October 2003 posts
Does
Joss have something against parents? -- Athena, 23:26:56
10/12/03 Sun
When I read a section on this site that was speculating about
Joss and co. having something against relationships, it occured
to me that Joss seems to have something against parents.
Hank Summers - Buffy and Dawn's dad. Where is the guy? We've heard
that he has been off in Europe, but where was he when their mom
died? Has even been paying child support (if he was wouldn't Buffy
have mentioned it during her financial crisis?) and why didn't
he at least ask for custody of Dawn? We haven't heard from him
sense he stood Buffy up on her birthday.
The Chases - Cordelia's parents.They were cheating on their taxes
and if early Cordy's actions are any signal they spoiled her to
the point where it was unhealthy.
The Rosenburgs - Willow's parents. From the little we heard about
them, they seem to be distant, barely paying any attention to
her. Yes, they were accepting of her sexuality, but shouldn't
they've been there to greet her when she returned from England
and supported her after her girlfriend's death?
The Harrises - Xander's parents. Heavy drinkers and known to argue
so much that Xander resorted to sleeping outside on Christmas
so he could get some peace and quiet. If the rest of Xander's
family is any sign, it may be worse than that.
The Wells - Andrew and Tucker's parents. True, we never heard
about them, but their kids make me wonder if they weren't too
stable. One boy (Tucker) sets Hellhounds on the Prom just because
Harmony wouldn't go out with him and the other is deeply out of
touch with reality and ends up murdering someone. I doubt it is
just the genes.
Doyle's father - We don't know anything about him other than he
was a demon and is nowhere to be found, though it may be because
he doesn't know he has a son;
Wesley's father - The guy locked Wes under the stairs and we've
had further hints of this sort of abuse.
Angel's father - Liam (pre-vamp days Angel) claimed that he was
impossible to please, though this is only his opinion.
Faith's mother - We don't know much, but she was a drunkard and
possibly abusive.
Holtz - He may have been a good dad to his genetic kids but his
treatment of Connor is despicable. He raised the poor boy on lies
and no doubt taught Connor to hate himself because of his blood.
Tara's father - Control freak. Told his daughter she was a demon
just so he could keep her from "rebellious".
Am I missing anyone?
The only decent parents/foster parents seem to be Angel, Spike's
mum, Joyce and Giles. True, they all had there low points but
parents are only human.
Replies:
[> Masq actually has a section about this at her site...
-- Rob, 23:47:26 10/12/03 Sun
Here.
Rob
[> The exception that proves the rule (sp 3.5) -- Tchaikovsky,
03:37:28 10/13/03 Mon
Undercutting in true ME style, the episode 'Fredless' is all about
the probability that her parents are evil- only for it to turn
out that they are normal, loving parents.
TCH
[> about Hank Summers... -- celticross, 10:23:28
10/13/03 Mon
I've noticed that Hank's absence is really more about the story
that a real comment on parenting, though it comes across to the
characters and audience that he's the most deadbeat of deadbeat
dads. Example, if he had come to Joyce's funeral, the episode
"Forever" would have been drastically different. If
he had come to his daughters' financial aid in Season 6, an entire
story arc, Buffy's money troubles and need for a job, wouldn't
have existed. It's not as if the actor were unavailable, which
leads me to think that every time Hank's not around, it's because
his presence would, by necessity, alter the story.
[> [> And, by extension... -- Gyrus, 10:48:19
10/13/03 Mon
I think the reason there were so many bad or absentee parents
on BTVS mostly had to do with giving the characters enough freedom
to do what they need to do, especially during the first 3 seasons
of the show (i.e., when the kids were in high school and living
at home). If both of Buffy's parents lived with her, or if Xander,
Willow, or Cordelia's parents paid much attention to them at all,
it could complicate the situation drastically. Can you imagine
being a parent of a child who is always out late on school nights
and then coming home with unexplained injuries, or finding a crossbow
under your kid's bed while you're vacuuming? You'd ground your
kid for a year and then call all his friends' parents to find
out just what's going on. Making the parents too busy or too screwed
up to notice what their children were up to prevented those sorts
of complications.
[> [> [> Re: And, by extension... -- MaeveRigan,
13:22:34 10/13/03 Mon
Making the parents too busy or too screwed up to notice what
their children were up to prevented those sorts of complications.
Exactly. And think about some other "heroic children"
tales. Some of them have wonderful, involved parents (e.g., Spy
Kids)--yay! But others are able to have their exciting, dangerous
adventures precisely because parents are, for one reason
or another, absent or dysfunctional (e.g., the Narnia books).
Come to think of it, even the Spy Kids only have their big adventure
because their wonderful parents are nabbed by the bad guy & thus
out of the picture temporarily. It doesn't necessarily mean PARENTS
ARE BAD, it just means that for the purposes of the story, they
aren't necessary.
[> [> [> [> but 20's -- Dlgood, 15:57:57
10/13/03 Mon
But when you deal with adult characters, parents needn't be bad
or out of the way to be unnecessary. By virtue of our characters
being in their 20's the parents are unecessary even if they're
there.
In the Jossverse, making the parents actively negligent or bad,
as has been done, seems like piling on.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: but 20's -- Gyrus, 07:36:20
10/14/03 Tue
But when you deal with adult characters, parents needn't be
bad or out of the way to be unnecessary. By virtue of our characters
being in their 20's the parents are unecessary even if they're
there.
Well, since Xander's parents had been established as big losers
in the first 3 seasons, it would have been difficult to suddenly
make them good and bring them into the picture. As for Willow,
she did say that she visited her mom quite a lot after Joyce died,
so it's not as though they don't speak.
Hank Summers, on the other hand, had to be kept out of the picture
for the run of the show because his presence would have interfered
with the Buffy-Dawn dynamic and the whole theme of Buffy learning
to stand on her own as an adult.
[> [> Joss once said... -- Sofdog, 11:04:30 10/13/03
Mon
Or at least he was quoted as saying that Hank stayed out of the
picture because Giles was Buffy's father-figure. It played out
pretty weird though.
[> I don't think it is parents suck -- Diana, 10:32:59
10/13/03 Mon
So much as how important parents are. Parents on the show show
why another character is how s/he is. Since all the characters
are dysfunctional, some more than others, they all have to have
a reason for that. Fred's dysfuction comes from being on Pylea
for 5 years. Without good parents, I'm not sure where the strength
to recover from her ordeal would have come from.
Parents shape us. It is up to us what we do with that shape and
to reshape it. Joss' universe is one where the past informs us,
but we can still overcome our demons. Another part of Joss universe
is that things aren't always what we think they were. Liam believed
that his father didn't love him, but his father's grief at his
grave shows this to be false. William thought his mother to be
perfect and LMPTM show that also to be false. Joss' shows are
about growing up and part of that is giving up childish views
and growing beyond how our parents shaped us.
[> [> Re: I don't think it is parents suck -- MaeveRigan,
10:56:19 10/13/03 Mon
Gotta agree with Diana on this one. Basically, this is not a show
about parents. It started out as a show about high school kids
growing up. Parents, if any, were peripheral at best. In later
episodes, there are exceptions--"Hell's Bells" is a
prime example.
Parents are going to make mistakes, some worse than others. As
Philip Larkin famously wrote, "They f*** you up, your mum
and dad, / They may not mean to, but they do" ("This
Be the Verse")--again, see "Hell's Bells." But
the real question is, can you (or our fictional heroes) get beyond
blaming them and make your own life? Otherwise, it's just boring.
[> [> [> Re: I don't think it is parents suck
-- Dlgood, 11:43:07 10/13/03 Mon
But the "parent's f*** you up" is only half the equation.
Parents also often help build people's character as well.
I'm 27. I have my own house, job, car, life, and so on. I've gotten
beyond both the good and ill of my parents. But, sometimes I talk
to my parents, particularly my father. He has more life experience
than I, and sometimes I seek his wisdom, and I do benefit from
his advice. I also disregard much of his advice and make my own
way. And sometimes, my dad talks to me about his life, and I listen.
Parents, in the Jossverse, aren't painted neutral. With the possible
exception of Fred, we've almost no examples of adults who even
maintain dialogue with their parental figures. And outside of
Buffy taking care of Joyce's illness, almost no scenes of these
adult youngsters caring about their parents lives'.
When Buffy went to college, she had almost no conversations or
scenes with Joyce, or even mention of conversations with Joyce.
When Giles went to England, he wasn't even mentioned.
It's not just a case of parents needing to be out of the way for
children to grow up. Parents in the Jossverse are either completely
absent, or they're obstacles that must be conquered and surpassed.
Adults can still have constructive relationships with parental
figures, or with mentor figures. There isn't a single character
on BtVS or Angel that does.
IMHO, that's a banal view of parent-child relationships among
adult children.
[> [> [> [> Re: I don't think it is parents suck
-- LittleBit, 12:40:34 10/13/03 Mon
One other thing to consider: the parents who seem to be the most
screwed-up/oblivious/self-centered are the ones who have lived
for quite some time on a Hellmouth. Conversations between Xander
and Willow make it clear that they've been friends since at least
kindergarten days, and that Cordelia has been around since elementary
school. The least screwed-up parent we see is Joyce, and we all
know when she moved there. It's entirely possible that the presence
of the Hellmouth has enhanced the less-desirable characteristics
of the parents we've met. That Xander's parents did have a tendency
to drink too much and argue and that this was exacerbated by the
Hellmouth influences. The same could be true of the intellectualism
of Willow's mother with seeing everything through the eyes of
the research psychologist hence not noticing the specific for
the general. And Cordelia's parents' apparent preoccupation with
status and prestige, and keeping ahead of the Joneses, may also
be enhanced by this. So the only parent we see with even close
to normal parenting by current standards is Joyce. (And Hank isn't
completely out of his daughters' lives...I got the impression
that he did call regularly enough that they are concerned about
the BuffyBot answering the phone---not that this is a good parenting
technique.) Wes' father is clearly harsh and abusive, and from
the small glimpse we have of Giles' father he too was, at the
least, insistent that his son follow in certain footsteps. The
differences between Wes and Giles are that Wes did everything
he could to please his father, while Giles rebelled for a time.
(I am trying very hard, and erm...very unsuccessfully, not to
point out that both come from the line of the Watchers' Council,
which does not tolerate failure well.)
Now, on to the parenting by non-current standards. Liam's father
appears to be incredibly harsh, but in a day when "spare
the rod and spoil the child" was considered a good parenting
technique, it's entirely possible that he is trying to force his
son into his own image of manliness. It could simply be backfiring
on him with Liam's rebellion, and he doesn't know what to do except
step up the same behaviors. (It wouldn't surprise me if Liam's
father's friends were giving him all sorts of advice, particularly
along the lines of how he's coddling the boy and should cut him
off for his good). William's mother, however, gave William love
and warmth and a sense of self-worth that sustained him through
what is most likely many instances of being snubbed at gatherings.
Unfortuntely, this not only has the effect of making William feel
loved but also of making him emotionally dependent on her. Only
when she is soulless does she tear this apart. Drusilla's mother
tells her she is cursed because of the Sight which is the teaching
of the Church (these were serious hellfire and brimstone days),
and chances are her mother is concerned for Drusilla's soul, as
is Drusilla. Concerned enough that Drusilla is on the verge of
dedicating her life to God and the Church when she is turned.
By contemporary standards Liam's father, William's mother and
Drusilla's mother have parenting techniques that are recognizably
abusive. But by the standards of their day, and their cultures,
they were all attempting to do their best by their respective
children. Ann, William's mother, may have come the closest had
she not kept him quite so close.
I think it's likely that there may have been more parents like
Joyce around, but that it is equally unlikely that we would end
up meeting them. The parents we've met (or have had allusions
to) have been those we needed to meet, in order to understand
the characters we care about. What I am saying here is that they
might not be, one and all, bad people but perhaps, as so often
happens, products of their times, or their circumstances, such
as Hellmouth dwelling; circumstances that they may not even be
aware exist.
[> [> [> [> [> I still have issues with the
mentorless world -- Dlgood, 14:01:10 10/13/03 Mon
The parents we've met (or have had allusions to) have been those
we needed to meet, in order to understand the characters we care
about.
---------------
It's that hanging question from the end of S6, when Giles tells
Buffy that sometimes asking for help is a grown up thing. And
yet... we've minimal example of characters turning to others for
mentorship or assistance in that manner.
Willow never calls Giles to discuss her Magic Addiction, even
knowing that Giles had his own troubled past with Magic. Things
of that nature.
I'd go with the 'convenient to the story' argument, but there's
not been a credible counter-example for a very long time. IMHO,
it starts to become a theme, whether it was intended or merely
just by-product.
Giles mentorship of Buffy and Willow, seems largely irrelevant
or ineffective in S7. As is Buffy's own mentorship, when she is
placed in that role. IMHO, the only decent mentor-student/parent-child
relationship we see in any extended sense in recent seasons is
that between Angel and Faith, regarding their respective paths
of atonement.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I still have issues
with the mentorless world -- LittleBit, 14:07:11 10/13/03
Mon
Heh...if you want my issues with the mentorless world just look
here.
I certainly did and still do have issues with that. :-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Nature abhors a vacuum
-- Diana, 14:45:16 10/13/03 Mon
Stories have beginnings, middles and ends. To make judgments about
the universe based on the middle to me is unfair. Joss set up
vacuums, such as the mentorless state of the Scoobies, so that
this could be filled, by Buffy, by Willow, by Xander. Buffy's
words at the end of "The Gift" would have been empty
had there been someone else there to take care of them. Every
adult that the Scoobies could have turned to, even as early as
"Teacher's Pet" and Dr. Gregory, had to be removed so
that the character could fully stand on their own. Buffy makes
a very powerful statement about how important this man was to
her life. Could the show have handled both Dr. Gregory and Giles
in this role?
