October 2003 posts
Spike,
William, and Social Mobility [Asking for help on my media class
'Buffy' project] -- Rob, 18:25:36 10/16/03 Thu
I have begun working on my semester-long media project on Buffy,
postmodernism, and the middle class for a college course, and
I have reached a point that I would like a little help sussing
out. Ponygirl suggested that I can use Spike as an example of
social mobility, in his change from William to Spike...but I'm
having a few problems here. Firstly, would William be considered
an aristocrat, upper middle class, or middle class? And, further,
would the Spike persona be considered lower middle class or lower
class?
Rob
Replies:
[> Re: Spike, William, and Social Mobility [Asking for help
on my media class 'Buffy' project] -- frisby, 04:06:01
10/23/03 Thu
I think William would not be royalty or nobility, and not of the
yeoman or peasant class either, but the gentry. Spike of course
would be from the lowest, or the highest, depending on the perspective
of the one making the judgment. In Plato's ladder of lives (see
Phaedrus) the poet is not very high up but is in fact down with
the sophist and tyrant. Nietzsche on the other hand would class
the philosophers themselves as but a special type of poet (subset
of artists, subset of musicians). The William/Spike we have today
is of course a champion.
[> Re: Spike, William, and Social Mobility [Asking for help
on my media class 'Buffy' project] -- s'kat, 23:17:51 10/19/03
Sun
Ponygirl suggested that I can use Spike as an example of social
mobility, in his change from William to Spike...but I'm having
a few problems here. Firstly, would William be considered an aristocrat,
upper middle class, or middle class? And, further, would the Spike
persona be considered lower middle class or lower class?
Not sure this adds anything to what has been said above or merely
restates it, since I can't read all the posts.
Hopefully it will help a little.
From what I've learned in a mixture of life experience, business
courses, history courses, and literature - there are three ways
that class may be determined:
1. by birth - you are born in a specific class. If you are born
into the aristocratic class, ie. Royalty, a Baron, a Duke in the
case of England - or in the US - the child of a celebrity, a President,
a Congressman, or Vanderbuilt, Rockerfeller...than it doesn't
matter if you work or make a cent - you are part of the upper
class. Your connections are the wealthy. In some cases, you'll
have inherited wealth. In others - you have the contacts. "Good
breeding is everything" - is attributable to class by birth.
2. by marriage - you marry into a class. Say for instance your
parents were paupers but your husband or wife (usually husband)
is from the upperclasses? Then you can rise up that way.
3. by money - this can be inherited wealth or hard-earned cash.
In 18th Century - hard-earned cash were the merchant class. I'm
not sure this was the case in the 19th century.
In modern times - this is the self-made man. Or "new wealth".
New Wealth isn't always accepted in the "upper-class"
According to Buffy Magazine #8 - William was of the upper middle
class or at least that's what the set designers believed. The
set designers mention that they decided to create a Victorian
town-house that was fairly wealthy but not luxorious to indicate
that William came from the upper middle class not the aristocracy
- he would have had a house not a town-house. Not the middle class
- he'd have lived in a flat. They also stuffed it with rich items,
befitting the wealthy at that time or rather well to do.
Re-watch LMPTM to get a better picture. I think that episode tells
us better than any other which class he was supposed to be in.
Why does William change to Spike? If you're patient, they'll tell
you in November. Until then all we have to go on is Darla, ATS
S2, Fool for Love BTVS S5, and LMPTM BTVS S7. In those episodes
it appears William looks down on his class - sees it as namby-pamby
or "nancy-boy" possibly because of how he viewed himself
within it. We all deal with rejection differently. I know when
my brother was in school - he took on the leather jacket and played
the bad boy/poor boy slacker role to fit in with the group of
people he liked and rejected the group who hurt him. He used slang
and he did naughty things. He's since grown out of that role and
owns his own business, has an apt, is building a vacation home,
and has his first child on the way. But as a young man - he played
that slacker role.
A better example actually might be Alec in A ClockWork Orange
- who takes on a different language than his parents and wears
bad boy garments denoting rebellion. Note who Spike's vampire
parental figures are? Darla and Angel. How are they dressed? Like
aristocrats. Spike may in his attitude and appearance be asserting
a sense of independence and rebellion from Angelus. Another possibility
is he is rebelling against his human roots. But since Spike clearly
does not change his speech pattern and behavior until a while
after he's been with Angelus, I think it had more to do with Angel
and less to do with the fops.
Hope that helped.
sk
[> [> Future spoiler in above post! -- LittleBit,
10:42:04 10/20/03 Mon
I really didn't want to know anything about what happens in Novenmber.
[> [> [> Oops! Sorry about the typo!!! ;-) --
LittleBit (posting in haste!!), 10:46:48 10/20/03 Mon
[> [> [> to be fair, the spoiler is very vague
-- anom, responding posthaste, 10:56:50 10/20/03 Mon
It just says that there will be more info about a certain question,
not what that info will be. So decide for yourselves how much
of a risk you want to take.
[> [> Sorry! This post excludes the spoiler and has a
new section! (sp. up to LMPTM only) -- s'kat (you can delete
the one above if you want), 18:31:37 10/20/03 Mon
(This post has no spoilers beyond LMPTM, I promise).
Not sure this adds anything to what has been said above or merely
restates it, since I can't read all the posts.
Hopefully it will help a little.
From what I've learned in a mixture of life experience, business
courses, history courses, and literature - there are three ways
that class may be determined:
1. by birth - you are born in a specific class. If you are born
into the aristocratic class, ie. Royalty, a Baron, a Duke in the
case of England - or in the US - the child of a celebrity, a President,
a Congressman, or Vanderbuilt, Rockerfeller...than it doesn't
matter if you work or make a cent - you are part of the upper
class. Your connections are the wealthy. In some cases, you'll
have inherited wealth. In others - you have the contacts. "Good
breeding is everything" - is attributable to class by birth.
2. by marriage - you marry into a class. Say for instance your
parents were paupers but your husband or wife (usually husband)
is from the upperclasses? Then you can rise up that way.
3. by money - this can be inherited wealth or hard-earned cash.
In 18th Century - hard-earned cash were the merchant class. I'm
not sure this was the case in the 19th century.
In modern times - this is the self-made man. Or "new wealth".
New Wealth isn't always accepted in the "upper-class"
According to Buffy Magazine #8 - William was of the upper middle
class or at least that's what the set designers believed. The
set designers mention that they decided to create a Victorian
town-house that was fairly wealthy but not luxorious to indicate
that William came from the upper middle class not the aristocracy
- he would have had a house not a town-house. Not the middle class
- he'd have lived in a flat. They also stuffed it with rich items,
befitting the wealthy at that time or rather well to do.
Re-watch LMPTM to get a better picture. I think that episode tells
us better than any other which class he was supposed to be in.
Why does William change to Spike? All we have to go on is Darla,
ATS S2, Fool for Love BTVS S5, and LMPTM BTVS S7. In those episodes
it appears William looks down on his class - sees it as namby-pamby
or "nancy-boy" possibly because of how he viewed himself
within it. We all deal with rejection differently. I know when
my brother was in school - he took on the leather jacket and played
the bad boy/poor boy slacker role to fit in with the group of
people he liked and rejected the group who hurt him. He used slang
and he did naughty things. He's since grown out of that role and
owns his own business, has an apt, is building a vacation home,
and has his first child on the way. But as a young man - he played
that slacker role.
A better example actually might be Alec in A ClockWork Orange
- who takes on a different language than his parents and wears
bad boy garments denoting rebellion. Note who Spike's vampire
parental figures are? Darla and Angel. How are they dressed? Like
aristocrats. Spike may in his attitude and appearance be asserting
a sense of independence and rebellion from Angelus. Another possibility
is he is rebelling against his human roots. But since Spike clearly
does not change his speech pattern and behavior until a while
after he's been with Angelus, I think it had more to do with Angel
and less to do with the fops.
That said - we have no idea if William and Anne's money was inherited
wealth - making them old money or "new wealth". This
being the 1800s, I think it was more likely old money, especially
since William is writing poetry and very scholarly. New money
would have William pursueing business pursuites and more merchant
class. But that's just a guess.
Hope that helped.
sk
[> Preservin'. -- Rob, 21:54:10 10/16/03 Thu
[> Re: Spike, William, and Social Mobility [Asking for help
on my media class 'Buffy' project] -- Celebaelin, 02:48:10
10/17/03 Fri
Don't take this as gospel but I think at the time the idea of
there being a 'middle' class at all was fairly new in Victorian
times. The term middle class, when was it was first coined(!),
meant rich but not of noble blood: merchants, industrialists and
other nouveaux riche boors. So William is probably middle
class since we don't know whether it is old money (The Honourable
William the Bloody?) or new money. You could be forgiven for calling
William upper class if he is 'The Honourable' but this is speculation.
Don't mess about with upper-middle that's a purely financial distinction
invented by people with just a little bit more money than most(cough
cough).
Spike is classless really, he affects, or perhaps genuinely has,
working class sensibilities (I'm not lower anythin' 'mate')
but doesn't work. Punks, being anarchists considered themselves
entirely outside society irrespective of their origins but in
my opinion you cannot change your class, you are born with it.
You may however in the broader view be able to change the class,
or more likely sadly the pretence to class, of your children.
Sooooo, It may not be much help to you wrt your project
but Spike is the same class as William but he's slumming.
If class was just about money then it could vary from day to day.
Nothing so 'vulgar' IMO, although if you were from unimpeachable
upper class origins you would likely go through a stage of trying
to hide it, especially if you were male.
You might want to use socio-economic grouping terminology rather
than class. Class is an illusive little cuss at the best of times,
and yet beggars and kings both have it.
C
[> [> Re: Spike, William, and Social Mobility [Asking
for help on my media class 'Buffy' project] -- Claudia, 12:21:12
10/20/03 Mon
[Don't take this as gospel but I think at the time the idea of
there being a 'middle' class at all was fairly new in Victorian
times. The term middle class, when was it was first coined(!),
meant rich but not of noble blood: merchants, industrialists and
other nouveaux riche boors. So William is probably middle class
since we don't know whether it is old money (The Honourable William
the Bloody?) or new money. You could be forgiven for calling William
upper class if he is 'The Honourable' but this is speculation.
Don't mess about with upper-middle that's a purely financial distinction
invented by people with just a little bit more money than most(cough
cough).]
The middle-class or the "merchant" class really came
into power during the 18th century, in Britain, not the 19th century.
[> [> [> Re: Spike, William, and Social Mobility [Asking
for help on my media class 'Buffy' project] -- Celebaelin,
20:20:11 10/20/03 Mon
The middle-class or the "merchant" class really came
into power during the 18th century, in Britain, not the 19th century.
Agree, as a result of the industrial revolution obviously, but
the term, rather than the phenomenon it describes, comes into
being rather later. According to the Shorter Oxford Dictionary
the first use of the term 'middle class' occurred in 1812 and
the first adjectival use in 1893. So, Georgian in fact rather
than Victorian but still 19th century.
[> [> Given the punk rock connection -- KdS, 04:04:55
10/17/03 Fri
It is worth mentioning that there is a long UK tradition of upper
or middle class rock musicians adopting exaggeratedly working
class personae (and sometimes being genuinely embarassed when
the truth got out). Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Joe Strummer,
Damon Albarn in his "Parklife" period... just the few
that instantly came to mind.
[> [> What makes you think class doesn't have to do with
money? -- Finn Mac Cool, 08:10:17 10/17/03 Fri
That's the whole definition of class. Upper class consists of
those with a great deal of money, lower class of those on the
verge of bankrupcy, and middle class of those in between. If you
remove financial status from the situation, how exactly do you
determine a class?
[> [> [> 'They said you were high class, but that
was just a lie' -- fresne, 09:08:43 10/17/03 Fri
Behavior, education.
As I mull the question I'm reminded of Shaw's Pygmalion
and the poor who twist up through middle into upper class by virtue
of manners and speech patterns. The insistence that the middle
class have restrictions. The poor and the upper do what they want
(within financial constraints).
Dicken's Hard Times where one of the main characters keeps
going on about how he was lower class, found in a ditch, but he's
a self made man. Transformed himself into filthy rich middle class.
Maybe he'll get knighted and climb higher. Course, turns out he
was raised comfortably middle class and he keeps his mother hidden
off in the next town.
The little princess may be poor, but she behaves like a "real"
princess while trapped in her garret. She doesn't perceive herself
to be lower/servant class, so she isn't. Although, this is to
a degree, the difference between reputation and what you know
of yourself.
Aristos who haven't a feather to fly on, but put on a good show.
What class (beyond being a cad) was Mr. Wickam? Mr. Darcy? Miss
Elizabeth Bennet? When things are so stratified that eldest children
are referred to differently. When there is an order that you go
into dinner based on precedence.
Genteel poverty, being different from poverty because it comes
with doilies.
Students who deliberately seek out and decorate apartments with
"white trash" decorations. That moment when John Watters
visits the Simpson's and comments on the camp of their home. Marge
laughs, but doesn't know why.
I'd say that William was comfortably middle class. To the extent
that I doubt he had a job, but probably had some sort of university
education. That was an excessively comfy and overstuffed house.
Spike is raise a pint at the pub, damn the world and rules, scrap
with your mates, lower class.
Course, my understanding of class may not be quite as refined
as say, a Victorian English person. What with being all Californian
and like dude and all.
[> [> [> [> Re: 'They said you were high class,
but that was just a lie' -- auroramama, 09:55:40 10/17/03
Fri
Doesn't Eliza say that the difference between a flower girl and
a lady isn't how she looks or speaks, but how she is treated?
Of course, how you look and speak is much of what determines how
strangers treat you. But Colonel Pickering always treated her
as a lady, so it is possible to look beyond the surface - or at
least Shaw thought so.
