October 2002 posts


Previous October 2002  

More October 2002

Sexual violence and murder on Buffy- grim musings on moral ambiguity and glamour (no spoilers) -- Sariel, 04:11:20 10/28/02 Mon

Blood Luvin' Girl's thought's below have made me want to come out of hiding and reply. The reply grew and grew into a post:
People and demons die in Buffy all the time... it's awful, but you can even come to like killers like Angel and Willow as they try to redeem themselves and explain themselves in ways that are simply not permitted in our society. Would YOU trust a murderer? Or a woman who flayed a man alive because he killed her lover, while you watched? Willow is so attractive as DarthWillow (the hair, the fashion sense, the fleeting semblance of back-bone) that it's fascinating to watch. And it could easily be argued that it satisfies our own iddish needs to see violence and vengeance done.
Sexual violence is a different thing. Killing can come to have this weird glamour on tv that it rarely would have in real life. Sexual assault is not glamourous- in Western culture it has a very real stigma: THAT'S the straw that broke the camel's back. It's weird to think it, but in tv land, you can come back from breaking a woman's neck and laying her body down in the bed of the man who loves her as a prank. You can come back from flaying a man, or in Xander's case (which no one seems to comment on)attempting to murder the man/demon who has merely slept with his ex girlfriend. But you don't come back from rape on tv. And the only way you can come back from an attempted rape on tv (is this the first time this has ever been attempted on telly?) it seems is to become a new person.
Fair enough too. It explains the reactions of people who write posts and say "I can't watch that scene." or "I just pretend it didn't happen" or "That was just totally out of character- Spike would never have done that."
It has the power to horrify, not only because it depicted Buffy terrified and hurting, but I think because it broke that taboo- and as happens to so many people around the world in real life, the added horror is that the person who is doing this terrible, sad sickening thing, is someone you feel like you know. And in many cases, someone you have had more than a sneaking liking for.
If Spike was "just" a man, that scene would have still made sense to me. Buffy has at every point said: "No. I will never touch you. Never kiss you. Never love you." And then what does she do? She beats him up and then screws him within an inch of his life. At points where she might have chosen to push him away and be "Good Buffy", rather than the Buffy who "lets him do those things to me." (denial much?) a kiss or a touch, or a bit of wrestling from the "evil blood sucking fiend", and she's crumbled. Not suprising that Spike allows himself to think that this time "No means yes." It certainly has before. In the grip of his fantasy, where she will cave and become his, oblivious to what she is really saying... it's horrifying, pitifull and pathetic. But also quite believable.
Now. Make Spike a vampire. A creature of hunger, a murderer with no conscience- an amoral creature who "goes where he likes, takes what he likes", with all that implies, regardless of the glamour we the audience attatch to his words. All id. Does anyone think that in 100 odd years that he hasn't raped anyone before? Why would he have any qualms about it? He has no restaining soul or conscience after all. What then suprises me, is that he doesn't succeed. And that he's horrified by what he's tried to do. That's what makes his quest for redemption so interesting. Spike, the amoral vampire, actually cares about and understands the moral implications of what he's done.
On another, closely related topic, think of Angel/Angelus. In Ats Series 3, during one of the "Angelus" prologues, as I recall, we very clearly see him biting the thigh of the terrified gypsy girl, in front of Darla. He seems to be quite clearly "putting on a show" for his sire. Disturbing to think that Angelus almost certainly wouldn't have stopped there. Why should he, when she was bound and gagged, and when the whole point was to show Darla just what a fiend he was? Does the thought of Angelus as a rapist as well as a killer diminish his glamour? Does it add to the revulsion, the horror and the pity we might feel for the vampire who has "done all of those things and cares"?
ME are usually very careful with this sort of thing, and rightly so, but these two instances stand out in my mind, depicting or implying acts from which even a soulless vampire cannot return... Angelus has a soul forced on him- Spike goes searching for one. I guess this is because death is the everyday "bread and butter" of the horror genre in general, and "Bttvs" in particular... but we still watch and find much to sypathise with, or be fascinated by. Weird isn't it? Do we take murder and death so much less seriously than sexual violence on tv?
Perhaps if we pull this so far apart, it ceases to become fun tv, but what do people think?
[> And also... (AtS S3 spoiler) -- KdS, 04:30:50 10/28/02 Mon

Forget the exact episode, but it's fairly clearly implied during one of the AtS episodes that Angelus raped Mrs. Holtz before he killed her.
[> [> And one more disturbing thought for Angel-idealisers (AtS S2 spoilers this time) -- KdS, 04:46:59 10/28/02 Mon

What do you think would have happened at the end of Reprise if Darla hadn't responded to him voluntarily?
[> [> [> Re: And one more disturbing thought for Angel-idealisers (AtS S2 spoilers this time) -- JM, 17:17:46 10/29/02 Tue

Thank you, that came up at Angel's Soul last year and generated a good discussion. Unfortunately they don't long term archive. I argued that that was very much the implication and the writers were invoking it more than deliberately. OK off to read the rest of the thread. I can't believee work is interfering with my posting. This more than sucks.
[> [> [> [> Disturbing? Yes & No -- SingedCat, 15:02:54 10/31/02 Thu

It's kind of a moot question, since sex & soul-losing was where Darla was headed with her entire campaign, and Angel knew it, which is why he turned to her, he was past caring what happened to him, etc. The supposition, in other words, takes the entire scene out of its context, which was the only thing driving the scene in the first place.
[> Very good post -- Rahael, 04:42:17 10/28/02 Mon

welcome! Are you another addition to our little British contingent? or do you just have insomnia?
[> [> Re: Very good post -- Sariel, 03:37:08 10/29/02 Tue

Nope, I'm an Australian with mild insomnia who doesn't object to spoilers! Thanks for the feedback!
[> Some additional quick thoughts -- Rahael, 05:08:21 10/28/02 Mon

The taboo, the stigma of rape does not only extend to the attacker. It is also firmly fixed upon the victim.

How many people who have been sexually assualted are able to speak about it? Aren't they made to feel ashamed of themselves? As if somehow they too have been polluted?

I was reminded of this, as I was reading some articles this weekend of victims of homophobia, who were often raped by straight men as a kind of punishment. One victim left his job, his town, his friends and moved away. He was too afraid and too ashamed.

As for my feelings about AR - I wasn't shocked by what Spike did. I did have qualms as to how ME would handle the aftermath, but having seen the parts of early S7, those have been calmed (to take Buffy jumping back into friendship/romantic relationship with him suddenly). I certainly didn't think *worse* of him. I take murder very seriously indeed. And I don't think Angelus wasn't capable of it. Why can't we allow these Vamps, who are supposed to be capable of crimes that ordinary humans couldn't do, not commit a very ordinary crime which affects many of us, both male and female?

I understand the argument that this is *not* reality, and the violence is metaphorical, the blood shed is metaphorical. But metaphors depend on their power to work on more than one level. So I can watch and find their crimes abhorrent, but not feel the same skin crawling effect I have when I happen to catch a documentary about a human being who has committed similar crimes. However, I can't agree personally with those who say that they do not find the killing on the show in the least shocking or 'evil'. I do. No matter how metaphorical. I shiver everytime I read "Duke Bluebeard's Castle" etc, even though it works at a different level than a more realistic tale of a man murdering all his wives.

I always thought the point of the horror story was that it was horrific, albeit in a way that speaks to our fascination with the dark.
[> [> Watching Angel -- Arethusa, 07:55:36 10/28/02 Mon

"I always thought the point of the horror story was that it was horrific, albeit in a way that speaks to our fascination with the dark."

That's it-these are horror shows, and the dissonance between the creator and audience arises when the audience forgets this. Under the quips and kicks are horrible, terrible things going on, just like in real life. Sometimes audience members forget the reason Whedon created his world-to examine the horrors of growing up and living in this world. Those horrors are embodied in the demons. They are murder, rape, wanton cruelty, ironic suffering. But the faces that cover their crimes like a mask are beautiful, charming and amusing. Just like some of the real villians in life. When good people identify with the demons, they create a no-win situation, since they are supporting evil creatures. Then the evil creature does someting unambiguously evil, as they are wont to do, and the audience is thrown into confusion. They thought they were supposed to like the evil creature, or they identify with the evil creature because it is, quite rightly, an outcast.

With Angel and Spike and all the other demons, ME and especially Whedon are examining the darkness that lies in all of humanity. But people want their heroes to be all-good, and their demons all-evil (or vice-versa, depending on where their loyalties are). That's not like real life, and that's not the story Whedon is telling. He said in an article that he wants to show the heroic bad guy, and the unheroic weak good guy, because that's often how it happens in real life. So we have Angelus, who kept repeatin' on Caroline Holtz amoung others, and murdered and tortured countless more. Murder kills the body. Torture and rape kill or damage the soul. None can be excused away.
Angel knows that. I've been thinking about the posts on forgiveness for Angel but not for Spike for several days. None of the vampires can or should be forgiven, since they are amoral creatures that live for the hunt and kill. Angelus was a powerful, terrifying monster, who created unimagionable suffering, with a song in his heart. I don't think anyone forgives Angelus. But Angel, who has a soul and is horrified by what he did as Angelus, can be forgiven because he never forgets what he is, and constantly tries to create a worthwhile life, now that he has a second (third?) chance. We are given permission to forgive because Angelus didn't really have free will. I've never felt the need to forgive Angelus or Angel. Angel told Holtz that what he did to Holtz's family is beyond forgiveness. Angel is trying to deal with the darkness inside himself on a daily basis, and sometimes a minute-by-minute basic, like any addicted person. He is not a romantic hero, he is an anti-hero. I am very fascinated to see how a violent, powerful, seductive man deals with his innate cruelty and violence. I watch to see how he deals with the constant craving for violence and desire to give in to his darkness, how he must be constantly vigilent, and how he deals with his failures. We're dealing with the same cravings-why else would we watch such a violent show filled with so many disturbing images?
[> [> How victims are portrayed -- shadowkat, 08:48:23 10/28/02 Mon

"The taboo, the stigma of rape does not only extend to the attacker. It is also firmly fixed upon the victim."

Well said. This sentence is why I hated the AR scene in SR.
That hatred has been quelled and calmed somewhat by Beneath You for some of the same reasons you mentioned. But I still struggle with it.

Why? For many of the reasons mentioned in Sarial's post above.

From Smashed until AYW - I had a small fear in the back of my mind that they would take the story in a place I sooo did not want to go. Because I knew how difficult that place is to explore and I'd seen way too many television dramas go there and foul it up. Of course we all know they went there. Whether they fouled up? The jury is still partly out on.

Buffy and Spike engaged in a violent sexual relationship, often starting with Buffy saying no - only to eventually give in and attack him sexually as she does in Smashed,
Tabula Rasa (kissing scene), Gone. The pushme -pullme relationship was what was painful to watch. She says no but means yes - idea. Characterwise? It made sense. Buffy appeared to be doing what i've seen many people do, excusing her actions by making them someone else's fault.
"Why do I let Spike do these things to me? Why do I let Spike hurt me?" The audience, or at least a portion of it, was beginning to root for Spike to slap the living hell out of Buffy. "Tell me you love me. Tell me you want me." Bam!
"You're incompetent." "I'm using you." This was a risky move on the part of the writers - which they probably hoped worked because Spike was an amoral vampire, the villain, so as David Fury once stated in an commentary for Primeval :"I excuse what we do to Spike because I believe he is inherently evil at heart." Unfortunately watching Buffy beat up Spike, push Spike, pull Spike, manipulate Spike while Spike obviously loved her beyond reason was not making Spike inherently evil to the viewer - it was making Buffy seem that way to some, not all the viewers. I've rewatched the episodes - you can literally watch them three ways. I can see it from the view that Spike is seducing her and is obsessive and ruthless and in love all at the same time. And yes I like the fact you can see it both ways - very intriguing. But and this is a huge But, if you are going to end this with an attempted rape - you better damn well make the character's whose the intended victim a little more sympathetic otherwise, half your audience is going to be rooting for the wrong character. And that is what happened and that is what continues to disturb me on a weird horrible level.

They have in some respects dealt with that problem in Beneath You and with Spike getting the soul. But unfortunately, Buffy still comes across to a sizable portion of the audience as less than sympathetic right now.
This was not always the case. In Beneath You - Selfless, they could have done a few small things to remedy this problem, they haven't. Now don't misunderstand me - I'm by no means bashing Buffy or the writers here. Actually part of me is really fascinated and intriqued by what they've pulled. The polarization I've seen in the fans fascinates me as well. I can see both views actually.

But what disturbs me...is an odd residual feeling that Buffy is asking for someone to hit her. Also I find it interesting that they let her, the hero, be their victim and bad guy at the same time last year.

Should you do that with an issue as emotionally hot as rape? I don't know.
[> [> [> Thanks shadowkat -- Blood Luvin Girl, 09:07:39 10/28/02 Mon

Yes! Thanks shadowkat.

You explained so much of how I felt and still feel about the whole situation surrounding the attempted rape. I hated being put in the situation because I could see it from both sides of the relationship and could not hate or forgive either of them for their actions. Both did-in my opinion- horrible, unforgivable things. I hated that I had to defend my liking of Spike and my intense dissapointment in Buffy.

They put us all in an terrible position if we liked the character of Spike and the B/S relationship. I felt no guilt in continuing to like him, but still I had to deal with the fact that many people would think I condoned rape because of my loyalty to the character.

I am very empathic to the characters on the show and every time Buffy used Spike I felt for him, especially since he didn't seem to realize exactly how bad it was for both of them.

From the moment Spike tried to kill himself in "Doomed" I had seen his snapping coming. I did not think it would take the form of an attempted rape though, and it killed me to see both of the characters have to go through such a ugly thing.

I can only hope that the coming season will help to heal the wounds caused by the events in "Seeing Red", for both the characters and for us veiwers.
[> [> [> [> Re: Thanks shadowkat -- Miss Edith, 02:46:50 10/29/02 Tue

ME should have anticipated the response. They took a popular male character and put him in a position that women especially could identify with. Being used for sex and begging for love, "I love you you know I do", "Do you even like me?", "We have to talk". Then they gave the female hero a bad case of emotional constipation, broken only by the occasionl indulgence in angry battery. Hence viewers feeling uneasy at the attempted rape scene as some of us did feel manipuated. Certain writers interviews stressed that Spike was the bad boyfriend and Buffy was the victim and look at the attempted rape, the alley beating doesn't even count any more etc etc.
[> [> [> Re: How victims are portrayed/Spoilers 7.5 -- alcibiades, 09:32:07 10/28/02 Mon

They have in some respects dealt with that problem in Beneath You and with Spike getting the soul. But unfortunately, Buffy still comes across to a sizable portion of the audience as less than sympathetic right now.
This was not always the case. In Beneath You - Selfless, they could have done a few small things to remedy this problem, they haven't.

ME is doing this on purpose.

According to reliable reports, Black!Buffy in the basement originally said several things that were much more compassionate to Spike -- like you are starting out on a new slate with me -- and after he tells her he has nowhere to go she says wtte of anywhere is better than the basement.

But all of those explicitly compassionate words were removed.

ME wants Buffy to come across as cold, or at best, only coldly compassionate.

The question is why.

In another post I started down below which has been kind of ignored I point out that Spike's initial words to Black!Buffy in the basement parallel to an extraordinary extent the words of one of the Crazies in Blood Ties upon regarding Dawn, right after she has found out that she is the Key.

ME doesn't do this kind of parallel lightly -- especially when the words they are paralleling are not obvious.