Mentorless world? What was Giles? In "Lessons" he is
still fulfilling that role to Willow, as is the coven. As late
as "Chosen" Giles and the coven are still there to assist
Willow. "You can do this, Willow. We'll get the coven on
the line, and we'll find out how they can help." In that
episode, the damage done to the Buffy/Giles relationship in LMPTM
was repaired in Joss' wonderful style with few lines and looks.
There is a period of time where the Scoobies are mentorless. That
is called the Middle of the Story. By the end, they have established
more adult relationships, especially Giles/Buffy.
GILES: It's a lot more than that. Buffy, what you said, it-it
flies in the face of everything we've ever-every generation has
ever done in the fight against evil. I think it's bloody brilliant.
BUFFY: You mean that?
GILES: If you want my opinion.
BUFFY: I really do.
Buffy has stepped in to fill the vacuum that was created because
the younger Scoobies are mentorless, but eventually she still
wants Giles' opinion. That is the End of the story. The mentor
relationship was re-established with a much stronger and more
independent Buffy. It isn't fair to judge the universe based on
the events of season 6 and more than it would be fair to judge
Angel based solely on the acts of Angelus. It is only part of
the story, part designed to give them a bottom to climb up from.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Nature
abhors a vacuum -- LittleBit, 15:38:12 10/13/03 Mon
"To make judgments about the universe based on the middle
to me is unfair."
If it is unfair to make judgments in the middle then every single
analysis of the show that was made prior to the airing of "Chosen"
should be considered premature. Sometimes we have to make judgments
during the process if we are to learn anything from it. Process
is dynamic, and to be aware of it, and determine if the path followed
is a beneficial or detrimental path is part what gives us the
ability to make good choices. I have stated, and there are those
who can back that up, that I am content to let the story play
out and see what Joss and the writers choose to give us. This
applies to Angel as well as it did to Buffy and Firefly. Joss
is a tremendous story-teller, and I've liked what I've gotten.
However, it isn't unfair to look at what the dynamics are at any
given time. At the point when I wrote the essay I linked to (May
2002) there were no mentors. Of any kind. Just the scoobies trying
to find their own way in the absence of role models or advice.
And I do believe that having someone to talk to, someone who isn't
facing those same issues and struggling with them, is a good thing.
The point I was making was that there were certainly adults who
should have/could have been around. And yes, everytime there was
someone, that person was removed from the mix.
As Dlgood points out: "It's that hanging question from
the end of S6, when Giles tells Buffy that sometimes asking for
help is a grown up thing. And yet... we've minimal example of
characters turning to others for mentorship or assistance in that
manner."
As much as the story is about the adolescents becoming young adults
and growing up, as much as it requires the absence of mentorship
for the story to unfold as it does, as much as it is about empowerment
on many levels and for many characters, I do not think it is unfair
to point out the places where different decisions, or a different
set of circumstances might have helped them to avoid some of the
personal problems.
GILES Can you forgive me?
BUFFY: For what?
GILES: I should never have left.
BUFFY: No. You were right to leave. We're just ... stupid.
GILES: I know you're all stupid. (Buffy smiling) I should never
have abandoned you.
BUFFY: No. Giles, you were right about everything. It is time
I was an adult.
GILES: Sometimes the most adult thing you can do is ... ask for
help when you need it.
BUFFY: Now you tell me.
In retrospect, Giles realizes that he abandoned them. He admits
this to Buffy. Buffy, in true Buffy style, absolves him of the
guilt. Giles goes on to say that asking for help is an adult thing
to do. In my opinion, part of what Giles is saying about the abandonment
is that he not only left Buffy, and everyone else, to their own
devices, he also did not at that time let them know he
was available if they needed him. His return to England meant
that they would have to deal with day to day living on their own,
but it didn't have to mean they were entirely on their own, which
is what Giles implied when he left. And what he apologized for
when he came back.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Nature
abhors a vacuum -- Dlgood, 16:05:16 10/13/03 Mon
As much as the story is about the adolescents becoming young adults
and growing up, as much as it requires the absence of mentorship
for the story to unfold as it does, as much as it is about empowerment
on many levels and for many characters, I do not think it is unfair
to point out the places where different decisions, or a different
set of circumstances might have helped them to avoid some of the
personal problems.
----------------------------------
Exactly it, and to me, the bad or negligent parent either one
of two things (or both)
1) A statement about parenthood and mentorship, and how we grow
up
2) A crutch used by lazy writers to circument obvious questions
that would prevent the desired story
Because really... if Anya and Xander have a session of pre-marital
counseling there is no dramatic "left at the altar out of
nowhere scene". If Willow calls Giles and says: "help
I'm addicted to Magic" her arc goes far differently.
I did like Giles apology, because it seemed to show that the writers
had recognized something about the story. About how they were
creating a universe of damned parents, even if that was only a
by-product rather than intent.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Nature
abhors a vacuum -- MaeveRigan, 16:28:43 10/13/03 Mon
[Giles] also did not at that time let them know he was available
if they needed him. His return to England meant that they would
have to deal with day to day living on their own, but it didn't
have to mean they were entirely on their own, which is what Giles
implied when he left.
Actually, the first time he left, Giles did tell them (Dawn especially)
"I'm just a phone call away ... if you need anything. You
must promise me" ("Bargaining" part 1).
By the time he decides to leave again ("Tabula Rasa"),
circumstances are different and Buffy doesn't give him a chance
to remind her that she can call him in an emergency:
BUFFY: I can't do this without you.
GILES: You can. That's why I'm going. As long as I stay you'll
always turn to me if there's something comes up that you feel
that you can't handle, and I'll step in because, because ... (pause,
sighs) Because I can't bear to see you suffer.
BUFFY: Me too. Hate suffering. Had about as much of it as I can
take.
GILES: Believe me, I'm loathe to cause you more, but this...
Giles pauses. Buffy looks on the verge of tears.
GILES: I've taught you all I can about being a slayer, and your
mother taught you what you needed to know about life. (Buffy looks
away, pouting) You ... you're not gonna trust that until you're
forced to stand alone.
BUFFY: But why now? Now that you know where I've been, what I'm
going through?
GILES: Now more than ever. The temptation to give up is gonna
be overwhelming, and I can't let-
BUFFY: So I won't! No giving up. You can be here, and I can still
be strong.
Beat. She stares at him anxiously.
GILES: Buffy, I've thought this over ... and over. I believe it's
the right thing to do.
BUFFY: You're wrong.
As it turns out, yes, Giles is wrong, but how could he have known
that (a) Willow's "tabula rasa" spell would send them
all into such a tailspin that their farewells would be even more
angry and despairing, with no possibility for reconciliation?
or (b) that Buffy was so on edge that she would tip right over
into desperation sex with Spike? or that (c) Dawn was already
a full-on kleptomaniac? or (d) that Tara would leave Willow, who
would then go crazy on magic-power?
None of them was likely to call him and say, "Hi--uh--Giles--we're
in really bad shape here. No, no demons--at least, nothing beyond
the usual. Just us. We're losing it bigtime. Would you mind coming
back and taking us through some intensive therapy? Thanks!"
I don't find Giles so much to blame here as the Scoobies, but
I return to what I said in my earlier post--Giles is a well-meaning
father-figure and often effective, but like all parents, has his
own issues that at times blind him to the needs of his children.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Not
precisely disagreeing here -- LittleBit, 19:36:02 10/13/03
Mon
Giles was indeed, as a father figure, well-meaning and often effective.
But one thing that in my opinion was shown more than once was
his extreme discomfort when presented with personal issues and
problems by any of the scoobies. I believe that this was an underlying
reason for his return to England in "Tabula Rasa". We
saw that he reached that decision in the middle of "Once
More With Feeling"...one that was made before he learned
that Buffy believed she was torn out of heaven and not out of
hell. He chose to leave anyway, even with the depth of her depression
becoming more clear. Giles had no idea how to help a depressed
Buffy other than pushing her into the waters of life and slayage
to sink or swim.
I think that Giles shares the blame (or perhaps responsibility
is a better word) with the scoobies. The scoobies were not in
the habit of turning to any adult other than Giles; they were
their own support system, each helping the others. But at this
time the supporters were all dysfunctional in their own ways with
none of them having the emotional ability to see what the others
were going through, let alone help them through it.
And yes, Giles had his own issues, ones that did make it difficult
for him to see just how close to implosion the scoobies were.
Not the least of which was the conflict between being a 'mentor'
and being 'parental.' As a mentor Giles could choose the areas
he would mentor. As a parental figure he would have to deal with
the issues as they came up regardless of his personal comfort
in the area. In some ways Giles needed to go back to England to
be able to see what his role on the group dynamic really was.
And he seemed to have accepted it when he returned.
I think the case could be made for all of the parents we were
introduced to being well-meaning, with the exception of Xander's
parents. They had fought for too long and become too attached
to blaming the other for all shortcomings to even have been well-
or ill-intentioned in regard to Xander. Liam's and Wes' father
seemed to have been of the school that having impossible expectations
and never allowing their sons to achieve them would have the effect
of challnging them to reach their potential. Drusilla's mother
was concerned for her daughter's soul---she believed the Sight
was a curse and didn't want Drusilla to go to hell for it. William's
mother wanted him to feel loved and cherished. Cordelia's parents
gave her all the accoutrements of a privileged lifestyle. Willow's
mother had most likely given her all the 'advantages' of an upbringing
that would enhance her intellectual ability and allow her to get
far in the academic world. From our vantage point we can see that
these intentions resulted in abusive, derogatory, frightening,
and/or dismissive parenting styles; it's clear where the children
of these parents got many of their "issues." And all
just shows that good intentions do not necessarily good decisions
make.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Nature
abhors a vacuum -- Lunasea, 16:34:28 10/13/03 Mon
If it is unfair to make judgments in the middle then every
single analysis of the show that was made prior to the airing
of "Chosen" should be considered premature
Depends on what the analysis is analyzing. Those that sit there
and make judgements about the Buffyverse, such as the series is
anti-parents or anti-gay or anti-male or anti-whatever are premature.
Until the final statement is given, how can this be asserted?
The original contention of this thread is that the show is anti-parents
and this was expanded to include the importance of mentors. I
think how the characters fall apart without this important influence
is a testament to how important they are. The story ends with
the Giles/Buffy relationship repaired.
Is the statement as to how the show views something made in them
being around and helping or can it also be made in them being
absent and this negatively affecting the characters? We can say
if only X, but isn't that part of the message of the universe?
My statement was in regards to judging the universe that Joss
had set up. It wasn't necessarily a place where adults just abandon
kids, but a place where adults are important.
If the universe were anti-parents or didn't believe in mentors,
it would have them absent and it not matter. It does matter, a
lot.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Not
the point I was getting at... -- LittleBit, 19:00:35 10/13/03
Mon
I admit it. I expanded the scope of the thread from whether or
not the show is anti-parent to a discussion of what may be the
cause of the parental dysfunction on the show. Dlgood widened
it further by bringing adult mentoring into it. The point I have
been trying to make is twofold. First that we have been shown
a fair number of parents, most of whom had abysmal parenting skills
by current standards,and that this poor showing may well be explained
(not excused, mind you) by the time in which they lived or their
location (the Hellmouth). And secondly, that yes the statement
can and is made by them not being around. But that to view it
only in the context of the story itself and not examine it for
the flaws it shows does the writing a disservice. It should both
entertain and instruct. The instruction is there if we choose
to see it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Blaming the hellmouth... -- Dlgood, 19:43:27 10/13/03
Mon
That's something I'm quite loath to do. We had the "HS is
Hell metaphor" and the Hellmouth was the device by which
monsters (representative of real life issues) showed up. For me,
blaming bad parents on the Hellmouth is something of a cheat.
Not all students on the Hellmouth were monstrous. And perhaps,
not all parents on the hellmouth are abysmal, though there are
almost no examples. So what is the metaphorical stand-in for all
that bad parenting? Does it signify something about parent/child
relationships? Or is it simply a crutch of the writing, with no
metaphorical place at all?
We get little in the way of stories from the perspective of the
adults. Which, is somewhat symbolic, as teenagers rarely have
an appreciation for the experiences of their parents. But that's
also something that occurs when we grow up - that point in time
when we see ourselves in our parents. Both good and bad. This
however, is something we never get - Xander sees how he might
be like his terrible father, but there is no corresponding moment
where a character realizes they share a parent's positive traits.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Not blaming the hellmouth... -- LittleBit, 22:36:45
10/13/03 Mon
What I was offering is a purely-theoretical in-my-mind-only possibility
for why the parents we've seen have been almost uniformly dysfunctional.
While I do think the times had an effect on the Fang Gang parental
units, I would agree that it's unlikely that the Hellmouth is
responsible for all the dysfunctional parenting. But it's kinda
interesting to wonder just a little if it enhances the negative
qualities in those already predisposed to them.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Don't agree -- Lunasea, 06:17:39 10/14/03 Tue
Just because the parents shown on BtVS are all inadequate (which
I don't agree with), the show is making a negative statement about
parents? That line of logic is tantamount to discussions that
say the show says smoking or sex is evil. If the show wanted to
make a negative statement, the parents would have no influence
on their children.
Giles was for the most part an excellent father-figure. Dr. Gregory,
in his few minutes on screen, made a rather positive impact on
Buffy, an impact she openly acknowledged. The characters tend
not to be that self-aware. They don't know what positive traits
they have, let alone where they get them from.
So what is the metaphorical stand-in for all that bad parenting?
It isn't a metaphor. It's life. The metaphor was when the bad
mother was the Witch or zombies or a fairy tale. Bad parenting
is just a fact of life. It isn't a metaphor. Not everything on
the show is. When Xander asks out Buffy, what is that a metaphor
for? Willow and Buffy went to college for a few season. Is that
a metaphor, too? The show is many genres and I like how it combines
drama with fantasy/horror. Not everything is a metaphor. That
doesn't make it a crutch. For me it makes the show interesting.
We get little in the way of stories from the perspective of
the adults.