The reason a self-made millionaire is traditionally not "upper
class" isn't necessarily that he's uneducated or has the
wrong accent. It's that the established aristocracy don't want
him to be. Imagine (I'm sure this has happened in a million Regencies;
it was just the era for that sort of thing) a man who turns up
in town, impeccably dressed and brimming with intellectuality
and good manners. Everyone assumes he's from an obscure branch
of the aristocratic family he shares a name with. He then reveals
that the name is a coincidence and his education and manners acquired
with the money he made in trade. Won't many people discover hitherto
unnoticed vulgarities in his speech, dress, and behavior, whether
there are any or not?
Hence, perhaps, Spike's insistence on his new name to Angelus,
despite the fact that he's in serious danger of being dusted.
It's how you are treated.
[> [> [> [> [> 'You ain't nothing but a hound
dog' -- fresne, 10:05:15 10/17/03 Fri
But, if you have sufficient money, you can marry into the family.
And thus the obsession by Victorian era American industrialists
with marrying their daughters into impoverished aristocratic families.
For example, I believe Churchill's mother, aunt. Should have watched
that bio this week.
Anway, the ability to say, "My son-in-law is Lord so and
so."
[> [> [> [> [> Re: 'They said you were high
class, but that was just a lie' -- RJA, 10:07:32 10/17/03
Fri
I see what you're saying, but is class really about how you are
treated? In many ways its how a lot of people define themselves,
so clearly its not soley about how other people react to them.
This self made millionare could be accepted by the upper classes
and so on, but that wouldnt make him upper class when it came
to labelling him (if we have to label at all). I was talking more
about social structures, the labels that are applied when a sociolgist
or historian looks at them, rather then theyre practical everyday
existence.
Although I would say that when i said education, I wasnt talking
about the quality of their education. For instance, I had
a state education, and while it was probably better than some
of the local private schools, it still went some way to defining
the class I was in.
[> [> [> [> Re: 'They said you were high class,
but that was just a lie' -- Malandanza, 17:24:50 10/17/03
Fri
"Dicken's Hard Times where one of the main characters
keeps going on about how he was lower class, found in a ditch,
but he's a self made man. Transformed himself into filthy rich
middle class. Maybe he'll get knighted and climb higher. Course,
turns out he was raised comfortably middle class and he keeps
his mother hidden off in the next town."
Yet for all his wealth, Bounderby was still middle class. The
big distinction between upper and middle class in that era in
England seems to be in tracing how many generations it has been
since your family has had to work. Neither Bounderby of Coketown
nor Magwitch (from Great Expectations) (nor the captain
in Evelina) would ever be upper class, no matter how much wealth
they accumulated -- their children may, however, especially if
married well. One of the best examples of the self-made millionaire
stuck in the working class is Kipling's Mary
Gloster and berating his effete son who has ascended to the
upper class.
In Emma we also see class defined by work when Augusta
Hawkins (the future Mrs. Elton) is condemned because her father
made his money in trade and her uncle is a lawyer. A rising family
also incurs Emma's displeasure when they presume to hold a ball.
In Mansfield Park it is considered disgraceful that Edmund
has to take his orders early to help out the family.
In general, I don't think it was possible to move to a new class
(if we restrict ourselves tothe very broad categories of lower,
middle (or working), and upper (or leisure) classes. Children
might move up or down, depending upon the fortunes of the parents,
but a decayed gentleman was still a gentleman, and the newly rich
were still "not one of us."
Wickham was able to pass himself off as upper class -- his indulgent
upbringing, treated as Mr. Darcy's equal, was, no doubt, to blame.
Jane Fairfax also had this ability, although in her case she did
not seek to deceive people. Class is more a matter of how you
were raised than how healthy your bank account is at this moment.
[> [> [> Re: What makes you think class doesn't have
to do with money? -- RJA, 09:32:11 10/17/03 Fri
Family, background, education, money, maybe even social values.
Its all very complicated, and ever changing...
For instance, a man could grow up in a working class environment
and become a self-made millionaire. He would have as much money
as an aristocrat (not that they really exist any more) or a member
of the upper class, but because of his family, his background
and education, he wouldnt be a member of the upper class and never
could be. Whereas some Lords who have inherited all that belongs
to them are often on the verge of bankruptcy, yet are still at
the top end of the social spectrum.
But as the whole thread shows, its increasingly hard to label
people with a distinct class. Its a constant state of flux, and
often on the verge of complete breakdown, especially that there
is an increasing amount of general social mobility (probably in
direct response to the rise of democratic values, whereby when
money isnt the sole arbiter of your place in society, the delineation
becomes less strict).
[> [> [> [> Exactly...One of the major themes of
the course... -- Rob, 12:37:02 10/17/03 Fri
...is how difficult it is to label class, particularly in today's
society, where even many of the poorest people grow up with "middle
class values," due to the media. So, finding a distinction
between low, middle, and high class can be very hard, particularly
when you break it down into "lower middle" and "upper
middle".
Here's another example of a difficulty I'm having--Doublemeat
Palace. Is this episode upholding or critcizing middle class
values? On the one hand, Buffy's fear of downward social mobility
in working at a fast food restaurant upholds middle class values,
which strives for raising oneself higher up on the social scale.
At the same time, though, it exposes a popular American middle
class institution, the fast food restaurant, as being an awful,
mind- and soul-numbing place to work, and made such relentless
fun of it that ME was forced to drop the storyline the next season,
out of fear of losing advertising backers. It's kind of a catch-22:
Most people who take a lifelong career in fast food, at least
as on-floor workers, would be considered at least lower middle
class, and yet it is a very middle class thing to eat at
a local fast food restaurant, and so therefore, mocking it is
considered mocking a middle class institution. And the fast food
companies weren't even pleased that the burgers didn't
turn out to be made from people, because the damage of possibly
denigrating their name had been done! So, therefore, what position,
if any, is ME taking here?
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> The term middle class values
has been replaced -- Lunasea, 13:35:24 10/17/03 Fri
The new catch phrase is "Family values" and the watchdog
of that is the Peoples Television Council.
It is interesting that the most controversial thing ME ever did
had nothing to do with violence or sex, but Buffy working at a
fast food restaurant. The PTC that season was more concerned about
what Invisible Buffy was doing to Spike.
What values are being upheld when freedom of expression (the show)
is being restricted by the sponsors because of the perceived bottom
line? Naked Spike=ratings=good. Buffy suffering=ratings=good.
Buffy showing the darker side of the fast food industry/corporate
America=bad?
Family/middle class values has a strong work ethic. In the end
of the episode Buffy goes back and does work in her dead end job.
She needs the money to support her sister. I would say that she
is upholding these values.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Good point, and re: catch
phrase change... -- Rob, 13:38:55 10/17/03 Fri
Wish you'd tell my professor she's continually teaching us about
current American society with an outdated phrase! ;o)
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Actually she's not
-- s'kat, 21:47:36 10/20/03 Mon
Family Values and Middle Class Values mean two different things
or have been used differently.
This takes me back a few years, but Family Values to the best
of my memory was first used by the religious right in Colorado
and it was used in conjunction with the idea
of providing a moralistic standard for the young. Certain things
should not be shown on TV. There should be certain standards.
During the 1980s and early 1990s, the term Family Values was used
to push concepts such as "home-schooling" and
"family programs" and "family oriented activities".
Shows such as Murphy Brown were condemned because they didn't
live up to "family values".
Middle Class Values is a whole different thing. It includes the
standard of the entire class - not just people who fit within
one subset of that class. My guess is that Middle-Class Values
is a socio-economic term, while family values is a term made up
by a marketing guy in Colorado to push forward his agenda. But
don't take my word for it, do a Kartoo or Google search - or ask
your professor who probably knows a bit more on the topic. I just
vaguely remember that one is a "marketing term" used
to push a conservative agenda, and the other is a socio-economic
term used by sociologists and economists to describe a specific
socio-economic class' values. The distinction may be important
for your class.
Hope that helps a little. Again, I don't profess to be an expert
on any of this. This is just from my own memory banks, when I
was a legislative intern in Kansas and dealt with the terms -
often simulataneously and had to distinguish them in reports.
Since I wasn't completely sure - I decided to look them up in
the Encarta Encyclopedia:
Family Values in Encarta translates to : Traditional Values which
are defined as principles or standards followed and revered by
a people continuously from generation to generation. (These values
aren't confined to one class, traditional values can be adopted
by any class. The people who push it in our country have included
these representatives of the upper-classes: Newt Gringrich, Al
Gore, Arnold Schwarzernegger, Bob Dole - all of which aren't middle
class.)
Here's a snippet from an article on United Kingdom Middle Class
Values:
"The underlying belief of Victorian society was in progress-that
things were better than ever before and could be made better still.
This belief was the impetus for thousands of voluntary associations
that worked to improve the lives of the poor both at home and
abroad. It also underlay the charitable foundations created by
wealthy benefactors and the public philanthropies of some of the
greatest industrialists. Social experiments were conducted by
individuals such as factory owner Robert Owen, who founded utopian
communities in which wealth was held in common. Novelists such
as Charles Dickens were ardent social reformers who brought the
intolerable conditions of the workhouses and the factories to
the attention of the public in their books. Dickens's novels Oliver
Twist (1837-1839) and Hard Times (1854) are examples of this kind
of literature."
But in Europe Middle Class was defined as Bourgeoisie
" Bourgeoisie, originally, the free residents of European
towns during the Middle Ages. The bourgeoisie later became synonymous
with the middle class."
Encarta doesn't really define Middle Class Values beyond that.
Good luck.
Hope that helped a little.
sk
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agreeing with
s'kat -- sdev, 23:02:58 10/20/03 Mon
Family values is a term used to connote core life values often
associated with right leaning political agendas such as pro-traditional
families (read anti-gay), anti-abortion, anti-pornography, pro-sexual
abstinence for minors, pro-school prayer, pro-school vouchers,
and many others. It traverses the economic spectrum.
Middle class values are the values associated with the economically
determined group called the Middle Class. The values themselves
may overlap.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Why go with something
trendy? -- Ponygirl, 13:59:03 10/17/03 Fri
Family values is a spin just like pro-life for anti-abortion,
its very wording implies a judgement so I can see why it wouldn't
be used in a class.
I always thought that Doublemeat Palace and a lot of s4 Xander
had to do with a fear of the service industry as being somehow
degrading. In the Buffyverse it seems associated with lack of
education and career dead-ends. Remember in DP there was an emphasis
on "lifers" and the number of years a person had worked
at the restaurant. The idea of making DP a career or anything
besides a temporary stop was portrayed as extremely negative.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Why not?
-- Lunasea, 14:35:25 10/17/03 Fri
A class on media that analyzes trends should use the appropriate
terms for those trends. "Family Values" is much more
than spin. It is not seeing it as a very real description of what
is happening that is allowing it to grow like Kudzu.
Family values is not a synonym for Middle Class Values. What opposses
it is equally Middle Class. It just doesn't have a fancy catch
phrase yet. Upper, Middle and Lower class were united and then
fragmented in other ways, not along economic lines. It says a
lot about this country and the media that tries to shape it.
Just my opinion, though.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> And you
don't think there's a value judgement implied? -- Ponygirl,
07:31:28 10/18/03 Sat
What exactly is this family values? Why are we allowing a self-applied
and ill-defined term to come into common rotation? Personally
its use sets off all my radar because it uses nearly universal
terms to describe a narrow set of social mores. Why can't we just
call it social conservatism? Then we don't have to get into all
of these definitions of family.
If a professor in any class I was in used the phrase family values
in any other way than as a way to discuss its implications, or,
you know, ironically I would feel obliged to call him/her on it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Actually,
thinking about this... -- Rob, 10:09:11 10/18/03 Sat
While some of the issues might overlap, couldn't the phrase, "family
values" theoretically be held by the lower or upper class,
too? Not that "middle class" is the most specific term
ever, but it does seem more centralized than "family,"
which can refer to any one, really.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Although it is all too often used to be exclusive -- RJA,
14:08:26 10/18/03 Sat
Most times I have seen the phrase 'family values', it is being
used to show that that excludes, rather than includes. Ita a phrase,
perhaps unlike middle class values, which is marked by what it
stands against, rather than what it is for. Not aspirational,
but rather tinged with fear or mistrust.
Now whether that is fair or accurate is another matter, but the
way in which the phrase is commonly used is to make a value judgment
about something.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> What
are middle class values? -- Lunasea, 11:04:57 10/18/03
Sat
I'm Middle Class. We don't have a lot of money. We have values
instead. At least that is the general perception. I find the idea
of attaching these values to a particular class to be rather limiting.
We can use another term if you'd like. How about "The American
Way" and in Truth, Justice and?
Family values are no different than the "middle class values"
that Rob is speaking about. They are supposed to be what Middle
America values. That has just expanded to mean more than the middle
class. That was my original point.
As for using a universal term to describe a narrow set of mores,
the very terms pro-life and pro-choice do this. Most pro-lifers
are also pro-capital punishment. Not very big on life there. Most
pro-choicers are also pro-gun control. Not very big on choice
there. So what terms do we use? Pro-abortion doesn't fit because
most pro-choicers believe in the right to CHOOSE abortion and
wouldn't have one themselves. If anything it is a horrible choice
to have to make and many pro-choicers are also pro-contraception.
It all gets complicated.
Such is the nature of language. You may feel a need to call a
professor on his/her use of this term. I find not using it to
be demonstrative of being out of touch with current trends and
in a class about current trends, I would expect more. It is like
my husband's education. He has his degree in US History, but his
concentration was on the Cold War. The world was looked at through
the lens of what threat Communism was. If we still looked at it
this way, we would miss what the world has become. Things change,
including terms. The very term postmodern demonstrates this.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
You aren't qualifying any of your statements -- Ponygirl,
15:36:44 10/18/03 Sat
What are the values that you're ascribing to yourself? The word
"values" alone doesn't really describe anything. What
my family values may be the direct opposite of yours. However
since I am unmarried you may want exclude me from the family definition.