My impression is that something is definitely off with Buffy.

And ME wants us to think so as well. I think it is as much as an objective clue as we ever get with ME.

Which is why I find it odd that there is so much pressure at this board to find Buffy peachy with a side of keen (sarcasm deleted) no matter how she acts. I think it is a kind of apologetics, personally, because as Rufus keeps on pointing out she is the heroine.

She wasn't okay last year, and I don't think she's okay now either, even though she has her act in gear in many of the ways she did not have it in gear last year -- there is no obvious depression, but that does not make all right with the world.

The thing is Buffy with her act in gear is rather scary lately.
[> [> [> [> Spoiler spec -- Rahael, 09:52:13 10/28/02 Mon

The only thing is, Alcibiades, if ME are doing this so deliberately, so early on in this season, it's to pull the rug out from under our feet.

If Buffy is being made to seem so unsympathetic isn't it a huge misdirection? After all, the Dawn analogy - Dawn was all set up to seem rather sinister, somehow behind Joyce's tumour, and that was really misdirection too.

What I would say in response to both you and OnM re your respective speculations is that ME always goes for something much less complicated. Even Buffy's "I came back wrong" turned out to be a metaphor for her state of mind - at the end of the day, the simplest (but not the least complex) explanation is the one that pans out. Because, if Buffy's unsympatheticness is down to something physiologically wrong with her, rather than something to do with her humanity, who she is, isn't that more emotionally difficult, yet plotwise, the most simple?

I say this not because I don't think your spec is wrong, it's just what I always think when I read spec - indeed, I answered Amara's point about this in a similar vein. Your spec about Spike's ending though - that I think sounds both and difficult, and 'simple'. In the sense of the various metaphorical foreshadowings, the way that ME likes to revisit old plot points, etc.

Also, as for the clean slate thing, and Buffy's compassionate comments being taken away - perhaps ME thought that it was simply too quick for Buffy to acknowledge - perhaps they are saving it.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Spoiler spec -- Briar Rose, 18:29:29 10/31/02 Thu

The "Rape to Repentance" has been done before - both in real life and in fiction. I remember the outcry about General Hospital when Luke raped Laura on the Disco dance floor and then she fell in love with him when he came back to town and they married not long after.

Everyone carries darkness inside of them. And one of the most important lessons we learn as we grow is acknowledging the darkness and using our free will to work against [or for] it as needed in situations we encounter all through our lives.

It is widely acknowledged by psychologists and other psychological researchers that over 70 percent of average women have what are termed "rape fantasies" and that includes women who HAVE actually been raped. It normally is based on a fantasy of being sexually free because they are not in control of the situation with someone they barely know - or know well and are forced to GIVE total control over the situation to.

Does this mean that all women REALLY want to be raped? NO! But it is a viable fantasy.

I believe that ME is simply giving us real, honest to Goddess, pure and Truthful Life as we know it. Nothing more and nothing less. We have all known women who treat the best man ever like dirt. Men who treat the best woman ever like punching bags. It happens. It's life. And it is rarely portrayed on such a basic level as ME does it.

I think that's what causes more shock among the BtVS audience than that it is portrayed in the first place. That it's dealt with in a real life kind of way even though this is a fantasy horror show.
[> [> [> [> I don't disagree with you (Beneath You Spoilers) -- shadowkat, 09:57:00 10/28/02 Mon

"ME is doing this on purpose.

According to reliable reports, Black!Buffy in the basement originally said several things that were much more compassionate to Spike -- like you are starting out on a new slate with me -- and after he tells her he has nowhere to go she says wtte of anywhere is better than the basement.

But all of those explicitly compassionate words were removed.

ME wants Buffy to come across as cold, or at best, only coldly compassionate. "

I don't disagree. In my own Heart, Mind , Spirit post - I mentioned how I think Buffy may have lost her heart or sealed it off. That she believes it's gone. Last year it was her spirit. The year before her mind.

The thing is? I'm not sure. On the fence. Perhaps you're right about his crazy responses to her. But there's another explanation.

He laughs and says can't hear you, can't hear you - because he just had a conversation with her about not trusting what he sees. When she shows up in different clothes, he looks at her a bit in horror and disbelief then laughs - almost as if he's thinking okay I'm nuts. She was just here
and now she's back in different clothes? It's not just Dru I'm seeing now. I'm seeing Buffy. Which means she's another frigging hallucination. Hence the "can't hear you! can't hear you!" which I'd say to something I thought was a delusion too.

There's a great movie that explores what it's like to deal with hallucinations on a daily basis - A Beautiful Mind.
How do you handle it? How do you know what's real? So my view of that can't hear you scene is a more rationalist view - he thinks he's looking at yet another hallucination.

Of course this being a fantasy show - it's possible that he thinks these are hallucinations, but in truth there's more going on.

I sense a coldness in Buffy...which I'm not sure yet is real or a mislead. I'm waiting for more clues.

I agree some people on the board appear to have a tendency to whitewash Buffy's sins - they forget we are watching a HORROR show not Wonder Woman. Buffy is a tragic hero not an unadulterated hero. Tragic heros are Hercules who kills his family out of insanity, Hamlet, Oedipus, Innanna, the type of hero who is either killed or ends up killing the world to save it. They don't have happy endings. Nor are they whitewashed perfect people who don't make mistakes.

OTOH - we need to be careful of going in the opposite direction or extreme and declaring Buffy to be a cold heartless bitch (NOT saying that's YOUR point - I don't think you're saying that at all). Because I don't see that either. I see her as being
actually fairly compassionate. But conflicted. And somewhat sealed off.

Buffy is beginning to define herself too closely with the Slayer. And I honestly see her right now as she was in her Restless Dream. I think who and what Buffy is right now?
Is what we saw in her dream. Disconnected.

If last year referenced Willow and Xander's dreams. I think this year is referencing Giles and Buffy's. But mostly Buffy's. Although bits and pieces of the dreams appear in all three years if you look for them.

Buffy needs to figure out who she is. I don't think she knows. And I think that's the reason you're sensing something off here. Buffy - has always hidden from one thing about herself - what the slayer is. It scares her.
My question? What is the slayer? Is it what we see in Restless? Is it what we see in Intervention? Or something else? And who is Buffy?
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I don't disagree with you (Beneath You Spoilers) -- alcibiades, 10:17:04 10/28/02 Mon

The thing is? I'm not sure. On the fence. Perhaps you're right about his crazy responses to her. But there's another explanation.

He laughs and says can't hear you, can't hear you - because he just had a conversation with her about not trusting what he sees. When she shows up in different clothes, he looks at her a bit in horror and disbelief then laughs - almost as if he's thinking okay I'm nuts. She was just here and now she's back in different clothes? It's not just Dru I'm seeing now. I'm seeing Buffy. Which means she's another frigging
hallucination. Hence the "can't hear you! can't hear you!" which I'd say to something I thought was a delusion too.
...
How do you handle it? How do you know what's real? So my view of that can't hear you scene is a more rationalist view - he
thinks he's looking at yet another hallucination.

Well yeah, that is how it works on one level. Thought the same thing myself originally and it still makes sense that way.

However, this episode is extremely literate in the rest of the Buffy canon. So I believe it is being literate on this point as well.

ME could have easily said "won't listen, won't listen" or "you are not real," or "can't see you."

To me, the choice to repeat the same phraseology is a key to the scene. Only one key, however, doesn't negate its plain sense on other levels.

But as I said below, I think it is both ironic and startling that Spike, who is the first to realize that something is wrong with Buffy physically because he can hit her, now realizes something is wrong with her on the spiritual plane as well.

But I don't expect him to be able to articulate it any time soon, or perhaps even to trust his own insight.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I don't disagree with you (Beneath You Spoilers) -- leslie, 16:13:13 10/28/02 Mon

I am having a horrible feeling as I read all of this. Given ME's propensity for doing the worst to the characters we love most, what if Buffy actually *is* becoming a cold, heartless killer? What if the end of all this is that, not only does Spike get a soul, but Buffy loses hers, reverting to becoming like the single-minded First Slayer; finally defeated by her calling? There are many unhappy endings that we have all come up with for Buffy, but mostly they involve her death, her loss of people close to her, something horrible but that leaves her still, essentially, herself: brave, resourceful, loving. What if the end is that she continues to live, but loses all of that? THAT would be a tragic ending.
[> [> [> [> Hero doesn't mean perfect.... -- Rufus, 05:53:51 10/29/02 Tue

I don't think I've put any pressure on anyone to say that Buffy is perfect, what I have pointed out is the difference in how she is treated compared to say, Spike. Given the backgrounds of both, Buffy is hardly a monster. If we are ever to see Spike as a hero of a sort, he has to start being one....he has done some isolated things that point him in the right direction, but Buffy still has saved the world...a lot. She isn't perfect because she is human, but she has done less damage in her years on the planet than Spike has. If I'm willing to be kind to Spike and take all his situation into consideration, then I think it's only fair that Buffy should get the same deal. I don't see the murder of innocent men, women, and children on her resume.

With a soul, Spike is now closer to being what he once was than as a vampire. I have high hopes for the character, but find no problem in killing him if he becomes a threat.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Hero doesn't mean perfect.... -- alcibiades, 06:36:49 10/29/02 Tue

I see the internet audience more or less in the role of the Greek choir. The Greek choir are always commenting, not always nicely, not always insightfully, sometimes annoyingly, but sometimes also to the purpose about the hero. Sometimes the hero's flaws are writ large and are signalled from far away -- and these are the things that destroy him or her.

Buffy has a lot of flaws -- I think we are supposed to be sensitive to them, because if the writers stay true to their vision of writing BTVS as a Greek tragedy, it is her hubris as much as anything, say the Forces of Darkness, which is going to destroy her.

To me, it is a worrying trend, although one I can understand intellectually, that Buffy seems much less compassionate than she was in Season 5 or even at times in Season 6. I think it should be picked apart for a few reasons.

We all know at this point that the writer's are conscious of the internet audience and that they stick in a lot of early clues to create this sense of game so the audience can try to figure out what is going on. So, Buffy's loss of compassion to some of the people near her, the sense physically or metaphysically that she is split in half, can be of paramount importance in figuring out what is coming down the path, the way her depression was last year, or it could be a red herring, the way Rahael suggests up the thread. But I think it is important to keep it in mind. Because it is part of the game the writer's are playing with the audience.

OTOH, some of the attitude that you have commented on, is a gut reaction to what part of the audience sees on screen.

Lately, part of the reason I have a hard time having a positive gut reaction to Buffy is that she doesn't show normal reactions the way she used to. She has always been bottled up, but never to this extent. As though any show of emotion is an admission of weakness and vulnerability and commonality. One can understand this intellectually for someone in her difficult situation in life, but as a fellow being, I find it hard to relate to. Especially, say, in Spike's case, when he has gone out and gotten a soul. Or in Anya's case, where there was a possibility both Xander and Willow realized she was at the point of giving up her powers because of her discontent, but Buffy had not talked to her, so she didn't know it.

Willow, having succumbed to it once, understands viscerally the attraction of the dark side and how it can swallow you whole. The fact that she has a brush with the darkside and it overtakes her, breaking her control, on the very day that she extends herself to help Anya is key to understanding Willow's motivations in helping to rescue Anya. Because Willow knows what a near thing it was that she extracted herself -- only through love -- and she still feels the pull of it.

Buffy has always resisted her pull to the darkside. Maybe she has an inkling that if she once gave in she'd never be able to pull herself out.

But then everyone needs help -- or a guide.

In the middle of the journey of our life, I came to myself within a dark wood where the straight way was lost. Ah, how hard a thing it is to tell of that wood, savage and harsh and dense, the thought of which renews my fear! So bitter is it that death is hardly more. But to give account of the good which I found there I will tell of the other things I noted there.

I cannot rightly tell how I entered there, I was so full of sleep at that moment when I left the true way...
[> [> [> [> [> [> Wishful thinking on my part probably -- Rahael, 12:05:40 10/30/02 Wed

The problem of thinking of it as a red herring is that it's not obvious enough to qualify as a red herring.

I just don't want to see Buffy go bad. I would probably regard it in the same way that a Redemptionista would feel if Spike went bad.

The thing is, I don't see aloofness and unemotionality as a abnormal reaction - but I guess I could see how BtVS might use it dramatically in the sense of the Shakespeare's sonnet, that those who are the lords and masters of their faces - once they meet with corruption, the bravest weed outbraves its dignity.

I still don't want to see it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Very interesting and beautifully worded -- shadowkat, 18:27:45 10/30/02 Wed

Printed it off and read it at home tonight - which often works for me better than reading it on the screen, can digest.

Loved this:"In the middle of the journey of our life, I came to myself within a dark wood where the straight way was lost. Ah, how hard a thing it is to tell of that wood, savage and harsh and dense, the thought of which renews my fear! So bitter is it that death is hardly more. But to give account of the good which I found there I will tell of the other things I noted there.

I cannot rightly tell how I entered there, I was so full of sleep at that moment when I left the true way..."

It reminded me of the woods scene in Bargaining which is later repeated in Villains. Perhaps our characters, much like the fairy characters of old have lost their way in the woods of the subconscious and must find their way out again?

"OTOH, some of the attitude that you have commented on, is a gut reaction to what part of the audience sees on screen.

Lately, part of the reason I have a hard time having a positive gut reaction to Buffy is that she doesn't show normal reactions the way she used to. She has always been bottled up, but never to this extent. As though any show of emotion is an admission of weakness and vulnerability and commonality. One can understand this intellectually for someone in her difficult situation in life, but as a fellow being, I find it hard to relate to. Especially, say, in Spike's case, when he has gone out and gotten a soul. Or in Anya's case, where there was a possibility both Xander and Willow realized she was at the point of giving up her powers because of her discontent, but Buffy had not talked to her, so she didn't know it."

(Sorry for the life of me I can't figure out HTML well enough to us italics so must use quotation marks).

The thing of it is - my initial gut reaction on watching these episodes is the same as yours. On second and third viewings which occur after reading the board? I see more compassion. So which is the right intepretation? Should i trust the initial gut one? I'm not sure. I know I have a slightly annoying tendency to root for the wrong characters...the ones that touch me. But Buffy does seem, I don't know more inaccessible emotionally then she did in earlier seasons. For a while I wondered if it was the actress but I don't think so. Or just me?

Did you read anom's wonderful post? yes - I think you did because I remember your reply to it under Om's thread. In it anom comments (god, I think it was anom - the problem with reading several posts together is you forget whose is whose, so apologies if I remember the poster wrong) that in the AR scene Spike wanted to get past Buffy's physical barriers to make her feel emotion. That Buffy was closed
off, he sensed it, and thought maybe sex was still the answer. But the sex only made it worse for them both which he realizes in that scene and once he gets the soul.

anom or maybe someone else also mentioned that Buffy hardened herself after learning Spike got the soul in order to protect herself. That she felt too vulnerable. That the knowledge of him getting a soul - whether or not it was for her, possibly especially b/c it was for her - opened up some issues she doesn't want to deal with. I'm wondering if in that church in Beneath You Buffy may not have come face to face with her own dark side or the realization of it?
Maybe recognized a little of herself in the worm and this was enough to send her fleeing into the night (or assuming she didn't flee) freeze her on the spot - repulsed not by Spike but by what she suddenly saw within herself? That part of herself that Faith pokes in Bad Girls. Is poked in When She was Bad. And is poked in Dead Things? The part that as she tells Faith in Consequences - makes her feel dirty inside, as if she wants to crawl out of her own skin.