Maybe cause the show isn't about adults? If you want grown-ups
there is a spin-off, I believe. There aren't too many moments
on BtVS that are from the perspective of the parent, other than
"Gingerbread," "Helpless," "Dead Man's
Party," "Band Candy" and beautiful moments like
Giles telling Buffy how proud of her he is in "Spiral"
or anything between Buffy/Dawn post "Forever."
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Don't agree -- RJA, 15:24:12 10/14/03
Tue
I largely agree with what you say. Since the show started out
as being ostensibly concerning the horrors of high school, it
follows that the initial depiction of parents isnt too favourable,
since its meant in a way to be showing the worst aspects. What
would Becoming be if Buffy didnt sever that connection with Joyce,
and abandon Giles?
And subsequently, the themes of the following seasons were very
much dependant of parents not playing a huge role in the show.
Season four - about trying to find your own path, often ineptly.
Wouldnt be the same with some mentor to guide them safely through
the waters (and note that this aimlessness and uncertainity affected
Giles too). Season five/six/seven - adult responsibility. This
was Buffy really coming into her own and having to try (and sometimes
fail) at being the adult, being the one to clear up the mess.
Again, with a good parental relationship (or an mentor), the struggles
would lessen.
I dont see the show as being anti- parent or warning against mentors
or saying you dont need them, because most of what happened and
went wrong wasnt because of the inadequcies of the adults. It
was all about struggle, and in many ways individual responsibility,
and what happens when there is no one but yourself. Its great
that so many here have close parental ties, but a lot of people
dont.
And not forgetting The Body, the most powerful exploration of
death and grief the show has done, centered around the loss of...
a parent.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Naughty Bit -- Lunasea, 05:50:48 10/14/03 Tue
We shall have to commence with the spanking at once ;-)
And secondly, that yes the statement can and is made by them
not being around. But that to view it only in the context of the
story itself and not examine it for the flaws it shows does the
writing a disservice. It should both entertain and instruct. The
instruction is there if we choose to see it.
My initial point somewhere on this thread was that the instruction
isn't that parents suck or that they tend to neglect their children.
The instruction is in how important they are. A few misinterpreted
words by Liam and we get Angelus. A mother that is more interested
in her daughter's soul than her life and we get Drusilla. Faith's
drunkard of a mother's neglect is responsible for want-take-have.
Xander's parents have had such a strong impact on him that he
calls off the wedding. Willow's mother's neglect is responsible
for her lack of self that will lead to her addiction to magick.
On the other hand, Fred's parents give her what parents should
and she is able to overcome the ordeal she had on Pylea. What
Joyce gives Buffy ables her to become the Uber-Slayer. The love
and purpose that Giles gives the Scoobies allows them to find
their place. I don't see the show as giving purely a negative
view of parents, just how important they are to a child.
Then there is one more parent that tends to get left off of this
discussion, Lorne's life giver. Lorne's trip back home is the
first time we really see a resolution to the bad parent/messed
up child dynamic. "Then I realized I *did* have to come back
here, because - I really always thought I had to come back here,
deep down inside, you know? I had to come back here to find out
I *didn't* have to come back here. I don't belong here. I hate
it here." Sometimes the parent that was so important to the
child can lose that importance and influence by abusing it. The
ultimate power still rests with the adult child.
We never got to see Willow or Xander do what Lorne did. Willow's
is a harder case, because her mother's neglect isn't the verbal
abuse that Lorne's mother was. Willow's mother in many ways is
a feminist ideal, she is a well-educated woman who takes care
of her own needs. Her neglect was based on her idea that Willow
could take care of herself and was as self-sufficient as her mother.
I would have liked to see this explored, but I'm sure that would
have bored the teen audience rather quickly and the show is about
the teens growing up, not the parents.
I would have liked to see more screen time devoted to the Giles/Buffy
relationship season 7. Joss repaired it nicely with just a few
lines, but the importance of this relationship merited at least
as much time as Angel got and definitely more time than snuggles
with Spike.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Are You Sure?
-- Claudia, 11:08:29 10/14/03 Tue
[ In that episode, the damage done to the Buffy/Giles relationship
in LMPTM was repaired in Joss' wonderful style with few lines
and looks.
There is a period of time where the Scoobies are mentorless. That
is called the Middle of the Story. By the end, they have established
more adult relationships, especially Giles/Buffy.
GILES: It's a lot more than that. Buffy, what you said, it-it
flies in the face of everything we've ever-every generation has
ever done in the fight against evil. I think it's bloody brilliant.
BUFFY: You mean that?
GILES: If you want my opinion.
BUFFY: I really do.
Buffy has stepped in to fill the vacuum that was created because
the younger Scoobies are mentorless, but eventually she still
wants Giles' opinion. That is the End of the story. The mentor
relationship was re-established with a much stronger and more
independent Buffy. It isn't fair to judge the universe based on
the events of season 6 and more than it would be fair to judge
Angel based solely on the acts of Angelus. It is only part of
the story, part designed to give them a bottom to climb up from.]
Has the damage to Buffy and Giles' Season 7 relationship been
completely repaired? I wonder. In "End of Days", Giles
was the only one to whom she even commented (however briefly)
on what happened in "Empty Places". And when she told
Giles that it was Spike who saved them all in "Chosen",
there was something almost curt in her brief response to Giles'
question.
I don't know. Maybe I'm reading too much in this.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> thanks for the link
-- sdev, 11:07:48 10/14/03 Tue
Excellent analysis. I especially agree with your analysis of Giles
leaving in Season 6. I had a very strong sense that this was more
about him than about Buffy. He seemed so personally uncomfortable
that Buffy was leaning on him for parenting help with Dawn.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Maybe Giles
had no desire to be a father? -- dream, 13:22:14 10/14/03
Tue
**He seemed so personally uncomfortable that Buffy was leaning
on him for parenting help with Dawn.**
Yes, he did. And he didn't exactly leap in to become a parent
to Buffy - his father-like relationship to her developed almost
in spite of himself. He definitely kept Xander at a distance (in
Restless it is made clear that Xandder had at one point hoped
for a closer relationship to Giles.) He developed a closer relationship
with Willow, whom he understood better. But Dawn never mattered
to him particularly. Being a Watcher is clearly not incompatible
with being a father - both Wesley's father and Giles' were Watchers.
So Giles must have had his own reasons for not marrying, having
children. Perhaps his strained relationship with his own father,
perhaps the weight of his Watcher duties, perhaps the memories
of his own reckless youth, maybe he doesn't like kids. For whatever
reason, he didn't want to take on Dawn, and saw clearly that if
he stayed he would be expected to do so.
Personally, I was never bothered much by the lack of "good
parents" on the series. Giles and Joyce were both well-intentioned
parents/"parents" who made some bad decisions. There's
little indication that Cordelia's parents were particularly bad
parents (maybe bad citizens). The Mayor was a marvelous good/bad
parent - he may have been evil, evil, evil, but he did truly love
his Faith. Willow's parents were neglectful, but seemingly well-intentioned
as well. Spike's mom was loving, though seemed to make some mistakes
in coddling her boy. I know it's a controversial point, but I
certainly believed that Nikki, in her brief appearance, was supposed
to be read as a loving parent. Xander's parents were truly awful,
yes.
As for the lack of mentors in the early twenties... I've been
wracking my brain and can come up with only two people I know
who at that age had a close and meaningful relationship with their
parents. I definitely know many who have close relationships now,
but it's been a few years - enough time for the children to assert
independence, enough time for both sides to do some forgiving
for injuries given in the difficult process of growing up and
moving out. Give Willow a few years, and she might be spending
a lot more time with her mom. And there's a large number of people
who never develop meaningful relationships with their parents.
Xander may never do so, and I don't think that's particularly
problematic, as long as he comes to terms with that. So I guess
I tend to see the show's view of parents as relatively reasonable,
particularly against the usual television nonsense in which children
readily confide all the details of their personal lives to their
understanding parents.
Also, Joss is clearly interested in the long-term results of decisions,
(Xander's lie, for example) so how could he resist showing how
parents' decisions help create their children? Joyce's tendency
to hide from problems probably helped to create Buffy's troubles
with talking about things, but her love for her daughter also
gave Buffy the strength and love she showed in her relationship
with Dawn. When Buffy has Mom-hair, she's looking after Dawn just
like Joyce would, and that's a good thing. And Spike's mom may
have hid her own resentment of her child to his detriment, but
she also helped create the gentle soul who was William. And the
Mayor, hoping to leave his Faith something to help her "go
out with a bang," inadvertently gave her the taste of being
Buffy that I would argue started her on the path to her redemption.
Unexpected consequences....
Ramble, ramble, ramble...
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> dream
posting??? That is SO cool. And I agree completely. -- Sophist,
09:48:16 10/15/03 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Aw,
shucks. -- dream, blushing, 10:52:56 10/15/03 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh
yes, very cool! Hi dream! [waves to dream] -- Ponygirl, 14:00:30
10/15/03 Wed
If the Ripper series ever gets made Giles' conflicted ideas about
being a father would be an interesting theme. His dream in Restless
shows that he does think about it, yet he's constantly rejecting
both the label and the role - he wants to see himself as the "rakish
uncle," the "older brother" but never the father.
Perhaps it was the last vestige of his rebellion against the Watcher
identity.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Hi, Ponygirl! -- dream, waving back, 09:10:36 10/17/03
Fri
Even in Restless, Olivia cries for the overturned baby carriage,
while Giles essentially ignores her. Maybe the "kids are
too dangerous in this line of work" problem has cost Giles
some women? Atany rate, he seems more emotionally attached to
his rock-star fantasies than to any type of fther role outside
of his relationship with Buffy.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Maybe
Giles had no desire to be a father? -- sdev, 12:27:51 10/15/03
Wed
"Joyce's tendency to hide from problems probably helped to
create Buffy's troubles with talking about things, but her love
for her daughter also gave Buffy the strength and love she showed
in her relationship with Dawn."
This is very insightful and I hadn't thought of it before.
I agree. The Giles I see did not want to be the parent to anyone.
He did so with Buffy reluctantly and with a measured aspect. I
think he panicked in S6 and left. He expressed his regret later
when he returned.
In terms of RL, I think there are people who are pretty close
with their parents in their 20's (some have posted as much here).
And though this may be hard to believe for the Jimmy Deans here,
some people never really go through the rebellious phase, or do
so later in life.
Interesting though, Tara was the only truly rebellious teen shown.
Beware, the meek shall inherit the earth.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Maybe Giles had no desire to be a father? -- Dlgood, 13:09:16
10/15/03 Wed
The Giles I see did not want to be the parent to anyone. He did
so with Buffy reluctantly and with a measured aspect. I think
he panicked in S6 and left. He expressed his regret later when
he returned.
---------------------
I do agree. I just wish something more had been made of that in
S7. IMHO, it would have bolstered the S7 story a bit more for
me, to have been given greater insight into his perspective on
his own story.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Maybe Giles had no desire to be a father? -- LittleBit,
15:46:08 10/15/03 Wed
I've thought for a while that the most telling lines in Giles'
song ("Standing in the Way") from "Once More With
Feeling" were these:
I wish I could say the right words to lead you through this
land
Wish I could play the father and take you by the hand
The rest of the song concentrates on how he thinks Buffy won't
do what she needs to as long as he's there to help her. But in
these lines I think he gets to the heart of his own problem...that
he really doesn't now what to do.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I still have issues
with the mentorless world -- celticross, 18:00:00 10/13/03
Mon
I'm with you on this one, Dlgood. I've only been living on my
own for a year now, and if anything, I'm more dependent on my
parents for advice and support than I was before. I grant that
I'm lucky enough to have wonderful parents, but I can't think
of a single reason why the relationship of support and mutual
respect between Buffy and Giles shouldn't have grown deeper over
the years. (Other than ASH's decision to move back to England)
The distance and coolness of their relationship in Season 7 hurt
to watch and I never understood it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I still have
issues with the mentorless world -- skeeve, 07:27:20 10/14/03
Tue
I never really understood the nearly total break in the relationship
after high school.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I still have
issues with the mentorless world -- Claudia, 12:25:59 10/14/03
Tue
[The distance and coolness of their relationship in Season 7 hurt
to watch and I never understood it.]
I understood it perfectly. Buffy finally realized that Giles wasn't
the all-seeing/all-knowing Watcher that she had thought she he
was. She also learned that she go on - even as a Slayer - without
his constant supervision. I'm not saying that she should disregard
any advice or help he is willing to give. But she learned not
to depend upon him. And despite his belief back in Season 6 that
she needed to learn to be on her own, Giles was not ready for
Buffy's Season 7 independence. Not really - especially since it
left him without any purpose, following the destruction (or should
we say near destruction) of the Watchers Council.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I still
have issues with the mentorless world -- Dlgood, 13:06:36
10/14/03 Tue
Buffy finally realized that Giles wasn't the all-seeing/all-knowing
Watcher that she had thought she he was. She also learned that
she go on - even as a Slayer - without his constant supervision.....
Giles was not ready for Buffy's Season 7 independence. Not really
- especially since it left him without any purpose
-------------
I suppose - but it seems like a particularly artless way to deal
with issues they'd addressed in the S4-5 storylines.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I
still have issues with the mentorless world -- Claudia, 14:21:11
10/14/03 Tue
[it seems like a particularly artless way to deal with issues
they'd addressed in the S4-5 storylines.]
I just don't feel the same as you. Nor did I feel that the relationship
between Buffy and Giles were presented in an artless way in Season
7. Actually, I'm rather glad that they did.
[> [> [> [> [> [> For those with problems
with a mentorless world... perhaps you would prefer a world with
no shrimp? -- Rochefort, 22:14:17 10/13/03 Mon
[> You forgot... -- angel's nibblet, 22:11:35 10/13/03
Mon
....Lorne's parents, mother wanted to eat him, and did you SEE
the facial hair? ;-)
[> Re: Does Joss have something against parents? --
skeeve, 07:24:17 10/14/03 Tue
It seems to me that the Rosenbergs did rather well.
Pre-magic Willow wasn't exactly an example of failure.
