESDAY

Night off.

THURSDAY
8:00 PM--Friends--NBC
8:30 PM--Scrubs--NBC
10:00 PM--ER--NBC

FRIDAY
8:00 PM--Firefly--FOX

SATURDAY
11:30 PM--Saturday Night Live--NBC

OTHER SHOWS:
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart--Mon-Thurs, 11:00 PM--COMEDY CENTRAL

What's your list?

Rob

[> Re: What's your television schedule this year? -- frisby, 19:08:12 10/26/02 Sat

vcr often employed
(buffy on fx intermittently am and/or pm)

sun
sopranos
angel
boomtown

tues
buffy

fri
firefly
john doe

sat
andromeda
sat nite live

and of course movies movies movies (ever see Mindwalk?)

[> Pretty thin pickings..... -- AurraSing, 19:11:37 10/26/02 Sat

Sunday- "Alias" and eventually "Futurama"

Monday-"Buffy" and "Angel" (Canadian feed on ASN)

Tuesday-"Enterprise" (I'm sharing quality time with my son)

Wednesday-nothing

Thursday-"Friends"

Friday-I've pretty-well given up on "Firefly".

Sat-nothing

I could spend another 20 bucks a month to upgrade my satellite system for more movies and alternate stations but frankly,I'd rather read a good book instead and spend the money elsewhere.

[> [> Please don't give up! -- Vickie, 21:53:24 10/26/02 Sat

If you haven't seen last night's "Out of Gas" please don't give up on Firefly. Amazing episode. I think the show is starting to hit its stride.

[> [> [> I second that...Bad time to give up on the show. It needs all the viewers it can get... -- Rob, 22:28:00 10/26/02 Sat

...and it really is just starting to get quite, quite good.

Rob

[> Re: What's your television schedule this year? -- Apophis, 19:19:01 10/26/02 Sat

Sunday:
8pm - The Simpsons (assuming Fox ever starts airing it)
9pm - Angel

Monday:
For some reason, I can never remember what I watch on Mondays. I just go blank.

Tuesday:
8pm - BtVS

Wednesday:
9pm - Birds of Prey (on an experimental basis)

Thursday:
8pm - WWE Smackdown (What? It's fun and I can't think ALL the time)

Friday:
Usually, I go see a movie. I always forget that Firefly is on and have given up trying to watch it.

Saturday:
8am - MST3K (when I have access to the SciFi Channel)
11:30am - X-Men: Evolution (at least I will watch it once football season ends and they start showing it again)
11pm - Cowboy Bebop
11:30pm - SNL
1am - Superman (animated)
1:30am - Batman (animated)

Others: Late Show with David Letterman, Late Night with Conan O'Brien, The Daily Show, syndicated Simpsons reruns

[> The TV Schedule of an over-worked costumer -- Lyonors, 19:44:54 10/26/02 Sat

Being that I keep rediculous hours because of my job...either at the theater or going into work on Sundays...grrrr....my TV schedule survives in tact only due to the greatest invention of all time....the VCR.

Sunday: Angel
Tuesday: Buffy
Friday: Firefly & John Doe

This also includes random smatterings of the Howard Stern show on E!, various "Biography"-type shows....and also I seem to watch the insides of my eyelids a lot! ;o)

Ly

[> Re: What's your television schedule this year? -- Wisewoman, 19:45:44 10/26/02 Sat

Sunday: Angel

Monday: off

Tuesday: Buffy

Wednesday: off

Thursday: Survivor, CSI

Friday: Firefly, Hack, The Shield

Saturday: off

Well balanced, I'd say...

;o)

[> Re: What's your television schedule this year? -- Cecilia, 20:08:07 10/26/02 Sat

Sunday-Angel
Monday-Buffy, Everybody Loves Raymond (It's just funny!)
Wednesday-Enterprise
Thursday-CSI

That's really all, although I have the tv on throughout the day when I am home and may catch a few other shows. These are the only ones I stop what I am doing to watch though.

[> [> Re: What's your television schedule this year? -- Cheryl, 08:47:09 10/27/02 Sun

Sunday: Angel, Syndicated Buffy (UPN)
Monday: Just FX Buffy
Tuesday: Buffy, Smallville, FX Buffy
Wednesday: Enterprise, The West Wing, FX Buffy
Thursday: Friends, FX Buffy
Friday: Firefly, FX Buffy
Saturday: Syndicated Buffy (UPN)

Even though I have all seasons of Buffy on tape or DVD, I still tape FX and UPN syndicated eps and watch before bed.

I'm enjoying Firefly and really, really hope it's not cancelled.

BTW, don't forget that FX is running a Buffy Halloween marathon on Thursday - 5 hours worth.

[> My Shows -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:39:47 10/26/02 Sat

MONDAY:

7:00 PM: Drew Carey Show (when it's on, the past three weeks it's had special things about the Sniper or the Senate pre-empting it).

7:30 PM: Yes Dear

8:00 PM: Everybody Loves Raymond

TEUSDAY:

7:00 PM: Buffy the Vampire Slayer (duh!)

8:00 PM: Frasier

8:30 PM: Hidden Hills

WEDNESDAY:

Blank Slate since Drew Carey moved to Mondays

THURSDAY:

7:00 PM: Friends

7:30 PM: Scrubs

FRIDAY:

7:00 PM: Firefly (when I don't have scheduling problems in seeing it)

8:00 PM: John Doe

SATURDAY:

10:30 PM: Saturday Night Live

SUNDAY:

8:00 PM: Angel (The Simpsons used to be on this night at 7:00, but it seems like FOX has given up on them)

Also, every weeknight I watch Jay Leno at 10:30, and in the afternoons usually watch a Buffy rerun on FX or I catch a Friends rerun.

This year, strangely enough, five of my shows are new to me, and three premiered this season: Hidden Hills, Scrubs, Firefly, John Doe, and Angel. Maybe my mind is becoming more open.

[> Re: What's your television schedule this year? -- Sophie, 20:49:39 10/26/02 Sat

Well, being a busy grad student and all - Buffy is it for me this year. I watched the reruns of Angel, Alias, and Enterprise last summer and will again next summer.

As for guilty pleasures...well...nevermind.

Sophie

[> Re: What's your television schedule this year? -- celticross, 21:00:07 10/26/02 Sat

Sunday
8pm - Angel

Monday
off

Tuesday
7pm - Buffy (on tape! Cause I have a night class! It's not right, I tell you!)

Wednesday
off

Thursday
8pm - CSI (Whoooo are you? Sorry, couldn't help myself)

Friday
7pm - Firefly
8pm - John Doe (though it's more trueful to say I just have the TV still on...JD hasn't hooked me yet, plus, come January, it'll be time for Farscape)

Saturday
8am - MST3K (ok, I'm not gonna kid anyone, that one gets taped too, and it's not because I have anywhere to be on Saturday mornings)

Other than that...the occasional X-files and Law and Order rerun on TNT.

[> Re: What's your television schedule this year? (And *so much more*!!) -- OnM, 22:15:54 10/26/02 Sat

Sunday:

Watch 60 minutes
Eat dinner
Prep VCR's
Record and keep tape of Angel, watch same, time-shift Alias, reuse tape next week.
Watch Alias on tape. Get to FF past commercials, wheeeeeee!!!
If Angel ep esp. good, watch it again.
Visit board (repeat each night of week).
Go to sleep.

Monday:

No TV, sometimes surf for interesting stuff on PBS, but click off if nothing there. Same on other slow TV nights.

Tuesday:

Watch/tape Buffy.
Rewind tape and watch Buffy again.
If ep particularly mind-bending, rewind and watch a third time.
May visit board, but usu. go to sleep, thinking too much.

Tue. Plan 'B' (soon to be enacted):

Watch/tape Buffy.
Watch 24.
Rewind tape and watch Buffy again.
Go to sleep

Wednesday: (Normal 'day off work', sometimes - I work Sat.)

If normal day off, watch Buffy 3rd or 4th time in AM or PM as schedule allows. Start to plan out weekly review essay. May start writing it. PM-- Try to catch a movie, either in actual theater (Wheeeee!!!, cheap matinee prices!) or on DVD etc.

Evenings-- Watch Enterprise. Have also been following Birds of Prey for first three eps. Still making up mind-- has both good and weaker aspects. Same with Enterprise.

If not busy with Buffy review, or other task, may watch Law & Order. Still like the show, but not as involved with it as in the first 5 or 6 years.

Sleep, yadda yadda.

Thursday:

May watch ER, but not regularly. See comments re: L&O, above.

Sleep, what else, OK, it's a pattern, I know!

Friday:

Firefly. Liking this better and better each week. Not as 'deep' as Buffy, but then what is? Have now totally accepted the 'Space Western' as Joss sees it. I'll be pissed if FOX doesn't give this at least a full, normal season to grow.

You know what. I ain't sayin'!

Saturday:

Nuttin'. Watched SNL the other week, first time in years, because SMG was hosting. She was fine, but show very clearly reminded me of why I stopped watching.

Work on Buffy review. Either finish, or do so on Sunday.

*******

And the circle, it goes round and round...

............ Joni Mitchell

;-)

*******

[> Re: What's your television schedule this year? -- Sarand, 22:30:07 10/26/02 Sat

Okay, I'll bite.

Sunday:
60 Minutes
Tape Angel, watch Alias
Boomtown
Watch Angel

Monday:
Was watching CSI: Miami but probably not after last week's episode

Tuesday:
Tape and watch Buffy
24 (starting this week)
Judging Amy
Rewatch Buffy

Wednesday:
Tape West Wing (cuz I have rehearsal)

Thursday:
Scrubs
CSI
Sometimes ER or Without a Trace

Friday:
Firefly (which I finally liked this week but I'm nervous given the previews for next week)
John Doe

Saturday:
Nothing

I think I need to get a life.

[> Re: What's your television schedule this year? -- ponygirl, 22:36:56 10/26/02 Sat

The magic of satellite tv has allowed me to watch shows from different time zones so I've been able to eliminate a lot of VCR conflicts.

Sunday:
sometimes Gilmore Girls, once or twice Charmed though I'm not proud.
Alias, I didn't watch this last year so I'm deeply confused
Angel
Boomtown

Monday: what the hell's on Monday?