Is it Spike who really repulses her or scares her? Or herself? What she could be? I had an Myth prof once tell me that not everyone can look at their dark side in the mirror with all its blemishes without going a little insane. Dorian Gray did not after all want to see his picture in the attic. I'm not sure Buffy has ever been able to? And last year - when she did? She projected it onto Spike - if he was gone, it went too? She wasn't bad, he was. Just like she wasn't bad, Faith was. So if Spike returns with a soul - and shows how their physical relationship damaged him? What does that say about her clever projection? What happens when the person you considered your metaphorical shadow - becomes real, solid, and separate? Means you sort of have to handle that other part of yourself, doesn't it? The dark side, you thought you left behind you in the woods?

Not sure...if that's where they are going with this.
but it is interesting to contemplate. And I like the game.
It's fun.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> For the record... -- alcibiades, 08:45:10 10/31/02 Thu

Can't claim credit for that bit you particularly liked, unfortunately. It's from the opening of Paradise Lost.

Forgot the attribution.

Thanks for the rest of your comments.

BTW italics are easy -- just go read the instructions in FAQ.

Maybe recognized a little of herself in the worm and this was enough to send her fleeing into the night (or assuming she didn't flee) freeze her on the spot - repulsed not by Spike but by what she suddenly saw within herself?

I have been reading this differently.

Buffy is just like Nancy.

Nancy unconsciously (but not without any responsibility) sets in train a whole series of events -- her inner projections about what her ex boyfriend is becomes solid and the nightmare vision she has of him attacks her.

Later, when Nancy is forced to confront the result of what she unconsciously set in train by projecting her inner assessment of what her boyfriend is into reality, and then beholds him naked and wounded and vulnerable and a man again, she blames Anya and then walks off without helping in any way, not even waiting until 911 gets there, eschewing all responsibility.

So, too, Buffy walks off in the Church more or less eschewing all responsibility, not helping, because Spike scared her "a little."

I have a feeling that she felt too close to being sucked into the abyss of realizing the implications of what he had done said about her, and that is what scared her and so she ran off. In that sense I agree with you.


Although I do agree that what Buffy ultimately is scared and repulsed by is getting lost one day in her own dark urges. Spike proved he could separate himself to some amazing but finite sense from his own dark urges. Can she. And I like the Dorian Grey reference you quoted from you prof.

Buffy may have finally helped Spike in Selfless -- I think definitely so in the short term -- as for the long term, we'll see. But the last time Spike left the basement prematurely, he really wasn't ready. He couldn't hold it together.

Related preview spec below:





From the preview, seeing Buffy go sexually wild, I have a feeling that at the end of next weeks episode we won't see a happy Buffy. It looks like she'll have to own her sexuality as well without being able to blame it on Spike as "why do I let him do those things to me."
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: For the record... -- Sophist, 08:56:24 10/31/02 Thu

It's from the opening of Paradise Lost

Actually, it's the opening to Dante's Inferno.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oops, brain synapse lapse.. that is what I meant. <g> -- alcibiades, 09:25:07 10/31/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> Foils -- Juliet, 19:37:07 10/30/02 Wed

Points:

1 - faith's dark side
2- buffy's dark side
3- why buffy doesn't want to become this
4 - what this could mean

This quote caught my eye as something I've been thinking about:

Buffy has always resisted her pull to the darkside. Maybe she has an inkling that if she once gave in she'd never be able to pull herself out.

I agree completely. Just think about Buffy's last experience with a slayer giving in to her dark side. Faith.

Faith was, from the start, somewhat dark. We saw this when she pummled that Kakistos guy's minion beyond the point of defense. And from there, she just kind of 'snowballed' in Buffy's mind, in the sense of doing good. School dropout, freewheeling and impulsive slayer, murderer, manipulative (for lack of a better word) slut. She discovered her dark side, and reveled in it. She lived for the chase. Passion without precision.

Buffy was everything she wasn't. Faithful student, cautious and thoughtful slayer, cheeful girl, caring friend and daughter. If you want to get literary: Faith and Buffy were foils, or two characters that are opposites of each other. When it was first introduced, it was black and white:

FAITH
Why? So you can impart some special
Buffy wisdom? That it? You think
you're better than me? Do you? Say it!
You think you're better than me!

BUFFY
I am.

Whoa. Everything stops. Faith slowly turns to face Buffy. Buffy's face remains clam. Cool, direct eye contact.

BUFFY (cont'd)
Always have been.

(Source: shooting script for 'Enemies')


Buffy, Faith, and everyone else saw it: Buffy good. Faith bad. It was further hammered home in season four with "This Year's Girl" and "Who Are You". I don't want to lapse into analyzing these eps, but the general idea was the same. As season six came, dark and cloudy, so did something else.

Buffy was sliding into the gray area, between the "good" and "bad". And she wasn't exactly going willingly. Buffy thought of herself as "right" the whole time she was beating on Spike, even though she was slipping into the dark side with that relationship:


SPIKE (O.S.)
You see? You try to be with them.
But you always end up in the dark.
With me.

(Shooting Script for "Dead Things")


Buffy's response? "Don't. Please." She didn't want that, even though it was so obvious that she would end up with that if she kept it up. She didn't want to be like Faith. She didn't want to hurt people who tried to help her, and she didn't want to lose her friends' trust (something Faith never really had completely). And "Dead Things" compared Buffy to Faith in another way. She thought she had killed Katrina, and while she didn't, you can still see her desperation. It's possible at that moment she saw herself as thisclose from being Faith. From being a remorseless killer. She could've so easily left Katrina there and pretended she didn't know what was going on. But she didn't. Buffy's still a hero at heart. She still knew what was right, even when she tried to pretend she didn't.

So yes, I do think that is true. Buffy's seen a dark Slayer,
and in her mind Faith will never be redeemed, which is obvious in "Sanctuary". Buffy thinks - perhaps knows - that she couldn't bounce back from darkness if she fell to it, given how close she came, and how hard it was for her to get out.

Maybe that's why she's so militant to the destruction of evil and darkness. She sees darkness in herself, and rather then face it head on and perhaps learn to accept it, she projects her fear onto the 'true' evil. She very well may be thinking, "I've got a dark side, but look at her." And that 'her' can be anyone.

The future of the Buffyverse lays before us, and it leaves all sorts of possibilities. What if Faith were to come back in her full, evil glory? Buffy would have to face her own dark side, both metaphorically in the form of Faith, and literally in herself.

Hints in the past have suggested that the source of the slayer's power is not completely good. If Buffy gives into that evil, that darkness...what would happen? Faith didn't really come completely out of it. But Buffy has one thing she didn't: friends. Real friends. And like Spike and several others said, that's her real power. Buffy's real strength lies in those she keeps close to her.

Maybe her newfound distance is the result of feeling she's losing that, combined with her fear of what would happen if she did.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hero doesn't mean perfect.... -- Rufus, 19:39:53 10/30/02 Wed

To me, it is a worrying trend, although one I can understand intellectually, that Buffy seems much less compassionate than she was in Season 5 or even at times in Season 6. I think it should be picked apart for a few reasons.

The Slayer is alone, alone because the business of slaughter would isolate anyone. Count up the numbers of kills over the years and Buffy could swim in a lake of blood. Buffy says she is the law....and as the law she attempts to done a cloak of impartiality. Problem is that inside the instrument that is the Slayer lives the girl that is Buffy, the one that has friends, loves, and was capable of great sacrifice. Everytime Buffy attempts to distance herself from others she gets into trouble and Xander was right to bring that up. But, on the other hand, Buffy is right to expose her deep feelings of being alone, specially when her friends seem more like Cheerleaders for death instead of confidants.

But then everyone needs help -- or a guide.

Where does someone who is deferred to as the General, the Slayer, the one in charge, find a Guide, one that can point out that Buffy may do well to listen to her heart because the answer is there waiting to be listened to.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Will is surprise anyone if I say, great quote? -- fresne, 17:27:20 10/31/02 Thu

And I consider the community that it takes to get Dante from being a lone man menaced by beasts into the joyous singer at the pinnacle of Heaven. There is of course Virgil, but there's also a whole supporting cast of beloved Beatrice, saints, sinners, saved, angels and you know, God..

That balance between Dante having things he needs to learn within a community and the reality that only he can make the decision to be saved.

The problem is that our Greek chorus has limited access to explanatory monologues explicating Buffy's interior. We have seemingly left behind things like, "and since I am dead, I can take off my head to recite Shakespearean quotation. But who here would ever understand that the Pumpkin King with his skeleton grin, would tire of his crown, if they only understood, would give it all up if he only could?"

which tells us that Jack Skellington is feeling serious job burnout.

Buffy, well that was last season. This season, it's all about power and how to use it. So, we'll see.

Oh, and happy Halloween everyone. I won most scary today, Angel of Death. Since, last night I won a Sally Patchwork, I was Sally, I'm feeling fine and seeing the world through apocalyptic red colored glasses, non-prescription.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Hero doesn't mean perfect.... -- Miss Edith, 00:39:42 10/30/02 Wed

I agree that Buffy is a far more moral person than Spike has been so far (although obviously we need to wait and see how he handles the soul). The reason I feel there is more support for Spike is precisely because of how he started his journey. We see the supposedly evil vampire look conflicted at feeding (Crush) or withstand torture to protect Buffy (Intervention) and it will generate discussion. Spike's behaviour at the end of season 5 was talked over and praised as he fought on the good side holding the sword off Buffy with his bare hands etc.

Whereas Buffy is the hero of the show and we expect more from her. No one is going to go into raptures because she decides to fight against Glory for instance. She has a conscience and knows it is the right thing to do. She is critisicised if she seems to be slipping and has more flaws than previously shown. Yes she is still more moral than Spike but at the same time she is the hero of the show who often sits in judgement if others. Some viewers see her as self-righteous so if she fails to live up to the standards she sets for others then it will be discussed. I agree it can seem unfair when Spike is praised more than Buffy but the way I see it, it is just because of the different places they started out in. The villian gradually being drawn into the light and the hero seen as being flawed and closing herself off, beating Spike etc.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hero doesn't mean perfect.... -- Rufus, 02:39:06 10/30/02 Wed

Yes we love that journey from darkness......and as for the beating in Dead Things...was Buffy beating Spike or was she only defeating herself? I think Spike was more aware of her conflict when he said "put it all on me". If Buffy continued the relationship with the soulless Spike she would have ended up a far darker person than the one we saw in the alley. Doesn't make the beating right, but it does make me think that they (the writers) intended it to be a symptom of how toxic the relationship should have been seen as......not many saw it that way for the reasons you mentioned.
[> [> [> Re: How victims are portrayed -- Miss Edith, 01:41:03 10/29/02 Tue

The Q&A coloum at David Fury's official website caused a fuss for that very reason. The interviewer Allyson asked the question, "The bathrom scene in Seeing Red. "Attempted rape" or "the bitch got what she deserved?" Fury's joking reply was "Can't both be true? I mean rape...definately rape! And when asked if he still respected the fans following the season 6 backlash he joked they no longer do before joking "I mean...Rape! Rape rape rape. Plain and simple. (Stop looking at me like that)".
Two days later the interview was pulled because people were offended at Fury joking about rape and the way the questions were asked. A revised interview was later put back up with Allyson explaining that she asked whether Buffy got what she deserved based on the response at the Bronze, "I saw posts at the UPN posting board that "Buffy was a bitch she deserved it"...I saw posts like "Buffy liked rough sex so how was Spike supposed to know?" The chracters had a sexual relatioship...drenched in mutural abuse and violence. It was depicted as dark and frightening yet some fan saw romance and love".
Obviously some fans couldn't equate the beatings and the rapes with scenes like the kissing in Tabula Rasa or the scene in Dead Things when the song sings about "are you drowning or waving, I just want you to save me...the barriers are all self-made". The mixed messages about love and sex have been blamed upon the Spuffy's with the writers saying that Buffy and Spike were clearly an unhealthy couple from the start. But certain scenes did feed into the fans fantasies and could be seen as confusing the issue.
[> [> [> Re: How victims are portrayed -- JM, 18:04:01 10/29/02 Tue

Isn't some of that what comes out in a lot of rape trials though? It's often that the victim knows or interacts with the perpetrator. Their history in general and the history of the people involved make things very difficult for many juries. I dont' think that rape is any less a violation when you know, have a history, have equivocated before. For the victim, male or female, there is a world of difference, both emotional and physical between consensual and non-consensual sex. For the perpetrator, I wonder if the line is anywhere near as clean.

I thought that with SR, and obliquely with Angel's "Reprise," ME very maturely asked that question. Yes they set a story line in motion, but they also indicated how this sort of thing happens in real life. That not ever perpetrator is a Manson-league sociopath, but also that that doesn't matter. For the person whose trusted space has been impacted, violated, or fully penetrated, it's still an unbeleviable betrayal and violation, whether they were an unwittting stranger or an ambiguous lover. It's quick, subtle, and devastating at the same time.

I don't have an answer, but I do wonder whether this is a bad dialogue to initiate. Shouldn't we talk about this as much as any other issue? I'm not convinced yet that ME has acted irresponsibly. And the discussion should occur at a deeper level than the one place it has actually occured yet. There is a place for soaps, but they definitely shouldn't be the only location for ambiguity on the issue.
[> [> [> [> Great post -- Rahael, 03:52:03 10/30/02 Wed

This is why I was a little taken aback by the reaction to SR. That if the victim isn't an 'innocent', that the waters are so muddied that people don't even want to call it what it was, an attempted rape.

I suddenly understood why so many juries don't convict.

Looking back on it, I too think that ME was not irresponsible. I think they have made a lot of people think seriously about an important issue. I think Fresne makes some complementary points in this thread.
[> [> Warning: Spoilers for Seeing Red, Season 6 in all posts in this thread -- Rahael, 09:08:58 10/28/02 Mon

[> Great post...have had similar thoughts myself. more later. -- shadowkat (who has to deal with boss 1st), 05:56:08 10/28/02 Mon

[> Re: Sexual violence and murder on Buffy- grim musings on moral ambiguity and glamour (no spoilers) -- Blood Luvin Girl, 06:00:14 10/28/02 Mon

Sexual violence is a different thing. Killing can come to have this weird glamour on tv that it rarely would have in real life. Sexual assault is not glamourous- in Western culture it has a very real stigma: THAT'S the straw that broke the camel's back. It's weird to think it, but in tv land, you can come back from breaking a woman's neck and laying her body down in the bed of the man who loves her as a prank. You can come back from flaying a man, or in Xander's case (which no one seems to comment on)attempting to murder the man/demon who has merely slept with his ex girlfriend. But you don't come back from rape on tv. And the only way you can come back from an attempted rape on tv (is this the first time this has ever been attempted on telly?) it seems is to become a new person.
Fair enough too.

I completely agree with you here.

One of the things I said shortly after "Seeing Red" came out is that people wouldn't have been anywhere as upset or horrified if Spike had, let's say, killed Dawn. In fact, I hate to say it but many probably would have cheered him on.

It always upsets me that the Scoobies and others are allowed to abuse, use and kill demons and other like creatures such as robots, simply because they aren't human.

When I see them treat Spike badly it upsets me. Not just because I don't think Spike deserves it (and yes I know in many ways he does), but because they are the ones claiming to be on the moral high ground and then they turn around and abuse those around them just because they don't qualify as "human".

To me that's just like someone beating there dog just because they can. It's not a "person" after all, so what does it matter. And who cares if we kill the gorillas so we can make ash trays out of their feet, cause they aren't human either.