Since I am Canadian I would like to exclude myself from the middle
America definition. My ideas of what the term family values means
may be something you wish to exclude yourself from.
My point, which is in here somewhere, is that yes language is
ever-changing and middle class is almost too broad to term to
use. However using a prejorative term like family values gives
the phrase a very different weight than one might intend to in
a discussion of socio-economic divisions. For as the words change
so do their meanings and their impact. The connotations are purely
negative and exclusionary to me. Post-modernism I would think
would include awareness of the implications behind such a loaded
phrase.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Why go
with something trendy? -- RJA, 15:43:52 10/17/03 Fri
I think regarding DMP, the important issue on where the condemnation
lies is whether those who work at such places are portrayed negatively,
or whether it is the place or corporation itself. It has to be
remembered that the vast majority of M.E writers have worked in
places like that, so i feel the issue is what working in such
a place does to you.
And is that reinforcing middle class values? I dont know, it depends
whether that is considered a judgment on those who work in such
places. Can it really be said that anyone would like to work handing
out fast food? Do people chose that as a career willingly, or
is it more the case that this is one of the few options open to
them?
Generally, the people who work in such places are either immigrants
or people with no real qualifications. And the companies that
run these chains exploit that mercilessly (McDonalds and Burger
King have some of the worst treatment of their employees). So
there is a good reason to criticise or make fun of the job - it
can be soul sucking, and immensely underpaid. But at the same
time it didnt seem so much as a horror story to show to those
who dont study hard at school and eat their greens (one was a
college student). But rather more a sympathetic look at those
people who do end up working there, a la our heroine.
Either that or a cheesy horror movie riff.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> What day would you
like me to come to your class? -- Lunasea, 14:09:53 10/17/03
Fri
Nice to see academia hasn't changed, even as society has.
The combination of the classes under the umbrella of "family
values" in supposed classless America is an important social
distinction. The distinction in the media is no longer based on
economic standing, but on morality. Upper, middle and lower classes
are all supposed to have the same values (and buy the same products).
This was heightened by the changes this country has seen since
9/11, but was shown in other earlier ways, such as the 2000 Presidential
election.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> William Is
Upper-Class -- Claudia, 13:10:51 10/20/03 Mon
In an article I had recently read about the filming of "Lies
My Parents Told Me", it was established that William came
from an upper-class family.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> citation,
please -- Anneth, 13:16:55 10/21/03 Tue
In an article I had recently read about the filming of "Lies
My Parents Told Me", it was established that William came
from an upper-class family.
First of all, which article? Link or citation, please.
Secondly, whether it was intended for William to appear
to come from an upper-class family, the fact was never firmly
established on the show. From all appearances, he could
have easily have been firm middle class or well-to-do middle class
- he may even have had a job, as a clerk or something. The fact
of the matter is, we don't know. All we know for certain is that
he lived in a nice, largish house with a lot of knick-knacks,
had time enough to compose poetry regularly enough to garner himself
a mocking moniker, had some sort of schooling (thought that's
an assumption,really, based off his rant in Lessons), and a mother
whom he loved. He or his mother or someone else had connections
enough to get him invited to a party; he was made fun of at that
party, and the object of his affections considered him 'beneath'
her - whatever that might mean. And it might mean any number of
things.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I
read that article too. -- Arethusa, 14:32:37 10/21/03 Tue
It discussed set decoration, I believe-can't remember where it
was. If William had an ordinary job, especially as a clerk, he
could never afford that house. (Remember Howard's End?)
If he were a professional man there would probably been some indication
of this, as well as the fact that he was very young to have earned
so much money. The most telling line, to me, was when William
asked if he should send the coach for Dr. Gull. He was the royal
family's physician, and would be very expensive.* And anyone who
kept a coach in London would be wealthy. But yes, this is mostly
guessing. :)
*In 1888, Sir William Gull was probably the most influential doctor
in Britain. He was welcomed into the Royal circle in 1871 when
he attended Typhoid stricken Prince of Wales. Although seventy
one years old, and despite suffering a stroke, he became personal
surgeon to the Royal family and served them loyally. His wealth
grew and he lived in London's exclusive Mayfair.
He served a Royal family in crisis. Republican feeling had grown
as Queen Victoria became a virtual recluse and the public learnt
of the playboy antics the Prince of Wales and his son Albert Victor.
Gull died at his London home in 1890 following a second massive
stroke Upon his death Gull left a small fortune - worth more than
£15 million in today's terms.
http://www.discoveryeurope2.com/jack/withey.php
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Good point -- Anneth, 15:06:30 10/21/03 Tue
I'd forgotten the line about Dr. Gull - thanks.
The fact that he and his mother lived in such a large house doesn't
necessarily mean he wasn't a professional man; his parents might
have been wealthy via employment or marriage or whatever (though
wealth of that apparent plentitude does speak against William's
employment). I was trying to indicate that the setting didn't
speak definitively to William's class, wealth, or position - whatever
the set designer's intent in Lies, the achievement was vague.
I do apologise if I didn't adequately make my point; I tend to
ramble on when I compose posts and forget to make my thesis clear.
:)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> You were clear. :) -- Arethusa, 04:55:55 10/22/03
Wed
And your point still holds-we don't know for sure if he's aristocratic
or just wealthy.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> I still think he's middle class... -- Rob,
09:51:35 10/22/03 Wed
I recently watched the recent BBC production of "The Forsyte
Saga," which for those who don't know, is about a well-to-do
family in England that takes place on the cusp of when the middle
class, as a class, was emerging. From my untrained eyes, if I
hadn't known the Forsytes were middle class, I would have instantly
guessed "aristocrat." Their styles, clothes, and homes
were far more opulent and wealthy-looking than William's...and
they were middle class. It's hard for our modern eyes to see such
luxury in an 1800s English setting and not instantly assume it
to be aristocratic, but especially from what I have been learning
about the social structures at the time in this class, I'm thinking
middle class.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> From the commentary for Fool For Love
-- Rahael, 10:21:51 10/22/03 Wed
It's kind of fun to see Angel back on Buffy with his original
haircut. Everyone's got great hair in this epsiode. Talking about
building Spike piece by piece. Here you'll notice that Spike's
changed his accent.. Before, he had an upper crust British accent.
Now he has a cockney, almost working class accent going on. In
conceptualizing this scene, Joss Whedon was very clear about working
class differences and social castes, where Spike very much represents
the working class and Angel is more the elite, more the kind of
aristocracy.
So where does 'upper-crust' leave us? Nowhere is my sad conclusion,
especially since I don't think I'd go to ME for historical accuracy.
The one thing that biases me into agreeing with Rob is that I
find it hard to believe a girl like Cecily would say Spike was
beneath her, unless he was indeed, socially, beneath her.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> The article in the buffy mag actually
supports you -- s'kat, 11:00:53 10/22/03 Wed
They specify that it be a townhouse not a "house", that
it be wealthy not "luxurious", that William be well-to-do,
not "aristocrat". William was most likely "upper
middle class", the group below the aristocracy, which may
still place him below Cecily. Another possible angle is that
he is "newly acquired" wealth which also would place
him below Cecily. Or Cecily may just not like effete poet types
and consider anyone who isn't a certain way is beneath her.
My hunch is that he was meant to be upper middle class and possibly
newly acquired wealth - ie. his father was merchant class and
either married up or made his fortune, or
his mother was merchant class and married up - this would I suspect
explain the responses of the party-goers. What's odd from reading
both the commentaries and the article, is the set designers seemed
to have a better idea and were more worried about accuracy than
the writers were. Makes sense since their job is to recreate a
period of history and to do so they need to research it in detail,
the writer doesn't necessarily have to do that to write the script.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Class, and Masculinity --
Arethusa, 12:25:05 10/22/03 Wed
I looked at the script for Fool for Love on the Bufy Scripts site
and I think the others in his set looked down on William because
they thought he was unmanly, rather than below him socially.
"INT. ENGLISH DRAWING ROOM - 1880 - NIGHT
We cut to a high-society drawing room of the late nineteenth century.
Young people mingle and politely flirt.
SUBTITLE: LONDON, 1880
We pan across the crowd to find, sitting alone and staring longingly
out the window, young WILLIAM. Spike before he was Spike. The
biggest sissy imaginable.
SPIKE
Cecily...
CECILY
Leave me alone.
SPIKE
They're vulgarians. Can't you
see? They're not like you and I."
The emphesis seems to be on William's delicate poetic sensibilities,
and how the others despise him for them.
"SPIKE
Yeah, know what I prefer to being
hunted? Getting caught.
ANGEL
That's brilliant strategy.
Really, pure cunning.
SPIKE
Sod off. When's the last time you
unleashed it? All out fighting a
mob, back to the wall, nothing
but fists and fangs? Don't you
ever get tired of fights you know
you're gonna win?
ANGEL
No. A real kill, a good kill -
it takes an artistry. Without
that, we're just animals.
SPIKE
Poofter."
Again, the emphesis is on manliness, to the point that Spike accuses
Angel of being effeminant for not wanting to fight-like William
used to be. He is also rejecting his social class, but he is obsessed
with proving his manliness, which might be what leads to his fascination
with slayers, the "monster" that monsters fear. And
after he kills the Chinese slayer,
"Spike and Dru walk out of the burning building and into
the bloody chaos of rebellion all around them. Spike's long period-era
coat flows out behind him as he walks. He's no longer the unsure,
overcompensating vamp he was before. Now he radiates true confidence."
Fighting slayers was as much as sexual as physical thrill for
Spike. It made him feel all manly, I believe he said. So while
it's very possible that he was rejected, all or in part, because
he was beneath the others socially, I'm inclined to believe he
was mostly despised for his character rather than his status.
Interestingly, it is Angel, the son of a merchant and part of
the very new middle class, who goes for the trappings of the upper
classes, while William, who moves socially amoungst the upper
classes, rejects them.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Very insightful. Thanks
-- Masq, 14:04:48 10/22/03 Wed
When all else fails, consult the shooting scripts!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> I'd agree - It's in keeping
with the show's themes -- s'kat, 16:29:02 10/22/03 Wed
I always believed it had more to do with character than class
based on how the episode is filmed and the references Spike makes
prior to and after the episode. In School Hard - he makes a point
of mentioning how "weapons" make him feel all manly.
And often we hear him using the word : nancy-boy or poofter.
The exploration of the "sissy" or "un-manly"
man's attempts to be accepted are seen through Wesely, stuttering
Giles,
Andrew, and William.
Yet, in each case we see that the external image of the sissy
isn't necessarily who the character really is, just the perception
of the character by the on-looker. Scroll posted a really good
essay examining how ME deals with the sissy stereotype in Angel
and BTVS, which I think could be referenced here.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Class, and Masculinity
-- sdev, 16:36:05 10/22/03 Wed
I agree with your analysis. Also at that party William is too
'delicate' for conversation on recent possibly violent crimes.
From FFL:
ARISTOCRAT #2: (to Spike) Ah, William! Favor us with your opinion.
What do you make of this rash of disappearances sweeping through
our town? Animals or thieves?
HUMAN SPIKE: (haughty) I prefer not to think of such dark, ugly
business at all. That's what the police are for. (looks at Cecily)
I prefer placing my energies into creating things of beauty.
But after he's Spike he longs for "fists and fangs."
He went from being an effeminate mama's boy to courting violence.
Interestingly the trait that remained the same pre and post vamping,
was his willingness to buck the trend. His courage, if you can
call it that, was in not accepting the social rules of others.
Did that help him to make his ultimate decision to seek a soul?
[> [> [> Americans/Brits -- dream, 11:03:44
10/17/03 Fri
I remember once being in a classroom of Americans being taught
by a Brit. He was trying to talk about the importance of class
in whatever novel we were studying, and he was getting very frustrated
with way the Americans were dealing with the subject. He finally
said, with great exasperation, "What is with you Americans
and money? I don't want to talk about money, I want to talk about
class!" I meekly raised my hand and explained that Americans
don't see much of a distinction, particularly Americans raised
out of the handful of areas - the Northeast, and, from what I
can tell, parts of the South - where more traditional class distinctions
can still be seen. Bostonians, I can attest, have a strong sense
of class. So do New Yorkers. I once knew a daughter of an old
New York family who was interested in going to medical school
to become a surgeon. Her grandparents told her they didn't want
her, and I quote, "working with her hands." She became
a lawyer instead. Upper class means the right old families, the
right place to spend your summer, the right schools, the right
professions, the right charities. People who summer on the Vineyard,
give to the BSO, went to Andover, then to Harvard, and have a
law degree don't see themselves as being in the same class as
people who take their summer vacation in South America, went to
public high school, then onto University of Massachusetts, give
money to Act Up, and work in computer design, even if the latter
has much, much more money. I'll also note that in the States,
different regions produce different snobberies. Business school
is seen as rather vulgar here in Boston, but professors are highly
respected, and people are obsessed with where you went to school
and how many degrees you have. People in New York always seemed
more interested in where you worked and where you lived. I once
knew a Southerner who thought professors were barely middle class
because they made so little money, but I don't know if that was
a Southern thing, a new money thing, or just that guy's thing.
[> [> [> [> Re: Americans/Brits -- purplegrrl,
13:43:27 10/17/03 Fri
Unfortunately, in the U.S. class is often equated with how much
money you have, and to a certain extent what kind of job you have.
We don't have the hereditary aristocracy that Europe does. (Okay,
we do, but it is still based on money rather than on titles or
land-ownership.)
Believe me I saw "class distinction" when I was working
in the grocery store. The particular store I worked at was located
near an affluent neighborhood. Not all, but a lot of the customers
looked down on the clerks/cashiers -- I'm guessing they considered
us inferior due to our income status or simply because we were
in the service industry. This sort of attitude was particular
irksome to me since I had until fairly recently been in the same
general income bracket as they were *and* most likely had more
education than they did.