Tuesday:
Smallville, it's the fluffy appetizer to the evening
Buffy
24, that's the plan

Wednesday
West Wing and I may try Birds of Prey

Thursday
Friends, Scrubs, Will & Grace

Friday
Firefly, though I don't think I've ever actually watched it on Friday, usually on Sat. with my tape of Sex & the City.

Saturday: nada

Though really, Buffy, Angel and Firefly are the only things I set the VCR for, if I'm not home for the other shows I don't watch 'em. Also the Space Channel shows BtVS at 8pm on weekdays so that's usually what I'm watching.

Rob, nice use of bolding and italics, I'm impressed! One of these days I will actually read up on how to do that.

[> [> re: bold and italics -- Rob, 23:19:21 10/26/02 Sat

"Rob, nice use of bolding and italics, I'm impressed! One of these days I will actually read up on how to do that."

Why, thank you! But ya don't have to wait forever to read up on it. Just check out Masq's FAQ link at the top of the main page. There's a short HTML primer there, just for the stuff you can do in posts, like bold, italic, strikethrough type, underlined, etc.

Rob

[> Buffy, The West Wing, Firefly if I'm home on Fri night -- Indri, 23:24:20 10/26/02 Sat

[> Re: What's your television schedule this year? -- Dead Soul, 01:04:22 10/27/02 Sun

Why not?

Sunday:
Futurama (if on)
Simpsons
Angel
Law & Order CI (one of the cable stations used to run an old one at 10 but don't know if they're going to get back to that - I don't tape the new ones that run opposite Angel)
Sex & the City (if new)
Queer as Folk (if new)

Monday:
Antiques Roadshow (if new - this is my guilty pleasure)

Tuesday:
Buffy (doesn't come on until midnight)

Wednesday:
Tried to watch Birds of Prey but just despised it
Law & Order or
South Park (if it's a new one or one I particularly like)

Thursday:
Nothing unless there's a good movie on - or Antiques Roadshow UK

Friday:
Firefly (still not loving it but am giving it more of a
chance than I've given any other show)
John Doe (which I'm actually enjoying more than Firefly - please put away the vegetables and various meats)
Law & Order SVU

Monday - Sunday:
2 hours of Buffy on FX - my afterwork wind-down
Blackadder whenever BBCAmerica gets a wild hair and shows it
Horseracing, tennis and figure skating whenever they're on
Various movies - watching Ken Russell's Gothic right now

I watch way too much TV - never seen it all laid out before. Does is sound better if I add that I'm almost always on the computer at the same time (except during Angel and non-FX Buffy)?

Dead (and being way creeped out by Gothic) Soul

[> Re: What's your television schedule this year? -- grifter, 03:18:20 10/27/02 Sun

Apart from some shows on german telly that I catch when there´s nothing better to do, this is what I really look forward to and download:

24
Alias
Angel
Birds of Prey
Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Firefly
Six Feet Under (anyone know when the third season will start?)

[> [> Re: What's your television schedule this year? -- Brian, 05:17:17 10/27/02 Sun

Sunday- Angel, Boomtown (best new show of the season)

Monday- CSI: Miami (but it needs to get more focus, less character angst)

Tuesday-Buffy, Smallville (continually surprising)

Wednesday-Birds of Prey (may have a short shelf life), Law & Order

Thursday-CSI

Friday-Firefly, John Doe

Sat-Tracker (if it every returns)

Hmmm, all drama, no sitcoms

[> [> Six Feet Under's third season, as of now, is scheduled for early March. -- Rob, 09:31:15 10/27/02 Sun

[> [> [> Thanks for the info -- grifter, 10:00:56 10/27/02 Sun

That´s a long wait though ;(

[> [> [> [> You're welcome...And yes it is! It's been off since last June! -- Rob, 13:56:55 10/27/02 Sun

[> Re: What's your television schedule this year? -- shadowkat, 06:31:53 10/27/02 Sun

SUNDAY
occassionally Gilmore Girls, Smallville rerun or Charmed(although I finding it increasingly difficult to watch Charmed this year, so have been flipping channels or reading from 8-9)
9:00 PM--Angel WB (tape it as well)

MONDAY

Night off.

TUESDAY
8:00 PM--Buffy the Vampire Slayer--UPN (tape it and rewatch often afterwards...)

WEDNESDAY

Occassionally watch Birds of Prey...(growing bored of it
though) Used to watch West Wing - also got bored.

THURSDAY
10:00 PM--ER--NBC

FRIDAY
8:00 PM--Firefly--FOX (tape it)
(Occassionally watch John Doe)

SATURDAY
8-10pm : Trading Spaces on TLC (also sometimes watch it on Sunday mornings) and rent movies.

OTHER SHOWS:
Occassionally Smallville on Tuesdays. Occassionally 24.
Btvs reruns on UPN, Fox and FX.

Only shows that I consider not missable or that I tape and keep copies of: Btvs, Angel and Firefly.

[> Re: What's your television schedule this year? -- Silky, 06:33:59 10/27/02 Sun

Sunday: Angel, trying out American Dream. Didn't get into Alias because of X-Files last year. Oh yes, Sun afternoons -Packer football!

Monday: Nothing.

Tuesday: Buffy, soon 24, sometimes Smallville

Wednesday: nothing (didn't like Birds of Prey; Enterprise making same mistakes as Voyager - too sterile emotionally)

Thursday: CSI. Not impressed with Without a Trace.

Friday: Firefly. John Doe is kinda boring - waiting for Farscape to return. Sometimes Stargate SG-1.

Saturday: If home The Agency - which was much better last year. Kinda dumb this year.

Happened upon Fastlane one night when really tired - surprisingly good show.

Yes - no sitcoms! Haven't watched one since The Wonder years.

Buffy on Sat afternoons - when not pre-empted for sports.

[> Re: What's your television schedule this year? -- Pilgrim, 07:25:02 10/27/02 Sun

Hmmm. Not sure it's a good idea to self-reflect on my tv viewing habits.
I go through phases where I watch General Hospital (blushing to admit). Most mornings I try to catch Charlie Rose. I've been known to watch the odd Elmo's Place and Oprah. Most evenings I catch at least some of the News Hour with Jim Lehrer. (Explanatory note: since the spring, I've been at home most days--supposedly writing that dissertation, but actually worrying about not writing it.)
Sun: Angel sometimes
Mon: I was watching Mystery on PBS, but waiting now for more shows
Tues: Gilmore girls
Wed: Buffy in the afternoon; West Wing
Thurs: Enterprise in the afternoon sometimes; Friends, ER
Fri: Firefly (was ready to give up on this one until the last episode--have decided to hang in there)
Sat: SEC football (yeah, I know)
On the weekends I also like to catch re-runs of Frontline and, if I'm in the mood, I'll watch cooking shows with Jacques Pepin (spelling?) and Julia Child.

[> [> Re: What's your television schedule this year? -- Cactus Watcher, 07:38:56 10/27/02 Sun

I watch:

Monday through Friday
Primer Impacto - a Spanish language news magazine
The local and national news in English

Tuesday
Buffy (and usually again on tape Wednesday morning)

Friday
Firefly, John Doe (also guiltily admitting I like John Doe better so far.)

Saturday
(Firefly again on tape for my postings at that board)
college football (baseball earlier)
local news

Sunday
local news
Angel (I don't tape it any more and I carefully avoid Charmed)

That's about it.

[> I know this isn't the "Firefly" board but this is a really important message here... -- Rob, 09:41:39 10/27/02 Sun

I read from a bunch of your posts some of you guys saying that you hadn't enjoyed the show that much until this week's episode. Just a brief note for you guys, though. The first season, as you may or may not know, so far has been shown out of order, because FOX wanted to air the stronger episodes before the weaker ones. For the next two weeks, they're airing the episodes they previously skipped. Now, I haven't seen them yet, so I don't know if they are bad or not, but please don't give up on the show if you don't enjoy the next two, because they were the earlier episodes that were less well-received. In three weeks from now, the show will begin getting serialized and more complex. So now is the best time to get into it. Just please don't give up if you liked last week's episode, but find yourself not loving the next two weeks.

Also, if you want to help keep "Firefly" on the air, check out http://www.fireflysupport.com/ and sign the on-line petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/firefly1/petition.html

Rob

[> [> Echoing Rob's views on Firefly -- shadowkat, 14:38:33 10/27/02 Sun

This past Friday's episode was actually one of the best on the show. The season has admittedly been uneven in places.
But it is starting to heat up.

And each episode is quite different than the last. The one thing i can say about it is it's not repetitive.

[> [> Re: I know this isn't the "Firefly" board but this is a really important message here... -- Lilac, 14:45:29 10/27/02 Sun

I have to say that this Friday's ep, which I watched on tape for the first time this afternoon, has finally given me hope for Firefly. I have been trying to keep watching it, thinking that Joss will come through as he always does -- but I can't say that I was enjoying it until this week. I think I needed the character development that hadn't appeared until now.

[> Late to respond.. -- neaux, 14:51:24 10/27/02 Sun

Sunday: Angel
Monday: nothing
Tuesday: Buffy
Wednesday: my wife forces me to watch my wife and kids
Thursday: CSI
Friday: Firefly and Extended Play!!
Sat: Nothing.

I do a lot of nothing. Nothing nights consist of Scrabble.

[> Re: What's your television schedule this year? -- Purple Tulip, 16:41:40 10/27/02 Sun

I don't watch as much TV as I used to, but I do still have my faves, and I think that they are some different ones than what have been listed here already:

Sunday: Charmed, Alias, The Practice
Monday: Nothing
Tuesday: Buffy, Smallville, The Real World
Wednesday: Dawson's Creek
Thursday: Friends, Scrubs, Will & Grace, ER
Friday: Nothing
Saturday: Saturday Night Live

***This is when I can actually catch these shows, cause I'm usually out, or doing work, but Buffy is the only show that I absolutely make time for. And my roommate and I live and breath by SoapNet, so we're usually watching the General Hospital that we missed during the day while we were at class***

[> Re: What's your television schedule this year? -- Isabel, 22:10:52 10/27/02 Sun

Sunday

7 PM Gilmore Girls, Beginnings- WB
9 PM Angel- WB

Monday

Nothing

Tuesday

8 PM Buffy- UPN
9 PM Smallville- WB
(Haven't decided if I'll try watching '24' yet)

Wednesday

8 PM Enterprise- UPN
9 PM Good Eats- Food Network
(I have friends lobbying for 'Birds of Prey', again, not sure)

Thursday

8 PM Monk- ABC

Friday

8 PM Firefly- FOX
10 PM Monk- USA
(John Doe is ok, but I'm not sure if I want to make it a habit.)

Saturday

8-10 Various Brit-Coms on PBS, if I'm home.