I can never figure out how people are not bothered by the killing, and forgive the characters that do it without a second thought, then turn around and hate others for other kinds of crimes.

Not only have I noticed a large amount of anger towards Spike for the AR, but also towards Welsley for him taking Angel's son (though the anger dosen't seem to be as strongly felt towards him as it is towards Spike)

So yes I do think that we take murder and death much less seriously than sexual violence.
[> [> Just to add -- Blood Luvin Girl, 06:50:38 10/28/02 Mon

Sorry if my post was a bit disjointed, and I wandered off the topic a little. I've been up all night and my brain is in the middle of shutting itself down.

Not only have I noticed a large amount of anger towards Spike for the AR, but also towards Welsley for him taking Angel's son (though the anger dosen't seem to be as strongly felt towards him as it is towards Spike)

Just wanted to add that what I meant here is that the crime of kidnapping Angel's son has also seemed to be taken much harder than killing seems to be. Much like how the AR was seen as so much worse than murder.
[> What's really interesting is why Spike takes it so seriously -- KdS, 07:38:31 10/28/02 Mon

(Sometime I'll have to start thinking deeply before I post instead of doing little ones)

Yes, I think the most intriguing thing is that Spike's shocked by his own actions. And my personal opinion is that it had to be AR because only that would have made Spike feel guilt.

Try to kill Buffy or someone else? Hello, vampire, we're supposed to be evil! Try to sire Buffy (as sk has frequently suggested)? Spike feels great about being a vampire, so he'd be incapable of understanding Buffy's horror at the idea.

It had to be AR because it is so uniquely appalling (Spike is a product of both the 19th and 20th centuries) and because no other act would so spectacularly destroy the limited version of morality Spike had fashioned over the years - don't betray the people you trust and behave like a gentleman with your lady. (OK, people will probably bring up his lines about torturing Dru in Lover's Walk, but this is Dru we're talking about, who has orgasmic dreams about branding irons).

I can see why people are deeply disturbed by SR, but I don't think any of the alternatives could have had the same result.
[> [> Sorry S6 spoilers in above post. -- KdS, 07:40:30 10/28/02 Mon

[> [> Re: What's really interesting is why Spike takes it so seriously -- shadowkat, 09:32:17 10/28/02 Mon

"It had to be AR because it is so uniquely appalling (Spike is a product of both the 19th and 20th centuries) and because no other act would so spectacularly destroy the limited version of morality Spike had fashioned over the years - don't betray the people you trust and behave like a gentleman with your lady. (OK, people will probably bring up his lines about torturing Dru in Lover's Walk, but this is Dru we're talking about, who has orgasmic dreams about branding irons)."

Would agree. And that's why they did it. They may have been planning to do it after the Spike/Anya scene in Entropy but realized from what they'd seen of the fan base that it wouldn't work. If the fan base believed he was redeemed sans soul? Why would he get one? Just because Buffy and Xander said he needed one? Risky move.

No - you need to have him do something that would bother the character, torment him to his core.

And it had to be Buffy that he hurt - because he clearly states in Entropy - "I don't hurt you." This is important to him. That scene is actually a very painful one. Spike to me seems to be on a verge of a nervous breakdown in this episode.

Their dialogue actually sets up what happens next.

"SPIKE: (outraged) You believe him, don't you? You think I was spying on you.

Buffy doesn't answer.

SPIKE: You think I could do that?
BUFFY: Because you don't lie or cheat or steal or manipulate...

Spike gives her back the camera.

SPIKE: (quietly) I don't hurt you.

He walks a few steps away.

BUFFY: I know.
SPIKE: No, you don't. I've tried to make it clear to you, but you won't see it. (pauses) Something happened to me. The way I feel ... about you ... it's different. And no matter how hard you try to convince yourself it isn't, it's real.
BUFFY: I think it is.

Beat. He looks at her.

BUFFY: For you.

She turns to walk away. Spike looks hurt.

Buffy pauses by the door, turns back.

BUFFY: I know that's not what you want to hear. I'm sorry. I really am. But, Spike, you have to move on. You have to get over-
SPIKE: (softly) Get out. "

Clearly he can't stand the fact she can't see the changes in him. Also the rejection. Which motivates him to seek solace with Anya and inadvertently hurts her in the process, leading to the scene with Dawn:

Now later in SR:

DAWN: (OS) Do you really love her?

Spike doesn't answer, just looks pained.

DAWN: Then how could you do that to her?
SPIKE: (still not looking at her) Oh, right , 'cause Big Sis was treating me so well up until that point. (Dawn sighing in exasperation) Must still be a bit of the evil left in me after all.
DAWN: I don't know what happened betweenyou two. But what you did last night ... If you wanted to hurt Buffy, congratulations. (quietly) It worked.

Dawn turns to leave. Close on Spike staring sadly into his drink as the door closes. "

So guilt sets in. As he states to Dru in Lie to Me, when he inadvertently hurts her feelings: "Don't pay attention to me, I'm cruel bad man" or when Dru is hurt by his words in What's My Line Part I - he quickly comforts her. He CAN'T abide the person he loves being hurt. He says the same thing in Intervention - "I couldn't live her being in that much pain..." what's left off is the "because of me" - it's the idea he would cause it by telling Glory about the key which he can't stand.

So he tries to make it better - just as he did with Dru:

"SPIKE: (softly) I'm sorry. Not that it matters any more, but I needed you to know that.
BUFFY: Why?
SPIKE: Because I care about you.
BUFFY: Then you might want to try the not sleeping with my friends.
SPIKE: I didn't go to Anya for that. I was looking for a spell.
BUFFY: (outraged) You were going to use a spell on me?
SPIKE: (sighs, exasperated) It wasn't for you! I wanted something . (puts hand on his chest) Anything to make these feelings stop. (angrier) I just wanted it to stop! "

And then of course, things get out of hand, they misunderstand each other, communication breaks down, Spike has his nervous breakdown - the attempted rape scene...

with her kicking him off and:

SPIKE: Buffy, my god, I didn't-
BUFFY: (angrily) Because I stopped you. (quieter) Something I should have done a long time ago.

A tear runs down Buffy's face. Spike stares at her looking horrified.

Oh and finally:

SPIKE: (shakily) What have I done?

Beat. Spike frowns, looks bemused.

SPIKE: Why *didn't* I do it? (looks up at the ceiling, sighs) What has she done to me?

Now we have a vampire having a nervous breakdown. Without those three to four scenes? I'm not sure the audience could have bought Spike going after a soul. I'm not sure the writers could have made it work.

And of course the scenes result in Beneath You which IMHO was simply brillant. So...I've decided more or less to
accept the AR scene as necessary and well done...and let my personal qualms regarding it die here.

Dialogue from Psyche Transcripts.
[> [> [> Warning Seeing Red Spoilers in above post!! -- shadowkat, 09:34:31 10/28/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> Re: Thanks, Shadowcat (Seeing Red Spoilers) -- Brian, 11:31:04 10/28/02 Mon

I realize now why I couldn't grasp that scene. Spike doesn't realize what he has done until he has done it.
Now his confusion and his horror make sense to me.
[> [> [> Re: What's really interesting is why Spike takes it so seriously -- vh, 07:02:50 10/29/02 Tue

I didn't have a problem with the way this scene was handled. I did, however, have a problem with the way the "misdirection" that the writers chose to use in the soul quest was handled--to the point of (apparently) misleading the actor, never a good choice.
[> The difference between real and hidden behind metaphor -- shadowkat, 08:12:49 10/28/02 Mon

Well done with the boss so can freely respond..;-)

I just perused both Rah's and Sarial's posts again and what hit me in both is something I equally picked up last year after the AR scene was viewed. Actually several things.

But I want to deal with them separately. In this post I want to deal with how television or movies or books depict violence and how the depiction results in an emotional response. A good corrorally to this is how words in our posts may cause an emotional response.

I remember some time ago, leslie asked the board to spell out the words "attempted rape" and not use euphemisims such as bathroom scene or AR scene. Rape - when we hear it makes most of us shudder inwardly. Pavolov's response.

Just as certain swear words that we agree not to fling at each other on this board make us shudder. There are people who avoid television shows like the Sopranos because they can't listen to the language used without flinching.

This is an example of how a word can elicit an emotional response.

But what about images? Violence has been depicted in a wide variety of ways in our media. In the old westerns we had little blood and lots of shooting. People would fall down.
The scene changed. Then a couple of filmmakers by the names of Sergio Leone and Sam PEckinpah showed up and decided it was time to make the movie goer feel the violence. So they choregraphed the death scenes and when a bullet hit the hero, the audience flinched. It felt real. You saw it tear through the characters shoulder, spin him around and the force of hit press him to the ground. You saw the pain reflected in the heros face. And suddenly you realized, wait, this feels real.

I was talking to my mother last night and she told me that prior to the television news reels of the Korean War - Americans didn't really see what happened on the battle front. They didn't witness the violence first hand. The Vietnam War changed all that - for the first time, people saw someone's head explode on tv or children being killed and the movies of the decade? Violence became far more real.
The Deer Hunter. The Godfather. Apocalypse Now all came out soon after or during this time period. And for a while we flinched at the violence.

Then something interesting happened. Violence became gratutious. Every action movie had it. The Teen Slasher pics showed up. It was hard to find a horror movie in which half the cast isn't slaughtered. The Nightly NEws showed random killings or would spend hours depicting wars across the globe. TV cop shows showed people getting shot on a daily basis (Hill StreeT Blues, Police Story, NYPD Blue,
Starsky and Hutch, just to name a few). And in the daytime serials - people would die then miraculously come back to life (Laura on GH, Stefano on Days of Our Lives..) We were slowly becoming desentized (sp?) to violence. When we saw on the tv, we saw it a million times, and it no LONGER felt
REAL! It was just some actor. They'd be fine tomorrow.

In fantasy shows - it's even harder to flinch. After all you've just watched the nightly news - you saw three people shot. Or if you live in LA you may have watched two or three car chases. OR maybe you just watched cops. Tuning into Buffy the Vampire Slayer and watching Buffy kick vampire ass or seeing a demon snap a guys neck is well nothing in comparison. It's not real and it does not make us flinch.

But desentization is not the only reason that a demon snaping someone's neck or Buffy doesn't a vamp doesn't make me flinch - unless of course it's a major character I care about - the other reason is how it is filmed.

And herein lies the difference between Angelus biting the thigh of the gypsey girl or Spike jumping Willow in The Intiative and Spike attempting to rape Buffy in her bathroom. Or the difference between hyenaXander's attempt to rape Buffy and Spike's attempt.

How it was filmed.

The hyenaXander rape attempt is no less disturbing, except it is filmed in more colorful tones and Buffy is fully dressed. Also we don't see all of it.

The Angelus rape on the gypsey girl and subsequent killing of her, also what he does to Dru is no less disturbing, except in how it is directed and filmed. In color. We don't see all of it. And the acting. It's brief.

The bathroom scene between Spike and Buffy is one of the most intense scene of violence ever filmed on the show. The scene is filmed in a huge bathroom which is stripped of color. When I think back on it - the scene feels like it was filmed entirely in black and white like a documentary.
The clothing the actors wear appears to be devoid of color.
The violence is raw and real - he isn't hamming it up like the Initiative or School HArd. HE isn't in vamp face like Angelus. He isn't throwing quips like Xander in The PAck.

Buffy unlike the Pack - seems defenseless in this scene.
She is in the privacy of her home. In a place that is familar to us. Not in a brightly colored classroom being chased by hyena people or in a crypt or in a graveyard.
She is wearing a bathrobe, not her leather slayer gear.
Willow in the Iniative scene is fully dressed and in a brightly lit dorm room.

The camera angles close in on the actors faces and we get shots of their hands and their actions in slices. I felt like I was watching a renactement of a rape shown on some TV NEws channel. IT was no longer Buffy, it was the nightly news.

That's why it impacted me more than say Angelus biting the gypsey girl. Sergio Leon discovered this ages ago as did Peckinpah - you need to make your audience feel it. If they feel it - they are inside the movie and it stays with them.

ME made us feel it.

So it's not that people consider rape worse than murder - its that people felt this scene more than the other scenes.
Because of the way it was written and filmed.

Now as a quick aside - I felt Jenny's death pretty closely. It made me flinch. But I can rewatch it. It had layers of metaphor in between me and what happened. The attempted rape sequence in SR? I can't rewatch. Why? Because one was filmed behind a veil of fantasy and metaphor, the vampire, scarey yes, but not raw- it didn't hit my emotions in the same way. The other? Felt real.

I guess another way of putting it is: the movie Henry Portrait of a Serial Killer is a film I can't watch, The Vanishing creeps me out and gives me nightmares...but
Dracula? Queen of the Damned? Interview with a vampire?
They are just fun.
[> [> Agree entirely, and -- Pilgrim, 10:34:16 10/28/02 Mon

what you're talking about was one of the things that drew me into watching this series last year. The shows go on for a while, all comic booky, the violence isn't real but a metaphor, I laugh, I intellectualize and analyze, I feel entertained by the characters. Then, Zap, the mood changes and it's suddenly real. This doesn't happen often on the show, IMO, but when it does happen, when the show turns real, the emotions evoked are that much more powerful for the disconnect between what I expect and what I'm seeing on the screen.

Spike's attempted rape of Buffy was one place where I felt this disconnect. Warren's attempted rape of Katrina was another place. (I apologize if this scene already has been discussed ad nauseum on this board; I haven't yet skimmed through all the archived posts from last year.) And, honestly, the Warren rape scene creeped me even more than the Spike one because with Katrina I really didn't know what was going to happen. Even while reeling from Spike's betrayal not only of Buffy but of me, too (since I believed he was changing into the kind of person who wouldn't hurt Buffy), I knew Buffy would stop Spike--she's stronger than he is, after all. With Katrina, I had no such comfort. Another place where I felt the disconnect between fantasy and reality was the show where Joyce died. Unlike every other show on Buffy, that is the one show that I haven't, and can't, rewatch. It's too real and too powerful.

Is the violence on the show glamorized? Yeah, I think so, to some extent. Buffy is one of the new breed of female action heroes, who are meant to be sexy and glamorous because they can kick the heck out of the bad guys. Even Willow's flaying of Warren has a tinge of this kind of glamour about it, IMO. And sometimes I have a few qualms about whether this kind of female empowerment is really empowerment or is more like pandering to the gaze of the viewer, male or female, who finds violence sexy. But it seems to me that those moments where the violence, the death feels real work as a kind of corrective. When Katrina calls Warren on his attempted rape of her, tells it like it is, no shame on her part, jolts the boys out of their fantasy, and promises to bring criminal action against them, I was cheering--that was real female empowerment in the face of real danger. Then the boys kill her. Hmmmm, so much for empowerment?
[> [> [> Re: Agree entirely, and -- aliera, 16:24:12 10/28/02 Mon

I want to acknowledge the excellence of the posts below all of which I enjoyed very much but SK and Pilgrim raised an issue that has been on my since last year and that is about the glamorization or portrayal of violence in the show. The subject continues to get attention...in trying to understand I came across a few pieces that I would rather give the links for than excerpt at length which would create an extremely long post.