In some places, particularly in the South, class is in large part
based on how long your family has lived in the area. When I lived
in Raleigh, NC I knew a woman who was nice, friendly, and smart
-- and carefully set herself apart from the rest of us because
her family had lived in that area for generations. And it wasn't
about money. She had a job with the state and her family was probably
middle to upper-middle class.
The whole class distinction thing is a thorny can of worms. The
best you can do in explaining Spike's movement up and down the
social/class scale is to explain your distinctions in advance
and then show how Spike fits (or doesn't fit) into these distinctions
as he evolves and changes.
[> [> [> Don't agree -- Celebaelin, 03:41:00
10/18/03 Sat
The British royal family weren't that rich for centuries prior
to Victoria compared with some of the members of the aristocracy
and they were, and still are, literally the definition of upper
class. No-one is superior in class terms to a monarch and only
other monarchs are there equals.
Whilst because of the power and privilege associated with noble
birth it is likely that wealth will accompany it (although farmers
will tell you that there is not much money in working the land,
but then again they've always said that and each year is seemingly
worse than the last) but this is not necessarily the case. As
I said to Rob socio-economic classification is what I think you
are referring to rather than class itself.
If you remove financial status from the situation, how exactly
do you determine a class?
There are some snooty answers to this of the 'one just knows'
variety but it's a fair question. How about manners?
C
[> [> [> [> The definition of class you're using
doesn't exist anymore. -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:42:47 10/18/03
Sat
In the olden days, yeah, who you were the descendent of was all
important in determining your station of life. But, in modern
days, being descended from aristocrats makes little more than
a small topic of conversation. Take "The Beverly Hillbillies"
as an example. The Clampets are certainly not upper class using
your definition of the term: their behavior is incredibly crude,
they aren't related to anyone of importance, and they are completely
unlike all of the other rich people they meet. Yet, they live
in a large mansion in an expensive neighborhood and routinely
socialise with people who fit the traditional upper class mold.
They are clearly part of the upper class, despite having none
of the attributes you associate with it.
Granted, the Clampets don't exist in real life, but people like
them could exist and, in a less extreme fashion, probably do exist.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: The definition of class you're
using doesn't exist anymore. -- LittleBit, 19:23:34 10/18/03
Sat
I think the point is that the definition of class used by Celebaelin
here did exist, indeed was live and well, in Victorian England
of the late 19th century, which was when William lived. To discuss
William's class and what sort of rebellion Spike has against the
class system only has validity when the class system of the time
is used for the comparison. It doesn't need to make sense in a
contemporary American class distinction. At that time, class distinctions
were quite definitely social. As was previously noted, and in
very broad terms, the lower class were the laborers, workers and
peddlers; the middle class were the merchants/businessmen; and
the upper class was the nobility. In my very own opinion, I rather
think William's family was a side branch of a minor noble family.
Otherwise I really don't believe William would have received invitations
to 'upper class' functions, and I do think we are supposed to
see Cecily and her friends as upper class.
[> [> [> [> [> Still don't agree -- Celebaelin,
10:34:21 10/18/03 Sat
You are still equating class with money, which I don't agree is
the case. I'm not trying to defend the stratification of the class
system or to justify social inequalities of opportunity on any
basis be it class, wealth or geography I'm just expressing the
opinion that class and wealth are not necessarily interrelated.
If you believe, as I do, that class is an obsolete concept which
now serves only to divide without any longer fulfilling the function
of narrowing the field of search for 'suitable' partners and companions
then it would perhaps be better not to bring class up at all.
Class, whatever class it is, is about beliefs, attitudes and modes
of behaviour, social interaction if you like; this is quite distinct
from wealth in my view. Certain patterns of thinking accompany
the amassing of riches but the fact of espousing the values of
the landed gentry for ideological or practical reasons does not
mean that an individual has entered the upper classes. I trust
there won't be too much animosity caused if I re-state my belief
that class is something that you are born to. Whether that involves
having a silver spoon in your mouth or not depends on which class
you are talking about.
[> [> [> [> [> [> I meant I don't see the
impact of class, as you define it, at all -- Finn Mac Cool,
12:50:53 10/18/03 Sat
Using your definition of class, I don't see how it applys to modern
day life at all. I have yet to meet anybody who is treated differently
or lives in different social circles based upon who their family
is. The closest you can get is race divisions, but that seems
a little too broad to fit into the class system. But, then again,
perhaps it varies depending on where you live. Where I live, who
your relatives are or what station you were born into doesn't
seem to amount to much of anything. However, perhaps you live
in an area where the traditional class system is more visible.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Or maybe you just
don't see it -- Celebaelin, 16:47:57 10/18/03 Sat
In the not so distant past I gained a scholarship to attend an
English Public School and the world that I experienced there is,
I'm told, very different to the normal state school experience.
About 30% of the places were academic scholarships and the others
were fee paying and open to non prep-school students, so the circles
that you were exposed to, if not actually completely privy to
(this is a somewhat artificial distinction but I will let it stand),
were very much subject to what I would arrogantly presume to call
intellectual rather than financial constraints. Some of the boys
were from old money, some were from nearly no money, but broadly
we developed something approaching a common world view, as people
who bear an institutional background in common usually do. Minor
differences aside the aspect of privilege affected our opinions
and made our understanding more uniform than we realised at the
time (IMO). I'm not saying that money was irrelevant but I am
saying that unless you were aware of a particular family name
being important the students were largely indistinguishable one
from the other in terms of apparent class, but the class distinction
still existed largely because of family history and school tradition.
It was, I believe, easier to get a place at the school if you
came from the right family, irrespective of the nature of the
studentship offered. The attitude of the teachers, or at least
the influential ones, reflected this. Money did not seem to be
so significant in my view although being filthy rich is often
an advantage!
C
PS In its' original form there was an odd mix of 'I', 'you' and
'one' in this although in speech it would have sounded alright
in text it seemed strange and I wanted to change it. I don't know
whether that was an affectation or an appropriate use of language
but it came naturally to me at the time.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Public School
-- sdev, 16:10:21 10/19/03 Sun
In US this term means free, government run school available to
all.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Public
School -- Celebaelin, 17:29:53 10/19/03 Sun
I thought that was the case but I wasn't so sure that you were
aware that it works 'contrariwise' in the UK. UK/US terminology
problems will always occur "Two nations divided by a common
language" according to W.S. Churchill. To explain every nuance
of speech, including, incidentally, the increased proportion of
French influence in UK English, would be 'tiresome'. IMO it is
better to describe life in the native manner, hopefully any misunderstandings
that arise can be cleared up later.
[> [> [> [> [> [> of upward mobility, image
and fame -- sdev, 13:16:25 10/18/03 Sat
I agree with Celebaelin. Class and wealth are not synonymous although
closer in US than in UK as Dream and purplegrrl both said earlier.
While pockets of classist society exist in US it does seem to
be somewhat geographically limited and much less in the public
consciousness. US never had an aristocracy so they started off
from a much more egalitarian position as to the unchangeable category
of birth. There was also an ethos of getting a fresh start which
brought people from around the world to US.
Money does appear to be the great equalizer providing you have
it. With it you can buy a first rate education in any of the upper
class educational institutions and thus raise your class status.
This gave rise to the social phenomenon of parental obsession
with which status conveying kindergarten their child will attend
as the precursor to eventual adult class status. But this is a
multi-generational movement to the hard-core classist.
Cordelia is a good example of the money equals class more egalitarian
nature of Sunnydale High. She was on top when her parents had
it and never regained her status after she became a working class
girl. In AtS Season 1 she is constantly trying to break into wealthy
LA society via parties and who she meets and dates. LA elaborates
on another element of class touched on in BtVS --the status of
beautiful people. The superficiality of this status makes external
accoutrements a necessity. Clothes, cars and who you hang with
become essential elements of the image. I'm not too familiar with
this phenomenon in Europe (but I can't believe it doesn't exist),
but it is a big part of the American big city scene. Also the
status of celebrities is a part of the subtext of BtVS and AtS.
The worshipping of celebrities, actors, models, sports stars,
musicians, is a big part of US culture
Which brings up a new thought. What Spike really represents is
the class position of celebrities. That's how Spike changed his
class status in the vampire world; he became a celebrity, a killer
of Slayers. Interesting bit of metanarration when the woman from
the Watcher's Council in S5 shyly tells him he she did her thesis
on him and is intimately aware of his exploits, a reference to
fans following JM's every move (I think I may have read this somewhere
but can't remember where). Look what Spike's celebrity status
got him-- a 'desireable' girlfriend who conferred additional status,
leadership of his very own gang of minions, and autonomy. One
example, Spike both enhanced his reputation, and was able to get
away with, killing The Annointed One.
The celebrity status confers an additional benefit which fits
Spike rather well. Spike was an anarchist about following 'the
rules.' That attitude would only work with the class of celebrity
since all other classes have very conformational standards. No
matter how upper class or lower class you are, the rules of that
class still apply (see Wallis Simpson and Edward VIII). But I
believe celebrities often get to break the rules or create their
own rules and emerge status unscathed or even enhanced.
I don't know if any of this helps or if I just wandered off topic.
[> [> Re: anarchist thoughts -- sdev, 20:33:43
10/17/03 Fri
Spike is the anti-class or the iconoclast, breaker of images.
Tramples on all preconceptions with those Doc Martens.
Spike made fun of all class distinctions and their norms --his
old life as William with the upper middle class leisure partying
crowd which he called the frilly collar and cuffs crew, he found
inane Angel's vampiric pretensions at class by seeing hiding out
in a mine shaft in formal wear, which he eschewed in favor of
overalls, as an interesting turn of events, he scoffed at any
gainful employment in favor of petty theft, definitely not a working
class ethic, he had no interest in wealth but basically subsisted
(blood, beer and smokes) except for that aberrant moment in AYW,
he actually thought Buffy's work at the Double Meat Palace was
dangerous to her (oh yeah, he was right), he doesn't even believe
in magic, the conterculture.
[> [> [> Re: anarchist thoughts -- Ann, 12:46:08
10/18/03 Sat
As I once saw on a wall at a punk rock club
"ANARCHY RULES, MAN!"
A well positioned comma makes all the difference.
[> Re: Spike, William, and Social Mobility [Asking for help
on my media class 'Buffy' project] -- Ponygirl, 07:03:51
10/17/03 Fri
Personally, I think that William's home and clothing were meant
to be read as upper middle class, while Spike was attempting a
working class accent.
When we were discussing this before I was reminded of a long ago
anthropology of youth culture course where it was suggested that
one of the things that groups like the zoot suiters, the Teddy
Boys and the punks did that so annoyed the middle class was their
messing around with class lines. The Teddies could mock the mannerisms
of aristocratic dandies, while the punks fed into fears of social
decay and downward mobility.
There's also the peculiar idea that the working class have a more
authentic experience than other classes. I think Barton Fink expressed
it best and funniest with the intellectual going on about listening
to the voice of the working man while ignoring the working guy
sitting next to him, but you can see it as recently as the movie
8 Mile where Eminem's rival gets completely dismissed because
he attended a private school.
[> Slightly different, and probably different angle - Social
Space -- Rahael, 07:33:41 10/17/03 Fri
Because I started thinking of the idea of 'social space' in the
Buffyverse.
In the very first episode, the camera pans down in a great shot,
to the underground of Sunnydale, and we see the Master.
There seems a definite theme in the Buffyverse of strongly demarcated
spaces. Underground and overground. Sunlit and moonlit. The bad
parts of town. The not so bad parts. The Graveyards and the places
where living people live. Spike in his crypts, Angel in his mansion.
People and Vamps like Buffy, Angel and Spike are in once sense,
highly mobile, as they move into spaces others cannot or do not.
And there is, also a sense in which the demons and vamps are the
'under'class of the Buffyverse. Literally in the case of the master
and his minions.
Anyway. Just some random thoughts.
[> Re: Spike, William, and Social Mobility [Asking for help
on my media class 'Buffy' project] -- RJA, 09:27:33 10/17/03
Fri
Its difficult to make a precise definition as to William's social
status. We know Cecily considered him beneath her, but was that
to do with his social status or his personality and character,
i.e. she didnt feel he was 'man' enough. I think the real test
would be whether William had a job of any kind - if say he was
linked to a trade, or a factory owner or some such thing, then
he would be middle class (very broadly speaking). Or alternatively,
he could be one of the landed gentry, and thus an aristocrat.
But simply, the period in which he belonged to was one which saw
changing in class and social structures. The best definition that
could be applied is that he belonged to the 'leisure class', a
subsection of bourgeoisie. This was a class who had made their
own money, it was established, and much of the income came from
investments and the like, which gave them a chance to devote themselves
to the pursuit of leisure. Neither aristocrats or truly middle
class, they had the money, and could afford to spend it without
working too hard. I can imagine that William would have fitted
quite comfortably in such a role (one wonders where his father
was - dead or busy working?). All pure speculation of course...
Spike would be considered to try and assume a working class persona
(without any of the working, that is). Rather the more glamorous
angle of drinking and fighting. But it was a persona, rather than
any indication of his true social status. For what William was,
so must Spike. If a vampire can be said to have a social status.
But given the company he keeps (Baudelaire quoting Angelus, and
Darla's taste for the finer things in life), he could perhaps
only ever be a rich kid looking for some danger...
[> Interesting thread -- Lunasea, 10:37:15 10/17/03
Fri
Class is determined by who accepts you. Money doesn't determine
class, though it affects it. Education doesn't determine class,
though it affects it. Speech doesn't determine class, though it
affects it. Clothes don't determine class, though it affects it.
Birth doesn't determine class, though it affects it. What determines
class is who accepts someone as their peer.