Two Scenes In One : Spike's perspective (Spoilers for Same Time Same Place) -- ZachsMind, 21:18:59 10/26/02 Sat

[read, then please share your thoughts.]

XANDER
We can't use the blueprints to find our way around down here. It's like the walls move or something.

SPIKE
Out! This is my place!

BUFFY (to Xander)
I think I hear him.

SPIKE
You need permission to be here. You need a special slip with a stamp.

WILLOW
Spike. My God... I

SPIKE
(ranting, pacing) You go off and try to wall up the bad parts and put your heart back in where it fell out. You call yourself finished, but you're not. Worse than ever, you are...

BUFFY
Spike. Spike.

SPIKE (faces Buffy)
You went away. You've been gone since...

BUFFY (simo w/Willow)
The church. You scared me a little. I didn't I didn't know what to think.

XANDER (simo w/Willow)
We're here for a reason, Spike.

WILLOW (simo w/Buffy & Xander)
I needed to go, but I'm back now. And I found... There's a body.

SPIKE (faces Willow)
Tragedy. Is there blood?

XANDER (to Buffy)
He knows. He must have seen the body.

WILLOW (to Spike. Simo w/Xander)
Uh, I, Yeah, and I can't find Buffy or Xander or Dawn. And there's this thing killing people. And the victim was... skinned. What could do that?

SPIKE (to Willow)
You did it once. I heard about it.

BUFFY
Spike, we need to know who did this.

WILLOW
Anything other... other than me?

SPIKE (to Buffy)
Look at you... glowing. What's a word means "glowing"? Gotta rhyme.

WILLOW
Spike?

BUFFY
Spike, please...

SPIKE
I-I-I should hide. Hide from you. Hide my face. You know what I did.

WILLOW (simo w/X&B)
What you did? You didn't do anything... did you?

XANDER (simo w/Willow)
Boy, he's extra-useful today.

BUFFY (to Xander. simo w/Willow)
This isn't the time.

SPIKE (to himself)
Everyone's talking to me. No one's talking to each other.

WILLOW (simo w/Buffy)
Spike, please try to listen to me.

BUFFY (to Xander. Simo w/Willow)
Might as well go.

SPIKE
Someone isn't here. Button, button... who's got the button? My money's on (stops and faces Willow) the witch.

SPIKE
Red's a bad girl.

BUFFY
He's talking about Willow.

XANDER
And that means something because he's chock-full-o-sanity.

BUFFY
Maybe he saw her.

SPIKE (to Willow)
They think you did it. The slayer and her boy. They think you took the skin.

BUFFY
Is there something here? Something that killed?

XANDER
(offended) Her boy? I'm her boy?

SPIKE (To Buffy & Xander)
I have to go. There are things here without permission. I have to check their slips. Make sure they have authorization.

Spike walks away, deeper into the basement.

[> Re: Two Scenes In One : Spike's perspective (Spoilers for Same Time Same Place) -- frisby, 22:19:54 10/26/02 Sat

There are two scenes in one, yes, but I wonder if there is not also two settings (or contexts) in one, the first being the particular episode where Willow bends reality, and the other being a commentary on the season and/or series. Spike is so many things at once, including William (what rhymes) and Spike (is there blood) and the new ensouled Spike (you know what I did) and also the school classroom monitor (check their slips), and maybe more (worse than ever). The line from Buffy (you scared me, I didn't know what to think) is totally bathetic given the power of the previous episode's end, like two different cooks (if I understand what happened there with Joss changing the ending at the last minute). Spike having recovered his soul "scared" her? And is Xander's line (we're here for a reason) to be kept to the episode or does it signify his overall perspective in the series? Overall, I don't know what to make of it this exchange with regard to any interpretation beyond the particular episode, although I also believe such an interpretation is both called for and justifiable. So, how about you? Can you help with any enlightenment as to the meaning of this exchange? I'm all ears.

[> [> Same Time Same Place, the Basement Scene: Watching it again -- LeeAnn, 06:57:27 10/27/02 Sun

I went back and watched the basement scene in Same Time, Same Place and in the scene with Willow Spike turns toward a wall covered with stuff and starts talking to it. Later we see he was talking to Buffy (with Xander) and that there was nothing between them. So the walls...move. Is there a wall between him and Buffy? Is one of them is behind the wall? Or maybe...it means there are really no walls between them and they can see each other even when there are. (Doesn't work too well since Xander was there too.) Maybe the real wall was between Willow and Buffy and Xander. Not only was Willow invisible to them, she saw a wall where Spike, Buffy and Xander didn't see one.

[> [> [> Re: Oh no! He's in all of our unconsciousness -- Deb, 15:24:19 10/27/02 Sun

More of same I'm afraid, but I think Spike is in all (at least those of us discussing this) of our unconsciousnesseseseses. He's only been out of that basement once this season. Like I said in earlier post, the basement is a symbol of the unconscious. The unconscious is the opposite "sex" of the owner. The unconscious is also considered to be a (OK here I go. Can't spell this one for sure.) labrinyth, which when associated with the soul, has moving walls. Spike is animus (except there should be a number of Spike's there . . . Oh, there are, aren't there? Inside HIS head.)

OK. Proves a point. The writers and JW know what they are doing, and to act surprised at fans' reactions is just plain lying or they don't have as much understanding of mythology, psycho-analytical theory, and archetypes as they claim they do. Buffy is probably "really" in that asylum.
I know I'm going to be there is I don't get back to my school work.

[> [> [> [> Re: Oh no! He's in all of our unconsciousness -- frisby, 15:42:16 10/27/02 Sun

Yes, and minotaurs patrol unconscious labyrinths, but heroes like Theseus (if supplied a clue and sword by Ariadne -- who represents the soul) can triumph. Still, as Nietzsche says though (Z 2.13), the secret of the soul is that only when the hero has deserted her does the supehero approach her in a dream!

[> [> [> [> [> Re Can you go into a little more detail? I need to read up on Nietzche. nt -- Deb, 19:17:10 10/27/02 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Re Can you go into a little more detail? (more detail) -- frisby, 20:13:11 10/27/02 Sun

One of Nietzsche's favorite stories to use as a metaphor to communicate is the old greek myth of Crete. Mino (law) has Daedalus (science) create the labyrinth to house the minotaur, which the wife of Minos gave birth to with the help of Daedalus. Ariadne (the soul) helps Theseus (the hero) kill the minotaur (conscience) and escape the labyrinth by giving him a clue (a ball of thread) and a sword. She leaves Crete with him but he deserts her on Naxos where she meets and marries the god Dionysos and becomes immortalized. Theseus returns to Athens for further adventures with Hercules and the Amazons and much else. Read Mary Renault's The King Must Die, and The Bull from the Sea. Nietzsche employs the characters in various ways. Dionysso and Ariadne become the great god and goddess of the new polytheistic rebirth of the gods (a matter of poetry). Theseus becomes the archetypical hero. Ariadne becomes "soul" in his poetic rendering of the secret mysteries. Dionysos is the nerve of this theology. Much of this is in Beyond (30 I think or 31, but also see 295 and elsewhere). There are some details. Now I need specific questions to go further. Poetic understanding does not always easily translate into science. In simple layman's terms it's all a matter of psychology where the minotaur of conscience slays us -- unless -- but now we're into so much else. I don't know how to go back to what you originally said and my response without losing what I've written so I'll stop there for now. It's 11:10 pm and time for bed anyway. Suffice to say that in my understanding, as Freud said, Nietzsche was a master psychologist knowing more about himself than perhaps anyone since. Poetry is the language of dreams and the unconscious, poetry and myth. One can sometimes meet their own soul in a dream, and if the dream becomes lucid, perhaps even become that soul. (Compare Zarathustra 3.13)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I'll do some reading. Thanx. nt -- Deb, 20:22:08 10/27/02 Sun

[> Re: Two Scenes In One : Spike's perspective (Spoilers for Same Time Same Place) -- betheldene, 13:48:02 10/27/02 Sun

I see how it's folded, but I still don't get the picture of Alfred E. Neuman.

(Let's see if you get that slightly obscure ref ;))

[> [> Re: Two Scenes In One : Spike's perspective (Spoilers for Same Time Same Place) -- Retread, 14:21:26 10/27/02 Sun

Ha! It's the first thing I did when the new issue of MAD hit the stands. Thanks for a chuckle, hadn't thought about the mag for years.

[> [> Mad Magazine in the basement -- Dariel, 16:58:42 10/27/02 Sun

Actually, maybe that folding to get something else has some validity here. Or maybe not. Had a subscription to Mad at some points--reading that silly thing was half the pleasure of childhood!