They are Buffy Wars by Paula Graham
www.rhizomes.net/issue4/graham.html

Women's Aggressive Fantasies by Sue Austin http://www.cgjungpage.org/articles/austin1.html

An Interview with Allen Guggenbuhl on Adolescent Violence
http://www.cgjungpage.org/articles/guggenbuhl1.html

No answers really but people are still asking the questions and the articles were thought provoking for me. I think I have had a niggle recently...a desire really to see where Joss would go with some of this or rather if he will go further with some this. I'm not criticizing the glamorization of violence or other tools the show using as much as I am deeply curious about if he will have something new to say about where we are headed.

And SK, I didn't miss the QotD mention. LOL. My guilty pleasure.
[> [> One other very important thing that's missing from SR scene... (SR spoilers) -- KdS, 12:14:59 10/28/02 Mon

...that hit me when I first saw it. As in "the Body", no incidental music at all.

We're so used to music telling us how to feel that when it's not there we suddenly notice it, and often it makes us feel more, as we realise we aren't being told to (hard to explain).
[> [> Metaphors, euphemisms and point-of-view -- Indri, 13:31:44 10/28/02 Mon

So it's not that people consider rape worse than murder - its that people felt this scene more than the other scenes.

I agree that the way this scene was shot affects the seriousness with which we view the attempted rape, but I also think that rape is/was such a taboo subject that it is, in effect, often treated as a worse crime than murder.

Murder is a commonplace of many types of fiction (adventure, detective, war stories, high fantasy, horror, some kinds of science fiction) in a way that rape is not. For example, there's an entire genre of genteel murder mysteries a la Agatha Christie whereas it's hard to imagine a genre of genteel sexual assault mysteries.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but was it not common to imperil a heroine with a threat of death from a leering villain when the subtext was clearly one of rape? I'm thinking of the old gothic novels here, but it's been a long time since I've looked at them. This suggests that rape was so heinous a crime that murder itself could be used as a euphemism for it.

Clearly I'm not arguing that rape is a fate worse than death, but it seems to have been treated in this way in much fiction. We're extremely used to murder as a plot device; much less so sexual assault.

I am still deeply uneasy about the attempted rape scene (I am having a hard enough time typing the words in full rather than using "AR"). I agree with Blood Luvin Girl that part of the horror was that we saw the scene from the points of view of both Buffy and Spike, both of whom are more-or-less sympathetic and complex characters. But I think that this was in some ways the most honest thing ME could have done. All too often, in news reports of sexual assault, the focus is on the victim/survivor, how she was an ordinary and even exemplary human being etc etc with nary a word about the perpetrator. The perpetrator is, well, demonised. (Perhaps this emphasis is stressed as a corrective to the old "she was asking for it" type of "justification".) But if the statistics are correct and sexual assault is a not uncommon occurrence, then a great many perpetrators must be pretty ordinary people. This clearly doesn't excuse or mitigate such crimes, but if we insist that only inhuman monsters can commit these acts, then we can wind up like the Geek Trio in Dead Things---they were people who were clearly committing a sexual assault who didn't even realise that what they were doing was rape. Neither Spike nor (say) Jonathon realised what they were doing at first because neither one thought of himself as someone capable of such an act.

Hope I haven't offended anyone---I haven't been directly affected by anything like this, so I may be being naive. If so, feel free to vehemently correct me, possibly with a (metaphorical) stick.
[> [> [> Re: Metaphors, euphemisms and point-of-view -- shadowkat, 06:36:38 10/29/02 Tue

"Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but was it not common to imperil a heroine with a threat of death from a leering villain when the subtext was clearly one of rape? I'm thinking of the old gothic novels here, but it's been a long time since I've looked at them. This suggests that rape was so heinous a crime that murder itself could be used as a euphemism for it."

I guess it depends on the novels you've been reading. But look in the romance novel catergory not the mysteries.
Most of the Rosemary Rogers Contemporary Novels had non-consensual sex or rape used as a turn-on. They had S&M relationships portrayed - but not S&M that implies trust, the type of S&M that is borderline non-consensual or starts out consensual and rapidly becomes something else. Another author who did this with rape was Kathleen Woodwiss - The Wolf and The Dove comes to mind.

So does Anne Rice in her Vampire novels.
(Using the vampire attack itself often as a metaphor.)
And rape and seduction are shown thinly in the Beauty
books by Ann Rice. The line between the two is a thin one.

In gothic's rape may be scene as a crime worse than death but it depends on the author - if you are reading Harlequins (well yes). If you are reading the far more risque NC-17 - no.

(For movies? Check out Excalibar. Wild Orchird.(Mickey Rourke). Postman Always Rings Twice (Lange and Nickleson).
Basic Instinct. To name a few.)

So no in most romance novels that I've read over the years - rape is NOT considered a crime worse than murder nor is it used as an euphemism for murder. Margaret Atwood wrote a wonderful essay/short story called Rape Fantasies some time ago where she clearly depicts the difference between being seduced by someone tall dark and handsome and being raped. And how women think about this.
Another woman who has explored this topic is Nancy Friday.

Part of the reason "rape" is such a controversial topic is that there are people out there who believe it NOT to be
taboo. Shocking? yes. But check your junk mail spam. Did you get something saying "Rape Fantasises?" I was getting a ton of this spam until I started blocking it. I never looked at it and the thought of it makes me shudder.

The problem with this topic is our media's portrayle of it is ambiguous. And while I'll agree that can be a good thing. (Your explanation of why is very on key here:
"All too often, in news reports of sexual assault, the focus is on the victim/survivor, how she was an ordinary and even exemplary human being etc etc with nary a word about the perpetrator. The perpetrator is, well, demonised. (Perhaps this emphasis is stressed as a corrective to the old "she was asking for it" type of "justification".) But if the statistics are correct and sexual assault is a not uncommon occurrence, then a great many perpetrators must be pretty ordinary people. This clearly doesn't excuse or mitigate such crimes, but if we insist that only inhuman monsters can commit these acts, then we can wind up like the Geek Trio in Dead Things---they were people who were clearly committing a sexual assault who didn't even realise that what they were doing was rape. Neither Spike nor (say) Jonathon realised what they were doing at first because neither one thought of himself as someone capable of such an act.")

Ambiquity can also lead to the problems discussed in Miss Edith's post. I've worked with and known rape victims and in most cases - they got in the situation because of the ambiguity. The guy believed it was "the no-means-yes" scenerio and didn't see it as violent. Or things just got out of hand. While that is a very real scenerio - it is also a scenerio that is not helped by the barrage of media images heaped upon it, images that help excuse the rapists acts in their own heads and make the victims feel responsible or as if there is something wrong with them.
[> [> [> [> Re: Metaphors, euphemisms and point-of-view -- fresne, 16:10:30 10/29/02 Tue

I'm glad you brought up Romance novels, because, especially in the romance novels written in the 60s, 70s and early 80s, you're right often there is/was a very thin line between seduction and rape, provided it was the hero doing the seduction/rape. The motives of the villain and the hero were frequently a hair's breathe apart. Woodwiss' The Wolf and the Dove, is a good example, particularly with its odd contrast between the early fairly unpleasant sequences and the later sections involving the hero's ultimate domestication.

Although, something that shouldn't be forgotten is that often the other side of this scenario is the Rochester moment, i.e., our hero is either somehow broken or must supplicate himself to the heroine in some way.

Makes me wish I'd had time to take that Literature class that had Woodwiss' The Flame and the Flower on the reading list. I have to think there is something fairly complex being worked out here in that it's a scenario that appears over and over.

I'm not sure if this is a recommendation, but the only book of that era/type that I can still read is The Silver Devil by Teresa Denys, which is quite seriously one of the most messed up books that I have ever read and yet manages to be incredibly engrossing. Possibly because the author gets across the sense that these 15th century Italians don't bathe all that much, possibly have vermin, live in incredibly uncomfortable splendor and seriously don't need Machiavelli to tell them their business. The heroine is quite clearly suffering from Stockholm's Syndrome and the err...hero is incredibly unstable. Think Connor level issues only with a great deal more power. Perhaps because the writer explicates the essential unease at the heart of the violence/love scenario. The final page of the book has the heroine, having just given birth, comforting the hero who is crying because he thought she might die and if she did he was going to have her doctor, and by implication a few other people, killed. As she comforts him, having already internally acknowledged that she loves a monster, the heroine ponders showing him their child who he has yet to see. Every time I read it, I'm amazed that the author pulls the book off.

And in mildly un-related note, I was very intrigued by the reaction I got for my Persephone costume at last weekends Gaskells. When I wore it at WorldCon, it was a completely different social setting and I was part of a group. Given that the chiton and my hair style were designed to emphasize youthfulness rather than my figure, it was amazing the sheer number of men who flirted with me because, well, my husband is in the underworld and he need never know. I had the odd realization that there are very few ways to politely shut down a determined flirt while in character as Persephone, who is a fairly early example of the kidnapping/marriage scenario.

Back to BtVS, my real difficulty with SR/what went before is trying to figure out if the writers wanted to make me this uneasy and confused. As S7 progresses, I'm thinking that the answer is yes. I'm very intrigued by how things seem to be playing out in that the events of SR not only had emotional repercussions for Buffy, but for Spike as well. It segues very nicely with Faith's dark waltz, with Willow's, with Anya's, with insert name of character here.

In a word, complex.
[> [> [> [> [> Very nice subthread -- Rahael, 03:34:21 10/30/02 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> Good post fresne..some additional points -- shadowkat, 07:30:17 10/30/02 Wed

Apparently we've read some of the same authors here and there. (And thanks for the Bujold titles - I bought Cordelia's Honor a few weekends ago and hope to read soon).

I went through a stint in high school of reading romance novels. And thinking back on them, am shocked to realize how many of them have just the scenerios you describe. The Flame and The Flower isn't quite as dark as the Wolf and The Dove. But it's close.

The dark anti-hero seems to be a classic in romantic fiction and film. In Eyre novels we have Heathcliff (Wuthering Heights) - (who as an interesting aside - I compared to Spike in one of my essays last year. I mentioned how Heathcliff's dark obsessive love for Cathy was in some ways similar to Spike's for Buffy and both resulted in an inevitable assualt. (Respect, essay - on www.geocities.com/shadowkatbtvs) People attacked me on the B C & S board for comparing Spike to such a dark hero like Heathcliff, declaring Spike would never ever hurt Buffy.
Interesting.) At any rate, my point is that often the most interesting heros in romance genre are the dark, brooding, misunderstood violent men. The bad boy. But in real life?
No way.

I've seen this trend not just in romance novels - it's also in pulp science fiction and fantasy. Sort of like the femme fatal in the pulp mystery novels.

This fascination with sexual danger - has been around a long time. You mention the myth of Persephone (which Terry Brooks I think recreated in his greek god fantasy series).
I'm reminded of some of the Celtic myths - such as Rhinnanon who gets involved with Pwyll from the underworld.
Or we have the fairy tales - Beauty and the Beast comes to mind.

I remember trying to describe the female fascination with Spike to a male friend of mine and he didn't get it until I brought up Faith and Lilah. He said that many women on the boards couldn't handle the Wes/Lilah relationship any more than some men couldn't handle B/S. Guys get off on Faith and Lilah in the same way, women get off on Angelus or Spike.

What's interesting is the writers during the 18th century - often cautioned against this tendency. Clarissa is if anything a warning against falling for the bad boy. Lovelace comes across seductive and romantic, but cruelly rapes and isolates Clarissa. OR Valmont in Les Liasons comes across as seductive but is a true wolf in his treatment of the innocent Cecil, whom he either rapes or violently seduces depending on your pov. The Little Red Riding Hood story comes to mind when I think of these versions.

It is an intriguing topic. How we deal with our sexual fears and desires. Often combining the two. In Rape Fantasies, Atwood makes the point that women will often romanticize rape to push the fear further away. Make it less of a problem. While others will visualize scenerios where they escape intact. Perhaps to some degree our depiction of rape in media is a projection of how we wish to handle it? Just as our desire to make the violent sexy badboy into an anti-hero, redeemed - is our way of making him less frightening? Changing the monster into a man?

Back to BTvs:"my real difficulty with SR/what went before is trying to figure out if the writers wanted to make me this uneasy and confused. As S7 progresses, I'm thinking that the answer is yes. I'm very intrigued by how things seem to be playing out in that the events of SR not only had emotional repercussions for Buffy, but for Spike as well. It segues very nicely with Faith's dark waltz, with Willow's, with Anya's, with insert name of character here."

I completely agree here. Part of the reason I've written as many posts and essays on these things is an attempt to figure out what the writers intended to do here. I think they did want to offend and disturb us with the Spuffy
relationship. And not provide clear answers. A risky thing to do. And one I'm a little on the fence with. I love ambiguity and I HATE being told what to think by anyone, tend to turn off a show when it starts preaching BUT I remain uncertain if getting ambiguous about topics like rape on Tv is such a great idea. OTOH - I think they are showing in this season at least, that no matter what we may have felt in SR, there is one thing that is NOT ambiguous - attempted rapes or actual rapes - irretrievably change the trust dynamic between people and irretrievably damage both parties - the attacker and the victim - to such an extent that the act itself can never be entirely erased or excused.
At best, it can at some point be forgiven and act as a line that can never be crossed again. Sort of a warning to both parties of where certain types of behavior patterns can lead?

PS: Have been enjoying your posts fresne.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Mutual Admiration - and more points -- fresne, 15:51:56 10/30/02 Wed

Well, I'll return the compliment. Your posts and essays are full of all sorts of thought provoking goodness.

I also have to laugh. I'll be Red Riding Hood this next Saturday for the Bal de Vampyre. Once again as part of a trio: Mary Pop-tart, Goldilocks and Red.

One of my friends wanted to be a children's story Madam, we're sick sad people. Whereas I played Persephone as a bit of a naïf, and okay a death goddess, so I really don't get flirting with her, Red's an adult. The menses flowed, the wolf was killed, and I'm curious to see if anyone gets this, my cloak is trimmed in fur-like black chenille. I just have to figure out how to wear my mace hair stick without whacking myself unconscious during a waltz.

It's like that moment on Birds of Prey a few weeks ago when Harley Quinn started to compare herself to Eris and my housemate about died, since she has both a Harley Quinn and an Eris costume. We seem to have themes even when we don't know it. Then again, we never do a costume that isn't in some way personally resonant. And makes us look attractive, 'cause as Honorificus would note, that is of paramount importance.

As to romances, it's interesting how tastes change or don't as the case may be. I started reading romances in sixth grade. I was 11. My mother and I had yet to have "the talk." She had no idea that I was reading her books. Possibly part of the appeal. So, reading romances very closely coincided with the point when I stopped running out of the room when people on t.v. were kissing - ew, ick, etc. Although, I was still making tent forts.

I still read romances, but it's kind of hard for me to tell if romance novels in general have changed and the romanticized rape no longer occurs or my tastes have changed/matured and I avoid those books. In other words, I'm not sure if Gone with the Wind would be possible today or if is it inevitable that it come out the Wind Done Gone Wrong.

I guess the real test would be to pick an author and see if her later books still have those elements. Too bad they keep changing their names or writing under different names for different styles of romance. Again, we come to the question of identity.

It's kind of like wondering if the mean age of heroines have increased because the population is aging or if tastes have changed and people aren't as interested in reading 17/18 to 30/35 year old romances. Now that I'm in my 30's, I'm certainly less interested.

As to the fascination with sexual danger, well, Dracula himself is a bit of a cautionary tale towards the dangers of "out of control" sexuality. I wonder what the Victorian's would have made of the current trend for Vampire/Werewolf/Ghost/Supernatural Other Romances.