Absent the influence of the hellmouth, it was clear that she would
have done rather well, both for herself and those around her.
Even the Chases didn't do all that terrible.
Admittedly Queen C isn't the poster child for good parenting,
but there are a lot worse even away from hellmouths.
I've had the misfortune to meet some.
Cordelia's reaction to sudden "poverty" and the need
for a prom dress was to get a job.
BTW Cordelia and Oz seemed to be the only students in the Scooby
gang to get jobs.
[> [> Re: Does Joss have something against parents?
-- LittleBit, 11:04:06 10/14/03 Tue
Couple of comments here.
Willow would have done quite well academically but in my opinion
that was the only area in which she had confidence. She had absolutely
no belief in herself as a woman or a person worth knowing (except
to the other 'outcasts'). This is the part of self-esteem that
her mother was overlooking. She saw the measurable achivements
but didn't really seem to see her daughter. And Willow, when we
first met her, didn't feel she was worth being noticed.
Cordelia always had hidden strengths beneath her snooty veneer.
As much as she complained that she hated the other scoobies, she
did what was necessary to help them. Personally I was always rather
impressed when, in "Lie To Me, part 2" she was complaining
to Xander about being gotten up at the crack of dawn to drive
him to Buffy's house, as they were getting out of her car in front
of Buffy's house. Cordy may have been Queen C but she was also
smart enough to see what was going on around her and to do well
academically. As I recall she was asking a teacher for some extra
help on a paper in "Out of Sight, Out of Mind." So,
yes, she learned her values from somewhere, and who is to say
it's not from her parents.
Regarding jobs, I agree that Cordy and Oz were the only ones we
saw with jobs in high school. But in fairness, I don't think any
of us would expect Buffy to work a job in addition to school and
slaying/patrolling. She had a job, it just didn't pay anything.
Xander didn't work during high school, took the summer off after
graduation but then he certainly worked a series of jobs until
he found something he was good at. Willow is the one we haven't
seen working, but my guess is she gets a substantial allowance
from her parents. And when Buffy had to she too got a job. And
still did the slaying.
[> [> [> Re: Does Joss have something against parents?
-- skeeve, 13:28:56 10/14/03 Tue
My recollection is that Willow had job offers while still in high
school.
Socially she attracted at least two people who weren't noted as
being outcasts.
She even managed to make more than vowel sounds.
Given the story so far, I'd expect Willow to eventually marry
Oz, with Xander a close second.
[> [> [> Genuine question, not arguing -- dream,
13:43:19 10/14/03 Tue
***Willow would have done quite well academically but in my opinion
that was the only area in which she had confidence. She had absolutely
no belief in herself as a woman or a person worth knowing (except
to the other 'outcasts'). This is the part of self-esteem that
her mother was overlooking. She saw the measurable achivements
but didn't really seem to see her daughter. And Willow, when we
first met her, didn't feel she was worth being noticed.***
True enough, but do you think that's her parents' fault? Or do
you think she suffered from her peers? Here's what I'm getting
at - her mother was an academic type, clearly a geek in her own
right. Would she have been able to pass on the sort of social
skills needed to avoid teasing and bullying in school? Would she
have known what to do for Willow? Or would she have dressed her
in the wrong clothes because she didn't know any better? If we
can say that her mom did support her in the area that she understood
the most (academics) and didn't offer much help where she herself
was weakest (social skills), would that make her a bad parent?
A good argument could be made that Willow's lack of confidence
came from her mother not giving her enough attention; that's possible.
But the real damage to Willow's confidence may have come from
her peers, not her parents. Her parents may just not have given
her the best starting point. I don't know.
[> [> [> [> Re: Genuine question, not arguing
-- LittleBit, 02:07:45 10/15/03 Wed
I tend to think that part of it did come from the lack of attention...the
part that didn't believe she was worth noticing. I had the geeky
clothes (or at least I thought they were) and was more
academically inclined than socially, and terminally shy, but
I never felt I wasn't worth talking to, no matter who it was.
I got that part of my self-esteem at home. I agree that it's entirely
likely that Willow's mother couldn't pass on social skills she
didn't possess, but she could have given her daughter a strong
sense of self-worth. In my opinion, it was very telling that she
noticed Willow's hair was cut months after the fact. That's not
just poor social skill, that's being oblivious. At the same time,
I'll give Sheila credit for knowing that Willow dabbled in that
witchcraft stuff and noticing when she said she was dating a musician.
What I don't know (and obviously can't know) is if she noticed
those things because that way she was able to categorize Willow---know
which study she fit. And if your own (successful, educated, well-respected)
mother doesn't notice you, why would you expect anyone else to
do so? Part of the reason Willow suffered from her peers (and
granted, this is all prior to her really becoming a necessary
part of a group which did happen after Buffy made her a friend)
is that she believed they had the right to dismiss her.
Anyway, that's just my opinion.
[> JW has a problem with working mothers -- sdev, 11:35:23
10/14/03 Tue
[> [> How's that? -- Random, 19:14:45 10/14/03
Tue
I can only think of 3 major examples on BtVS -- Joyce, Sheila
(Willow's mom), and Nikki Wood. No indication of whether Xander's
mom worked. Joyce was presented quite positively, supporting her
daughter, working hard to give the best to her family. Sheila
had issues other than being a working mom -- the main problem
with her was the fact that her educational and vocational background
in psychology influenced her child-rearing to the extent that
she was a proto-typical "mother-in-theory." And the
debate over ME's presentation of Nikki in LMPTM raged for weeks,
if not months, and I still cannot see exactly how people come
to the conclusion that ME/Joss was making a statement to the effect
that working mothers are somehow something deleterious to the
child. To say that Nikki being killed demonstrated such a point
(I know you didn't say that -- it was just a point of contention
on the board shortly after LMPTM aired in England) is difficult
for me to fathom. I have seen little evidence of a bias against
working mothers, or against active mothers. Just because Spike
makes that remark at the end of LMPTM doesn't mean I am under
any obligation to assume he is speaking for Joss, or, indeed,
is supposed to be taken seriously. As far as I can tell, he's
getting in one last cruel dig as he leaves.
Sigh. Wandered around there. Suffice to say, I am curious about
what evidence you feel supports such a thesis. Imputing such a
motive to JW (and, I assume, to the shows which he has the final
say in) seems rather insupportable. If it comes to a comparison
of portrayals, a positive example of a non-working mom (Spike's
mother, for instance, is not grounds for arguing that working
moms are discriminated against. Or we can consider the Catherine
Madisons and the Chase matriarch. I have no idea if Lorne's mother
was a working mother, but it'd be interesting to find out.
Of course, Cordy's continual pregnancies with demon/evil offspring
present an interesting and baffling case study in this issue.
She's clearly a working mom who fought like hell to protect her
kids, even the Hacksaw demon-spawn. Though she did take it badly
after she was released from the mental control. Anyway...
[> [> [> Unless it's somehow a dig at the firing of
Charisma Carpenter -- Dlgood, 19:41:39 10/14/03 Tue
[> [> [> [> Ah. I see. Luckily, I know little about
behind-the-scenes stuff. Just don't care or want to know --
Random, 19:46:46 10/14/03 Tue
[> [> [> explanation -- sdev, 22:06:42 10/14/03
Tue
I probably should not have broached this subject. But I was not
on this Board at the time LMPTM aired, and I have never seen the
archives on Nikki's story so I was unaware that working moms were
the subject of any, let alone, contentious debate. Now that I
know I will look for that discussion. But since I brought it up
I will try to explain myself.
Perhaps I went too far in assigning that bias directly to JW instead
of ME. But JW sort of put himself up on the feminist pedestal.
It is not an issue of discrimination but about attitudes towards
career women and mothers. And I was talking about the show not
the real life Charisma Carpenter whose circumstances I don't know
much about.
My sense of this predates Nikki practically to the beginnings
of the series. Nikki just confirmed explicitly the message I thought
was always put out there. And it includes Joyce and Sheila, but
most of all Buffy. If one can look at Nikki and question the message
about working mothers, the same has always applied to Buffy and
her repeated questioning of her ubercareer and her desire for
a "normal life." It makes no difference as far as I
can see whether you judge Buffy's Slayerhood as a job, career,
calling what have you.
I always get jumpy on this subject when I think of the contrast
to IWRY recently brought up on the other thread.
Here's the dialogue from LMPTM:
SPIKE: She knew what she was signing up for.
PRINCIPAL WOOD: Well, I didn't sign up for it.
SPIKE: Well, that's the rub, innit? You didn't sign up for it
PRINCIPAL WOOD: You took my childhood. You took her away. She
was all I had. She was my world.
SPIKE: And you weren't hers. Doesn't that piss you off?
PRINCIPAL WOOD: Shut up. You didn't know her.
SPIKE: I know slayers. No matter how many people they've got around
them, they fight alone. Life of the chosen one. The rest of us
be damned. Your mother was no different.
PRINCIPAL WOOD: No, she loved me.
SPIKE: But not enough to quit, though, was it? Not enough to walk
away... for you. I'll tell you a story about a mother and
son. See, like you, I loved my mother. So much so I turned her
into a vampire... so we could be together forever. She said some
nasty bits to me after I did that. Been weighing on me for quite
some time. But you helped me figure something out. You see, unlike
you, I had a mother who loved me back. When I sired
her, I set loose a demon, and it tore into me, but it was the
demon talking, not her. I realize that now. My mother loved me
with all her heart. I was her world. (clicks the mouse, playing
the recording again)
(all emphasis added)
I think this is the language of guilt, of being torn apart by
conflicting demands and desires. I believe many mothers who work
outside the home will recognize this dialogue all too well.
[> [> [> [> Thank. You! -- Rahael, 03:27:43
10/15/03 Wed
Well the contention about Nikki really came down to the discomfort
of about two posters on the board - myself and KdS, about this
episode. In that sense, it's not really as contentious as many
other debates. Most people agreed with each other.
I really wish that I had been warned off watching this episode.
Without doubt, I've never been more upset, viscerally by any episode
of any television series. It made me unable to look at certain
characters with equanimity. It made me unable to view past BtVS
episodes. And I have only watched one ep since - Chosen.
As you point out, the whole idea of the Slayer calling and it's
consequent problems is not one isolated and cruel dig. It fits
in very well with a long term theme of BtVS - Buffy's loneliness
and pain. I presume Joss wanted Spike to articulate the case in
its most hardline form, and then address it in Chosen. See, Buffy
can get over the problem that Nikki had. She can be powerful,
and yet, not alone.
BUT. And, this still gets me angry. What about all those women
around the world who have no Chosen? Whose fight is precisely
that they are isolated and condemned. Who don't have much choice,
and whose children are immeasurably proud and grateful to them.
Whose children don't feel unloved, because one can make a child
feel special and loved whilst not turning your back to the world
you live in.
These women's triumphs are precisely that. That they do all this.
That they can be political/committed/on a mission, whatever that
mission may contain, and still not neglect the human beings that
surround them.
This is something that I find far more moving, far more emotive,
far more resonant than Chosen. Because it's harder, truer and
it's more relevant to the kind of choices we all might have to
make.
Needless to say that this is something I feel really strongly
about, for personal reasons. But I think Joss' message, even viewed
in its most favourable light makes him look disrespectful to the
real women out there, just trying to get by. And all this is an
understatement of what I feel.
Heh. I saw this sub-thread before I set off to work, and the Grr
Argh adrenaline of what I feel about this ep is still coursing
through!
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Thank. You! -- Dlgood,
06:42:50 10/15/03 Wed
I presume Joss wanted Spike to articulate the case in its most
hardline form, and then address it in Chosen
---------------
Perhaps. The problem was, that in all of Spike's pronouncements
and posturing in latter S7, he's never called on it or shown to
be wrong. There's no counter-example or antithesis. And while
I personally see Spike as full of crap in this particular scene,
I'm not certain that the story ever does.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Oh, I totally agree
-- Rahael, 15:58:44 10/15/03 Wed
That's pretty much why I found it such a bitter and disquieting
pill to swallow.
[> [> [> [> [> Thank you -- sdev, 00:01:14
10/16/03 Thu
Thank you. It was nice to share views and not get trashed for
my somewhat controversial one.
"Because it's harder, truer and it's more relevant to the
kind of choices we all might have to make."
Yes. This is precisely what I feel. This is very much the dilemma
of many women today. And while I enjoy and take alot of pleasure
and some meaning from the physicality, the Slayer strength, and
even more from the Buffy brains,intuition, and character strength
shown in such episodes as Helpless and Checkpoint, the larger
meaning is absent or worse undermined.
Actually S4 and S5 were probably a pinnacle for this theme. Unfortunately
my views on Chosen are not as favourable as most. I saw it as
the Slayer swan song. I was recently lamenting the choice to empower
the Potentials instead of the SG as a continuation of Primeval
which I thought worked brilliantly. The SG was like a nuclear
family. And now I think I've come full circle within this thread.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Thank you -- Rahael,
04:30:36 10/16/03 Thu
I've never seen you take a stance without providing evidence of
much thought, and a willingness to bring more complexity to the
issues. It's the kind of criticism that makes one like an episode
more, just because it forces you to think things through. And
if something makes me think, I'm inclined to look upon it more
favourably. Mostly because I start interacting with it, arguing
with it, letting it enter my imagination and transforming it.
It's probably one of the main reasons that I tend to enjoy much
criticised seasons, while positive reviews sometimes makes me
wonder why I'm bothering to watch that particular show. And it's
not because i always disagree with the criticism either.
(ahem. This hasn't happened with Lies. I think it's because of
the deep contradiction between the two camps of those who love
the episode - the smaller one saying that "Spike is clearly
wrong, and he has a long way to go to redemption", and the
larger camp who go " isn't Spike wonderfully forceful and
yet merciful in that episode - this is a clear sign of his path
to redemption"
It is this very ambiguity which tears a huge whole in the narrative
of Season 7. It's all very well to have a complex and ambiguous
episode. But if it is so incoherent, so contradictory and just
makes a big soggy hole in the middle of a season that already
needed more coherency, AND it's playing around with difficult
ideas that are not dealt with in a manner which is narratively
satisfying, than I think I can feel justified in disliking it.)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Thank you
-- Dlgood, 08:20:59 10/16/03 Thu
Like SDev, I really loved Buffy's confronting Quentin in Checkpoint.