The best example of social mobility on the show was Darla. As
a human prostitute, she had money, but she wasn't accepted by
others. The traits that made her unacceptable as a human made
her a queen among vampires.
William was from the higher classes (upper or middle doesn't really
matter). As a vampire he adopts the persona of a lower class human,
but this makes him a higher class vampire. As a human he had servants,
as a vampire minions.
Just because the vampire dresses in fine linen or punk leather,
that doesn't determine what vampire class they are in. Clothes
don't make the vampire. It is all about the attitude. Darla's
attitude remained unchanged and what was detrimental to her in
human society become an asset in vampire society. Spike's attitude
does change. The parts of himself that he has to repress to fit
into the higher classes come out in force and make him a higher
class vampire.
[> Re: Spike, William, and Social Mobility [Asking for help
on my media class 'Buffy' project] -- manwitch, 15:33:06
10/18/03 Sat
Well, you could look at Spike's actual mobility, and look at the
models of where he goes and why.
Spike starts as William, seemingly part of the gentleman class,
but the real gents don't seem to want him there. While he is clearly
educated, the others don't seem to value the result and it seems
implied that William's aspirations are not in line with those
of his class station.
Then he gets vamped. There is almost a feudal quality to the vampires.
With the original set of Angel, Darla and Dru, Spike finds some
level of acceptance and in many ways embraces the code of the
nobility. He's like a young arrogant nobleman attempting to assert
his place at court. And his pursuit of Slayers is not just mean-sprited,
it hearkens back to the idea of the noble adversary, the men of
name, the men of blood. Spike, like a nobleman, measure's his
own worth by his fearlessness of his most worthy adversary, slayers,
by his skill in battle with them, and he looks down at those who
would avoid them simply for safeties sake.
When Angel is "deposed" if you will, Spike basically
becomes the lord of the manor. Others pledge their service to
him. He is again their leader and champion precisely because he
demonstrates repeatedly his skill and fearlessness.
So Spike is upper class, even nobility, as a vampire. His lineage
includes Drusilla, Angel, Darla, and the Master. That should get
him a spot in Burke's for Vampires. Spike's betrayal of the vampires
is interesting. Being a traitor does not in and of itself remove
someone from nobility. But in Spike's case, it certainly cast
him out, and the next time we see him, he is essentially a drunken
street person.
When Spike is chipped, he definitely drops down into the lower
class. He now becomes a mercenary at best, but more likely a peasant,
with no means, beggin for scraps, or scheming some way to pilfer
what he needs. Rejected from all sides, he is the total outcast.
He ingratiates himself with the scoobs really in the roll of an
extremely untrustworthy servant.
But Spike's climb into Buffy's good graces that begins with Intervention
brings us into a wierd area. Are their class divisions within
the scoobs? I guess their economy is based on a sort of moral
currency that puts them above both the monsters and the people
that ignore the monsters, and when spike begins to traffic in
that currency, they grudgingly accept him. But to Spike, they
are all of lower status. Merchants. New money. Buffy is their
nobility. She is the one of birth and blood, and so it is to her,
and not the scoobs, that Spike swears his allegiance. He becomes
basically a knight, a courtier of Buffy.
So Spike seems to have traveled from an upper middle class in
which he was looked down on, to an upper class in which he was
subordinate, to an upper class in which he was ascendant, to rock
bottom, back to the middle, and then finally settled on a role
of fidelity to that which in his eyes was most noble.
His journey is always related to a shifting of the values he holds.
His values as William circulate around romantic love rather than
adventure or success. Oddly enough, when he leaves them for good
and becomes a vampire, he embraces their values, even surpasses
them. He becomes the heroic adventurer pare excellence, albeit
with perverse purposes. When he falls from vampire grace, it has
again to do with the resurgence of romantic love. Oddly enough,
his final souled incarnation seems able to finally fuse spike
and william, the noble hero and the romantic lover, but do it
in service to something more than himself. (I'm thinking there's
a connection here to the Book of the Courtier's climactic description
of the perfect courtier dissolving into true love).
So what does that tell us about social mobility?
Follow-up to sdev, Rah, and others: One is the
loneliest number -- Sophist, 10:33:16 10/17/03 Fri
The thread got archived just before I posted this. Here's my response
to sdev's last post:
I'm running out of time to try to respond to all the posts in
this sub-thread, so I'm picking and choosing. I believe the others
are flawed, but doubt I'll be able to go through them in detail.
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.
I believe this sentence fairly epitomizes your argument. I'm going
to limit my response to this, but if you believe I left out anything,
let me know.
Let me break this down a bit:
"Wood feels her to be so" -- Agreed.
"which is shown as the inevitable result of her dual loyalties"
-- Disagree in part. What I think we're shown here is that Nikki
suffered from the same affliction as all other slayers, including
Buffy, namely, the sense of loneliness and isolation that is a
nearly inevitable consequence of being "one girl in all the
world" (who by the way is going to die young). This is exactly
what Faith tells Buffy in End of Days.
Now, this loneliness and isolation does not mean that Nikki didn't
love Robin, any more than it means Buffy doesn't love Dawn. But
it does mean that Robin, like Dawn, may not understand the love
because he and she sense that isolation and interpret it as not
caring.
"thus disallowing the possibility of being a successful mother
who works" -- Disagree entirely. Because the problem I identified
above is unique to slayers, there is no general lesson to be drawn
about working mothers.
From the very beginning, BtVS recognized that Buffy's special
gift was both a blessing and a curse. Consider this dialogue from
Doomed:
Buffy: "Yeah, but you're an amateur - fry cook and I come
from a long line of fry cooks that don't live past 25."
Riley: "Which is exactly the attitude I'm talking about.
Look, I know the risks of what we do. I also know it's more rewarding
than any other job on the planet - and fun."
Buffy: "Fun? The last person I know that believed that is
in a coma right now because she had so much fun on the job."
Riley: "I'm not saying that you shouldn't take your work
seriously."
Buffy: "That I should just turn my frown upside down? Is
that it? I wish I could. But this isn't the kind of gig where
you can just hang it up at the end of the night and snuggle with
your honey."
Riley: "But why? Why can't it be?"
Buffy: "Because I've tried it, okay? And every time it just
fell apart. And then I get sucked right back in to the Uber-evil."
S7 is Buffy's night in Gethsemane. She knows she's special but
doesn't really understand: "Why me?", a question even
more poignant after her death and resurrection. She struggles
with the sense of isolation first by withdrawing even more into
her "special" coccoon, which only isolates her even
more. But at the end, she solves the problem (if I can switch
to metaphor on two levels here) by making immanent the Christ
in all of us.
Replies:
[> Thank You -- sdev, 15:27:30 10/19/03 Sun
I want to voice my appreciation to all participants for the great
civility of this thread. I know I raised a controversial, unpopular
and disturbing (to me at least) interpretation. I did so with
some trepidation. Thank you all for your thoughtful input.
I wanted to make one last point about the source of my discomfort.
Aristotle in his chapter "Character" in Poetics
had the following to say:
The 'Deus ex Machina' should be employed only for events external
to the drama,-for antecedent or subsequent events, which lie beyond
the range of human knowledge, and which require to be reported
or foretold; for to the gods we ascribe the power of seeing all
things. Within the action there must be nothing irrational. If
the irrational cannot be excluded, it should be outside the scope
of the tragedy. (http://www.identitytheory.com/etexts/poetics15.html)
I found a brief explanation of this:
"As in the structure of the plot, so too in the portraiture
of character, the poet should always aim either at the necessary
or the probable. Thus a person of a given character should speak
or act in a given way, by the rule either of necessity or of probability;
just as this event should follow that by necessary or probable
sequence. It is therefore evident that the unraveling of the plot,
no less than the complication, must arise out of the plot itself,
it must not be brought about by the Deus ex Machina -- as in the
Medea, or in the return of the Greeks in the Iliad. The Deus ex
Machina should be employed only for events external to the drama
-- for antecedent or subsequent events, which lie beyond the range
of human knowledge, and which require to be reported or foretold;
for to the gods we ascribe the power of seeing all things. Within
the action there must be nothing irrational. If the irrational
cannot be excluded, it should be outside the scope of the tragedy.
Such is the irrational element the Oedipus of Sophocles."
(http://www.thecore.nus.edu.sg/resources/poetics/15.html)
I believe this is the source of my lack of catharsis. Resolution
for me seemed to take place outside the character.
[> Thank all of You -- fidhle, 19:57:13 10/19/03
Sun
I don't get to review the Board as much as I would like, and often
just lurk, reading the postings. I want to thank all of the posters
in this thread for a very illuminating and civilized discussion
of what has been a contentious issue for many on the Board. Well
done, all.
Fidhle
[> [> I concur. -- Sophist, 20:45:04 10/19/03
Sun
[> [> Re: Thank all of You -- jane, 00:36:09 10/20/03
Mon
It's been a very interesting discussion. I have in my mind's eye
the image of this board as a kaleidoscope, with all the participants
the coloured glass inside. Turn it one way, and one pattern emerges;
another way and something completely different appears. Every
piece of glass is needed to make up the various patterns.
I truly love this board! Thanks everyone for making it so enjoyable.
[> More follow up (should this be moved to 'Reply to Sophist
thread'?) -- sdev, 23:48:14 10/17/03 Fri
This is short. Last night was a ramble.
I think you may be in trouble here. You made my argument for me.
Slayers, our heroine included, are shown as (quoting you) ----
having a "sense of loneliness and isolation that is a nearly
inevitable consequence of being 'one girl in all the world',"
that means "that Robin, like Dawn, may not understand the
love because he and she sense that isolation and interpret it
as not caring,"
"the problem I identified above is unique to slayers, there
is no general lesson to be drawn about working mothers"
And the worst commentary of all from my perspective is that--
"From the very beginning, BtVS recognized that Buffy's special
gift was both a blessing and a curse."
Now you can say that because Buffy and Nikki are Slayers and Slayers
are equal to superheroes, no general message applicable to normal
human characters or mothers apply to them. In which case, Buffy
loses her status as feminist icon and all other comparisons are
moot as well. She is outside the norms of human behavior and no
sub-text or lessons may be drawn. The viewer can only stand back,
look up, and admire the rarity. This of course greatly diminishes
the entire character and story.
Or as is generally done, you can say that Buffy is a stand-in
for girls growing up (early years) and young women reaching adulthood
in which case the sub-text of Buffy as a girl/woman balancing
career and personal life apply as well as myriad others we the
viewers have enjoyed. But you can not do both. Buffy either is
or is not a feminist role model or an attempt to be one. She is
or is not a character that we the viewers can relate to on human
terms.
As to Gethsemane I would say that was Season 6 not 7. And while
I love religious metaphor, I only wish she had made "immanent
the Christ in all of us." Instead she removed herself from
the saviour role in order to move on to normalcy, neither heroic
nor iconic, and inserted a selected few inexperienced and untested
newbies in her stead to fill her shoes as the Chosen One.
[> [> Re: More follow up (should this be moved to 'Reply
to Sophist thread'?) -- Rufus, 19:37:35 10/18/03 Sat
Instead she removed herself from the saviour role in order
to move on to normalcy, neither heroic nor iconic, and inserted
a selected few inexperienced and untested newbies in her stead
to fill her shoes as the Chosen One.
Oh boy do we ever see things differently. Slayers have always
started as potentials, helpless to do much til they get the power
to wield. This left them open to murder like we saw at the begining
of season seven. The potentials were already on the short list
to be The Slayer, but only ONE had the power to properly protect
the world and herself. Buffy changed that, which was foreshadowed
in 'Same Time Same Place'......
BUFFY
I thought you were too tired.
WILLOW
It hurts too much not to try.
BUFFY
I'm sorry.
WILLOW
It just takes so much strength. I don't have that much.
BUFFY
I got so much strength, I'm giving it away.
I think of the Potentials as the wounded Willow who needed the
strength to heal herself so she could carry on helping with the
job of protectin the world. Just because Buffy 'gave away' power
doesn't mean she was rendered powerless. I saw Chosen as a new
begining not an end at all. That was obvious in the conversation
at the edge of the destroyed Hellmouth.....
WILLOW
We changed the world. (walks up to Buffy's side) I can feel them,
Buffy. All over. Slayers are awakening everywhere.
DAWN
We'll have to find them.
WILLOW
We will.
excerpt from the essay The Myth of Sisyphus by Albert
Camus
All Sisyphus' silent joy is contained therein. His fate
belongs to him. His rock is a thing Likewise, the absurd man,
when he contemplates his torment, silences all the idols. In the
universe suddenly restored to its silence, the myriad wondering
little voices of the earth rise up. Unconscious, secret calls,
invitations from all the faces, they are the necessary reverse
and price of victory. There is no sun without shadow, and it
is essential to know the night. The absurd man says yes and
his efforts will henceforth be unceasing. If there is a personal
fate, there is no higher destiny, or at least there is, but one
which he concludes is inevitable and despicable. For the rest,
he knows himself to be the master of his days. At that subtle
moment when man glances backward over his life, Sisyphus returning
toward his rock, in that slight pivoting he contemplates that
series of unrelated actions which become his fate, created by
him, combined under his memory's eye and soon sealed by his death.
Thus, convinced of the wholly human origin of all that is human,
a blind man eager to see who knows that the night has no end,
he is still on the go. The rock is still rolling.
I leave Sisyphus at the foot of the mountain! One always finds
one's burden again. But Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that
negates the gods and raises rocks. He too concludes that all is
well. This universe henceforth without a master seems to him
neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each mineral
flake of that night filled mountain, in itself forms a world.
The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's
heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.
It's easy to be miserly about power, to hold it to yourself, fear
its loss in case it would diminish you, so the act of sharing
the power is a courageous one. Buffy gave every potential the
power while she is alive instead of power decending upon a solitary
girl because another one just died. No potential can change their
status, no chosen one could give back the power she was given,
so why not share the burden among many? I felt that Buffy was
pausing like Sisyphus, looking at what can be just before returning
to the stuggle, no longer alone.