I can't say that I have a problem with comparing Spike with Heathcliff, other than Cathy was kind of an ninny. I much prefer plucky Jane Eyre. He broods, he tries to force you to bend, freaking leave. Have a moon goddess moment. Of course, she goes back in the end, but that's really only possible precisely because he is broken and she is now in a position of power, which is somewhat disturbing in it's own way.

When a bad boy is "reformed" in a romance, the question is if it's a change that comes from the outside, love of a good woman, yada yada, which has elements of women as powerful because we're all in touch with our emotions or if it's in interior decision. Bad boy is tired of life as it is. Wants to choose something different and is therefore ready when the heroine shows up. If he'd met that heroine before that moment, perhaps the romance would never have happened.

The romance writers that I enjoy are the ones that capture the flavor of that moment. Or write good brain candy. Sometimes, fresne am simple. Need good fluff. Fire bad. Tree pretty. Harlequin yummy and low fat.

So, does Angel's love for Buffy make him want to leave his sewer or is he ready to leave his sewer therefore he loves Buffy? Does Spike keep seeking out the Slayer, get chipped, get a soul because he loves Buffy or because he wants something different and love is the tool of connection to a world outside of himself?

So, yeah, keep working at the unease with essays. It's the sort of querulousness in the text that is made to annihilate trees.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Mutual Admiration - and more points -- aliera, 18:35:42 10/30/02 Wed

So, does Angel's love for Buffy make him want to leave his sewer or is he ready to leave his sewer therefore he loves Buffy? Does Spike keep seeking out the Slayer, get chipped, get a soul because he loves Buffy or because he wants something different and love is the tool of connection to a world outside of himself?

And underneath the frosting...the cake!

I think the books and not just romances have changed with the times...I started at about the same time you did so I could pose the same question of myself...I'll read Crusie now as opposed to some others and I tried Rice a few years back on the recommendation of a student but couldn't get through it whereas now I can so I know I've changed. I think the niches are developed now too much like the magazine industry did a few years ago. One of the things that struck me in reading some interviews with Anne Rice and LK Hamilton is both authors mention that the characters at times take the story into unexpected places so maybe sometimes it's the author that's changing along with the readers.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Mutual Admiration - and more points -- shadowkat, 06:28:22 10/31/02 Thu

Thanks.

To be honest? I actually started reading my mother's romance novels in the sixth grade as well. Curiousity and all that. She had the talk with me before then, though.
A friend was teasing me about the fact that I thought a period was really just a punctuation mark at the end of a sentence....LOL!

And your Birds of PRey reference got me to watch it again last night - I was going to skip it. Actually glad I did, wasn't bad.

1."I can't say that I have a problem with comparing Spike with Heathcliff, other than Cathy was kind of an ninny. I much prefer plucky Jane Eyre. He broods, he tries to force you to bend, freaking leave. Have a moon goddess moment. Of course, she goes back in the end, but that's really only possible precisely because he is broken and she is now in a position of power, which is somewhat disturbing in it's own way"

Oh so agree on Cathy. Couldn't make it through the book b/c I couldn't stand the heroine. And Wuthering Heights was shorter than Jane Eyre. Jane Eyre had no problems with.
I liked Jane. Cathy - I wanted to throttle. Liked HEathcliff. So have never made it through Wuthering Heights. Seen the movies. And read a dramatization of it though.

"When a bad boy is "reformed" in a romance, the question is if it's a change that comes from the outside, love of a good woman, yada yada, which has elements of women as powerful because we're all in touch with our emotions or if it's in interior decision. Bad boy is tired of life as it is. Wants to choose something different and is therefore ready when the heroine shows up. If he'd met that heroine before that moment, perhaps the romance would never have happened."

I think this is true. And may also indicate a difference between the earlier romances and newer ones. In Victorian times - people didn't believe the bad boy could be reformed or wanted it. They were awfully repressed sexually back then, so that might have been part of it. Not really an expert on the Victorian age, so don't know. There are still some people out there who don't believe people can change or reform. The old - you are good or evil and never change attitude. Which I don't agree with.

Personally I like stories that show a transformation of some kind or character growth. I like as Burgess might say, the novel as opposed to the allegory approach. I find it interesting when the "bad" boy suddenly realizes, wait, I'm bored of this empty existence of mayhem and destruction, I'm ready for something else.

And the interesting thing about Btvs - is they didn't just do this with the "bad" boy, they also did it with the "bad" girl. We see it partly with Darla in both Trial and later in Lullaby. And we see it with Faith in Who ARe You(Btvs) and later in Sanctuary (aTS). Both women come to a stage in their lives where the "want take have" approach is wanting.
Empty even. Both want to die. I'm getting that feeling with Anyanka as well. And Spike, I agree - I think before he even met Buffy - he may have been looking for something else. After all he and Dru had just fled an angry mob in Prague. And he'd been doing somewhat the same thing for almost 130 some years. I think immortality could get awfully dull. Buffy presented him not only with a new challenge but also a new direction - a direction that partly due to its impossible nature/course - would never become dull. Certainly wasn't to the viewer.
[> [> Yes, and... -- Vickie, 13:49:14 10/28/02 Mon

You're right that the way the several scenes of assault are presented changes our response to them. Here are a couple more distinctions:

Humor: Spike's attack on Willow in The Initiative was definitely played for laughs (somewhat--definitely one of those "what am I laughing at?" moments ME is so good at). The shift from complete terror (on Willow's part) to "It happens to everyone. Maybe we can try again in a few minutes." is both gruesome and hilarious. Xander's attack on Buffy was similarly handled, with the "hit by a chair" repetition. We were supposed to laugh, be disturbed by our own laughter, and be distanced from the horror of the attack. The Spike/Buffy scene includes no such humorous moments.

Dramatic structure: All three attacks are broken up across scenes. Xander/Buffy break off, and then we see Buffy describing the rest of the fight to Willow. Spike/Willow are interrupted by a station break (which heightens the tension) and intercut with a scene of Riley and the commandos searching for Hostile 17 (which distances us from the attack--and we know help is on the way).

When Spike attacks Buffy, there's a single station break. I recall when the show was first broadcast a lot of people wondered why. I rewatched recently, and I believe there's a break there because ME wanted us to fear that Spike would succeed. Instead of distancing us, the dramatic structure of the episode skillfully draws us in.
[> The blending of Metaphor and Reality, and why it can go wrong. -- Rufus, 16:12:32 10/28/02 Mon

One thing I will make very clear right off. Spike.....the way that Spike has been acting with the chip and after finding out he loved Buffy....he was acting totally out of vampire behavior, he began to revert to his human origin. Everytime Spike saved someone and didn't kill them he has been acting OUT OF CHARACTER. That is where many people became confused. They thought that the vampire was the nice guy, what they were really relating to all the time was that inner poet who was a "good man" at heart. And that constant conflict between vampire and human in Spike was going to end badly as was predicted in Smashed and Seeing Red. That is why he had to get a soul.

Now to why people can relate to a villian be he real or metaphorical. And that all goes down to the word "monster". Once something is called monster, be they a real guy or a metaphor we come to expect a certain type of behavior from them, never suspecting that they can be capable of both. And that is why a say....serial killer can be a well respected neighbour....people only know them on a surface level, and in our society a quiet well behaved neighbour is something we all hope for, but never really get to know.

What I see happening with many viewers is that they become attached to the human the humane in the monster be it Angel or Spike and begin to disbelieve the truth about the monster within. This happens in real life when you see the difference between perspectives in say a murder or rape. The victims family and friends don't care much about the "monster" who victimized their family or friend. And the Suspect has family or friends or neighbours who may never have suspected the suspect was capable of such horrific behaviour because they only knew them on a surface level. What happens next is that the family and friends of said suspect attempt to rationalize the behavior of their loved one usually at the expense of the victim. That is how many a victim ends up the villian of the situation. Enough people want to believe that the suspect wouldn't have done such a thing, so they scapegoat the victim. In our society the dead don't get a voice, and the family is frequently forgotten. I find this the case in the Buffyverse. Most victims are strangers, never seen past the point of death. Forgotten. The continuing relationship of the audience with the characters ensures that only the best aspects of any monster are allowed to surface, while the victims are forgotten.

What happened in season six was that the metaphor was dropped and the truth about Spike's true nature was made clear, so there were crys of Spike being out of character. When in fact any good thing Spike had done was the thing that was against his norm. The were forgotten or in Buffy's case villified. Spikes behavior examined for any good, Buffy's behavior equally searched for proof of her blame in the situation. Season six is a favorite of mine but I could see that it wasn't going to be for many. If they dropped the metaphorical aspects of the show and this were real life, neither Spike or Angel would be around if I had anything to say about it......but as it's not real and vampires don't exist I can explore subjects without feeling bad about the conflicting feelings I may have for any of the characters. How season six went wrong was that the character of Spike had been written in such a way that he became highly romanticized by many fans, that is not their fault and the writers attempts to expose the truth about Spike only made fans more angry. People don't like to be told that they are wrong or that because they like a character they are lacking in morals. Season six didn't work for many because they felt that the writers were punishing them for liking a character that was written in a way that they could be pitied and cared for. It's one thing I think the writers should keep in mind when they write characters like Angel and Spike.....some viewers only see a visage they like and don't care much for the background. And writers sometimes realize that their character has gotten away from them and attempt to blame the audience. It never ends well, and is frustrating for all concerned.
[> [> Sympathy for the devil, and what do the writers expect? (general s6 spoilers) -- vh, 10:42:38 10/29/02 Tue

Responding to this post and another one that I can't seem to find, above, somewhere ...

That's what I didn't understand: could it really be true that the writers could be so blind to what effect what they were writing would have on the audience? On the one side they showed Buffy beating and berating Spike. She didn't love him, but wrapped herself in his love like a blanket. Meanwhile we saw Spike suffering from her lack of love for him, unable to make himself break it off, trying to be nice to her but having his efforts cut off, being allowed only to communicate with her as she did with him (in argument and threat). The audience is supposed to remember that Spike is evil, but they see only that here is someone whose dearest love treats him as her sex-slave/whipping-boy. It's hard to look at a kicked dog and say, oh, yeah, I remember this dog once was rabid and used to go around biting everyone. He deserves it. I sympathize with the guy doing the kicking. Meanwhile, you have depressed Buffy, with SMG aptly showing the lack of emotion of the depressed (with flashes of anger and violence toward Spike) compared with JM's eloquent show of emotion as Spike, making it harder for the audience to identify with what Buffy's going through--but Spike? They wonder that some fans felt sympathy for Spike? What the hell did they expect? (Hell, I can even muster some sympathy for the Mayor ... well, on alternate Tuesdays, anyway. ;) )

The writers have shown such a good sense of story in the past that I really wonder how they can't have seen it?
[> [> [> Re: Sympathy for the devil, and what do the writers expect? (general s6 spoilers) -- December, 11:55:36 10/29/02 Tue

I think you have just stated the Question of the Seasons, Buffy in Retrospect.
[> [> [> On the Beating -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:45:45 10/29/02 Tue

I don't think the writers took the beating in Dead Things as seriously as many of the fans have. They were probably thinking "We've got to show Buffy's inner self-hatred. But how?" "Well, what if she takes it out on a demon, but we clearly show the demon is a stand in for herself." "Well, emotionally speaking, Spike fits that role well. Let's put him in there!" While they probably did realize that Buffy beating up Spike was a poor reflection on her character (it was intended that way) I don't think they thought it was too horrible because Buffy had hit Spike plenty of times before and they had never heard serious complaints about it.
[> [> [> [> Re: On the Beating -- Miss Edith, 00:58:22 10/30/02 Wed

The attempted rape is constantly used in previously on Buffys. Buffy even had a flashback in Beneath You and is portrayed as traumatised. Yet the beating she inflicted on Spike in DT was hardly ever mentioned again. You are right that the fans put far more emphasis on it than the writers were willing to. In interviews they don't even like mentioning it without bringing up the fact that Spike raped Buffy implying that Buffy is the victim and Spike pretty much deserved what he got.

I agree that I don't think the beating would have had much effect on Spike. Even when ensouled and in the church scene it was Buffy using him for sex that really bothered him. I don't believe he gave the beating much thought after his face healed up. In OAFA my problem was that Buffy completely failed to acknowledge her beating of a vampire when he was down. Spike was walking around with a bruised and battered face and Buffy didn't even flinch. That disturbed me more than the actual beating, particularly when Spike brought it up and Buffy just looked annoyed, and showed no trace of guilt. Buffy did pulverise his face and I wanted soem acknowledgement and the writers just completely failed to deal with it. I am left with the image of Spike crawling towards Buffy with his eyes swollen shut and I have to try and reconcile that image with the heroine of the show. The writers just avoiding mentioning it again was not the way to handle it I personaly feel.

I did hear that Spike was not shown as burnt from the cross in STSP because of the poor response to OAFA. The writers realised that the viewers would not want a comedy episode with Spike being seriously wounded and the characters not acknowledging it. It was suggested that Spike's injuries brought down the comic feel of OAFA. I felt sympathy for Buffy in DT as I saw how lost she was and how much she was being drawn into the darkness. I cried when she confessed to Tara. I did lose sympathy in OAFA. Just my perspective.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: On the Beating -- Rufus, 02:47:39 10/30/02 Wed

The attempted rape is constantly used in previously on Buffys. Buffy even had a flashback in Beneath You and is portrayed as traumatised. Yet the beating she inflicted on Spike in DT was hardly ever mentioned again. You are right that the fans put far more emphasis on it than the writers were willing to. In interviews they don't even like mentioning it without bringing up the fact that Spike raped Buffy implying that Buffy is the victim and Spike pretty much deserved what he got.

One of the Drews, Greenberg...said that the only way that Buffy and Spike could hurt each other was emotionally. And that is the idea the writers stuck with. The rape wasn't trauma inducing for Buffy because she was hurt physically, but because she thought she knew Spike, knew what he would or wouldn't do. She took him for granted. The ambiguous nature of the relationship led to the AR. The bruises didn't hurt Buffy, the violation did. With the beating, again the writers see both characters as pretty durable and used the beating as a metaphor for what the relationship would end up like as Buffy and Spikes natures would eventually rip them apart. When I look at the AR and the Beating I see less the obvious and more the underlying emotion and direction the characters are headed in. The AR put Spike over the edge, caused him to go do something that was against his nature, because for one moment he got what Buffy was so afraid of.....that nature, that soulless nature that would lead her to eventually have to kill him. It either worked for a viewer or it didn't.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Well said -- shadowkat, 08:11:58 10/30/02 Wed

"The AR put Spike over the edge, caused him to go do something that was against his nature, because for one moment he got what Buffy was so afraid of.....that nature, that soulless nature that would lead her to eventually have to kill him. It either worked for a viewer or it didn't."

Well said. That statement is the reason I believe they had to do the AR scene and why it does work on a certain level.
Also what makes the scene so interesting and rises it above most depictions of rape on television.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: On the Beating -- vh, 13:02:36 10/30/02 Wed

It worked for me (character-wise; it wasn't exactly what I'd call "enjoyable"). It just surprises me that the writers seem so surprised by the audience reaction. I could have easily predicted it for them.
That old creepy feeling (spoilers for Slouching Toward Bethlehem) -- Cactus Watcher, 06:39:01 10/28/02 Mon

I found last night's Angel episode hilarious, but not necessarily in the places where it was supposed to be. And not because there was anything wrong with it either. We have had so much talk here about how heroic Wesley has become, and what a good match Connor would be for Dawn, that I couldn't help but laugh.