In OMWF why "Sweet" the demon's name! -- frisby, 22:54:26 10/26/02 Sat

In Once More with Feeling the dancing demon says he has a hundred names but he is identified as being "Sweet" -- why? In season one Buffy tells Willow her philosophy is "Life is short!" One of my "quote" books says that Sarah Louise Delany (1889-1999) said "Life is short, and it's up to you to make it sweet." Coincidence possibly, of course, but, if not, could it be that the dancing demon struck the spark for the overall series by contributing to that final kiss and embrace between Buffy and Spike, the spark that will kindle the "fire" that Buffy wants back, the romance that life needs to make it sweet? Without someone to love, to share one's life with intimately, romance (and eventual marriage and children), the fire of passion, Buffy loses her heart and becomes heartless or hardens her heart; she retains her anger and draws power from that, and still forges strength from pain, but without the fire (without Angel, or Riley, or Spike, or her intimate other) she loses her humanity. Buffy knows life is short and the demon indirectly and perhaps without her being aware of it, teaches her that it is up to her to make it sweet, to find the spark that will kindle the fire of love, passion, and romance. Buffy wants the fire back, more, she needs the fire back (if she is to not harden and die young, succumbing to her death wish as Spike taught her), and Spike is the "key" to her sweetening of her life. The sweetness of one's life might also refer to the quality of the intensity of the peak moments, those parts by virtue of which the whole is justified, such that one wills to change not a thing is there's any risk of changing those sweet moments. For example, because I think so highly of my son, I would not change anything ever if there were any risk to his coming to be. For the sake of that one event I accept, even more, love it all. That one event justifies the rest. We really need those moments or parts of life which call forward our response of "Sweet!" or just "Yes" (what Nietzsche calls the great god of paganism, the yes to all things)! Life is indeed short but if we can say to the smallest part of it Yes and Sweet then it's okay and not refuted by death. Expressed differently, life is refuted if it is puppetry, if we merely sing the songs, but if we have something to sing "about" including the chorus of sweet sweet sweet then it's still short but just fine.

Season 6 too dark? -- Naomi, 02:29:00 10/27/02 Sun

I know Joss says in interviews that season 6 was too dark and that is why fans didn't like it. I read an interesting post disagreeing with that on the site Television without Pity. Warning it was in the bitterness thread! It was by the poster ostentatious and the point was made that:
"Season 6 was not "too dark". It was repetitive, cowardly, anti-climatic, heavy-handed, preachy...It was pseudo-dark with easy darkness like Spuffy and addiction taking the place of real darkness. Real darkness would have been Willow going to a dark place because Willow has always had a dark place inside of her. Magiic addiction is a f**king joke and you know it. Shut up with your "too dark horseshit"...You know it sucked Joss! You know you guys made bad choices. You know you guys wrote lame dialogue. You know your writers showed everything, told nothing".

Did anyone actually dislike season 6 because they felt it was too dark? Did the people who dared not to like Joss and Marti's work on season 6 hate all episodes with dark themes? Or did they enjoy seasons like season 2 in which Jenny dies and Angel becomes a sociapathic monster whose girlfriend has to send to hell? It was the execution I disliked and I am genuinely interested in whether all the too dark claims the writers are making are valid. The writers seems blinded when the episodes are poorly received and they say the viewers are to blame. If I loathe an episode with dialogue like "An ax isn't gonna cut it" and "I am so juiced" it is not because I cannot handle darkness. It is because the dialogue isn't exactly Shakespeare.

I loved the first third of the season including Barganing. I thought the pemiere offered great potential with Willow killing a fawn and Buffy being brought back from the dead and being buried alive. I was denied the exploration of Willow descending into evil instead I get the addiction. Joss is one of those artists who thinks the audience hating stuff means its good. I've finally realised what I need. To not be preached to by egotistical bastards. Direct Joss quote "season (6) was the bastard child that everyone was mean to". He then goes on to say the viewers who disliked season 6 were all saying "That season was depressing" and that't why they didn't like it. Why doesn't he actually try listening to his viewers some time.

[> Re: Season 6 too dark? -- Deb, 03:29:43 10/27/02 Sun

I really didn't see it as more "dark" than other seasons. As for depressed fans, well I think everyone was a bit depressed last year. I like Spuffy, but I thought it wasn't presented well at times. Buffy on "booty call" patrol and then changing her mind the next day all the time was irritating, and Spike did seem sincere about his feelings about Buffy, but he could have laid down more boundaries with her. It felt strange watching her use a vampire with a chip in his head and no soul who seemed to feel more than she did, and then she cries her eyes out because she "let's him do those things to me" as if she had no choice. The rape scene was a bad idea after the above. I really don't see them getting back together, and probably just as well. I don't think Spike wants to get back together. Actually, there is a part of me that hopes he doesn't. Geez, confession time: I really don't like the Buffy character all that much. Yes, she has some great strengths, but her flaws are just as powerful, and I really haven't seen much character development over the past three seasons. It seems as if she is in a constant "reactive" mode except when she is dusting. Perhaps last week's ep. is the beginning of some growth. I like the ensemble though. They are well balanced, and the dialogue is witty, but the show seems to be held together by Spike as opposed to Buffy. Buffy can leave, die, etc. She is a Slayer and I don't know how many times I've heard about how Slayers die young, so a new Slayer might be fun. They would need to pull some pretty great tricks without Spike, though.

As for playing with viewers minds. I don't like it. It has a certain "charm" for a little while, but I have walked away from shows that played around with the viewers too much. In an interview, Noxon?, said they were surprised at what viewers got out of the shows that they didn't intend to put in -- Hello! JW should know more than anyone that viewers will construct the eps. from their own personal schema. The number of possible interpretations is greater than the number of viewers. Cognitive dissonance and fans with high expectations don't mix.

Can you tell I'm not sleeping tonight?

[> [> Quick response if anyone's taking a poll -- KdS, 04:34:26 10/27/02 Sun

Like Spuffy, liked (well, artistically approved of) the AR, thought the dialogue was well up to standard, but with the unnamed quotee all the way on the addiction issue.

[> [> Can't sleep, have a corruptable heart....there is the Angel Wildfeed over that the Trollop Board..;) -- Rufus, 06:14:51 10/27/02 Sun

Trollop Board

[> [> Yup, the romanticization of certain vampire types caught the writers by surprise. -- Rufus, 06:19:19 10/27/02 Sun

Once a segment of fans have decided they like a character, the writers can't do a heck of a lot to change their minds. Season six was an attempt to get some viewers to change their stance on Spike.....it didn't work. I lurk at plenty of places where I see an interesting trend.....the heroes are demonized and the demons have the viewers sympathy. Instead of blaming the viewers the writers should be reading up on what motivates the fans to favor certain characters.

[> [> [> Re: Yup, the romanticization of certain vampire types caught the writers by surprise. -- shadowkat, 07:00:13 10/27/02 Sun

I've noticed this trend as well. I think the reason for it may actually be quite simple.

In six years - who do we get the most information on?
Buffy. She's in practically every single scene. We meet her mother. We meet her father. We meet her friends. We meet her lovers...etc. You could probably write a reliable character outline on her without making up a word of it.

Now when Angel was first introduced - we saw very little of him. Just bits and pieces. Now after Six years (3 on Buffy) and (3 on angel) - you could probably write a character outline without making up a word of it.

But what do we know about Spike? Very little. He appears for maybe 10-15 minutes in most episodes. I'd have to make up most of the character outline on him.

How about Wesely? Same thing.

Lilah? yep.

I tend to be more interested in the characters I know the least about - I want to figure them out. Find out more. I get intrigued. So it's not because Buffy is the "hero" that makes me less interested so much as the fact that I pretty much know what her character will do in most instances, because after 6 years I've come to know quite a bit about her. I've seen all her flaws and all her strengths. She has few if any secrets outside of maybe her true origin which still interests me. While I do still love the character and find her fascinating - she isn't as fascinating to me as Spike who I know less about. So i wouldn't mind if she rode off into the sunset at the end of Season 7 and Season 8 was just Spike - not because I love vampires better than slayers, but because Buffy has appeared in almost every scene since the beginning and there's not much left to discover about her - while there's loads left to figure out about Spike.

[> [> [> Re: Yup, the romanticization of certain vampire types caught the writers by surprise. -- Miss Edith, 07:23:39 10/27/02 Sun

I have always favoured the outsider. I watched Spike do everything he can to try and win approvel from the scoobies and still get rejected, "I worked beside you all summer" etc. Seeing him find it impossible to win the popular groups favour because he's an evil soulles thing touches me. Just as Anya is another favourite character of mine and so is Wesley on Ats. The scoobies used to be the outsiders but now they come across to me as the elite "in" group. That is why I prefer the demon characters like Spike and Anya personally. And as long as I have scenes like the scoobies laughing at the smelly insance vampire and joking of putting a leash on him that will remain.
I would have thought ME understood that as in WTTH they endeared Willow to us by having Cordy mock her outfit, and of course Xander and Buffy were both presented as social outcasts in the beginning, "I don't want to interupt your downward mobility".

[> [> [> [> And if ME made Spike REALLY despicable, a lotta Spike fans would yell OUT OF CHARACTER! -- Finn Mac Cool, 07:44:49 10/27/02 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> Re: And if ME made Spike REALLY despicable, a lotta Spike fans would yell OUT OF CHARACTER! -- LadyStarlight, 10:45:03 10/27/02 Sun

Well, at this point, I think it would be. We've seen a slow, but steady swing towards, if not good, at least neutrality since Season 4 ended. The end of Season 5 and the beginning of Season 6 showed that, I think.

And yes, the Sexcapades of Season 6 weren't exactly choirboy material, but IMHO, they weren't Eeevil either.

(note: the above is not a Spike is being picked on by the Evil Buffy/Scoobies )

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: -- Finn Mac Cool, 10:49:21 10/27/02 Sun

I think part of the problem is that Spike would have to act very nastily towards a human being in order to get the response ME was aiming for, but that possibility is hampered by the fact that he can't hurt humans directly, and emotional abuse or diabolical plots aren't part of his M.O.

Maybe they should have done an Alternate Universe episode showing "what if Spike got his chip out?" No, wait! They should have had him kill Clem!

[> [> Another response -- Pilgrim, 06:31:47 10/27/02 Sun

I started watching the series only last year--actually, I started with the last two episodes of season five. I've seen the first two seasons on DVD, and some (maybe a quarter) of the episodes from seasons 3-5. So, while it seems most other fans disliked season six, that was the season that pulled me in. Perhaps I wouldn't have liked it as much if I had five years of Buffy-watching behind me--impossible to know.

I guess obviously I didn't find six too dark. The series consistently allows the main characters to find, or hope for, purpose and balance in their lives, no matter what horrible things happen to them.