[> [> Re: More follow up (should this be moved to 'Reply
to Sophist thread'?) -- Arethusa, 21:51:23 10/18/03 Sat
Whedon has said he wanted BtVS to show we are all heroes just
for growing up-overcoming all the demons we all face to truly
become adults. Buffy did what she was supposed to do-she grew
up. Now she is able to move on. Buffy's slayer strength is the
strength we all have to help us overcome our own demons. She passed
on her strength to the younger girls, and in doing so she tells
them it is inside them all, and they can use to become what she
is. Buffy is us, and we are all heroes.
But she's not the first slayer to reach this point. Nikki is.
Nikki is a feminist superhero, who chose to uphold her duty and
still have the family she must have wanted very much. Crowley
was no Giles, which we can infer from Wood's attitude towards
slayers, and it's doubtful he encouraged her to raise a child.
But she overcame all obstacles and kept her child. The way Nikki
is presented-patient, loving mother and tough, gifted slayer-is
very similar to Buffy in a way, taking into account that we know
very little about Nikki. That's not a negative portrayal. In fact,
they both died, too, killed by powerful vampires. Buffy's cause
of death was different, however, and she was revived. I never
believed Nikki had a death wish. She simply fought too hard to
be suicidal, in my opinion. She had too much to live for. I can't
think of any reasons to support the idea that Nikki was wrong
to be a slayer and mother. Or that ME meant to say that when they
consequently showed Buffy as a slayer who was also a mother.
You see, unlike you I had a mother who loved me back.
How on earth would Spike know what kind of mother Nikki was? Stalking
her doesn't mean he knew her. That's such a patently false statement
that we really have to look at why Spike is lying. Spike lived
with Darla and Angelus for decades. He knows very well that what
a person was informs what they will become as a vampire. He know
his vampire mother Ann probably meant some of what she said to
him, and he can't accept it. So he lies to cover up his insecurities-not
for the first time. Or maybe he simply hasn't overcome his 100
years of cruelty, after one year ensouled. Angel's still working
on it 100 years after being souled. Spike has a compass, but not
a handbook.
(Just my way of looking at it.)
[> [> [> Re: More follow up (should this be moved
to 'Reply to Sophist thread'?) -- sdev, 23:04:12 10/18/03
Sat
"Nikki is a feminist superhero"
If only. Alas for what could have been with but the smallest bit
of authorial encouragement. She should have been. It was the perfect
set up and timing for that portrayal. But the embittered and vengeful
Wood negated that image not Spike's words.
"Crowley was no Giles, which we can infer from Wood's attitude
towards slayers, and it's doubtful he encouraged her to raise
a child."
The image I got of Crowley was of a more fatherly figure than
Giles. Can you see Giles raising Dawn if Buffy had died. I could
not. Crowley raised Wood. I consider that quite something and
yet not enough for Wood. He turned out to be a stalking methodical
killer.
As to Spike's words "You see, unlike you I had a mother who
loved me back," they are not the problem. Spike is just the
Cassandra for Wood's pre-existing doubts. It is not the reality
of Nikki's love that is in question. It is the fact that Wood
does not believe she loved him that is his issue.
[> [> [> [> Re: More follow up (should this be
moved to 'Reply to Sophist thread'?) -- yabyumpan, 00:36:52
10/19/03 Sun
Interesting the different interpreations of Wood. I actually saw
him as pretty well adjusted. He'd lost his mother at a very young
age to a violent death and was brought up by someone who probably
had very little experience of parenting. And yet he'd managed
to get to his mid-thirties (I'm presuming) and to live a pretty
stable life. I have no idea what the qualifications are for a
School Principal in the US but I would imagine that there's a
fair amount of studying involved and a lot of assesment. If all
he was was a stalking methodical killer, then he'd be in
prison not in charge of a High School. Yes, he did go to Sunnydale
specifically because of the Hellmouth/Buffy and it does seem that
he carried on his mother's work outside of his own work but he
still seemed to be doing a pretty good job as School Pricipal
It was only when he discovered that his mother's killer was also
in SD that he went over the edge. Yes, by that time Spike had
a soul and was not technically the same Vamp who killed Nikki
and I think on an intellectual level Wood understood that. The
problem is that it wasn't an intellectual problem. Imagine if
someone you loved had been killed by someone high on drugs. You
meet them 30 years later when they've been clean for a
year. Does the fact that they are no longer high take away the
pain you've been carrying all those years? While the drugs may
have gone it's still the same face that smirked,it's still the
same voice that mocked and it's still the same hands that twisted
her neck.
I don't see how Woods feelings of pain about the death of his
mother and his feelings of revenge negate anything about Nikki,
anymore than Spike's spiteful words and lack of remourse do. She
was a powerful woman who did the best she could for her son while
trying to do the toughest job in the world. The fact that she
was able to produce a son who would go on to help and mentor other
children in what we were only shown was a positive way, plus the
fact that she probably saved hundreds of lives during her time
as a Slayer certainly puts her up there on the Feminist Superhero
platform. Saving hundreds of lives and producing a useful
member of society is probably more that most of us manage to do.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: More follow up (should this
be moved to 'Reply to Sophist thread'?) -- jane, 01:02:57
10/19/03 Sun
I agree, Wood's reaction was an emotional, not rational response
to being faced with the person who took away his mother. How he
responded to this has little to do with the person Nikki was,
more with his own pain. I doubt that Spike knew anything much
about who Nikki was besides the Slayer, and anything he said to
Wood was his way of twisting the knife (metaphorically) in Wood's
wounds. None of this was about Nikki's parenting ability. It was
about anger and vengeance, and where these things lead.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: More follow up (should
this be moved to 'Reply to Sophist thread'?) -- Ann, 15:44:04
10/19/03 Sun
I also think that Nikki's life (and Wood) were potentially Buffy's
future fears come true. Being the slayer, and being a mother would
be a complicated nightmare. Wood's life story represented the
pure fear Buffy had about becoming a mother. The isolation, the
nights away, the possibility that she wouldn't be there in the
morning to make breakfast much like Joyce was able to be. Imagine
the daycare complications.
Buffy saw in Woods reaction, what her child might think of her.
Yes Wood did become a good citizen (therefore he must have been
given a good foundation from Nikki) but the vengence he carried
in his heart,with extreemely good reason, wore down on him. Being
a victim of violence is hard to bear and recover from. Not something
you wish for your child. As a mother, one of your worst fears
for your child is for you to die. Life is hard enough for a kid
and who would wish that on their child. Buffy would have realized
all of this.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: More follow up
(should this be moved to 'Reply to Sophist thread'?) -- Dlgood,
16:06:40 10/19/03 Sun
When she finds out he's the son of the slayer, she get's quite
excited - one of the rare times Buffy appears genuinrly happy
since early S5. The existence of Wood give her hope that she can
have a child (IMHO something she'd given up on long ago) and a
family legacy of her own. And Wood seems like the type of man
a mother would be proud of.
But, LMPTM takes a bit of the bloom off the rose for her. Reminding
her once again (of something I think she already knew) just how
hard that life would be for her child.
[> [> [> [> Re: More follow up (should this be
moved to 'Reply to Sophist thread'?) -- Dlgood, 09:46:00
10/19/03 Sun
If only. Alas for what could have been with but the smallest bit
of authorial encouragement. She should have been. It was the perfect
set up and timing for that portrayal. But the embittered and vengeful
Wood negated that image not Spike's words.
--------------------------
On this, I disagree. All throughout S7, Spike speaks with authority
and is generally given the uncontradicted last word. After a while,
I began to conclude that he spoke for the authors. Even though
I personally believe Spike was full of hooey, I'm not convinced
the authors shared that sentiment.
[> [> i don't think she removed herself -- anom,
22:36:09 10/19/03 Sun
"Instead she removed herself from the saviour role in order
to move on to normalcy, neither heroic nor iconic, and inserted
a selected few inexperienced and untested newbies in her stead
to fill her shoes as the Chosen One."
How has she left the savior role behind? It seems clear at the
end of Chosen that Buffy & the Scoobies will continue the work
of saving the world from evil, by finding & mentoring the new
Slayers. These "newbies" won't stand in her stead; rather,
they'll join her in fulfilling the savior role (or at least have
the chance to), after having what Buffy didn't: the chance to
become experienced & tested under the tutelage (cross another
one off the words-I've-always-wanted-to-use list) of Slayers who
do have experienc--&, even more important, not to face the
evil alone. And that role will itself become more normal, rather
than being something they have to remove themselves from if they
want to be normal.
[> [> [> Re: i don't think she removed herself
-- jane, 22:46:02 10/19/03 Sun
I think you're right. "Chosen" represents the beginning
of the next part of Buffy's journey. That this part would be a
continuation of her calling seemed obvious to me as I watched.
She still is Chosen, after all. Just not alone in that anymore.
[> [> Re: More follow up (should this be moved to 'Reply
to Sophist thread'?) -- angel's nibblet, 00:18:52 10/18/03
Sat
"inserted a selected few inexperienced and untested newbies
in her stead to fill her shoes as the Chosen One."
Then again this would have happened anyway when Buffy died, which
she eventually would have, one of the many potentials would have
been called and possibly be trained from scratch, which is exactly
what happened to Buffy, and look how she turned out.
[> [> Can I agree with Sdev *and* Sophist? -- Rahael,
08:18:21 10/18/03 Sat
I identified with Buffy because of her sense of isolation and
loneliness. That is what drew me to her. Her otherness, sense
of apartness. The grappling with who she was, what she was, the
kind of choices open to her, what she could do. I think Sophist
put it very well.
And, drawing on from this, there is a sense of disappointment
with the lost opportunities of S7, which might have shown Buffy,
with the maturity of her years, the confidence she should have
drawn from coming back from the brink in S6, finally negotiated
her way into adulthood. I wish that the smile on her face at the
end wasn't something that just occurred in the final episode.
I wish we would could have had a whole season slowly building
up to it, showing her finally putting together her heart, head,
spirit, hand. She disconnected from the viewer for too long. I
wonder whether the writers lost her, just as they lost Anya.
(And I too loved the religious metaphors.)
[> [> [> End of a Phase -- Claudia, 11:38:14
10/20/03 Mon
[And, drawing on from this, there is a sense of disappointment
with the lost opportunities of S7, which might have shown Buffy,
with the maturity of her years, the confidence she should have
drawn from coming back from the brink in S6, finally negotiated
her way into adulthood. I wish that the smile on her face at the
end wasn't something that just occurred in the final episode.
I wish we would could have had a whole season slowly building
up to it, showing her finally putting together her heart, head,
spirit, hand. She disconnected from the viewer for too long. I
wonder whether the writers lost her, just as they lost Anya.]
Buffy had not finished maturing by the end of Season 7. Her story
isn't over yet, as I had explained on another post. The entire
seven seasons was merely about one phase in her life - that passage
from adolescence to adulthood. And as I have stated on the previous
post, some of the best sagas I have read or viewed do not end
with a "happily ever after" tag. Each have ended with
the completion of a phase in the main characters' lives. I think
that Season 7 did a great job in bringing Buffy's character to
the brink of adulthood. She finally learned to confront some of
her worst flaws. She also learned what it was like to be an authority
figure herself, the very people with whom she had often clashed
with in the past - whether as a parent/guardian (as Dawn's sole
guardian), a member of the school faculty (as school counselor)
and most importantly as psuedo-Watcher (as the Potentials' trainer
and leader).
[> [> [> not legally -- skeeve, 13:44:58 10/20/03
Mon
[> [> [> Re: Can I agree with Sdev *and* Sophist?
-- DEN, 09:47:01 10/18/03 Sat
The more I view my tapes of s7, the more convinced I become that
what the writers did was not so much lose Buffy as switch metaphor.
The show for the first six years was essentially a "police
procedural:" the mission involved a "thin slayer line"
keeping an unaware and disinterested society safe from the forces
of darkness and entropy. In s7, the framework became that of a
war story. The SITS were like the Marine squad in "Sands
of Iwo Jima." Buffy, from being the central figure of an
emotionally-bonded surrogate family , was transformed into a commanding
officer: "General Buffy." Similar points of difference
can be multiplied almost at will--the acceptance, for example,
that some deaths are inevitableis an essential contrast to the
Buffy at the end of s5, who refuses to consider losing anybody.
The two approaches, policing and warmaking, are essentially different
in American cultural structures. The adjustment was possible to
make, but I have a sense The writers and preoducers simply lacked
enough familiarity with the "war story" genre to pull
it off--especially given everything else happening with the series.
[> [> [> [> Very interesting -- Rahael, 10:36:54
10/18/03 Sat
In the archived thread I was appealing for a good explanation
as to the use of the miltary metaphor and how it fits into the
larger Buffy arc. Why do you think the shift was made?
And the point about the disposability of the infantry is a striking
point.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Very interesting -- Celebaelin,
02:07:21 10/19/03 Sun
Rah, I know how sensitive you are to issues of this sort so please
forgive me if any of this is too harsh for you, it shouldn't be
and I hope that you will read it, I did after all write it for
your consideration.
C
And the point about the disposability of the infantry is a
striking point.
I think you are mixing up the inevitability of the loss of life
in conducting a war with a callousness regarding the lives of
men in units under his control that no General can afford. The
ancient concept of the Pyrrhic victory is even more valid today
when the equipment and training of the troops is such that their
lives have a definable, and not inconsiderable, financial value
to say nothing of the time it would take to make good losses of
men and materiel and the humanitarian and strategic implications
of heavy casualties.
"Such another victory and we are ruined."