First, we've known Wesley for years now. Yes, he's a lot more sexy than that geek who showed up in Sunnydale in Buffy season three. But, are we really surprised when he renews his annual membership in the International Brotherhood of Suckers with this episode? No, but I'm sure there are a lot of folks here who wished he hadn't.

It would be Masq, the current champion of the Angel story, of all people, who most recently suggested that Connor would be a good match for Dawn. Well, nobody said anything at the time, not even me, nor at anytime previously when the subject came up. But, realistically Connor has been trapped in a hell dimension with no women or girls since he was a baby. Just like every other boy, he's been having these strong urges since he was say 12 or 13. So it shouldn't be surprising that once his life has stabilized here those urges would get pretty powerful. And it shouldn't be too surprising that his first expression of those urges would look a tad perverse. Imagine how many pieces Connor would be in, if Buffy caught Connor fondling her sleeping sister.

I had hopes for a while during the episode, that whatever wiped Cordy's memory would have done a personality wipe on her as well. Then there would be some reasonable hope of an Angel + Cordelia romance making some sense. But, since the first thing she remembers from earlier in her life is "The Greatest Love of All" I think I can safely laugh at my own stupid idea.
[> Another creepy feeling passes (spoilers for Slouching Toward Bethlehem) -- neaux, 08:06:01 10/28/02 Mon

From Ewww to Awwww.

Ok... This weeks ep of Angel did not give me the wrinkly nose I normally get from watching Wes and Lilah together. Could it have been the use of the word "relationship"? Maybe the exchange of words between the two are turning more conversational and warming? I dont know. But I guess the more I see them together, the more I see a couple forming? Maybe that was the point. So I "the viewer" could get played just like Wesley by the episode's end scene?

I dont think that is it either. Because even after everything that went down. I found Lilah's response to Wes at the end of the episode, sympathetic and genuine. She didnt' suck out Lorne's entire brain because he was Wes' friend. I interpreted that as "I still want to be with you, I'm sorry."
But I still cant wait to see where this goes..
[> [> Lilah & Wes question (Spoilers, StB AtS 4.4) -- Solitude1056, 08:17:59 10/28/02 Mon

I couldn't read Lilah's expression. It seemed to me, while watching it, that Lilah was testing Wes. She said something like, "if I'd thought you would trust me, then I wouldn't have played you like that," and Wes' response was that (in some way) he had been trying or perhaps even had trusted her. That's the way it sounded to me - and thus, her actions belied her own distrust, and (I was concluding) had been the pre-emptive strike to end things. Her behavior during the episode had indicated to me, at least, that she was starting to see them as a relationship but wasn't sure what Wes thought... and thus she'd assumed he was going to play her, so she'd play him first. I couldn't tell from her expression whether she realized this - or was even regretting her actions towards Wes - or was fatalistically resigned to the idea that eventually they'd have to betray each other, might as well get it over with and no hard feelings. Or something... anyone else get a better take on that part?
[> [> [> Re: Lilah & Wes question (Spoilers, StB AtS 4.4) -- azazel, 08:50:45 10/28/02 Mon

Wesley just realized viscerally what the consequences are for sleeping with and having a relationship with someone who would betray him and his friends on a dime. And although Wesley didn't tell Lilah about his rescue plans for Angel -- that is not using Lilah, that is keeping her out of his business, not betraying her. I kind of had the strong impression that last night was the swan song to Wesley - Lilah.

Especially when he saw the "Pryce" for betraying his friends wasn't even 30 pieces of silver, but just one measley dollar he had affixed his name to.
[> [> [> [> Wesley and Lilah... beneath the surface -- Masq, 09:37:58 10/28/02 Mon

I for one, think that the whole staged black-ops attack and Lilah's manipulation of Wesley should make him wake up and smell the cafe' latte. He is still trying to be good.

But there is so much more going on beneath the surface in this "relationship". As the poster Cecilia pointed out in a quote I posted on my site, Wesley and Lilah seem to be working out their own personal issues on each other. This goes beyond the present moment and what is going on in their respective jobs. This has to do with Wesley's childhood, his mixed feelings towards the AI gang, Lilah's mixed feelings about vulnerability and power, etc.

So even though I think Wesley should have been ready to call it quits at the end of the ep, I don't think he will. Or if he does, he'll be back.
[> [> [> Re: Lilah & Wes question (Spoilers, StB AtS 4.4) -- Arethusa, 09:03:47 10/28/02 Mon

She said, "If I thought you'd ever trust me, I would have never played you like that." She might be lying; I doubt Lilah would ever trust anyone. I think the quiet, almost sympathetic tact Lilah took with Wesley showed she doesn't want the affair to end, but her job always comes first. She may feel some sympathy and liking for Wes (which Romanov brought across very well), but Lilah never forgets what she'd doing, and what's at stake. Wesley did forget, and Lorne paid the price. Wesley had become smug and self-confident in his afffair with Lilah, and every time Wesley becomes comfortable with himself, something terrible happens. W&H got an inside scoop into the next apocalypse, and Wesley was reminded that Lilah was using him as much as he was using her. She wasn't kiddding when she told Angel she already had given up her soul.
[> [> [> Maybe Lilah did more than one favor for him. -- yez, 10:49:37 10/28/02 Mon

Right now, the Wes and Lilah subplot is my favorite part of the show -- I find it the most interesting. I like the parallel to the Buffy/Spike affair, and think it's especially fascinating that Wesley's "demon lover" is actually human. Adds some interesting complexity and will hopefully lead to some more exploration in the Whedonverse of what it means to be a demon who chooses good and a human who chooses bad.

I didn't take that scene to mean the Wes/Lilah affair is over. I took Lilah's comments and Wes' reaction to them ("It's never simple" ?) as a mutual "betrayal," but one tempered by the fact that both have expected betrayal from the beginning. And also that both are trying to make sense of what they're experiencing in the "relationship." I don't think either character expected to care, and it seems that they are both caring, at least a little, in spite of themselves. Maybe not even caring... It may just be that humans develop expectations based on regular events. Mainly, they expect them to continue. There also seemed to be a subtle sadness underscoring things (good job by the actors) because they realize that neither of them is really capable of fulfilling the other's needs -- not even a need to just have uncomplicated, meaningless sex. And I think both know that, because of the choices and affiliations they've made, that there will likely have to be a showdown between them, that it may get to a point where it's kill or be killed (or let your friends be killed).

As far as Wes being duped, my impression was that Wes was actually in a no-win situation, and so were Angel, Fred and Gunn. Them going to rescue Cordy resulted in Lorne's "brain drill." But if they hadn't gone (if Wes had never overheard Lilah or if he hadn't acted on that info), then WR&H would have captured Cordy and she would've had *her* brain drilled. And maybe worse, since once they were back at the shop, Lilah may not have been able to let Cordy go; WR&H may have wanted to keep her for further study -- or termination, if Cordy is supposed to play some role in whatever's coming.

So maybe leaving Lorne's brain in its place wasn't the only favor Lilah gave Wes.

yez
[> [> [> [> And what is up with Gunn???? -- azazel, 10:58:34 10/28/02 Mon

How come Gunn has become so suspicious that he immediately distrusts Wesley without having any reason to do so except the letter W.

Last week, he gave up on Lorne too for now dissing them before Fred convinced him more was going on than he realized.

Gunn has some major distrust issues here -- and I think they are goiong to get in the way again and again.
[> [> [> Playing Chess in Bed -- Spike Lover, 11:38:24 10/28/02 Mon

I think Lilah has been playing Wesley for a long while now- particularly since Lorne was on the boat that got Angel out of the water.

I was surprised that Wesley went to warn Angel about the attack on Cordy. Seems he would have been better to let the chips fall where they may. But he was trying to get the upper hand with her. I was also confused about Angel's response to Wesley when he walks thru the door. 'What do you want?' The last time he saw Wes, he had told them that he thought things were ok between them. ???

Also, confusing, Lilah is looking at a screen and says "You stud." I thought she was looking at Wesley, but on further examination via the pause button, I think it was Angel. Is she ready to move on ??

I thought the dollar bill thing was sad. She left it behind like the potential for a lasting relationship. It was not even worth keeping.

It is an interesting problem these characters have gotten themselves into. Wesley does not know where he is going, but now he may feel even more isolated than before. (Particularly if Lilah is no longer trying to get him to come work at W & H.)

Lilah's achilles heal is her humanity which she can not truly deny. Back when Lindsay was in play, she came across as very vulnerable. Was it last year when she released that woman hater from Hell and then it was she that ended up killing him (at the airport), despite her employment obligations? Perhaps they are saying that young lawyers have more heart than most people know or they want to admit.

By the way, I miss Darla, Lindsay, and Doyle. I am tired of Fred and Gunn's frowns and distrust. AI needs definate leadership.


So is young Conner going to try to get it on w/ Cordy? How old is that actor who plays Conner anyway? And how old is the character suppose to be now? Will Cordy like Conner better than Xander? Will Xander (play soap opera music here) steam anew when he finds out another of his ex-lovers is involved with a man who has the blood of a vampire in his veins?...
[> [> [> [> Re: Playing Chess in Bed -- acesgirl, 13:40:44 10/28/02 Mon

"I think Lilah has been playing Wesley for a long while now- particularly since Lorne was on the boat that got Angel out of the water."

Just a point of clarification, Lorne was not really on the boat, he was one of Angel's hallucinations, just like he hallucinated that Connor was on the boat when he said "I should have killed you." Lorne was in Las Vegas at the time that Wesley rescued Angel.

At least that's how I remembered that scene.
[> [> [> [> Re: Playing Chess in Bed -- Miss Edith, 02:56:17 10/29/02 Tue

I think Conner is about 16/17? And Cordy should be about 20/21 as she graduated with Buffy. Of course the actress looks like she is in her mid 30s which makes a potential relationship pretty uncomfortable. The actor playing Conner is about 24 I think?
[> Connor and Dawn...a clarification -- Masq, 09:28:47 10/28/02 Mon

I was being tongue-in-cheek with the Connor and Dawn thing. Frankly, I think Connor is too dark for Dawn. She could hold her own with him in snarky replies to what he has to say, but I don't see him finding her appealing. She might get a big-time crush on him, but I don't really see these two together, not as the characters are right now.

: )
[> [> Re: Connor and Dawn...a clarification -- Rob, 11:25:15 10/28/02 Mon

Especially seeing how flirty Dawn was with that demon boy in "Hell's Bells," maybe she and Connor could find something in common...

...like, hopefully, the network they're on! ;o)

Rob
[> [> [> (I think they'd be cute, too!) -- HonorH, 12:18:08 10/28/02 Mon

After all, she's beautiful and he's a teenage boy--what's not for him to love? She's a demon fighter, like him. She has an edgy mother/daughter relationship with Buffy, while he has an even edgier father/son relationship with Angel. She'd keep him from taking himself too seriously while introducing him to the joys of the modern world. As for the attraction on her part, that's simple: Connor pretty!

And neither of them were ever technically *born*. Surely that must count for *something*!

(Besides, it'd drive Angel and Buffy perfectly nuts to have them dating.)
[> [> [> [> Plus, they could bond on their identity issues... -- Masq, 12:45:06 10/28/02 Mon

Dawn: "My sister isn't really technically my sister. Or maybe sometimes I wish she wasn't. But you know, I'm not really human at all anyway. Well, I am now, but I wasn't originally."

Connor: "Yeah, well, I *am* human, but my dad isn't. Neither was my mom. I mean, how in the heck did *that* happen?"

Dawn: "Monks? It could have been monks."

Connor: "Maybe. But at least it only took four episodes for people to find out how you got here. I've been around for more than a year now, and I *still* don't know. They're probably going to build a big teen-aged identity story arc over the coming season just so I can myself figure out!"

Dawn: "You gotta love those teen-aged identity story arcs."
[> [> [> [> [> Quote of the Week!! -- Rob, 13:05:12 10/28/02 Mon

"You gotta love those teen-aged identity story arcs."

I know I do. ;o)

Rob
[> [> [> [> [> "I've got a theory, it could be monks . . ." -- HonorH (going for the obvious), 13:56:17 10/28/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> "golfing monks, no, something isn't right there..." -- Solitude1056, 22:33:25 10/28/02 Mon

[> [> Plus... -- Humanitas, 16:25:07 10/28/02 Mon

There's that whole "Your dad slept with my sister" thing. Yuk!

;-)
[> Re: That old creepy feeling (spoilers for Slouching Toward Bethlehem) -- PepTech, 10:01:03 10/28/02 Mon

>I had hopes for a while during the episode, that whatever wiped Cordy's memory would have done a personality wipe on her as well.

My first thought was to wonder if I could get the memory of Saint Cordy wiped from *my* mind as well. Whoof.

Teeny nitpick - how did Lorne line up a client so dang fast? He'd been in Vegas for three months and back for, what, an hour?
Lorne's moral ambiguity, "Connor", and Best Kept Secrets (AtS 4.4 spoilers, of course) -- Masq, 09:55:58 10/28/02 Mon

Rather than create three threads for three different questions, I thought I would combine my thoughts into one post. My questions/thoughts are on:

(1) Lorne's moral ambiguity,
(2) Connor as "Connor", and
(3) The WB promoting AtS as their "Best kept secret" (USA today)

(1) Lorne is usually depicted as an easy-going, kind-hearted guy, but he does have a double standard when it comes to his fellow demons. He used to "read" demons and tell them their futures, and allow baby-eaters and other sorts of demons into his club without batting an eye.

Was anyone else disturbed by his keeping a people-eater in one of the rooms of the hotel? I mean, the hotel full of his human friends? Granted, he was trying to help this guy with his "addiction", but still.... there wasn't any other place to counsel him?

Of course, I realize this was a plot device to get Cordelia to take a chance with Connor. And thank God it was only a plot device. I was worried they were going to build the entire episode around that people-eater guy. And what a plot twist that was... Cordelia ending up being more trustful Connor and deciding to stay with him. Didn't see that coming.

(2) Speaking of Connor, it struck me as odd that he would call himself "Connor" instead of Steven. Maybe he has mixed feelings towards Holtz now because of his deception, but he still has pretty unmixed feelings about Angel. He doesn't want to be Angel's son. Or does he? I'm still trying to figure out how Connor really feels about Angel.

(3) At the end of the ep, there was a brief ad where the WB quoted USA today as saying that Angel was their "Best Kept Secret". Is it just me, or is that actually NOT a complement to the show "Angel", but simply the claim that the WB doesn't know how to publicize the show?
[> #3 answer -- neaux, 10:18:43 10/28/02 Mon

Seems like WB wants to keep Angel a "secret" if they promote Angel as a "best kept secret" during an Angel commercial break. because only angel fans would be watching!! Duh!

seems if WB really wanted to promote the show.. this commercial would be run during a different hour block.
[> Some answers (spoilers for Ats 4.4 and Benediction/Tomorrow) -- shadowkat, 10:56:21 10/28/02 Mon

"(1) Lorne is usually depicted as an easy-going, kind-hearted guy, but he does have a double standard when it comes to his fellow demons. He used to "read" demons and tell them their futures, and allow baby-eaters and other sorts of demons into his club without batting an eye.

Was anyone else disturbed by his keeping a people-eater in one of the rooms of the hotel? I mean, the hotel full of his human friends? Granted, he was trying to help this guy with his "addiction", but still.... there wasn't any other place to counsel him?"