It's this sense that Buffy's really understanding who she is,
and what she's capable of. Compared to how cowed she was by Maggie
Walsh when coming out as Slayer, rather than self-assured. The
slayer-empowerment is nice, but it's not the end all of her journey.
I just wished that her "cookie-dough" revelation had
come earlier in the season, because I really wanted to see Buffy
do that baking - instead of just finding out that she can bake
now that she's got all this stuff out of the way. Because, life
doesn't work like that. I really wanted to see them use her Counseling
job as a way to show her own growth and self-knowledge since her
own time in HS, and was disappointed that got dropped.
In any case, S6, despite it's flaws seemed to work for me in a
way S7 never did - because of the rampant incoherence of the narrative.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Thank you -- celticross,
13:01:31 10/16/03 Thu
Have you been at Just Stake Me? They take a very similar view
of Chosen (one I also agree with, by the way).
http://www.stakeme.com/episodes/episode_722.html
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Thank you for
the article -- sdev, 16:09:58 10/16/03 Thu
I was beginning to think I imagined the ending I saw in Chosen.
[> [> [> [> Re: explanation -- shambleau, 11:19:44
10/15/03 Wed
So, the entire show is an attack on working mothers? I just don't
see it. I see no flaw in Joyce's parenting that flows from her
working. As for Buffy, that a character on the show has conflicting
desires is realistic, not a sign of bias. There is no have-it-all
feminism, especially the way society is ordered. There will always
be tensions, that will be resolved differently depending on each
woman's circumstances. I seriously doubt that Buffy is going to
give up her job now that there are more slayers. She's simply
going to have more options. Having to die is now no longer part
of the job description, nor is isolation from her sisters, the
potentials. She'll probably move on up to some sort of mentoring
position in a revamped Watcher's Council, at some point.
But even if she doesn't, if she settles down and becomes a housewife,
so what? Why does a specific character or even a number of characters
have to stand in for all woman-kind?I've noticed many times that
Buffy has gotten hell whenever she's not a feminist icon (And
even when she is. Feminism is not exactly monolithic, so she can
be attacked for not being feminist enough or being faux feminist
no matter what she does.)
Buffy likes having a boyfriend. There was always sniping about
what kind of message that sent, so ME eventually responded with
Buffy realizing that she didn't need a boyfriend to be fulfilled
in IWMTLY.
And it was lame. It was warping the specifics of a character in
order to instruct. Characters don't need to, and shouldn't, be
role models. Not only that, series don't have to give out the
"correct" world-view, whatever that is. BtVS embodies
the confusions and tensions that occur in our society. It doesn't
transcend them. No show ever could.
They are under no obligation to show happy, fulfilled, working
mothers and their successful offspring, just so everyone can be
clear that ME is progressive. They just have to be tell their
story. I love film noir, which paints strong women as femme fatales.
I don't need for them to show me strong women who are good. That's
not the story they're telling.
[> [> [> [> [> explaining the explanation
-- sdev, 16:50:01 10/15/03 Wed
Slow down. I am a fan and never said otherwise.
Characters don't need to, and shouldn't, be role models.
Not only that, series don't have to give out the "correct"
world-view, whatever that is. BtVS embodies the confusions and
tensions that occur in our society. It doesn't transcend them.
No show ever could.
They are under no obligation to show happy, fulfilled, working
mothers and their successful offspring, just so everyone can be
clear that ME is progressive.
You are quite right and I never suggested otherwise. Obviously
since I don't feel there is much of a feminist message and I watch(ed)
the show, I feel there are lots of other good reasons to watch.
In fact I read and watch lots of things that have nothing to do
with feminism or sometimes are anti-feminist. I did not declare
the show as having or needing to have a feminist message, but
JW and lots of viewers and critics (on boards,magazines,news)
have. Therefore, since I feel otherwise, I do not see it as unfair
to examine the show on that basis.
I do disagree with some of what you wrote. I do think the end
of Chosen indicated that Buffy was "going to give up her
job now that there are more slayers." And I was disappointed
by that ending.
Buffy likes having a boyfriend.
Good for her. I applaud. From my perspective, the suggestion you
alluded to, that Buffy can not or should not have a boyfriend,
is very anti-feminist. Why can't she have a love relationship?
Why should being a woman mean being deprived of love and sex?
There is no have-it-all feminism, especially the way society
is ordered.
Which way is it that society is "ordered"? Maybe that's
the heart my problem. And considering that many viewers thought
Buffy reordered society in Chosen, I have to wonder where that
reordering took her and society.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: explaining the explanation
-- shambleau, 09:37:24 10/16/03 Thu
Sorry if you got the impression I thought you weren't a fan because
you were criticising ME. I don't think that and usually agree
with you, actually.
As far as you feeling that the show isn't really feminist, you
of course have a perfect right to think so. I'm fairly ancient,
so I was going to college in the sixties, when feminism was cresting
again. I remember getting chewed out for saying "Hey, guys!"
to a mixed group of men and women. The women then split on whether
it was feminist or not to have called me on what I said, with
my defenders being painted as homemaker wannabes, brainwashed
by the Man.
I've been watching debates on what's truly feminist going on for
the thirty-five years since then. And just like then, it usually
involves groups of progressives saying other groups of progressives
aren't progressive. This factionalism tends to make me snippy.
See above for an example. But, I don't want to cut off debate
or smother dissenting opinions. I see a feminist show, but YFMV.
Still don't think that Buffy is going to give up the job. She
agreed, I felt, with the suggestion that they'd have to track
down the other potentials, which implies continuing involvement.
But, what if she went back to college, or got another job? Is
that an anti-feminist thing? Same with becoming a wife and mother,
actually. Why would those choices disappoint you? There are others
who could take her place now, after all. Dawn mentioned once that
Buffy would always be stuck with low-paying jobs and slaying,
while Dawn could be anything. Buffy just got that option. I see
it as a positive thing.
At least according to Fray, the world and society look just as
screwed up in the future as now. I'd think that the reordering
would take place in how the demon dimensions interact with Earth.
It would be harder for them to prey on humankind in general, but
doesn't imply that humans would make any less of a mess of things.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: explaining the
explanation -- LittleBit, 10:58:06 10/16/03 Thu
My favorite scenario is that Buffy continues being a Slayer
but because she is no longer the Slayer her life can take
on greater dimension. Her life choices are no longer limited by
being the one who "alone will stand against the vampires,
the demons and the forces of darkness."
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: explaining the
explanation -- sdev, 15:58:07 10/16/03 Thu
"But, what if she went back to college, or got another job?
Is that an anti-feminist thing? Same with becoming a wife and
mother, actually. Why would those choices disappoint you? There
are others who could take her place now, after all."
You are certainly correct in the sense that true empowerment is
doing what you choose including being a wife and mother. My problem
is with the idea that you can't do both should you want or need
to. I guess I believe doing both, as many men do, should be on
the list of options. Was Buffy ever really given that choice to
do both?
Throughout the series the viewer is deliberately shown a unique
Buffy in two ways, both as The Slayer and as a slayer among slayers.
Buffy herself realizes this and sometimes appreciates this in
herself. All too often though she bemoans the losses it entails
without appreciating her gifts and power in a positive light-her
inferiority complex about her superiority. The plot is often structured
in such a way as to make her forfeit any claims to the personal
pleasures of life in order to pursue her ubercareer. This need
to choose is the source of much angst in Buffy and in RL mothers.
This strikes me as a familiar societal pattern often offered to
women but not insurmountable in reality or in the Buffyverse.
I find it disappointing when talents, unique gifts are not used
or appreciated. I'm not sure why Buffy always had to choose between
the two. I waited till the final moments of Chosen to see successful
resolution but I really did not get it. I saw Buffy happy to shrug
off the burdens of slayerhood to a bunch of untested, unknown
wannabees when for six seasons I was inculcated with the specialness
of Buffy. What I wanted to see was a recognition that she loved
who she was, a slayer among slayers, and that she could
have more in life as well.
Did you see her in the end embracing her slayerhood, her power
and talent, or unburdening it?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: explaining
the explanation -- shambleau, 08:22:19 10/17/03 Fri
Miss Mission Uber Alles? I wouldn't rule out a period of throwing
off the traces, but, IMO, the first option. As I said before,
she'll eventually end up in some high-level capacity working against
evil. Willow can't go back to not being a witch, and Buffy can't
go back to not being a Slayer. We'll see when and if she shows
up on Angel, I guess.
[> [> [> [> Well... -- Random, 12:30:10
10/15/03 Wed
I don't feel like re-hashing the arguments -- others can do that
quite well -- except to note that the reaction to the episode
struck me as incongruous. The concept of the unreliable narrator
is an old one indeed...Chaucer made liberal use of it, as did
his ostensible predecessor on the Italian scene, Boccaccio. To
me, questioning the message of the artist or the art has to be
done in context. If not, every single work of art is going to
offend someone. What message is ME sending with "The
Prom"? That dogs can go evil? What about "Prodigal"
and "Sense and Sensitivity"? That working fathers are
cold and distant and emotionally abusive? Does Trevor Lockley
really love his daughter, or is his attempt to "provide"
for her just a guilt mechanism, the origins of which can clearly
be seen in such episodes as "Sense and Sensitivity"
where his attitude toward his daughter is clear. Is Kate to be
disregarded when she tells her father what he did? She was under
the influence -- perhaps her father's reaction was the one we
were supposed to take seriously, since he was unaffected by mind-altering
spells. Or take "CWDP" -- Andrew commits brutal murder,
yet never actually pays an equivalent price. A couple weeks of
being tied up are not real punishment. Is murder something ME
is giving us carte blanche to do? Are they endorsing it? Spike,
after all, does die in the end (not commenting on the latest season
of AtS...it seems as if he did die after all.) The issue is, these
"messages" are not spoken ex cathedra as pronouncements
of a divine and utterly moral force. They are the results of stories,
of characters who are oh-so-fallible. The artist's obligation
to send only positive, affirming, let's-all-hold-hands messages
regardless of the context severely circumscribes the ability to
tell the story. And severely underestimates the intelligence of
the audience. And, quite frankly, is impossible. Becauses someone,
somewhere, will always find a reason to take offense at something
if he or she is operating under the premise that the artist's
social responsiblity is so clear-cut that the artist isn't allowed
to offer any line or scene that doesn't promote a "moral"
or "socially-progressive" message in every way, shape
or form. The bad guys are not allowed to be bad, the morally-ambiguous
guys (as Spike most certainly was at that point) are not allowed
to be ambiguous...and I would argue that Spike was definitely
morally-ambiguous in that ep because, well, I and quite a few
others on the Board found his character and pronouncement to be
distasteful and made me question how much progress Spike had really
made. I suppose one could react to it by saying that the character
is still exactly the same after making the pronouncement and his
words are an example of the writers telling us what they believe.
I don't see why that would be the first or even preferable reaction
in a fictional narrative. I choose, instead, to take the dialogue
as indicative of the speaker, and revise my judgment of the character
accordingly.
Whew. That was longer than I intended. It's just my inborn tendency
to want cto discuss the issues at length in an analytical manner.
[> [> [> [> [> 99 and 44/100 % agree. No "utterlys"
here. -- Sophist, 13:06:55 10/15/03 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> Howabout a "gutterly,"
then? -- Random, 13:12:54 10/15/03 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> guess your're on the fence
-- sdev, 17:40:40 10/15/03 Wed
I'm in the mood to celebrate my hard-earned 56/100 of a percentage
point.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOL -- Sophist,
17:50:50 10/15/03 Wed
By all means celebrate, especially since we utterly agreed in
the last thread. But I'm not sure you'd agree with my (slightly
understated) reservations about Random's post.
I guess the purity of my agreement is closer to Marilyn Chambers
than Ivory Snow. And anyone who understands that reference has
some 'splainin' to do.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> the Green Door
of corruption, eh? -- sdev, 23:01:25 10/15/03 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Heh heh.
-- Sophist, 07:45:29 10/16/03 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Heh heh. -- Arethusa, 08:52:46 10/16/03 Thu
A friend and teammate of my father's was in that movie-the muscle
guarding the door is a (then-)famous football player. His part
lasted only a second, and he remained fully clothed. ;)
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Well... -- sdev, 17:35:02
10/15/03 Wed
If the only time I felt that message was given was from Spike
in LMPTM I would be more receptive to the unreliable narrator
device. As I mentioned that merely confirmed the many earlier
messages I had received. Furthermore as Dlgood mentioned there
is no attempt to set the record straight and show Spike as incorrect
in his analysis. In fact since he is "cured" by this
scene and Buffy seconds his cause the reverse is implied.
"The artist's obligation to send only positive, affirming,
let's-all-hold-hands messages regardless of the context severely
circumscribes the ability to tell the story."
I never said the artist had any obligation other than to entertain
me (or I won't watch). But that doesn't mean I can't analyze the
art based on the message particularly as the artist set up the
standard himself. I also never said I was offended. Nor will I
give credit where it is not due.
In addition I see this as much more than contextual but permeating
the story. The examples you gave of Kate and her father does seem
more incidental and non-recurring, as do the hell hounds. However,
if many dogs many times had been portrayed as evil I would begin
to take notice. The only way I would be able to consider this
contextual, even though it permeated the series, were if the story
took place in an earlier historical time or another part of the
world.
The other example of Andrew, and I might add Willow, I also do
not view as contextual. I have always wondered at their light
treatment. You haven't? If ME as has been suggested tried to spare
Willow the ultimate fate I'm not sure they succeeded as far as
my feelings were concerned.