To me, the show's depiction of Buffy last year was intriguing and complex. In fact, I find her interiority much more complex in six than in season two--she's got more on her plate, more responsibilities, more different kinds of problems and more different kinds of potential solutions to consider. She's been born (re-born) into an adult world that is both frightening and depressingly boring, world-shaking and trivial. She spends time having violent sex with a dangerous creature--how will Buffy integrate her sex life into the other aspects of her self and life--it's an issue of growing up that doesn't get much thoughtful treatment on television. She's working the cash registers at a fast-food restaurant, a cliche for the most boring and demeaning teen-age job in America--how will Buffy deal with the economic demands of her life, and continue to have a vital sort of life even while spending so much time merely making money. I don't know--maybe these issues aren't of interest to many fans of the show, or maybe they were treated in a way that lacked the humor and sense of adventure of earlier episodes. But, speaking only for myself, I found Buffy's journey in six both intriguing and, in general, full of self-deprecating humor.

Her journey to adulthood, I thought, was supported in interesting ways by other characters: The season villains were youngsters who refused to grow up and who were alternately stupidly trivial and dangerously violent. Interesting that they graduate from imagining violence in a comic booky way to performing real violence. My favorite vampire struggles in his consistently inconsistent way to grow out of his "impulsive-teenager-just-having-sexy-violent-fun" phase. Xander and Anya continue their rocky relationship, although I agree with posters who wish we had seen more of their relationship and tracked their problems more closely. And Willow struggles with her dark side. I suppose depicting Williow's struggle as a drug addiction problem simplified it too much, but I thought the writers tried (maybe not enough) to show how her struggle was growing out of envy of Buffy and a desire be powerful rather than a nobody. Parallels between Willow and the evil trio were there, just under the surface, commenting on Willow's journey.

[> [> [> Great post and well stated. My thoughts are pretty similar -- shadowkat, 06:50:50 10/27/02 Sun

You stated that extreemly well. Yes I felt the same way, even though I started watching Buffy in 1997. None of my friends or family considered it interesting or remotely worth the time until last season. They were turned off by the high school setting and storyline.

The adult themes of season 6 were easier in many ways for me to relate to since I graduated from high school a very long time ago and have blocked a good percentage of the experience out. ;-) I also found the season to be a risky and ambitious one for the writers. The characters felt more complex and the issues more morally ambiguious than before.
What I've always liked about the show is it's moral complexity and the fact that instead of telling the viewer what to believe - it asks us questions, often raising more than it answers. Few television shows have the courage to do that, and few television writers take the risk of offending viewers with dark and somewhat ambiguous themes.

I actually indentified more with Buffy in Season 6 than I had in any year preceeding it. For the first time in 6 seasons the character really clicked with me. Prior to Season 6, I tended to sympathize with Willow more. But that shifted in Season 6. I also found the Spuffy relationship to be one of the most intriquing and complex relationships I'd ever seen depicted on tv. I never knew where they'd take it. I still don't know what they will do with it.
It was never boring and/or predictable to me. In some ways I found it far more interesting than Buffy's prior love relationships and certainly far less predictable.

I also found the development and growth of the Spike character interesting. How often do you get to see a vampire have a nervous breakdown?

[> [> [> [> Re: Great post and well stated. My thoughts are pretty similar -- Pilgrim, 06:59:58 10/27/02 Sun

Thanks for the reply. Feeling validated--I have loved reading your posts on this board. I sort of stumbled into watching the series, none of my friends watch it, and now I've stumbled into a place where I can discuss with other fans of the show. Yea!

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Great post and well stated. My thoughts are pretty similar -- aliera, 08:03:57 10/27/02 Sun

I think many of us came into the same way. I had sort of a similar feel for Buffy to SK but the opposite reaction. It hit a little too close to home! I was able to have a more balanced appreciation after finding this place and plus Big Bonus! all sorts of different interesting backgrounds and perceptions and references to explore. The experience has become so much richer because of this. :-)

[> [> [> [> [> Then I can't resist the temptation to say -- Sophist, in his best John Wayne imitation, 08:10:25 10/27/02 Sun

Welcome, Pilgrim.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: As the author's unconscious rises to consciousness to frighten her -- Deb, 14:46:48 10/27/02 Sun

All of this is making sense to me. Season 6, while I was watching things unfold was exciting, certainly not in the way it has ever before in other seasons for me. I felt like I was always watching on eggshells while Buffy and Spike did their little dance. But I hated the fact that everyone drove the point home, quite physically at times, that Spike "was a monster, was evil, could feel nothing because he was empty inside, was beneath her/them etc." It was quite apparent he was not empty inside. At the end of the season I found myself hoping to high heaven they would not break up, but with the beginning of this season, and seeing the changes in Spike -- I hope he finds someone who does not hold him in contempt and then uses him. You can't use someone unless they can feel the pain of being used.

[> [> [> [> colored by experience -- celticross, 14:32:06 10/27/02 Sun

It's interesting to me how our various experiences color our differing views of BtVS. I'm only a year older than the Scoobies, so I could keep pace with them easily through high school (though I always snorted at how much freedom they had to go wandering Sunnydale at all hours of the night with no car between them). But Season 6 just felt...off. More than once, I watched episodes, turned off the tv, and said "this is growing up?" It certainly bore little resemblance to the growing up I was having to do. Facing graduation from college, I was being forced into sink-or-swim responsibilities, and it was hard to watch the Scoobies, people I'd always figured for braver than myself, run screaming away from their responsibilities as fast as they could was not easy. Yes, I know, it's very human, but that didn't make it easier. Couple that with the fact I was having to deal with the deep depression of a loved one just as Buffy was sinking into her funk, and I was on the verge of throwing things at the television more than once. I didn't *want* to watch my favorite TV people flounder.

I also had some issues with various plot elements and the season's overall pacing. For example, the dreaded Magic Crack storyline and the fact that nearly all of the major *events* of the season (Warren directly confronting the Slayer, *that* scene with Buffy and Spike, Tara's death, the rise of Willow as Big Bad and her defeat) ALL occurred in the last three episodes of the season.

But really, I'm not saying anything I haven't posted before. Maybe I would have liked Season 6 better if it had occurred at a different time, or if my life had been different at the time. As it stands, however, it had the uncomfortable effect of hitting too close to home, not in the "wow, that is so true" way, but in the "ouch, sensitive spot" way.

(And about Season 6 being "dark"...I think the word "dark" has been bandied about a little too much. There was a definite darkness in tone to the season, but as "Selfless" proved, BtVS can be dark without falling prey to many of the complaints lodged against last season.)

[> [> [> [> Re: Great post and well stated. My thoughts are pretty similar -- Blood Luvin Girl, 23:10:21 10/27/02 Sun

I also found the development and growth of the Spike character interesting. How often do you get to see a vampire have a nervous breakdown?

I agree with you there. To me the AR always seemed more like a emotional and mental breakdown, than a cold-hearted attack. In fact, ever since he was put in the wheelchair and Angelus came back it's just been one thing after another for Spike, so I'm not suprised that he would snap.

[> [> [> Ditto, Pilgrim -- Joie (d V), 14:41:08 10/27/02 Sun

I too was pulled in by the last two episodes of season five and then the entirety of season six, Pilgrim. The depth, humor, and complexity of the show enthralled me. Seeing commercials about a girl who sacrifices her life to save the world, is brought back from the dead, and then must learn how to live again (now as a woman) really got my attention. It attracted me much more than the previous seasons' advertisments which seemed to be of a Valley Girl named "Buffy" doing the Monster Mash with her teenage cohorts. Though I now know that this wasn't what Buffy has been about at all, I say this to show how season 6 may have lured in as many new viewers as it deflected old viewers.

[> Re: Season 6 too dark? -- Sophie, 07:16:31 10/27/02 Sun

"Dark" depends on how you define the term. I think of things as being "dark" when they explore good people doing evil things. So, in that sense, pretty nearly all of the seasons are dark. We've seen Giles' dark side, we've seen Willow's dark side, etc. Conversely, we have seen numerous evil beings struggle with good: Angel, Spike, and now Anya. Season 7, so far, has really started to dig into the issues of good people being evil and exploring topics that we don't normally see explored on TV and I am very happy to see the show/Josh do that. I hope it continues, even if Season 7 turns out to be "dark", too.

I thought that the Legion of Dim (LOD) was a little dim, but they made a nice contrast with Willow's evilness arc. The LOD was struggling to be evil and using all sorts of technology to do so (I think that they watched too many Batman reruns, honestly), and they failed for the most part. The killing of Katrina was an accident (though that doesn't make it right). They reminded me of how you and I might go about stealing treasures from a local museum. While Willow truly was powerful and evil and out of control and dark, ...and thrilling. How you and me, if we were going to be evil, might want to be.

I agree, the season was repetitive and depressing. Buffy, herself, was certainly depressing, which I could have lived without. I like being here on earth, and not so sure about watching someone who isn't happy to be here on earth. I struggled the whole season to understand Buffy's perspective there. The fact that I lived five blocks from WTC at the time might have influenced my strong attachment to being happy to be here, though. As well as creating a need for cheery things to watch on TV.

My fav eps of the season were: Smashed, OMWF, Villians, Two to Go/Grave.

Just my 2 cents. :)
Sophie

[> My Opinion. . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 07:38:33 10/27/02 Sun

Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a show driven by a variety of genres. It has shown time and again it is capable of great drama, but isn't above throwing a little humor into the mix. Also, one must always remember that is a fantasy/action/horror show as well. Season Six wasn't quite up to par, in my opinion, because it focused too much on the drama, very little on the humor, and for most of the middle season almost totally ignored the butt-kicking, monster fighting, people killing parts of the show.

[> Subtlety, depth and dissappointment -- Sara, 08:23:32 10/27/02 Sun

I was not a huge fan of Season 6, but not because of the darkness level. I actually have a great deal of admiration for Mutant Enemey for the chances they took last season. As someone whose fear of failure restrains most creative impluses I applaud the courage it took to take the show in such a different direction. Unfortunately, I saw the change resulting in a loss of much of the subtlety, character depth and character consistency that gives Buffy so many levels to discuss. It's those attributes that take Buffy from a TV show into the realm of literature that can be analyzed and discussed at such an intense and interesting level. It was still a good tv show last season, but it wasn't that much more than that, as it had been in the previous seasons.