I was. I remember wondering just that - when we saw the people eater demon and I did not blame Angel for calling Lorne on it. The Hotel is Angel's domicile. Lorne is staying there under Angel's good graces. Unless Angel said - fine let dangerous demons into the rooms above, I think Lorne may have been out of line. He could have counseled the client elsewhere. Especially considering the fact that Cordelia has no memory right now.

It was clearly a plot device. But I'm not sure whether it was a logical one. Will say it managed to add even more suspense and creepiness to an already creepy episode.
But I'm still not sure it made a whole heck of a lot of sense that right after being rescued from Las Vegas by the gange - Lorne counsels dangerous clients in their home and business space. That seemed a bit off to me.

Outside of that? I agree - was glad it was just the plot device to get Cordy to go with Connor and not a whole episode around a people eater.

"(2) Speaking of Connor, it struck me as odd that he would call himself "Connor" instead of Steven. Maybe he has mixed feelings towards Holtz now because of his deception, but he still has pretty unmixed feelings about Angel. He doesn't want to be Angel's son. Or does he? I'm still trying to figure out how Connor really feels about Angel."

Found that odd as well. He's been doing it for some time.
It started way back in Tomorrow.

"Connor suddenly pushes Angel aside and takes a hold of Linwood.
Connor: "Stay away from my father."
Connor throws Linwood into the back of the van.
Linwood: "I'm not your enemy. We can help you, Steven."
Connor after a beat: "My name is Connor."
Gunn and Fred exchange a look and a smile. "

That was the first time. After Holtz died he decided to take the name Angel gave him. Partly to lure Angel into trusting him and I think partly for the reasons discussed with Holtz in Benediction:

"Holtz: "It was your need for him that drove you across the dimension."

Connor: "I don't need him!"

Holtz: "Go back to him, Steven."

Connor: "Why are you doing this? Why? God gave me to you."

Holtz: "Yes. It was god's plan for us to be together. Nothing will ever persuade me otherwise. But now it's time for me to give you back."

Connor: "He's a demon."

Holtz: "And you're the bastard son of two demons."

Connor: "Then I'm a demon."

Holtz: "You're not. God help me, I don't know what you are, but I'm not the one to give you answers, and there *are* answers. Go and find them out." "

I think it's a combination of these two - that Connor goes by Connor and not Steven. That and I think he discovered he could find better ways to hurt Angel without changing his name.

"3) At the end of the ep, there was a brief ad where the WB quoted USA today as saying that Angel was their "Best Kept Secret". Is it just me, or is that actually NOT a complement to the show "Angel", but simply the claim that the WB doesn't know how to publicize the show?"

I don't think they have a clue how to publicize this show.
They aren't sure what they have. Charmed is easy - it's nice compact, episodic, with happy characters. But Angel is darker, riskier, and edgier. WB's promos actually don't bother me as much as UPN's - they're better. But best kept secret? It's been on for three years...that's something you use for a show that just appeared, I would think. Or it could just be that they are grabbing quotes from reviewers - several critics have made this statement about both Angel and Alias - stating they are the season's best kept secrets.
(Which uh is NOT a compliment to the networks that promote them, it's the critics way of saying - you are lousy at promoting these shows and are keeping them a secret. LOL!! Which makes the networks use of the quote ironically amusing.)
[> [> Re: Some answers (spoilers for Ats 4.4 and Benediction/Tomorrow) -- Arethusa, 11:15:19 10/28/02 Mon

2. Why did Connor choose to be called Connor?

Also: Why did Connor go back to the hotel?

I's possible that Connor regrets cutting himself off from the only people he knows on Earth. Or, he is trying to gain Cordy's trust, and thinks using "Connor" will help.

Connor's been called "Steven" all his life. Taking on a new name can be an indication of a huge internal change. Connor is honest with Cordy, which is very much unlike his behavior before the summer. Is it possible that he deeply regrets what he did, and accepting his father's name might be how he's chosen to show that his feeling are changing? Or is he just trying to manipulate everyone again?

When I married, I didn't change my last name. It was the only thing I had of my father's-I didn't even have any memories. Having his name makes me feel like I still have a part of him.
[> [> But... -- Masq, 11:53:26 10/28/02 Mon

"Connor suddenly pushes Angel aside and takes a hold of Linwood.
Connor: "Stay away from my father."
Connor throws Linwood into the back of the van.
Linwood: "I'm not your enemy. We can help you, Steven."
Connor after a beat: "My name is Connor."
Gunn and Fred exchange a look and a smile. "

Connor did that in front of Angel to lull him into a false sense of security so he could dupe Angel later. With Cordelia and her lost memory, there seemed no reason to claim he was "Connor". In fact, it seemed like a good opportunity to claim the name "Steven" and give Cordelia his feelings about Angel. I understand he needed to mention the name "Connor" so Cordelia would realize who he was, but that could have been accomplished with a line like, "My name's Steven. Some people call me 'Connor', though."
[> [> [> Re: But... -- alcibiades, 12:23:48 10/28/02 Mon

I think he wants to figure out who he is honestly.

In last week's episode, the vampire says to him, no one human could move that fast. What are you?

Connor: Don't know yet.

He wants to find out.

and there is no truth to his constructed life as Steven.
[> [> [> [> Re: But... -- Masq, 12:31:15 10/28/02 Mon

Entirely agree with that. However, I'm surprised Connor is wise enough to see that his identity issues are more likely to be answered by Angel than Holtz. Usually teen-aged rebellion gets in the way.

Did a little write-up on the whole issue on my site last week:

Connor's identity crisis:

Vampire: "Nothing human can move that fast. What are you?"
Connor: "Don't know yet. But I know what you are."

*Poof*

Every teenager has identity issues, but Connor Steven Holtz Angel has them in spades. Teenagers are normally more vexed with the question of who they are than what they are. But Connor struggles with both questions.

What is Connor? This is easy on a purely descriptive level. He's a human being who has all the advantages of being a vampire--supernatural strength, senses, and fighting skills--without the downside: avoiding sunlight, a one-note liquid diet, and well, having no soul. But he's not a vampire. He's a super-naturally enhanced human. The only thing remotely resembling him in the world is a long line of teenaged human female warriors, and he isn't one of those. For one thing, he's in a boy-way. And for another, Slayers tend to have human parents who can't kill things with their bare hands.

Which raises another perplexing issue. Connor isn't even the same species as his parents, technically speaking. He shouldn't even exist. And yet he does. Does this mean someone or something created him with some purpose in mind? If so, how does he find out what it is and how should he feel about it when/if he does?

Who is Connor? What Connor wants to be and how he feels about what he is are at the crux of the Who is Connor? question. Questions about who you are are usually answered by some mix of life experience and free will. Connor clearly revels in being a warrior. His life up until now has been defined by "things that I killed." It is part necessity and part choice.That necessity was created by his upbringing. Connor should have been raised by his loving natural father in the relative safety of Los Angeles, but he was raised by one of his father's oldest enemies in a dangerous hell dimension. And he was brought up to hate his real father.

Connor's refusal to acknowledge Angel as his father is both freeing and limiting. On the one hand, Connor is free to make choices about who he is without Angel's influence. On the other hand, Angel lies at the center of the answers to the questions Connor is asking. Though Angel might not have the answers himself, through Angel, Connor can find out what he is and why someone or something chose two notorious vampires, one with a soul, to parent Connor into existence. And Angel is the one person who can arguably give Connor a noble purpose in life that's compatible with the kinds of skills Connor already enjoys using.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: But... -- Lilac, 12:57:09 10/28/02 Mon

How do we know that Connor has a soul?
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: But... -- Arethusa, 13:33:44 10/28/02 Mon

I believe his demon parents could sense it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Darla... -- Sometime Lurker, 13:37:55 10/28/02 Mon

began feeling guilt as a side effect of having a human, soul-bearing child in her womb.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: But... (S. 3 AtS spoilers) -- Masq, 13:51:01 10/28/02 Mon

Darla's whole return to L.A. and then her subsequent exit was predicated on the idea that Connor had a soul, and that she was feeling the effects of it, because it was in her body.

Here is an explanation of what she felt.

Here is how it made her act in the end.

What it boils down to is that the writers say that he does, so he does.
[> [> [> Fred and Gunn called him that. -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:20:14 10/28/02 Mon

Over the three to four months Connor spent with Gunn and Fred, they called him Connor, so he's had time to get used to being called that. Plus, maybe he just realized that the name "Connor" sounds cooler than "Steven".
[> One quick, little nitpicky note re:Lorne... (Angel 4.4 spoiler) -- Rob, 11:18:47 10/28/02 Mon

Did anyone else find themselves having to suspend their disbelief a little more than usual when Lorne already had the people-eater set up shop at the hotel, only short moments after he had returned from Las Vegas. The story, after all, was continuing from the same night. Only thing I could come up with was that this had been a "client" he had before he had left L.A., and now this guy had come over, in need of help.

On another note, Masq, I'm glad your boy, Connor, had more of a substantial role in this ep than in the last two. I knew he wasn't boosted up to regular cast member status for nuthin'!

Rob
[> [> Oh yeah.... -- Masq, 12:08:46 10/28/02 Mon

When they had the intro scene with Connor helping the family then going to spy on his father, I though, "Oh, brother! Not this again!"

I figured they'd leave it at that. Connor spies. Cordelia sees him. He runs away. I should have given ME more credit than that--they didn't let it dangle. They acknowledged the complexity of Connor's daddy-issues. Connor enjoyed getting one-up on his father. "See, your 'big love' trusts me more than you, hah!"

Like I said somewhere before, I am beginning to understand Spike fan's frustration with 5-minutes-of-Spike. With Spike, it doesn't bother me. With Connor and Wesley, it does. Five minutes of Connor usually adds nothing to the story. Ditto Wesley. Although they did squeeze some mileage out of those cameos last week, I thought. I was glad to see them (both Connor and Wesley) involved in the actual PLOT of the episode this week.
[> Here's mine (Speculation of up to 10/28/02) -- VampRiley, 11:28:48 10/28/02 Mon

1) I wasn't disturbed by it.

2) I'd say the mixed feelings are there for both Angel and Holtz.

3) I tried reading the reviews of others in magazines, papers, etc., but I've stopped. I've only seen that promo once -- last night during the show. Since the show is in it's fourth season and I've only seen the promo during this hour block, I'm gonna hold judgement. They may have just started the promoting and started with the show in case there were any first time viewers or anyone who has only seen the show a few times. If the promo appears during other blocks, then, I think it's just them promoting. If not, I'll withhold my tongue, or fingers, and just watch the WB very carefully.

VR
[> Re: Lorne's moral ambiguity, "Connor", and Best Kept Secrets (AtS 4.4 spoilers, of course) -- yabyumpan, 12:59:43 10/28/02 Mon

(2) Speaking of Connor, it struck me as odd that he would call himself "Connor" instead of Steven. Maybe he has mixed feelings towards Holtz now because of his deception, but he still has pretty unmixed feelings about Angel. He doesn't want to be Angel's son. Or does he? I'm still trying to figure out how Connor really feels about Angel.

Myabe he's just got used to calling himself Connor. He had to keep up the pretence through the summer with Fred and Gunn and they became a sort of stand in family for him. Also, didn't he say something to Cordy about 'seing things differently now' (I haven't seen the ep so I may be wrong), it sounds like he's questioning a lot of what he's been brought up to believe.
[> Re: Lorne's moral ambiguity, "Connor", and Best Kept Secrets (AtS 4.4 spoilers, of course) -- ZachsMind, 15:09:27 10/28/02 Mon

1) Lorne's for the demon community exactly opposite what a thief or murderer is for the human community. It's rather difficult perhaps for us to fathom on this end, but demons are generally either bad, amoral, or they seek neutrality. It's rare to find one who's honestly and naturally "good." It's why I have some major difficulty understanding the whole deal with Cordelia at present, where "Skip" and his superiors were sorta recruiting her to be "one with everything." Made sense that they ended up just putting her in a gilded cage. The Powers That Be would want to keep someone like Cordy on a very short leash.

Lorne's an enigma though. He's a nice guy who just happens to be demon. We don't know a lot about where he came from. His origins are mostly obscure. We know only that he fled his demon dimension because he loved music and the dimension didn't. We don't know if there's other demons like him where he comes from or if he's just a 'good egg' among a nest of bad ones.

I'm beginning to think the whole idea of calling these humanoid creatures in Whedon's universe "demons" is a bit misleading. These are probably not the guys from Judeo-Christian mythology. One who didn't assume the entire bible was gospel could say these guys somehow influenced roman catholicism's belief system during the dark ages somehow. Imagine if Lorne or a relative of his accidently popped into this dimension at the Vatican while the Pope of the time was singing in his shower. ...It could happen! With the green skin and the horns. The archbishops would pee in their robes!

In the confines of Whedon's fictional world, though the demons tend to be what we call "evil" and we're comparatively good, what actually seems to be happening is that long ago these "demons" were allegedly the original inhabitants of this planet. Somehow we humans began to proliferate like rabbits and the demons were forced out by a combination of factors. They faced either exile to parallel "hell" dimensions or complete extermination. Some died. Some chose to vacate the planet, with the belief that someday they'd aquire the power to re-enter Earth's plane of existence and take back the land that they believe to be rightfully theirs.

I mean I'm beginning to think they're not demons at all. They're not like, "fallen angels" that the Jewish God Yahweh smited eons ago and threw down to Earth with that annoying little upstart angel Lucifer, y'know whut ah mean? Some of them happen to look like the descriptions that adult Christians told their children during horror bedtime stories of the middle ages, but maybe they're more like 'aliens' or something. So assuming all of these "demons" are irrevocably evil may be just as prejudiced and even racist as assuming all human beings are pristine and perfect. We sure as hell are not.

Lorne's definitely the exception to the rule, but so are Whistler, Doyle and Clem. Or even Anya on a ..good day? Or would that be bad day? Depends I guess on whether or not you're her..

Maybe all demons are each separately just not particularly evil or good, but their actions make it possible to describe each one as one or the other. And when describing, one may need to see the cultural bias. Xander describing Angel as evil is definitely different from Clem describing Spike as... well whatever the heck Spike is. I've lost track personally. I guess what I mean is if you're brought up in the hell dimension and you're told about those meany humans who eons ago usurped all your ancestors from your homeland, you'd probably see yourself as a good guy and you'd see those darn pesky humans as evil.

In Whedon's world, morality is very subjective.

2) The only person who really knew him as Stephen was Holtz, and he's dead. There is that other woman that Holtz treated like a daughter and Wesley treated like a wild dog. I forget her name. She probably doesn't count in Connor's head cuz she's largely stupid. Connor/Stephen has little tolerance for stupidity. He knows that Cordy once knew him as Connor, even though she doesn't know anybody as anybody now. So it kinda made sense. I wish the writer(s) of the episode had taken a moment to give Connor/Stephen the chance to explain all that to Cordy, for the benefit of exposition to those newcomers to the series as well as those of us having difficulty keeping our scorecards legible. I mean he coulda said something like, "Well my name is Stephen but you used to call me Connor." Maybe the writers are trying to make a point there, but I think they just went for simplicity. They're trying to make Connor seem like a strong silent type, even though to me he's still just a little snotty twerp that needs a spanking.

And if he DOES make the moves on Cordy, that's gonna gross me out. There's some Oedipus Complex stuff happening with Connor.

3) I'm of the opinion that neither the WB nor UPN know how to properly promote any of their programs, especially Whedon's stuff. And FOX seems to be trying to purposefully ground Firefly before it has a chance to take off. Putting anything on Friday and Saturday nights is like giving a show the Kiss of Death.

Current board | More October 2002