[> [> [> [> [> [> So what permeating attitude
do you see evidenced? -- Random, 17:58:57 10/15/03 Wed
I haven't seen -- per my original reply to you -- a pervasive
denigration of working mothers. Certainly no more -- and probably
considerably less -- than the normal Jossverse imposition of misery
and fallibility on all characters of every demographic. Or the
knocks taken by all parents. Hank Summer's work kept him
from attending Buffy's birthday at least once, and then he pretty
much disappeared. Working Dad abandons daughter actually was far
more than incidental. I need more information about the other
examples you consider indicative of ME's consistent undercutting
of working mothers in order to formulate a more thorough response
to your thesis. And an attempt to "set the record straight,"
IMO, implies that the record was somehow off. As I saw it, Spike's
words contradicted everything we saw of Nikki...I already knew
he was unreliable, and, drawing on the earlier scenes, realized
that Spike was simply wrong. He spoke out of anger, or
out of revenge, or out of a desire to hurt...I can even interpret
the scene to mean that Spike-with-a-Soul is being shown as having
a l-o-o-o-ng way to go before he is truly good.
Look forward to your defense of your thesis. Assuming, of course,
this thread doesn't get knocked off in the river of new threads
following the new AtS tonight, heh
BTW, exactly what do you mean by "The only way I would
be able to consider this contextual, even though it permeated
the series, were if the story took place in an earlier historical
time or another part of the world"? Mine was a throw-away
example, but I'm curious about that line.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Quick one item response
-- sdev, 18:06:05 10/15/03 Wed
In the context of time-- one would not expect to judge by today's
standards a story that took place in the 18th century. Obviously
gender treatment would be different, and one would need to adjust
their criticism accordingly.
Non-Western-- similar adjustments, but less so.
[> [> [> [> [> [> also... -- sdev, 22:51:37
10/15/03 Wed
I have one quick addendum to refute the Spike as unreliable narrator
theory in LMPTM. Buffy herself pretty clearly confirms Spike's
message by specifically echoing his words moments later in her
speech to Wood. She says:
Spike is the strongest warrior we have. We are gonna need him
if we're gonna come out of this thing alive. You try anything
again, he'll kill you. More importantly, I'll let him. I have
a mission to win this war, to save the world. I don't have time
for vendettas. (walks away) The mission is what matters.
(emphasis added)
She is cold and uncompassionate here to an injured adult Wood,
and echoes the "mission" comment Spike made earlier.
I am not being critical of her attitude to Wood. I am pointing
out how it validates the truth of Spike's earlier statement. And
while in the Wood adult context it does not reflect a negative
attitude towards working mothers, in the Nikki and Wood as a child
context it does. Presumably the adult Wood is neither her direct
responsibility nor a helpless child.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Unreliable narrators
-- Sophist, 09:12:49 10/16/03 Thu
Your post here touches on my point of disagreement with Random.
I may have too narrow an understanding of the concept of "unreliable
narrator", but I think it's limited to circumstances in which
a particular character is clearly understood to be speaking for
the author. Normally, we trust the author; the twist stems from
the unreliable nature of a usually reliable source.
In LMPTM, I don't believe Spike spoke (heh) as the author when
he made his comments about Wood's mother. I think he spoke as
Spike. I therefore don't accept Random's explanation of the scene
based on that doctrine.
However, I think my position actually undermines your argument
even more than Random's. If Spike was not speaking as the author,
there is no reason to take from his comments any overarching message
about working mothers or even about Nikki Wood. He was simply
being obnoxious. Other characters have said equally obnoxious
things over the course of 7 seasons (e.g., Xander, Joyce and Willow
in Dead Man's Party), and most of the characters have done much
worse (Willow in S6).
If I felt that the show had sent a consistent message of criticism
directed towards working mothers, I might reevaluate that scene.
Since I don't see any such message, and I never saw anyone even
suggest such a message even in the posts after LMPTM aired (I
understood those criticisms to be limited to that episode in particular),
I don't see any reason to think that such a message was intended.
I might also be more inclined to see Spike as the narrator if
I agreed that Buffy validated his comments. I don't think they
do so. It's important to remember that Buffy never heard Spike's
statement about Nikki Wood. She could not be approving a statement
she never heard. She was not validating Spike's comment about
Nikki's love for Robin, she was validating the importance of the
slayer's mission. To me, Buffy reinforced the dedication of a
working mother by emphasizing the importance of her work.
Even if I did agree that Buffy validated Spike's statement, that
would not mean Spike spoke as the author. For example, Buffy seemingly
agreed with the hateful comments of Xander, Joyce, and Willow
in Dead Man's Party, but that does not mean I have to accept those
comments as valid. Nor does the failure to invalidate those comments
in future episodes call into question the whole premise of the
show. It just means that in that episode, those 3 characters behaved
obnoxiously.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> There's also
the idea that sometimes even we can read too much into something...
-- Rob, 09:58:40 10/16/03 Thu
We have discussed on the board before that sometimes the problem
with having a show that deals in metaphors is that at times people
can find them where they weren't intended. I don't see why Spike's
speech about Nikki must by extension mean that he is targetting
all single, working mothers, or even that Nikki was meant
to represent a working mother here. As Kendra said, "Slaying
isn't a job. It's who you are." I am not going
to get into the Is-Spike-Right? argument, but I would like to
just point out that unintended messages could be taken from anything.
I don't think a negative stance is being taken against single
mothers in this episode the same way that I don't think a negative
stance is taken against the act of sex on the show, even though
there are many, many more examples in the run of the series of
horrible things occurring after sex than this working mother example.
Okay, actually said I wasn't going to do this, but I'll just dip
into the Is-Spike-Right? aspect for a second. No, I don't think
Spike was right. But on the other hand, I don't fault him for
saying what he said, because, IMO, Wood was acting not only childish
but dangerously so. At a time when such a huge battle was coming
up, and all attention had to be paid on defeating the First Evil,
Wood went out of his way to try to kill one of Buffy's biggest
assets, for no reason other than petty revenge. In that respect,
I believe Wood deserved all the abuse Spike hurled at him, especially
when Wood had lured him into the garage by acting friendly, and
particularly when he turned on the trigger. Wood acted atrociously,
and IMO deserved Spike's treatment as well as Buffy's at the end
of the episode. Remember, Spike was the one who was targetted
here. And I also believe Spike was right that there is a difference
between an everyday victim of a vampire, and a Slayer. This was
an ancient mystical battle between vampire and Slayer, that this
particular Slayer happened to lose. And of course there's also
the fact that Wood did all of this with the full knowledge that
Spike had a soul now.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> unreliable
narrators -- Rahael, 10:57:50 10/16/03 Thu
That's pretty much how I interpret the concept too.
Of course, I pretty much take Spike's comments with a grain of
salt. It's just that it was indicated to us that Spike's epiphany
of love freed him, from the chip. Interesting, that it was put
into his head by the sick mother of the Buffyverse par excellence,
Maggie Walsh. His flashback to his mother had a sharp dichotomy
- a mother as a bloodsucking fiend, a mother as the all loving,
all giving, totally maternal nurturer. In a funny way, of course,
Drusilla embodied both - she kills William, and she feeds Spike
with blood to bring him back to life.
But, I just really wish that they had given Wood a better speech.
I wish he could have affirmed Nikki's love. See, the ep clearly
shows that Wood doesn't believe Nikki loved him. That she didn't
give him enough to sustain him through love, to get past his hate
and vengefulness. It's an ironic contrast with Spike - both are
made monstrous.
Coupled with the fact that Wood ends up beaten and bloodied, and
Spike emerges free, Wood, utterly silenced. The tableau is presided
over at the end by a Buffy who could also be seen as Nikki, telling
Wood once again, that he must put his feelings aside in order
to see the bigger picture.
Ironically, Buffy who faces off both Wood and Giles, fails to
see that she is mouthing their cold harsh words to them. Shutting
them out. Closing herself off. Even threatening to sacrifice Dawn.
She herself is shown to be 'unreliable' by the fact that she strokes
Dawn as she sleeps. Indicating, perhaps to the viewer, that Nikki,
herself, might have done so to the sleeping, unaware Wood.
See? It's not exactly as if I can't recognise ambiguity or irony
or the undercutting of spoken words through actions. Nor is it
that I spend my time watching BtVS waiting to be offended. As
evidence, anyone can look at the posts i made *defending* this
episode *before* I saw it.
The problem lies in the final way these storylines were placed
in front of the viewer. It doesn't help that it is placed within
a season that doesn't seem to know what it wants to say, thereby
giving us strong indications that the writers might indeed be
endorsing Spike's words. Nikki failed to let Wood know she loved
him. And Spike's words pierced Wood in a way that his beating
didn't.. That's why he was rendered silent.
I think Season 7 was trying to creat some inner conflict for Buffy
through her Slayer power, and attempted to resolve them in a creative
and positive way by the end. I believe Lies was the vehicle for
posing some hard questions. Unfortunately, Lies is an incredibly
powerful episode, that manages to fully embody the aggressiveness,
heartlessness and brutality of one character, writ large over
an episode, giving us an insight into a world where it's okay
to kill certain people (and, it very subtly points out that if
Spike thinks it's okay to kill Slayers, it's not very far from
Wood and Buffy's position that it's okay to kill vampires, without
apology). It's more powerful than many episodes that might have
been designed to pose the opposite viewpoint (apart from Selfless
and Storyteller). THis, imbalance, I believe is the reason for
some of the incoherency of Season 7.
There are those, I know who've talked about a warrior or soldier
culture that might explain what ME's viewpoint was, in creating
the Nikki-Buffy versus Spike standoff. It certainly fits in persuasively
with the war metaphor of the entire season. In some ways, S7 was
honourable in depicting how brutalising this is for those who
practise it - Buffy, Giles, Spike, Nikki. Because I don't think
there is anything honorouble about it. I dont' think there's anything
honorouble about the 'good' death on the battlefield. I've heard
this rhetoric before - positive proponents of this viewpoint may
not like the source.
What discomfited me most is that the Spike Nikki battle scene,
as portrayed in the past, somehow becomes almost glorified. In
Fool for Love, wasn't Spike portrayed as cool? How many fans of
his don't think that he appeared to be offset positively? I think,
that the writers of Lies may have wanted to point out that Nikki
wasn't just a lone Slayer. That Spike destroyed lives he didn't
even know about. That it wasn't all about slayers and vamps and
cool leather coats. But the episode swung away from them. I've
read many comments about how sexy and attractive Spike was in
that episode. And I think I can trace my intense reaction to that
uncontrollable narrative that completely turned many of the positive
messages of the Buffyverse on its head. It's how emancipated and
free Spike appeared to be as he beat and beat and beat Wood up.
If the opposite had happened by the end of the ep, I would have
been sickened by Wood, but mostly, sickened by the episode. It's
kinda like an immensely brutal and horrific violent scene which
is almost designed to give the viewer pleasure, with a tiny subtitle
which says "ps, violence is wrong". The Buffyverse has
a very delicate line to tread, since it's heroine tackles a lot
of metaphorical problems by metaphorically killiing and beating
things up. And that's why Lies not only is a troubling ep in its
own right, but also casts a disturbing shadow on the past.
Anyhow, thank you Sophist, for defending the ep without demeaning
those who disagree. Your points certainly made me go think about
the ep some more beyond the whole "grr argh" reaction.
PS. Part of me never stopped resenting Xander and Willow for DMP.
In fact, I've never truly liked them til S7.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: unreliable
narrators -- Sophist, 13:45:51 10/16/03 Thu
It's just that it was indicated to us that Spike's epiphany
of love freed him, from the chip. Interesting, that it was put
into his head by the sick mother of the Buffyverse par excellence,
Maggie Walsh.
I think you mean it freed him from the trigger. I like the reference
to Maggie Walsh, but I don't think works in the context of the
trigger.
See, the ep clearly shows that Wood doesn't believe Nikki loved
him. That she didn't give him enough to sustain him through love,
to get past his hate and vengefulness
I'm inclined to agree, though I think there are other readings
to that scene (Random suggests one below). But the mere fact that
Wood does not believe Nikki loved him enough does not mean we
have to agree. We might very well believe that Wood is wrong,
and that his false belief is his fatal flaw.
Spike emerges free, Wood, utterly silenced ... Spike's words
pierced Wood in a way that his beating didn't.. That's why he
was rendered silent.
Yes, but that tableau must include the entire context.
Wood just tried to kill Spike and savagely beat him when Spike
was unresisting. Wood did wrong and, at some level, knew he did
wrong. He was silenced because his vengeance quest ended in futility,
not because Spike had a snappy comeback.
Nikki failed to let Wood know she loved him.
I would phrase it differently: Wood didn't realize how much his
mother loved him. Speaking as a parent who has to balance the
competing demands of work and attention to children, I saw Nikki
do things that showed her love. That Wood didn't understand
her message doesn't surprise me -- children usually don't have
the perspective necessary to understand that until they themselves
become parents.
Lies is an incredibly powerful episode, that manages to fully
embody the aggressiveness, heartlessness and brutality of one
character, writ large over an episode, giving us an insight into
a world where it's okay to kill certain people
Well, I don't think the episode endorsed the belief of Wood and
Giles that it was ok to kill Spike. :) Maybe you meant something
different....
What I assume you mean is that the episode suggested it was somehow
"ok" for Spike to kill Nikki. I think that's an unlikely
message from a show with a heroine whom we root for every week
to slay the vampires. Our natural identification is with Buffy
and, through her, all slayers.
What I did see in LMPTM, and what I saw in S7 as a whole, was
a commentary on the brutality of warfare as a mode of life. As
Buffy says, war leads to "senseless, stupid deaths".
Angel reacted to his past life with brooding and self-pity. Spike
reacted with a rationale that enables him to live with himself.
We don't have to accept Spike's rationale (nor Angel's), we just
have to understand that he's now in the position of a German soldier
who killed others in the course of an evil cause and now has to
live with himself. How he does that affects our judgment of him,
not of the show.
it very subtly points out that if Spike thinks it's okay to
kill Slayers, it's not very far from Wood and Buffy's position
that it's okay to kill vampires, without apology
Too subtle for me. What aspects of the episode lead you to this
conclusion?