Pyrrhus King of Epirus (319-272 BC)
Commenting on the costliness of his victory at the Battle of Asculum
279 BC
Life of Pyrrhus Plutarch
As regards the introduction of military metaphor I think that
is a point about the acceptance of responsibility. Buffy has fine
credentials as regards self-sacrifice but to accept the role of
leader and be effective in that role implies that your life is
less expendable than those of the people who serve under you.
This, and the divisions it causes, is something of the message
of S7 until Chosen. As an over-simplification and a not entirely
direct parallel with the events depicted, the capture of a high
ranking officer who is in possession of the details of unit strengths
and deployments is a disaster as regards existing plans (or must
be assumed to be one) and the lives of subordinate ranks will
be placed in jeopardy to prevent it. Deaths are, needless to say,
always a tragedy but that is the nature of war: chaotic, tragic
and brutal. No army likes to loose (you could end this sentence
here) high ranking officers, it makes everybody feel that they
haven't done their jobs properly.
I include this second quote as I feel you may like it
"War is, after all, the universal perversion. We are all
tainted: if we cannot experience our perversion at first hand
we spend our time reading war stories, the pornography of war;
or seeing war films, the blue films of war; or titillating our
senses with the imagination of great deeds, the masturbation of
war."
John Rae
The Custard Boys Ch. 6
[> [> [> [> [> [> Not harsh at all, and I
agree completely -- Rahael, 08:13:03 10/19/03 Sun
Hence my mourning in the archived thread that Buffy was a particularly
incompetent general, and aren't good generals meant to be inspiring?
And they don't piss off vital members of the troops to cuddle
with another one either!!!
Actually, one of my sensitivities does extend to the callous treatment
infantry can sometimes receive. These young men who committed
atrocities had been thrown into a terrible situation and given
power they hadn't earned. I felt they were brutalised. It took
me a while before I could recognise their humanity (mostly after
I didn't have to encounter them any more). My aunt recently met
a young man who sobbed and sobbed as he recounted all the people
he had tortured, before he went on to talk about decision to order
the assassination of my mother (I don't think he knew who my aunt
was).
My aunt went to the bathroom and gritted her teeth, fighting the
temptation to throw him out of her office. This is the real world
of conflict, of the battle between 'soldiers' and those who defy
them, and who consequently get cut down. This is the world of
justice and 'vengeance'. It's far more complex and harder and
agonizing than anything ME produced in Lies.
And thank you for engaging with me on this issue - it's always
appreciated!!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Not harsh at
all, and I agree completely -- Dlgood, 08:23:03 10/19/03
Sun
Hence my mourning in the archived thread that Buffy was a particularly
incompetent general, and aren't good generals meant to be inspiring?
Actually, one of my sensitivities does extend to the callous treatment
infantry can sometimes receive.
-------------------------------
Because BtVS, in the hast to show Buffy as being "right",
ME sidestepped the duty of the General to see to the morale and
well being of the troops. I think ME was trying to do something
about that after "Empty Places" (Buffy is criticised
for not even knowing their names) but IMHO never went far enough
to address or admit just how poor a job of leadership she'd done
- and was far more focused on her self-pity and feelings of being
wronged.
It's a very notable contradiction of how AtS handled Wesley's
generalship in Pylea, and his S3 discussion of leadership with
Gunn. I think that was handled far better, storywise, than S7
Buffy.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Not harsh at
all, and I agree completely -- sdev, 11:47:58 10/19/03
Sun
I'm so sorry for your pain. And I apologize if I contributed in
some way including by bringing up this thread.
The writers I would guess had no real world experience of the
tragic kind you are describing. Thus they were only able to depict
in black and white terms what is powerfully messy. Especially
if they meant to comment on the war, they entered territory unknown
to them.
The character of Buffy was never meant to command an army, even
the help of the SG was an extraordinary move for the Slayer who
was supposed to act alone. In S6 Buffy was too preoccupied to
even notice Willow's magic problems. Now Willow has her attention
but she hasn't the faintest idea what to do with the Potentials
whose worlds have been brutally stripped away. She acknowledges
her shortcomings in Touched, I believe. She is aware that she
hasn't the faintest idea what to do leading these girls. For this
I can't fault her because how should she know? She never asked
for them. Circumstances dumped them in her lap.
I also can understand Buffy's reaction to Wood as a reaction to
his betrayal of her. She was also a victim of the plot Wood and
Giles hatched. She was manipulated and lied to, and her specific
plea that Spike be left alone was ignored. While Wood was not
an important figure to her, Giles was and that must have been
very painful for her in the first few moments of her discovery.
Also the pictures on the screen are less harsh than the words
spoken. Buffy bends over and is ministering to Wood's injuries.
In later episodes she inquires as to his physical injuries.
That she never discusses or wants to address Spike's killing of
Nikki, a Slayer and mother, is interesting from another perspective.
She probably doesn't want to think too much on that for fear of
igniting her own reaction to Spike. She is trying to treat him
as a new person because of the soul and because she needs him
right now. To open up that past would create conflicts in her
so she does what she has often done, repress. In all fairness
she implements that standard for herself and expects it from others
including Wood.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Not harsh
at all, and I agree completely -- celticross, 13:41:16
10/19/03 Sun
*sigh* I wish I could find an eloquent and sensible way to articulate
my problems with the Buffy-as-general storyline.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thank you
-- Rahael, 14:42:51 10/19/03 Sun
And don't worry - you did nothing to cause me any pain. I'm still
a little shocked at what a visceral reaction I've had to this
episode! Both yours and OnM's explanations do go some way to reconciling
me to what the writers may have been trying to do. But mostly,
I think, I'm still a little taken aback at many of the decisions
they made last season.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Thank
you -- DEN, 15:36:40 10/19/03 Sun
At the risk of overkill, and begging OnM's pardon for turf-poaching,
I suggest that there is a near-perfect metaphor for s7 in what
is sometimes called the "fighter squadron movie," though
it can also be set on the ground. The classic example is "Dawn
Patrol," done between the world Wars in two versions. The
most familiar stars Errol Flynn and David Niven.
The generic story begins with an ace pilot who takes responsibility
only for himself, but then is ordered to assume command of the
squadron. Now he has to cope with leading and training a bunch
of inexperienced pilots who are constantly being shot down by
the enemy. The old friends on whom he tries to rely either do
not understand, are unsympathetic, or are themselves burnout cases
who can no longer live with their memories (AH plays s7 Willow
almost perfectly to that type. All she needs is a half-full bottle
of whisky on the table in front of her).
The plot can be resolved in several different ways. Important
for present purposes is the story line. We talk so much about
"General Buffy" that we overlook her actual role. It's
LIEUTENANT Buffy--a junior officer who fights alongside those
she commands, and to a significant degree must lead by example
Her "army" is metaphorical. The actual numbers are those
of a fighter squadron or a rifle platoon: two or three dozen,tops.
As has been said above, it is clear that Buffy does not know how
to do this. Her history is of a solo performer, with the scoobies
playing necessary but supporting roles. But the things the show
tries, from the close-order drill consucted by "Sergeant"
Kennedy to Buffy's demonstration, complete with grandstand, of
how to kill an uebervamp, are all borrowed from this war-movie
genre. (And from history. In both World Wars, it was common for
a CO to take a new man on patrol and show him how to shoot down
an enemy plane--managing it so that the fledgeling got credit
for the kill if possible).
Rah, you ask why this shift was undertaken. My theory is that
the growing isolation of the Scoobies from everyday life, a development
often discussed on this forum, made it impossible to fulfil Joss'
stated intention of returning to the show's roots. Instead, by
default, the writers took it in another new direction: towards
the war-story genre. They understood that genre (Which is complex
and richly textured on its own terms) just well enough to outline
it, but lacked the fingertip feel to develop it convincingly.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> BtVS
Remodelled? -- Rahael, 15:47:58 10/19/03 Sun
Excellent, thanks DEN!
You really did make me look at some key moments in a different
way. And it really does cast Chosen in a different light. Buffy
sharing the 'command' with those who take her orders. And I like
the idea of Giles as the mentor-General that Buffy outgrows and
ultimatlely overtakes. I don't think I've seen Dawn Patrol, but
I've seen enough B&W war movies to get what you're referring to.
Hmmmm. Musing on this some more!
(Of course, my favourite 'war' movie is "A matter of life
and death", which comes to mind because David Niven is the
hero, playing an RAF pilot. Recommend it to everyone)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: BtVS Remodelled? -- Dlgood, 15:59:10 10/19/03 Sun
Whereas my favorite war movie is "Paths of Glory". So
naturally, I was quite a bit alarmed by Buffy's repeated insistence
on going to the Vineyard in "Empty Places".
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: BtVS Remodelled? -- DEN, 16:16:17 10/19/03
Sun
Exactly! And fans of the war/action-adventure genre can cite a
dozen similar problems without straining. It is certainly possible
to interpret them internally and say they are meant to highlight
Buffy's shortcomings as a "patriarchal" leader, or the
general deficiencies of that model. But I'm also comfortable seeing
these things as reflecting the production team's lack of familiarity
with a genre that is essentially different from the ones on which
the series had ben based till s7. It's interesting to note that
those kinds of problems were not prominent on "Farspace,"
which did show comfortable familiarity with the conventions of
the war/action genre.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Which
brings up even more problems with Buffy's S7 leadership --
KdS, 11:13:01 10/20/03 Mon
If Buffy's meant to be leading a military unit, then she fails
completely because her actions and speeches actually work against
unity and suggest that the potentials are competing against each
other to be the best lone warrior. There's the way she kills the
Turok-Hahn alone, which may have been meant to demonstrate their
own power to the Potentials but just reinforced their feeling
that they were helpless and she was protecting them. There's also
the "don't let it be you" speech which arguably creates
such perfect cohesion and team spirit that Chloe lets herself
be nagged into suicide rather than seek help from anyone else.
And Buffy's reaction to Chloe's death, that she was weak, simply
reinforces that again.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Which brings up even more problems with Buffy's S7 leadership
-- Claudia, 11:50:47 10/20/03 Mon
Season 7 saw a reversal role in that we saw the world through
the eyes of an adult Buffy, rather than an adolescent one. And
through this new viewpoint, we watched Buffy deal with issues
from this new adult POV - whether as a parent/guardian, school
authority figure and psuedo-Watcher. Because Buffy is a young
adult, she was bound to repeat the mistakes of her authority figures
from the past - including the mistakes that the Watchers' Council
made with her.
She never really gave the Potentials the choice to become part
of her "army" against the First Evil. She inflicted
Quentin Travers-like speeches upon them, and insisted upon them
following her orders. She made the mistake of treating them as
tools in a war - in the very same way that the Watchers' Council
used her and previous Slayers. Fortunately for Buffy, the events
of "Empty Places" and "Touched" made her realize
her mistake, and in the end did something that the Shadowmen and
the WC were never able to do - give the Potentials a choice on
whether to fight or not. By giving them a choice, Buffy not only
empowered the Potentials, but also herself. By giving them a choice,
even the usually reluctant Rona seemed willing to fight by Buffy's
side.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> It's not exactly that -- Dlgood, 16:03:34 10/20/03
Mon
Because even if Buffy sees and treats them as tools, and this
is a wrong thing, she doesn't even do it well.
Buffy's acts were Machiavellian leadership attitudes, without
any of Machiavelli's wisdom or skill. View your troops as tools
- smart. Let them know you see them as tools - stupid. And so
on...
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: It's not exactly that -- Claudia, 12:23:15
10/21/03 Tue
[Because even if Buffy sees and treats them as tools, and this
is a wrong thing, she doesn't even do it well.
Buffy's acts were Machiavellian leadership attitudes, without
any of Machiavelli's wisdom or skill. View your troops as tools
- smart. Let them know you see them as tools - stupid. And so
on...]
I think I had more or less said the same thing . . .
"Because Buffy is a young adult, she was bound to repeat
the mistakes of her authority figures from the past - including
the mistakes that the Watchers' Council made with her.
She never really gave the Potentials the choice to become part
of her "army" against the First Evil. She inflicted
Quentin Travers-like speeches upon them, and insisted upon them
following her orders. She made the mistake of treating them as
tools in a war - in the very same way that the Watchers' Council
used her and previous Slayers."
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Thanks for Clarification -- Dlgood, 13:21:23
10/21/03 Tue
That they are tools, isn't the issue for me. By way of comparison,
Wesley sees everyone (inlcuding himself) as tools in the war against
evil. Yet, with Faith in S4, he shows enough concern for her to
see that he also cares about her. It allows him to retain her
morale, respect and loyalty even as he sends her out to possibly
die.
Whether or not the SiT's should be treated as tools, and whether
Buffy does this are IMHO separate questions. I didn't quite get
that on my first reading of your post, but on further review it's
there.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Slightly different situation --
KdS, 13:54:58 10/21/03 Tue
Given that Faith was still on a massive self-hatred kick at the
time and saw a heroic and redeeming death as something unambiguously
positive.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Not harsh at
all, and I agree completely -- Celebaelin, 17:40:19 10/19/03
Sun
Let me assure you that I am not engaged as regards the matter
of atrocities.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Glad you appreciate
the niceties -- Celebaelin, 17:54:20 10/19/03 Sun
[> [> [> you can always agree with me. -- sdev,
14:02:14 10/18/03 Sat
"the lost opportunities of S7" was how I felt. And at
the end I was asking-- "Buffy who are you?"
[> [> [> [> Who is Buffy? -- Lunasea, 19:00:30
10/18/03 Sat
Marti put it best:
"She started as this isolated, reluctant heroine who wasn't
able to control or grasp her abilities. And by the end she was
someone who'd not only mastered her abilities, but was then able
to give them to others. That's a really beautiful character arc."
I don't think anything else needs to be said. In case is does,
also from Marti
"...she's gone from being a person who lived with the onus
of her responsibilities, to being a person who realizes that if
you give everyone the power there's freedom and power in that."