I think a large part of the problem was the writers gave too many interviews. When discussions of the show brought up legitimate concerns, holes and weaknesses, it seemed that Joss and the other writers spent more time denying than responding. If they didn't discuss it at all that would have been good, or if they addressed the issues showing respect to the fans that would have been good, but they didn't do either. I think an artist is better off letting people interpret their work on their own, or if they are going to make the dangerous choice of talking about it - facing up to their limitations squarely. I think the interviews that were given really fed the fire of peoples' dissapointment and anger at some of the choices made.

Part of the problem with creating something really, really great, is that it becomes hard to meet expectations, and something good, but not so great is quite the dissapointment. And I found that Season 6 was a dissappointment, but that's probably only because of the comparisons to Seasons 1-5. It doesn't help that with the level of discussion on this board, any episode that doesn't really have the substance in it to support that discussion, takes out a lot of the fun of watching Buffy.

- Sara, who never has to worry about meeting great expectations...

[> I agree... -- Juliette, 09:28:58 10/27/02 Sun

When I thought willow was going over to the Dark Side of her own will, as part of a gradual process from inside of her, I was fascinated. Magic addiction bored me stiff and Tara's death was not "the end of Tara's story" but a cheap way to give Willow an out clause - "I didn't mean it, I was all traumatised!"
I confess I never want to watch Spike try to rape Buffy, so maybe that was too dark for me, but only because Spike was my fav character

[> I agree... -- Juliette, 09:30:12 10/27/02 Sun

When I thought willow was going over to the Dark Side of her own will, as part of a gradual process from inside of her, I was fascinated. Magic addiction bored me stiff and Tara's death was not "the end of Tara's story" but a cheap way to give Willow an out clause - "I didn't mean it, I was all traumatised!"
I confess I never want to watch Spike try to rape Buffy, so maybe that was too dark for me, but only because Spike was my fav character

[> Re: Season 6 too dark? (longish and rambling. Spoilers? who knows...) -- Random, 11:58:41 10/27/02 Sun

Season 6 was, perhaps, a victim of good intentions gone awry. Personally, I found only five of the episodes particularly re-watchable: the two-parter Bargaining, OMWF, and the final two episodes (Two to Go/Grave.) Why this should be has been puzzling me (well, OMWF was awesome, of course) for the last few months. The season wasn't any darker than season 2. WSWB, Lie To Me, The Dark Age, Surprise/Innocence, Passion, the Becomings: these were all dark by any standard, season 6 included, and some were downright tragic. In fact, Season 6, in my estimation, has only one episode that could safely be called tragic, and we don't really get a taste of that before Willow goes all Psycho Mary. As I mulled it over, I realized what was bothering me:
the season was dark but ultimately very, very banal
And that was where ME went wrong. I seem to recall (I'm only a sporadic lurker, so I don't have access to all the real-world news concerning BtVS) that one of ME's stated goals this season past was to address the issues of going out into the real world, dealing with the problems of adulthood. In and of itself, this is perfectly fine -- the previous seasons, after all, dealt with coming-of-age issues and the challenges and fears of growing up and going out into the world. Indeed, it is almost axiomatic that one of the things that made the show truly special was the way it handled these issues in the context of a fantasy world. So what happened in season 6?
Leaving aside the fact that high fantasy is far better suited to certain themes, I would observe that season 6 perhaps failed in one very distinct, even ironic, way: it failed to sufficiently integrate the larger world around. Yes, I'm aware this seems to contradict my previous statements, but the external forces in a fantasy world are somewhat different from those of the real world. The evils -- be they ever so metaphorical -- are always uniquely identifiable with the fantasy world in question. Thus Adam (or Frankenstein's monster for that matter) may represent the dangers of science without conscience or the futility of humans playing God, but in the end, he is a monster to be killed, an Other that must be either integrated or eliminated. The same goes for the rest of the Big Bads. The Master, Angelus, the Mayor, Glory: all play parts in ME's brilliant metaphors and allegories, but none of them ever became truly mundane or easily deconstructed. Season 6 seemed to be pointing to the evil within all of us, the dangers of categorizing society into self and other, the need to realize that evil is not always something that can be beaten with a can-do and do-good attitude. And it accomplished this reasonably well, though it bordered on preachy at times (one of BtVS's tradiational strengths has always been its unwillingness to preach on issues, or do the dreaded "a very special Buffy" ep.) And perhaps ME became a victim of its own success. It was drama, perhaps even powerful drama. But dramatizing the mundane, the weaknesses and foibles of the drama's subjects, without addressimg the larger issues can be fatal to any work of fantasy. If Buffy slept with Angel and he turned out to just be a bastard who was in it for the good lovin'...well, imagine what our opinion of Season 2 would be if we had been treated to a half-a-season of Buffy agonizing over how shallow Angel turned out to be and the season finale turning out to be Buffy kicking Angel in the nuts and returning to the dating scene as a sadder but wiser Slayer (which she did, actually, in subsequent seasons, but....) The problem with most of season 6 is that it followed exactly this general paradigm. Instead of the fantasy becoming a metaphor for the turmoils of real life, it became a vehicle for them, a genre plot device. And not a particularly good one, at that. The monsters and demons were, for the most part, uninspired, and sometimes downright annoyingly contrived. OMWF broke that trend, as did, in some ways, Dark Willow. But neither were examples of sustained storytelling or originality.
Hence my characterization of season 6's primary problem as simply one of pure banality. Buffy's ennui in the face of her heavenly interlude had enormous possiblity -- but we are then treated to endless agonizing and lots of tawdry meaningless sex while she and Spike try to work out their own issues (not that I'm knocking meaningless tawdry sex, it's been quite good to me, but it does get old after a while.) Willows descent into darkness becomes mere metaphor with fantasy trappings, and suffers thereby because, as noted, good storytelling should never allow the literary devices to overshadow the story itself. The Trio might have had some interesting possibilities, but they were one-dimensional and circumscribed by their ineffectuality. Warren turns out to be a psycho, but this (like Dark Willow) is explored in a highly abbreviated manner, and thus the Evil is never quite developed enough to become something more than a mundane, distasteful aspect of the Buffyverse.
Thus, I posit (if not with any extraordinary elegance of logic or phrasing) that ME failed, not in their basic premise, but in their treatment of said premise. They were saying that we don't need to look to the Other for threats to our well-being -- society and human nature have quite enough of those. And that's true, as previous seasons demonstrated quite well, even brilliantly at times. But merely because this is true doesn't mean that there are greater issues and other enemies too. In the real world, nuclear holocaust and terrorism are no less meaningful just because we happen to have a drinking problem. We can afford to ignore these larger issues to some extent because our attention to, or lack thereof, them rarely has an identifiable effect. In the Buffyverse, though, the larger dangers are rarely less accessible than the immediate ones. In a sense, our suspension of disbelief is actually rendered more difficult because the evil is rendered more believable. A Buffy and gang without a fantastic Big Bad to tackle is a Buffy and co. without a rudder in the Buffyverse that we've become accustomed to. This show is not mere drama, it's a fantasy-drama. It escapes soap-opera status by being, for the most part, extremely well written and acted...and by allowing the viewers a glimpse of a fantasy world where the greater issues are as important as the more mundane ones, and vice versa. Balance and structural integrity (with regards to the story) have always been a hallmark of BtVS, and in season 6, we are treated instead to a haphazard, repetitive and contrived series of problems and story arcs. It wasn't horrible. A bad season of Buffy still knocks a good season of most shows out cold. But ME has a lot to live up to.

[> [> Good post! -- Rahael, 12:05:23 10/27/02 Sun

Perhaps the best season-6 critical post I've read.

Though I did love it all the way up to TR, and I started liking it a lot again from SR onwards.

[> [> Great post -- Sophist, 13:02:29 10/27/02 Sun

I'm not sure I agree completely; in fact, I very much disagree on which eps are worth re-watching. I also think there may be more problems than just the one you focus on; maybe I'll decide those are subsets of yours. Anyway, thanks for giving me something to think about.

[> [> Re: Season 6 too dark? (longish and rambling. Spoilers? who knows...) -- Random, 16:54:03 10/27/02 Sun

Back from doing life stuff and wishing to clarify a couple of points. I have re-watched every ep except, I believe, Smashed (I absolutely cannot bear the ending) and Doublemeat Palace (I cannot bear the beginning, middle or end.) I have no particular antipathy for any of the others, and rather enjoyed Tabula Rasa (the incredible campiness of the loan shark notwithstanding), Afterlife, Seeing Red and Life Serial. My point is that, given a long Sunday afternoon, few of Season 6's eps would be on my list of episodes I'd care to re-watch. But, then, I'm quirky about my choices on occasion (I have re-watched Superstar, BB&B, and (horrors!)The Zeppo almost as often as the more obvious choices.)
Secondly, I would agree with Sophist on the point that the causes are far more complex than I elucidated in my original post. It was basically an insight I had one afternoon not too long ago. There are many other reasons I was less than fond of S6, and even a few reasons to write a vindication of S6 if necessary. As in all other things concerning BtVS, there are few if any easy polarities in my perceptions of S6.

[> Re: Once more into the pool -- Deb, 19:04:37 10/27/02 Sun

Just got back from Wal-Mart. So I've been thinking a lot the last couple of hours. I think that maybe what I was getting from season 6 had a lot more to do with me than anything else.

I wanted something that was, monsterous, evil, bad, disgusting, empty, loveless, alone to turn-around and fight -- and win -- the battle to become good, insightful, caring, loving, desirable, loveable,etc. etc.

Last year was my first year teaching high school level (with no training what so ever). I had taught as a grad ass for two years at a university and my classes were huge, so not much getting to know students. I had six classes of about 26 students last year. On Sept. 11 after 9 days experience in the classroom, something extraordinairily vile -- monsterous -- invaded my first block class and it stayed the whole year in my room. A lurking, emotional fog that tainted everything. It came out in my students writings, visuals, essays, discussions, research papers, and daily occurrances.

I did my best, considering administration did not even acknowledge what happened for three days. It was during the next few weeks I worked with my classes on the Hero's Quest, archetypes, storytelling, how everyday events become folklore, legend and eventually myth: Death, Redemption and Resurrection.

I have never worked so hard in my life on the emotional level, trying . . to do the right thing? What ever that was at that time.