I know who've talked about a warrior or soldier culture that
might explain what ME's viewpoint was
I think ME did use that culture as the basis for Spike's viewpooint.
Where I disagree is that I do not extend that so far as to say
it represents ME's viewpoint. Any more than I see ME as endorsing
Angel's self-pity or Xander's obnoxiously brutal comments towards
Buffy or his desertion of Anya at the altar.
In Fool for Love, wasn't Spike portrayed as cool?
Not to me, no. I'm sure some might have seen him as "cool",
though that's a hard read from that text: William was the antithesis
of cool and Buffy's cutting lines at the end of their "dance"
show Spike as pathetic, not cool.
It's how emancipated and free Spike appeared to be as he beat
and beat and beat Wood up
I see a different context here. Wood just tried to kill Spike.
Wood continued to attack Spike even when Spike recovered and began
to win. Perhaps Spike could have been less brutal, but it was
clear to me that Wood was not going to stop until he was physically
unable to. And even then, Spike had to get across the message
that no future attempts would be tolerated. Again, to me, Wood
and Giles are the real guilty parties in this episode.
Part of me never stopped resenting Xander and Willow for DMP
I'm with ya on this one. I did forgive Willow, but I guess you
know how I come out on Xander.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
unreliable narrators -- Malandanza, 00:03:36 10/17/03 Fri
Rah (proving she thinks Spike is hot): "In Fool for Love,
wasn't Spike portrayed as cool?"
Sophist (proving he doesn't): "Not to me, no. I'm sure some
might have seen him as 'cool', though that's a hard read from
that text: William was the antithesis of cool and Buffy's cutting
lines at the end of their 'dance' show Spike as pathetic, not
cool."
Fool for Love was an interesting episode -- it began
with Spike as the ultimate unreliable narrator, telling Buffy
"I've always been bad" just before a flashback where
a reliable third person narrator shows us the truth of young William's
upbringing. Pre-vamp Spike was shown to be rather pathetic (although
sympathetic in an as-long-as-you're-not-stalking-me sort of way)
--
but certainly not cool. We saw other scenes where he was derided
by Angelus and mocked by Darla (mostly on AtS, I believe). But
the last flashback we see is Spike speaking to Buffy directly
from the flashback -- Spike is now the narrator.
I believe that n FFL we saw a gradual switch from the omniscient
PoV to Spike's PoV, and as the episode progressed, the narrator
became less reliable and Spike became proportionately cooler,
until, at the end, we see Spike as Spike sees himself.
Then Buffy burst his little self-adulation bubble and left him
weeping and scrabbling in the dirt for cash. Back to the omniscient
narrator and Spike not being cool.
"Again, to me, Wood and Giles are the real guilty parties
in this episode."
As for LMPTM, I agree that Wood and Giles were the bad guys. Buffy
had made a decison (as general) that Spike was part of Team Apocalypse
Never, Giles had no business disobeying. Wood served vengeance,
which we've seen time and time again on the show is wrong. But
saying Giles and Wood were the bad guys is not the same as saying
Spike is the good guy. Furthermore, I think Wood's speech to Spike
was exactly right (and in the ME tradition of bad guys possessing
insights) -- it described Spike perfectly, even souled Spike who
walked out of the garage not giving a damn about people's mothers
or their orphans.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Lol, Mal! -- Rahael, 03:34:48 10/17/03 Fri
You are right. Fool undercut Spike rather nicely. I shouldn't
let myself be so easily influenced by some fan reactions for the
ep. (What a bitch Buffy was to him at the end! How cruel! How
demeaning to poor Spike!, I mean, he was only trying to help her
stay focused!)
There's this problem I have with General Buffy. I keep not taking
her very seriously. She's not a very good General, and I have
no idea whether the writers meant to do that or not. I mean, I
liked her all the other times in the past when she's been cold
and hard and setting herself to do her duty (with just the flicker
of hurt, and just a slight tremble). This BUffy was not only inefficient,
and incompetent, but she was unjust. This was a huge disservice
to a great character who was always brighter and more compassionate
than this.
And since I actually must confess to enjoying military history
(I thought I was going to hate it, but quite the opposite), it
would have been more truthful to portray Buffy as both inspiring
and general-like, while still pointing out that there were alarming
implications in adopting such a style to deal with the FE. That's
if they were attempting to show that military thinking was the
wrong approach, and to be honest, I have not yet received any
strong indication what the hell the writers were trying to say
about it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Personal impression - fence-sitting -- KdS, 03:57:41
10/17/03 Fri
My personal impression was that they never quite confronted what
they thought because they were scared shitless of the consequences
of saying anything that could be seen as a comment on the War
on Terror and the invasion of Iraq (either pro or con or mixed
or undecided). I think there was a Joss interview in the summer
in which he said that he had been against the invasion of Iraq
personally, but that the writing staff in general were determined
not to say anything that could be interpreted as a topical political
allegory.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Okay, that's a point -- Rahael, 07:40:34
10/17/03 Fri
But surely they could have been ingenious enough to make it hard
to read those parallels. I'd still like to read a great explanation
as to why the military metaphor was used, and how it ties into
the larger themes of the season. Because if it was just meaningless
- well that just makes me grumpy.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Lol, Mal! -- Dlgood, 04:44:40 10/17/03 Fri
This BUffy was not only inefficient, and incompetent, but she
was unjust
------------
IMHO, in here last scene with Wood, it's interesting to note how
Buffy doesn't use the argument that it's wrong to murder a person
with a soul, simply because it's wrong. It's wrong of Wood to
kill Spike, because Spike is mission critical, and okay for Spike
to kill Wood because Wood is not mission-critical. Which logically
begs the question - can Wood, whose claim to Buffy that Spike
is still the monster who killed his mother goes unrefuted, kill
Spike when he's no longer mission-critical?
By terms of Buffy's logic, he can.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Nail on the head -- sdev, 05:38:09 10/17/03
Fri
Two minutes before a meeting but I couldn't help responding.
"Which logically begs the question - can Wood, whose claim
to Buffy that Spike is still the monster who killed his mother
goes unrefuted, kill Spike when he's no longer mission-critical?"
Throws the whole ending into question doesn't it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Quick
answers -- Rahael, 03:21:41 10/17/03 Fri
Re Trigger - yes you are right. My memory is going. I'm not very
good at the plot points of the last season!
Yes, Wood is wrong - of course Nikki loved him, just as Buffy
loves her friends, and Dawn, and yet, feels alone from them, beneath
and above them. S7 showed us that this is the difficulty that
slayers face. The two way pull between duty and love. I think
it's clear that Spike realises his mother loves him, and Wood
doesn't. The kindest interpretation is that Wood is far too young,
far younger than Spike is, when he loses his mother. Therefore,
she never got a chance to give him the continual intimations of
her affection that most of us get from our parents. Spike uses
this doubt in Wood's mind to crush him.
In Lies, there are many characters, on opposing sides who yet,
manage to articulate the same message - the big picture. What
matters is the fight. WHo is untrustworthy? Who is expendable?
We should sacrifice our finer feelings and put our hands to the
plough. And in the end, let the dead bury the dead. Giles and
Wood do it (and Wood does it disingenously because all he really
wants to do is get rid of Spike). Buffy does it at the end. She's
wrong. Giles and Wood are wrong. What we sacrifice to get to the
bigger picture matters a great deal, because that'w what our bigger
picture will be built up from.
Secondly, of course WOod and Giles are wrong. I'd contend that
the Giles of a different season would have acted differently.
I'd contend that Lies was trying very hard to keep Spike's character
unrepentent and yet somehow let him off by making the people who
opposed him straw men with straw men arguments that he easily
defeats.
Imagine if Xander had such an episode - where he behaves as atrociously
to Anya and Buffy as he has done in the past, and yet, somehow,
emerges the hero of the hour because suddenly, everyone else starts
acting in so obviously an outrageous way. A lot of Season 7 didn't
feel organic in terms of character action. The characters danced
to a theme where certain things had to be said and done, and someone
had to say or do them.
BtVS also has a very delicate balance to make with the proposition
that there are a group of sentient beings that it is perfectly
okay to kill without a thought. When someone of them are endowed
with souls, the proposition starts creaking, and when I read arguments
such as: it is right, right, right to kill vampires, but not this
one or that one - they have a soul. I do get slightly uncomfortable.
Lies really started affecting my comfort level. Add to this the
language of war and militarism and I start getting very strange
resonances.
But that's just me. Another layer on multiple layers of discomfort-
I keep trying to make a coherent objection to an ep that isn't
all that coherent. Really I have lots of little bitty objections
to different layers of it.
If lies had been in a different season, with a different arc,
it might not have had so many disturbing implications. With what
came before, and what came after, I think it heightens everything
that is problematic about it, adn with this, I am chiefly referring
to the metaphor of war in S7.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Quick answers -- Dlgood, 04:55:16 10/17/03 Fri
I'd contend that Lies was trying very hard to keep Spike's character
unrepentent and yet somehow let him off by making the people who
opposed him straw men with straw men arguments that he easily
defeats.
--------------------------
IMHO, what damns the episode is Buffy's numb reaction to Spike,
when he asserts that he'll kill Wood. If Buffy is the General,
and the mission is ultimately what matters, she should be asserting
that nobody has the right to kill anybody - no matter how pissed
they are. After all, Spike has shown he can defend himself against
Wood without killing.
But in her silent compliance, and her failure to ever discipline
Spike, Buffy has confirmed his right to kill Wood, should he so
choose to do so. Instead of seeking to bring coherence to her
forces, she's confirmed a "might makes right" stance.
IMHO, she's really wrong here, but it's never really discussed
again. How exactly, her blind reliance on Spike works the mission,
when he's clearly unstable, I'm not certain. But it's nothing
she ever admits to or apologizes for, even after her coup and
return to power.
Buffy is the bad mother, indulging her child too much.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> No answers, just an opinion. -- Arethusa, 07:33:22
10/17/03 Fri
Buffy says, "You try anything again, he'll kill you. More
importantly, I'll let him." Not quite the same thing. She
doesn't say Spike is right or has the right to kill Wood-she says
if Wood tries to kill Spike again, Spike will kill him, and she
won't stop him. No vendetta allowed. They need Spike and shouldn't
have to be looking over their shoulders constantly to see if Wood
will try to ambush him again.
The problem is that everyone but Spike is proven to be wrong by
the end of the series. That leaves a lingering, sour aftertaste
to the episode. But we know Spike was wrong because what
they once were informs what the vampires become. Ann loved William
wholeheartedly and also resented him. Spike refused to believe
his mother was a complex, contradictory human being. He saw his
mother through himself. So even when he got his soul, he still
did not understand what drove him to become William the Bloody.
His story isn't over yet.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Quick answers -- Sophist, 09:23:11 10/17/03 Fri
I agree with much of what you say here. A few quick points:
What we sacrifice to get to the bigger picture matters a great
deal, because that'w what our bigger picture will be built up
from.
I wholeheartedly agree. It's not that the focus on "the big
picture" is wrong -- I'd argue it's essential -- it's that
a blindered approach can cause us to forget that there are other
pictures as well.
When someone of them are endowed with souls, the proposition
starts creaking, and when I read arguments such as: it is right,
right, right to kill vampires, but not this one or that one -
they have a soul. I do get slightly uncomfortable
But of course it's Angel who creates this problem in the episode
that bears his name. And it's Xander who in that episode and subsequently
makes precisely the arguments that Giles and Wood rely on in LMPTM.
We see it again with Oz in Phases and NMR. LMPTM falls squarely
in this tradition.
Imagine if Xander had such an episode - where he behaves as
atrociously to Anya and Buffy as he has done in the past, and
yet, somehow, emerges the hero of the hour because suddenly, everyone
else starts acting in so obviously an outrageous way
They did that already. They called it S6 -- the Hell's Bells -
Grave episodes do precisely this. :)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Unreliable
narrators -- Random,
12:11:48 10/16/03 Thu
Well, I consider your definition of unreliable narrator to be
rather narrow, actually. The unreliable narrator is actually rarely
third person omniscient (the "author" in most fictional
narrative) -- generally it is found in either first person or,
on some rare cases, 3rd person limited. The unreliable narrator
exists when we have any account of the narrative wherein the speaker
can't be trusted, whether he/she is a direct proxy for the author
or not. Nick in the Great Gatsby, for instance, is a famous example.
Roth is good at this, as were Donald Barthelme and Faulkner. But
unreliable narrators are like any other characters -- they can
have any persona or characteristics the author desires. Grendel
in John Gardner's book of the same name is -- or could be -- an
unreliable narrator. That doesn't imply that Gardner is speaking
through Grendel. Rather, he is creating a character who speaks
in the "I". The same goes for many of Shakespeare's
3rd person characters...is there a more unreliable narrator than
Shylock at times? Or even Hamlet. Narrators need not be the central
character by the definition of an unreliable narrator. They simply
need to have narrative that can be interpreted. Even when they're
not speaking directly to the audience, they can be unreliable
narrators of their own lives, of the events around them, merely
by speaking in some fashion to someone.
The problem with validation (this for sdev, mostly, assuming she
reads it...I'm lazy, I admit it, and wanna just merge replies)is
that not only is Spike an unreliable narrator, everyone in the
show acts in a manner that could be considered unreliable. Consider
that Wood reacts with silence and hurt...what else could we expect
of him, having lost his bid to kill Spike? He does get in his
arguments, but not getting in the last word hardly creates a paradigm
that eliminates the problem of other available evidence. ME is
telling a story -- having Principal Wood stand up and give a devastating
reply apparently wasn't agreeable to them. I can't really buy
the arguments that Spike's portrayal and Buffy's behaviour somehow
validate the message that Spike delivers -- we are faced with,
as in any narrative, conflicting evidence. Such makes for great
stories, and if Spike's "coolness" somehow overrode
the evidence we'd seen prior to that, I interpret it that way.