Season 6 was about trying to do the right thing in regards to human relationships to me. So, no, it wasn't dark. It was very difficult to watch at times, up then at other times it was inspiring. The season left me in limbo for the summer, and, well, I think this is why I was/am drawn to Spike and Spuffy.

Boo! OT-ish but interesting 'ghost' story from today's Phila. Inquirer -- OnM, 06:13:08 10/27/02 Sun

Check it out here:

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/4368248.htm

And, skeptic that I am, would I sit in the blue chair? Nosir.

But I suspect some of you might!

;-)

[> Re: Boo! OT-ish but interesting 'ghost' story from today's Phila. Inquirer -- LadyStarlight, 08:36:49 10/27/02 Sun

I found it interesting that the law varies from state to state on disclosure. When we bought our house this summer, one of the first things out of the agent's mouth was: 'somebody commited suicide in the house'. We checked this out with my father-in-law, who had been a real estate agent, and it is the law here. (Alberta and the Yukon, at least.)

I've never felt creeped out by the suicide. A murder would have been different, I think, but suicide is a choice

Besides, ghosts don't bother me. Ours has been fairly benign so far, just knocking stuff over. I don't know if it's the ghost of the person who commited suicide or the one that was in the trailer we used to live in (or both), but it's neat. I don't know if I'd sit in the chair, though. ;)

[> Re: Boo! OT-ish but interesting 'ghost' story from today's Phila. Inquirer -- Wisewoman, 09:18:13 10/27/02 Sun

No way would I be sitting in the blue chair, but I'd buy the Tobia's house if I had the money. That family suffered humane, peaceful deaths...what's there to haunt about?

;o)

[> Re: Boo! OT-ish but interesting 'ghost' story from today's Phila. Inquirer -- gds, 11:32:57 10/27/02 Sun

Near Orlando FL is a Crocodile Farm where you can hold a small muzzled croc & wrap a python around your neck & have someone take your picture. No way would I do this, but I would sit it the blue chair.

[> [> Well, there you go... -- dub ;o), 11:46:03 10/27/02 Sun

I adore pythons!

;o)

[> [> I'd hold the croc, but not the python. Snakes, gahhhhh!!!!! -- LadyStarlight, 11:47:40 10/27/02 Sun

Buffy's treatment of Spike compired with Angel's hypothetical treatment of a soulled Darla. -- ECH, 07:58:36 10/27/02 Sun

Imagine if Darla had been re-soulled for some reason and was in desperate need of help. Would Angel have left her for about a month to her own devices, while coming to her every so often for help? Hell no.

People rationalize that Buffy doesn't love Spike so her behavior is justifiable. But, Angel never loved Darla does that mean he wouldn't help a soulled version of her? Of course not.

People bring up the AR, but is Buffy scared of Spike because of it? Does it keep her from coming to him for help. If un soulled Darla had tried to rape and nearly suceeded in raping Angel to get rid of his annoying soul, would that have made a difference in his treatment of soulled Darla? I think not. But, then you would have to say that women are different and more emotionally weak, but that flys in the face of the entire feminist notion of female empowerment.

The fact is Angel would have helped Darla unlike the way Buffy refused to do just about anything for Spike other then tell him that the basement is killing him. Even though Soulled Darla would have deserved much much less consideration, for the actions of soulless Darla compaired to Spike who actually was helping Buffy out in any way she would let him; sex, slaying, babysitting, etc. And, that her soul would have had to have been forced on her unwillingly.

You can say that Buffy just doesn't want to get emotionally or physically involved with Spike again, but I very much doubt that would keep Angel from helping nor is Buffy actually required to be emotionally or physically joined to Spike just for helping him

[> Darla was resouled -- Masq, 08:56:41 10/27/02 Sun

And Angel did not know what to make of her at first. He was hesitant and even a little hostile. Of course, there is back story here--Wolfram and Hart sicced souled Darla on him to make him crazy.

For a while, souled Darla continued to identify with her vampire past and vexed Angel. And he became obsessed with helping her, because the soul is the symbol of a second chance for him and he thought she should recognize the chance she was getting after 400 years.

She only started feeling the real weight of her soul after months of having it.

Ange's obsession with helping her wasn't healthy, but in the end, he gave his life for her. He found out she was dying of syphilis and went to a mystical place where he endured some trials to win her a second chance at physical life. One of those trials was to "die"--to think he was actually going to be killed and he went through it and came out the other end alive.

What I want know is why you think there is any parallel between Buffy-Spike and Angel-Darla? Angel and Darla were together for 150 years. They are like an old divorced couple. There is history here, long history, a roller coaster of emotions, they have played one hundred different roles with each other of lovers, husband-wife, enemies, divorced couple, co-parents of vampires and a human child. They were "parents" of Spike and Drusilla for over 20 years.

They had a relationship for a long time and Spike and Buffy are still getting to know each other in comparison.

There isn't any comparison.

[> [> I am making up a hypothetical situation, what if Darla and Angel had been lovers for just one year? -- ECH, 09:06:37 10/27/02 Sun

And, their relationship was similar to B/S in that Angel never loved Darla because she didn't have a soul, so he used her for sex but didn't achieve happyness because he didn't love her, and he hated her and hated himself for being with her, so finally he ended things. She ends up trying to give him sex again to get back with him, but that doesn't work. So, she manages to get her soul back somehow and now she is emotionally and mentally damaged. Would Angel have made a major effort to help her in that situation.

I would almost certainly believe that he would.

[> [> [> Hmmm -- Masq, 09:45:26 10/27/02 Sun

In that case, I'd say the scenario would fall So Far into the realm of speculation and imagination that any argument based on it would be meaningless.

Take one hundred people and have them write fan fic on an Angel-and-Darla are lovers for one year after being on-and-off enemies for four years and strangers before that, and you'd get one hundred completely different stories.

[> [> [> Differences in views -- TRM, 10:04:16 10/27/02 Sun

I'm a little unclear as to the major thrust of your argument -- and it is certain that the Buffy/Spike and Angel/Darla combinations are really difficult to compare either as they are or to remove from their context in some hypothetical form.

Forgetting Darla completely, I think you're arguing (though correct me if I'm wrong) that if Angel was in an identical relatioship as Buffy was to Spike, he would have behaved differently. I think I would accept that argument. But, I don't think it necessarily stems from the AR or implies "that women are different and more emotionally weak."

It seems more a core difference in their personalities. Buffy, as we've noted, is "the Hand." She tends to be honor bound and duty bound and while she lives in a world that's full of gray areas, her character seems to prefer a world with none (Lie to Me, Normal Again). She is concerned with doing what is right.

Angel read Sartre, and tries to make his way through the gray areas (Epiphany). He is generally characterized by redemption, so he tends to help others who are in the moral wrong rather than reprimand them. (So maybe, Angel should really be a guidance counselor...)

So, I agree that Angel is probably more likely to help a Spike-like character than Buffy is. But I don't really find it worth generalizing too much.

On the other hand, Angel had some form of a close "relationship" with Wesley. Wesley destroyed his innocence by stealing his child. And Angel didn't really come around to him for a while (if even now). I mean, Angel tried to kill Wesley after that, and Buffy didn't try to kill Spike after the AR...

[> [> [> [> Re: Differences in views -- JM, 10:09:56 10/27/02 Sun

I think there are also identification issues. Both Buffy and Angel made their reactions to those specific relationships all about!them. As we all do. Angel knows what it's like to not have a soul and then have to deal with that burden. He identified with Darla, even though their situations didn't fit perfectly.

Buffy knows what it's like to get attacked by someone she trusts. Again. And not just for the second time. It was heart breaking to see the difference between what Spike needs and what he's getting though. But I really think that Buffy is doing the best she can.

[> Actually. . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 10:34:21 10/27/02 Sun

I think Angel DID love Darla. Well, not while he was soulless, because Angelus was incapable of love, just as un-souled Darla was. However, when he got his soul back, Angel became capable of love, and the obsession he had with Darla while soulless became a form of love now that he had a soul.

Also, you must remember that the attempted rape probably means more to Spike than it does to Buffy. Of all the horrible things he's done in his life, that's the one he feels the most remorse for right now. The very act of seeing Buffy is producing torment in Spike similar to what Angel felt when the First Evil came to him in the form of his past victims. Hence Buffy's line from Help: "I think it's worse when I'm here."

[> [> Re: Actually. . . -- ECH, 10:52:07 10/27/02 Sun

How does she know what he is like when she isn't around. She knows he cuts himself when she isn't around. How can she tell what he does or how he acts.

And, Angel said early in the third season that Buffy was the only woman he ever loved. And, it was made quite clear that Angel cares for Darla, but he and Angelus never truly loved her.

Retread Spoilers Buffy 7.5/Angel 4.3 -- alcibiades, 08:12:48 10/27/02 Sun

Continuing here a discussion of a post now archived:

Shadowkat said in a recent discussion of the schism over the perception of Buffy's behavior towards Anya in Selfless:

Is Buffy heartless here? No, but it might appear that way if you are Xander or Willow. Buffy is trying to play two roles, Counselor by day/Judge by night and the roles are beginning to wear on her. Is she defined solely by them?

I'm less sure that Buffy is not being heartless -- at least to some extent -- than Shadowkat, because I think that Buffy is dealing with Anya in her professional capacity not as a friend. And the other two Scoobies are dealing with her as an individual, not primarily as a demon who needs to be stopped. Which means to me that Anya has never quite been a human for Buffy -- which is reflected in the fact that a lot of the audience has also been uncomfortable with Anya's peculiar humanity all along and have felt distance from her.

That however, is not the point I am concerned with in this post.

Regardless of who is right or wrong on how to read Buffy's behavior, I do agree it is quite likely that Xander and Willow may regard Buffy's behaviour here as heartless. And I think that is huge. Huge trouble ahead.

Look at the trouble we have over on ATS because of the schism of the group.

The group decided that Wesley is more or less heartless -- so he is out, now we have an Angel who seems to have lost the mission and is traipsing after his son, not doing what he is supposed to be doing, and we have a Cordy who has lost her memory as a price for being overly involved with Angel and not engaged with the rest of the world.

Group heart failure. And it is going to spell lots of trouble ahead, since the group won't be together to deal with whatever apocalyse or BB is looming on the horizon this season.

If Xander and Willow start feeling that Buffy is heartless than very likely I think that that is going to cause a split to develop in the group. This is also going to be compounded by Willow finally learning that Xander lied to Buffy about what she said re: Angel in Season 2. Thus, it may be a three way split, instead of just a two way split. At the very least, it is going to cause some distance to grow between Willow and her very best friend, Xander.

Furthermore, we have learned that Buffy's heart has been walled up all this time, stuck on that moment in time when she had to stick the sword through Angel's chest -- she has residual resentment against Xander, Willow and Spike for what she had to do.

This will continue the trend that Buffy enunciated in Selfless -- she is the law, she has to act alone. We've known since Season 2 and it was repeated in Season 5 in FFL, that a Slayer without resources of Family and friends was going to be in trouble.

And I think Buffy will be in trouble from this in more than one way. Because it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Being on her own is only going to make her harder, more a slayer, less Buffy.

What Does Spike Have Against Children? -- Finn Mac Cool, 10:45:00 10/27/02 Sun

I am NOT bashing Spike in this post, just wanted to bring something up that I found peculiar:

In "School Hard", Spike very quickly becomes annoyed with the child vampire, the Annointed One. Both to seize power and get rid of the twerp, Spike puts the Annoying One in a cage and raises him into the sunlight to be burned to death.

In "Crush", Spike tells Dawn a story about his past where he slaughtered an entire family. He then mentions that, when he heard the sounds of a little girl hiding in the coal bin, he locked her in there, most likely to die of dehydration or suffocation in a little while.

These are the only two times we know about Spike interacting with truly young children (Dawn SO does not count here), so I'm wondering if maybe he has (or had, considering that he's souled now) a hatred of the little tikes, so much that he likes/liked to lock them up to die cruelly rather than his usual style of quick-but-brutal.

[> Re: What Does Spike Have Against Children? -- LadyStarlight, 10:49:11 10/27/02 Sun

In "School Hard", Spike very quickly becomes annoyed with the child vampire, the Annointed One. Both to seize power and get rid of the twerp, Spike puts the Annoying One in a cage and raises him into the sunlight to be burned to death

I think you've answered your own question there. Had Spike not disposed of the Anointed One in some way, the AO's followers would most likely have disposed of Spike.

And as for the 'kid in the coal bin', I always thought that had Buffy not come in right then, the end of the story would have been 'and I ate her'. YMMV, of course.

[> [> It's how he did it. -- Finn Mac Cool, 10:57:14 10/27/02 Sun

It wasn't the fact that Spike killed the Annointed One, it's the way he did it. Most of the time when he killed, Spike was very direct about it. Break the spine, bite the neck, stab them; it's all good. Killing the Annointed One by sunlight, however (a death I imagine is similar in agony to being burned alive), does not fit this pattern, and leads me to believe (along with his coal bin story) that Spike has/had some personal feelings against small children.

[> [> [> Re: It's how he did it. -- Indri, 12:06:46 10/27/02 Sun

It wasn't the fact that Spike killed the Annointed One, it's the way he did it.

I presumed it was done that way so we wouldn't see the AO killed by a method which would kill any young child (e.g. breaking his neck or a stake through the heart) but by a vampire-specific method that emphasised his unnatural, demonic nature. I don't think the viewers would have wanted to watch the former kind of death, especially not in the early days of BtVS.

That doesn't explain why Spike chose it, although I would argue that the killing was in fact swift and efficient. It was also quite showy, which fits his School Hard characterisation in particular.

[> [> [> [> Re: It's how he did it. -- Deb, 13:52:53 10/27/02 Sun

I don't think Vamps see each other as children, even if they appear so to us. "Interview with the Vampire" also has a "child" vampire (Claudia who was six to eight years old when she was turned and she used her "childlike" look to become a highly manipulative and powerful vampire. Anne Rice's Vampire U. has a rule amongst vamps that it is forbidden to turn children, because of the power that they can gather once meeting a protector. They also "turn" on their creator and over the years become very vindictive of other vapires.) who does not act like a child most of the time. Interestingly enough, her fate was the same as The Annoying One -- death by sunlight. Vampires don't fear much, but they do fear the sunlight (although Spike flaunts it a bit as more as a fact of unlife.) and apparently "child" vampires. I think there is some sort of symbolic meaning here, but my head hurts so badly right now that I couldn't argue that I have a headache.

As for Dawn, I always viewed it as Spike telling Dawn "fairytales," which of course she knew were true, because she got them straight from the source. (I also believe Spike probably "enhanced" the stories at bit if his personal history of being a good PR man is any example.) Fairytales are similar to myths in that they have a lesson to teach, but since children are so young and vunerable, fairytales are often very frightening to them. Parents for hundreds of years, and still today with cleaned up versions, told their kids fairytales to "parent" them regarding the nature of the world.

With my 15-year-old daughter, I do tell her stories from my life as examples of what I have done that was harmful to myself or others. [I made so many poor choices along the way, but learning the lessons that were present within the consequences made it all worth it, at least to me. I've attempted to make my peace with all those people whom I hurt, but once you've said you are sorry, and really mean it, the ball is in the other person's court.) I've always been honest with her about the realities of life. [child bride here? Nope, didn't think you'd buy it.]Spike and Dawn had an interesting pre-rape scene relationship. He was the only one that really took the time to present the ways of the world to her for her own good. (She was probably also his only confidant is the telling of his unlife.) Actually, I think Spike/William [hereafter referred to the "Souled One" by this author] likes children. One must remember that he is the one who took care of Dawn, for the most part, after Buffy died at the end of season five. He made a "gentleman's" promise to Buffy to do so. The others were lost in schemes of resurrecting Buffy Have you noticed that in previous seasons he always has a term of endearment for Dawn, and I don't believe it was because he was in love with the Summers women. (There are three, very distinct relatioships there, but that is for another time.) "Half-pint"?? Isn't that was Laura Ingalls Wilder's father called her?

[> [> [> [> Re: It's how he did it. -- LadyStarlight, 16:51:39 10/27/02 Sun

I presumed it was done that way so we wouldn't see the AO killed by a method which would kill any young child (e.g. breaking his neck or a stake through the heart) but by a vampire-specific method that emphasised his unnatural, demonic nature.

An excellent point, Indri. This makes much sense, especially when you consider the whole reason ME made the vamps poof into dust when Buffy killed them was so that viewers wouldn't see this pretty blonde litter the landscape with corpses.

And also the fact that when Angelus killed Jenny, ME made a point of having him kill her in vamp-face, mostly b/c they didn't think the viewers could stomach having Buffy kiss the face that killed Jenny.

[> Re: What Does Spike Have Against Children? -- leslie, 13:00:54 10/27/02 Sun

I don't think 2 examples are particularly indicative of a trend. The Annoying One was inhabiting a child's body, yes, but the sense I got from the whole ritual thing--and the fact that Buffy and Giles clearly expected the Annointed One to be an adult--was that this was a case of finding a vessel for a particular vampiric demon. One might as well ask what the Master has against children in choosing a child for his Annointed One.

As for the story Spike tells Dawn, that actually struck me as being, well, not exactly pro-child, but verging on the fatherly or perhaps avuncular at least in his method of telling. There's a reason why children's stories not only have child protagonists but child victims--you're telling them to children, they want to hear about things that might happen to them, and if they're scary stories, they want to hear about how things go wrong so that if they ever happen to them, they can figure out how to make them go right. (Okay, if a vampire is eating my family and I'm hiding, I do NOT start crying no matter how much I want to!) Okay, it was pretty clear that the story was going to end up with Spike eating the kid who was hiding, but the way he was telling it, the way Dawn was hanging on his every word, it was exactly like telling spooky stories to children. I think it's interesting that Spike's attitude--both his mental attitude and his physical position--is not his usual boasting-about-how-big-a-bad-he-is stance (standing up straight, slightly leaning back, sticking his chest out, head raised, speaking loudly) but a very intimate scary-story-telling position (leaning forward, shoulders slightly hunched, face close to hers, hushed voice that's nonetheless relishing the gruesomeness of the tale). It's a very just-we-two-sharing-this-story position, and it's funny because you use that position to suggest that you're telling the story like this so the monster doesn't overhear you, and the monster in question is, in fact, him.

[> Re: What Does Spike Have Against Children? (Angel 4.1 spolier) -- Doriander, 13:23:59 10/27/02 Sun

The coalbin story, I saw it as Spike embelleshing just to get a scare out of Dawn (who is a little girl). Also, if the part about the missing girl were true, it was never indicated that Spike locked her in there to suffocate. According to Spike's tale, he killed the family, thinking that was the "whole lot" until a little sigh alerted him to the presence of the girl hiding in the coalbin. So he got vewy quiet, pulled the cover, hauled her out, ~~and ate her~~ and gave her to a nice family, thereby saved her from the abusive one that "locked" her in there.

Killing the AO by sunlight (while declaring "from now on, well have a little less ritual...) is something that would leave quite an impression to the lackeys (and the viewers). I don't think it has to do with him being a kid, he's just really annoying (don't we all agree). Veering slightly, but this reminds me of what Lilah just did to take over Special Projects. Lilah has won me over.

Perhaps Spike has a thing against small children, who knows? But from what they've shown, I just don't see a pattern.

[> [> Oh, wait, I get the joke now! -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:28:09 10/27/02 Sun

When Spike said "and didn't lock her in a coal bin", I took that to mean he was trying too hard to pretend he wasn't a monster for Buffy that he was saying he did exactly the opposite of the truth, ie, he did lock her in the coal bin, though death by dehydration would be more likely there than suffocation.

But I get it now! He was trying to make it seem like the family had locked her in there and he was her brave rescuer! I didn't get that joke before. LOL!

However, I actually doubt Spike was exaggerating. Think about it: with a hundred and twenty years as a very prolific and bloodthirsty vampire, being a former member of the Scourge of Europe, and having quite a few instances of fighting Slayers and angry mobs under his belt, I doubt Spike would need to embellish to make a good, scary story.

Current board | More October 2002