Nikki was damned cool too. The confluences of narrative threads
work together to create the whole, and even when Wood lost, but
before he did, he made a powerful argument for his love and his
mother's love. A child doesn't spend 20 plus years pursuing revenge
with such a monomaniacalness that he apparently forswears most
if not all other pursuits just to reach the point where he can
get his vengeance without a very powerful emotional attachment.
And he doesn''t even limit his pursuit to vengeance against his
mother's killer -- as far as I can tell, he has a rage against
all evil. And his emotional attachment was certainly reciprocated
from all that we saw. He knew his mother loved him, regardless
of what snarky, idiotic, cruel thing Spike said. I don't interpret
his silence as agreement. I have no reason to. I interpret his
silence as the silence of a man who has been badly beaten doing
something he knew was wrong. He tried to murder an individual
who ws not the same as the individual who murdered his mother,
and he knew perfectly well that he was wrong. Certainly one can
interpret it any way one wants...but, IMO, not all interpretations
are equally valid. Ockham's razor demands that I tend to give
more weight to the simpler explanation that Spike was being...Spike,
and no overarching negative message toward mothers of any sort
was intended. To multiply that entity requires that I assume that
the other evidence was faulty, that the narrative was required
to somehow balance the possible interpretation of negative attitudes
toward mothers with a positive one...except it did, obviously,
since I and others have actually interpreted the episode in such
a manner. I have taken what I saw of Nikki, and what I know of
Spike, and ended up with a positive example of a mother with a
mission who still loved and cared for her children. As such, I
consider ME's job well-done because I see a counterbalance to
the negative...indeed, I see a prohibitive weight in favor of
the positive.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'm reading
but -- sdev, 19:16:02 10/16/03 Thu
answers will have to await two priorities--Yankees and work crunch.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Spike as old
reliable and unreliable mothers -- sdev, 01:29:26 10/17/03
Fri
Let me make sure that we are all on the same page. I did not say
that Nikki is necessarily shown as being a neglectful mother in
the sense of not loving Wood or endangering him, but that Wood
feels her to be so which is shown as the inevitable result of
her dual loyalties, thus disallowing the possibility of being
a successful mother who works. We are never in Nikki's POV and
thus in a sense the real unreliable narrator here is Wood. Spike
is merely reflecting what Wood believes.
The opening scene of LMPTM is either told from Wood's point of
view or an omniscient narrator, but definitely not Spike's because
the scene continues after Spike leaves. I favor Wood's POV because
at one point we see his eyes peering out through the slats of
a bench, which seems to say, this is what I am seeing.
This is the dialogue:
SPIKE: (grinning) I spent a long time trying to track you down.
Don't want the dance to end so soon, do you, Nikki? The music's
just starting, isn't it? By the way...love the coat. (walks away)
YOUNG ROBIN: Mamma!
NIKKI: You did a good job, baby boy. You stayed down just like
mamma told you.
YOUNG ROBIN: Can we go home now?
NIKKI: Uh-uh. It's not safe there anymore. How 'bout I leave you
over at Crowley's house, and you can play with those spooky doodads
that you like.
YOUNG ROBIN: No, I wanna stay with you.
NIKKI: Yeah, I know you do, baby. But remember, Robin, honey what
we talked about. Always got to work the mission. Look at me. You
know I love you, but I got a job to do. The mission is what
matters...right? That's my boy. Come on. (they start to
walk away, but first Robin runs back to pick up the stake Spike
dropped) Robin? (emphasis added)
How is Spike unreliable? As you will see from the dialogue below,
Spike gives a fairly accurate rendering considering that he of
course did not hear that part of what Nikki said to Wood at the
fight scene. He was already gone. He is speculating as to Nikki
and Wood's relationship, but he shows that he really does understand
the slayer mentality. Again Buffy confirms that Spike does understand
the Slayer mentality when she later makes her independent statement
about the mission to Wood. Here is the later scene between Spike
and Wood:
PRINCIPAL WOOD: You took my childhood. You took her away. She
was all I had. She was my world.
SPIKE: And you weren't hers. Doesn't that piss you off?
PRINCIPAL WOOD: Shut up. You didn't know her.
SPIKE: I know slayers. No matter how many people they've got around
them, they fight alone. Life of the chosen one. The rest of us
be damned. Your mother was no different.
PRINCIPAL WOOD: No, she loved me.
SPIKE: But not enough to quit, though, was it? Not enough
to walk away... for you.
Nikki does clearly say to Wood in the first scene that the mission
comes first as Spike later said. Spike was also accurate in saying
Nikki was not prepared to quit. Also Spike was accurate in answering
Wood's comment that Nikki was all he had with the statement that
Wood was not the only thing in Nikki's life, not her whole world,
since she also had her calling as the Slayer. That alone was a
very revealing remark from Wood. Didn't he also have the man who
raised him, Nikki's Watcher? Clearly the 'father' who raised him,
and was helping to raise him even before Nikki died, raising him
with kindness I presume, was a nonexistent substitute for Mom,
from Wood's mouth not Spike's. (Insert Dawn here I think.) In
reality Nikki was not all Wood had. That is Wood's distortion.
(One can't help but think of Connor here and wish he would have
had it as good as Wood.) And in that scene after the fight, after
Spike left, the child Wood is clearly devastated by his mother's
response.
So the possible distortion would come in when Spike says such
phrases as "the rest of us be damned," or "Doesn't
that piss you off?" which are clearly editorializing. But
even without those editorial comments the portrayal Spike gives,
which compares accurately with the scene from Wood's POV, supports
Spike's conclusions, his editorial remarks. Wood felt abandoned
by his mother because of her Slayer calling. Spike's editorializing,
in other words, is supported by the facts as Wood told them.
"It's important to remember that Buffy never heard Spike's
statement about Nikki Wood."
To me this is even more of a confirmation that Spike spoke the
truth. We the viewers standing in the omniscient position, having
heard Spike just moments ago, are getting the same message from
Buffy, the source as regards Slayer credo. So now Wood, Spike
and Buffy have all confirmed-- the mission is first. In Buffy's
case, she is brushing Wood's feelings off in favor of the mission.
Also earlier in this episode Buffy made her comment about being
prepared to "let Dawn die" if she had to in order to
save the world.
"She was not validating Spike's comment about Nikki's love
for Robin, she was validating the importance of the slayer's mission."
Here in the literal sense you are certainly right since she did
not even hear Spike's talk with Wood. But I don't think it is
a jump to infer that we were meant to believe the truth of Spike's
words, about valuing the mission over her son, from the echo Buffy
provided. Unbeknownst to her she uses the same words about the
mission and dismissed Wood's pain as his mother did with those
words about the primacy of the mission. Also earlier in this episode
Buffy made her comment about being prepared to "let Dawn
die" if she had to in order to save the world. Dawn is Buffy's
child. This is even stronger than Wood's being secondary to the
mission.
"Even if I did agree that Buffy validated Spike's statement,
that would not mean Spike spoke as the author."
Arguing in the alternative. Okay I can handle it.
What comes from the author is who Wood is, how he feels, and what
he does, and the author's choice to show us nothing of his past
except this crucial bit. Am I to infer that this was insignificant
to his life therefore it was the only thing I have been shown
of his past? I am shown by the authors an embittered and violent
man who feels he lost all he had in life to the Slayer mission.
Wood is shown as a man with a mission, a warped mission of revenge.
Not a great picture of what a mother is supposed to impart to
her child. The implication is that this is how Wood became Wood.
How can it not be the author? This is all we are shown.
From Rahael:
"See, the ep clearly shows that Wood doesn't believe Nikki
loved him. That she didn't give him enough to sustain him through
love, to get past his hate and vengefulness."
From Sophist:
Wood didn't realize how much his mother loved him.
The authors present Wood, a mini-Holtz. All we ever see of his
past is this one scene. I conclude this is the formative moment.
Spike merely articulates that truth.
Sophist:
"I saw Nikki do things that showed her love. That Wood didn't
understand her message doesn't surprise me -- children usually
don't have the perspective necessary to understand that until
they themselves become parents."
Random:
I have taken what I saw of Nikki, and what I know of Spike, and
ended up with a positive example of a mother with a mission who
still loved and cared for her children.
Here you are supporting my point. Even if Nikki did nothing inherently
wrong it was inadequate for Wood and he grew up a mess. My point
was that the authors are showing working mothers as incompatible
with bringing up a healthy adjusted child. That ultimately it
comes down to a choice between the mission or the child which
is devastating to the child's well being and self-esteem. Joyce
says to Dawn "she won't choose you." I don't agree that
children can't appreciate a mother's love even though she has
a "mission." And I don't believe there is no way to
balance the two. I think children can and do understand parents'
messages of love even when their parents have other missions in
addition to raising and loving them. And it doesn't take years
and grandchildren for this epiphany.
Random-
I too am combining posts since it is quite late and I have much
work tomorrow. Also any larger post on negative mother messages
in BtVS will have to wait till my schedule gets freed up. You
said:
"Ockham's razor demands that I tend to give more weight to
the simpler explanation that Spike was being...Spike, and no overarching
negative message toward mothers of any sort was intended."
My understanding of this principle says that the simplest explanation
that conforms with the facts and story dictates, sort of an efficiency
theory of truth. To me the simplest theory is that Spike is not
an unreliable narrator as discussed above. I believe I demonstrated
the convergence of what Wood, Spike and Buffy said and felt. The
message on motherhood follows directly from who Wood is and what
he does.
Sorry if this is incoherent in any way. It really is late even
by my warped standards.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The mission
-- Rahael, 09:09:28 10/17/03 Fri
I don't agree that children can't appreciate a mother's love
even though she has a "mission." And I don't believe
there is no way to balance the two. I think children can and do
understand parents' messages of love even when their parents have
other missions in addition to raising and loving them. And it
doesn't take years and grandchildren for this epiphany.
Absolutely. Very well put.
And there's yet another puzzling thing about Wood. The writers
make it clear that his mother is very important to him. That he
has taken on her mission, that he has lived a life dedicated to
following her work. And yet, they have not allowed him the dignity
of being able to empathise with her, respect her, and understand
that just as he could carry out a mission in her name,
she could carry also out a mission for the sake of her son, and
all the other people who couldn't fight back against the vampires.
That somehow she had never managed to convey to him how very important
her job was. I don't believe it. I don't believe it for a minute,
no matter how the ep tries ot put it. I don't believe in the character
of Wood.
A while back, there was a discussion about Fool for Love. I said,
that i hated the fact that Nikki died silently. She never got
to say anything back to Spike. Instead, he imprisoned her in his
subjective narrative. Put words into her head and mind. Had the
final say over her life. Allowed her to be seen dying *underneath*
his body.
When I heard Wood was turning up, I was pretty happy. I was looking
finally for the comeback from that. A restoration of dignity.
The voice restored. This partly underlines my reaction to Lies.
Wood, shockingly, ends up as silent as Nikki.
I want the victims to be given some dignity. I don't want their
silent acquiesence. I wanted to jump in and tear that coat away
from him. How dare he wear it. And yes, Wood is a 'victim' of
Spike. He became a 'victim' when Spike killed his mother. And
I find it all to easy to believe that it connnected him to an
ocean of rage and impotence and sadness. The futility of his vengeance?
Well, I think Wood should have known about futility. To see his
strong Slayer mother with her neck broken, doesn't that make you
think about issues like futility and meaning?
But I do not get any sense that the writers thought that deeply
about the character or his motivations or his inner life.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hopping in
here -- KdS, 03:39:10 10/17/03 Fri
First for me, the "working mothers" thing was a side
issue - I was far more disturbed by Spike's unchallenged self-righteousness
and indifference to his victims as humans, not as working mother
and son.
The problem for me is that Spike's enemies are silenced by the
episode itself. Nikki only appears in the pre-credit sequence
and Wood is beaten to a pulp and unable to respond coherently.
When one watches the episode for the first time, it's hard to
remember Nikki and Robin's scene at the begininning, and expecting
the whole audience to draw an ambiguous moral lesson by comparing
the ending with the pre-credit is a very questionable move when
dealing with such explosive issues. To use a legal metaphor, it's
as if the defence was banned from making a speech at the end of
a trial. As I said at the time, the other problem is that all
Spike's more questionable remarks are so bound up with his liberation
from the FE's power as to give them an endorsement.
What adds to it later though, is that the issue is never revisited,
even faintly. Wood is in subsequent episodes reduced to the utter
unquestioning subservience to Slayers that ME, in the latter half
of S7, appears to think is compulsory for the non-evil man. There's
no subsequent sane discussion between Spike and Wood about what
happened, not even any hint that Wood feels any greviance about
the matter and is, as Buffy suggested, putting it on hold until
after the crisis, as if he's utterly accepted everything that
happened as just. And Spike carries on in the same way, playing
it cool, never showing the faintest guilt to anyone but Buffy,
as if he has the perfect right to disproportionately abuse anyone
who stands up to him or Buffy. I know most people here don't see
Spike's attack on Faith in Touched as strongly as I do,
but she certainly was not the leader of a premeditated plan to
usurp leadership from Buffy, as Spike assaults her in the knee-jerk
assumption that she was. (It's a defence of Giles actions in the
episode that, as I recall, Spike has never shown the extent of
his remorse in S7 to anybody but Buffy. It might be considered
humiliating to expect him to do so to others, but it would have
saved a great deal of ill-feeling if he'd shown everyone else
that he genuinely did feel bad at some point).
And finally, I don't think we can discuss this in isolation from
the fact that there was, and ME knew there was, a sizeable fan
group who would interpret everything Spike said as gospel and
everything he did as upright, even when the rest of the material
contradicted him more overtly than in LMPTM. As someone pointed
out above, there are a large proportion of Spike fans who believe
that his behaviour in LMPTM was the perfect balance of mercy coupled
with self-assertion.
Current board
| More October 2003