[> [> [> [> I can? -- Random, 15:30:07 10/18/03
Sat
[> [> [> [> [> In your case it may be may
-- sdev, 23:17:24 10/18/03 Sat
[> [> Is Buffy a feminist icon? -- Sophist, 10:34:06
10/18/03 Sat
Or is she a metaphor for all of us, male and female?
I think it's the latter. I repeat manwitch's mantra: Buffy is
us. She has no color, she has no gender, she has no age; she is
a universal figure.
Now you can say that because Buffy and Nikki are Slayers and
Slayers are equal to superheroes, no general message applicable
to normal human characters or mothers apply to them.
I don't see it as quite such and either-or proposition. If, by
your logic, Buffy stands in for all women in all cases, then she
can't really be unique, chosen. The way around this is to recognize
the tension between someone who is a universal figure and yet
unique. The uniqueness may give rise to certain issues particular
to Buffy, and I believe the show has recognized this from the
beginning (The Harvest: "I'm the slayer and you're not").
The isolation that comes from that has been a persistent theme,
yet that theme would make no sense if we had to see Buffy as Everywoman
in every case.
S7 attempted to resolve that tension. I happen to love the resolution.
Instead she removed herself from the saviour role in order
to move on to normalcy, neither heroic nor iconic
I see it differently. She didn't remove herself from the saviour
role, she made all of us saviours. She is now "normal"
only in the sense that we no longer live through her, but
with her.
[> [> [> Re: Is Buffy a feminist icon? -- sdev,
21:41:00 10/18/03 Sat
I can readily accept in theory that Buffy is us. Buffy doesn't
have to stand for women in particular, although the authors would
argue with you there. But as a practical matter she is a woman
and thus stands for them on some level in the minds of viewers.
To say otherwise is both to contradict reality and diminish her
meaning. In the end only girls got empowered. If this is a blind
alley I am certainly lost.
Buffy can be universal and have more specific meanings at the
same time. She can stand as a general example of all maturation
and also more narrowly teenage girls' angst growing up. But I
don't see as legitimate the attempt to say some real life human
comparisons can be made but others do not apply.
"If, by your logic, Buffy stands in for all women in all
cases, then she can't really be unique, chosen. The way around
this is to recognize the tension between someone who is a universal
figure and yet unique."
So you draw the line of uniqueness where? Not a stand in for all
women, any women, any men? And where then is her universality?
Why do you remove from the realm of metaphor the uniqueness and
isolation Buffy feels which fits in quite effortlessly with the
real world problems of people today?
The contradiction between both the every woman and the uniqueness
inherent in Buffy is the core of her problem and ours as a society
which tends to categorize and thus diminish potential, particularly
in women. Buffy's sense of isolation and conflict between aspects
of her person and life, her sense of the crushing weight of crises,
her myth-sized relationship troubles are all fodder for the metaphor
mill. We are all the heroes of our own lives.
"she made all of us saviours"
Actually Buffy made only a very few selected girls saviours. I
have trouble with how this works on a literal level even within
the story. And I don't, as Rufus has suggested, have a problem
with Buffy giving others power, per se, I just don't see where
it fixes Buffy or the world.
Rufus quotes Camus:
"But Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that negates the
gods and raises rocks. He too concludes that all is well. This
universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile
nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each mineral flake of that
night filled mountain, in itself forms a world. The struggle itself
toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. "
That quote from Camus actually embodies what I think. Debunk the
external master and find the master within yourself.
[> [> [> [> Re: Is Buffy a feminist icon? --
Sophist, 08:14:40 10/19/03 Sun
I think we've kind of talked this through. Rather than respond
to individual points you raised, let me add a few points about
the meaning Buffy has for me. In doing so, I'm not making
any comment on your own interpretation of Buffy. I'm just sharing
my thoughts.
I know that it's common to speak of Buffy as a feminist icon.
JW has implied this, reviewers cite it in support, authors write
books with that as the theme, it's a commonplace on the net. This
means something a little different to me than it may mean to others.
In one sense, having Buffy as a feminist icon (TM) may mean that
the message we get from her and from the show is directed mostly
(exclusively?) to women. That is, that feminism is a way to empower
women, to encourage them to work through the specific problems
they face. I think that this interpretation of the show is very
valuable; certainly I felt my own daughters watched with this
perspective and learned from it.
But the show always meant something different to me. To me, feminism
is a lens, a perspective, through which to view human problems.
In my interpretation, the message Buffy sends is not just
for women, it's for all of us, male and female alike. I never
saw Buffy face a problem as a woman, I saw her face a problem
as a person. She stood for me, even though I'm male.
When Buffy empowered the Potentials, I felt she empowered me.
And everyone else too. She didn't diminish or reject her own power,
she made me aware of and enhanced my own.
As I said somewhere above, I always felt a tension in the show's
central metaphor: if only one is Chosen, can she really stand
for me? The answer is yes, as long as the metaphor holds. But
the metaphor is unstable precisely because it has to focus on
a unique individual while symbolizing all of us. Chosen resolved
this dilemma. Look around, Buffy says. If you can be a Slayer,
you will be a slayer. Can stand up, will stand up. You are me
after all.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Is Buffy a feminist icon?
-- sdev, 11:10:40 10/19/03 Sun
"Look around, Buffy says. If you can be a Slayer, you will
be a slayer. Can stand up, will stand up. You are me after all."
Very well spoken. Even if there is a bit of spin, it's one I like
because it addresses the issue of the inherent power inside not
the external power granted. I will think more.
And thanks for a great discussion.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Is Buffy a feminist
icon? -- Dlgood, 11:42:57 10/19/03 Sun
I was going to make the comment that, if you weren't already one
of the "Chosen people", Buffy wouldn't have anything
to offer.
But, then I remembered that I'm Jewish. :-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> Thank you. In both senses.
-- Sophist, 15:46:15 10/19/03 Sun
[> [> [> [> Who did Buffy empower? -- Lunasea,
09:33:18 10/19/03 Sun
In the end only girls got empowered. If this is a blind alley
I am certainly lost.
Let's see, there's Angel. Had to bring him back so the fans could
see how far he came. Spike. He would have been the First's meat
puppet if it wasn't for "She believes in me." Giles.
Buffy empowered him to get beyond the Patriarchy that was imprissioning
him. Xander. Buffy showed him that he was still valuable to her
even if he couldn't fight. Andrew. Buffy got him to mourn Jonathan's
death.
Actually Buffy made only a very few selected girls saviours.
Actually, Spike is the one that did the saving. The Scythe Spell
is balanced by Spike being the one to clean up.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Who did Buffy empower?
-- Claudia, 14:44:28 10/22/03 Wed
I would like to add Willow, Dawn, Wood, Anya and Faith - via Angel
and Wood.
[> [> [> Well said indeed... -- Random, 11:15:21
10/18/03 Sat
I see it differently. She didn't remove herself from the saviour
role, she made all of us saviours. She is now "normal"
only in the sense that we no longer live through her, but with
her.
Nor do I perceive there to be something wrong with normalcy. In
the very end, Buffy manages to distill all the best qualities
of the Scooby Gang in her person. She become the leader and mentor
of the SiT's and the SG, as Giles was, transcending generalissimo
Buffy. She became the spiritual leader as well, sharing her power
with the Potentials all over the world. And, finally, she became,
as you say, universal. At last, the title of Everyman (Everywoman)
finally has an application that no longer needs struggling metaphors
to rationalize. She isn't reduced to normalcy. She achieves
it. For now we've come to a complete circle. The Buffy of S1 (oh
so long ago) was introduced with the hook -- she wanted to be
a normal kid. It was the source of the tension in the beginning.
But something beautiful happened. From this rather ordinary thematic
and plot device was created a much more powerful narrative of
pain, suffering, triumph and redemption. In the end, Buffy is
who she is. And she may still have her powers, may still kick
some ass, but she has finally become not the Slayer but
a Slayer. What a difference an article makes, the simple
change in one of the most unconsidered parts of speech contains
profundities. Neither Faith nor Kendra truly lifted her burden
-- Kendra died a year after being called, while Faith, of course,
went to the dark side. I remember Kendra telling Buffy, "it's
who you are" and now I see finally what Kendra inadvertently
touched on: she wasn't referring to Buffy's power, or even her
drive. She wasn't saying, IMO, that Buffy could choose no other
life. She was saying that Buffy did choose that life, and
it is choice that makes her truly a Slayer. Kendra never really
chose. She was raised and indoctrinated from early childhood in
the path of the Slayer. Buffy, however, did choose. And, more
to the point, she gave the SiT's the choice. Very specifically.
They could fight, maybe die, or run away. (Okay, so no-one got
a choice in whether to receive Slayer Powers, but that's another
issue.) If being normal contraindicates being heroic, then Giles
and Xander and Gunn and Wesley and (until recently, anyway) Cordy
aren't
heroic. I can't buy that thesis. They are all heroes, and, in
a sense, all iconic. What they are iconic of, what heroism they
embody, those change and are the topic of other threads. But Buffy,
to me, is a feminist icon even over and above the empowering of
so many women in Chosen -- for what can be more feminist than
the right to choose one's own life, to be what one wants to be?
BTW, I may get back to the mother's thread. I'm just kinda burned
out for the sec. Tired, you understand. Hopefully I'll find motivation
before this thread is archived.
[> [> [> Re: Buffy is us -- manwitch, 14:25:37
10/18/03 Sat
I confess I side with Sophist on this, and not just because he
flatters me by including my name in his argument.
The parents thread was interesting, but I really do wish that
everybody would read and reread and really think about lunasea's
posts in that thread. I think the point to be considered is not
what the ultimate interpretation is, but how we come to it, what
we include, what matters in the process of interpretation.
Buffy the Vampire Slayer is appropriately named. It is
about Buffy. The "meaning" of the series has to do with
Buffy, what happens to her on her journey. This relates back to
literary skills. Buffy is the protagonist. The message being sent
by the authors, whatever it may be, has to do with this particular
protagonist, what her goals and needs are, what obstacles she
faces along the journey towards them, how she overcomes those
obstacles, and most importantly, in true protagonist fashion,
how she changes and develops as a result.
All the other characters contribute to that story. They do not
hijack it, they do not replace it. This is ultimately the story
of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. So when you look at any aspect of
the story, or what is being depicted, in order to really interpret
it in relation to the meaning of the series, or in relation to
"what the authors are saying," you have to aknowledge
how what your talking about relates to Buffy's story. To depict
in a work of art a murder or a rape is not the same thing as advocating
it. How does what is depicted relate to the entire work?
So to the case in point, Wood is not the central character. His
significance is in how he relates to Buffy, how his presence influences
Buffy's development. The backstory we get about Wood to flesh
out his character gives us information to help us understand this
character's relationship to Buffy. But it does not, independent
of Buffy's development, tell us anything about the message
the authors are trying to send. To say that Nikki is an example
of a mother unable to harmonize the roles of working mother and
loving mother is not at all the same thing as attributing to the
authors the message that the two rolls are necessarily incompatible.
Not that Nikki is an example of that. I agree with Sophist
there as well. The fact is, mothers do have responsibilities other
than loving their children. And sometimes they must do the best
they can to do what's best for their children in the actual
circumstances in which they live. That in itself is loving,
whether or not the child is capable of recognizing it. There is
no ideal for mothers to slip into where the realities of their
lives disappear.
And, as lunasea also pointed out repeatedly, the "message"
of the show is not about parents anyway. Parents effect the message,
but the message is how people develop the ability to love, to
share, to take care of themselves, to free themselves from the
demons of the past. The point of Nikki, to me at least, is that
Wood is stuck. He is so stuck that he will let the world end rather
than surrender the endless rehashing of his tiny irrelevant little
issue. Buffy's point is something akin to "I don't care what
your parents did to you, I don't care what you think they
did to you. I have responsibilities now, and so do you."
The message seems to me far less likely to be that working mothers
are incompatible with loving mothers than "Get over it. The
world is running right now, and you have to decide whether or
not you're going to be part of it." Its pretty close to the
message Buffy has just learned for herself in relation to her
real father, not Hank, but Giles.
Of course, even to the degree that we grant the show was setting
up a critical position on the results of working mothers or single
mothers or what have you, we need to remember that ultimately
Buffy upends the whole system of which that model was a part.
No matter how you look at it, the authors seem to be saying that
we are not mere prisoners of our past. We can make things different
by loving, connecting, sharing.
And again, as lunasea repeatedly pointed out, the absence of parents,
or the failure of parents to live up to their responsibilities
or to be part of their children's lives, whether for Wood, Willow,
Xander, Buffy, or whomever, is never celebrated, or even
ignored. In all cases, the way these people grew up, the relationships
or lack of same that they have with their parents have considerable
influence on who they are, on what their problems are, on how
they need to develop. We see consistently that what parents have
done or not done, or how we perceive what they have done or not
done, matters a great deal. But I don't think the authors focus
is to show how poor parenting is in turn-of-the-century America.
I think the authors' focus, and what is celebrated, is
the optimism of how you can rebuild yourself, how you can find
your family outside of your blood, and in spite of your past build
meaningful relationships and identities.
To further make this point, here is a quote from one of the authors,
a Joss Whedon, on this very subject:
"When we created the show, they said, 'Do you want Buffy's
family?' and I said, 'Well, mom and whatnot, but basically, she
has a family. Her father is Giles, her sister is Willow, and it's
already in place.' I had some things go on in my life that made
me say, 'I really want to get this message out, that it's not
about blood.' Tara was the perfect vehicle for that. Family is
as much of a didactic message show as I've ever done. Hopefully
an entertaining one...I actually love my family! We've been an
unconventional family. I was a child of divorce, and there was
a lot of shuffling around. And there were people who were not
in my family who became of my family."
(From Joss Whedon: The Genius Behind Buffy by Candace Havens,
page 75)
I think that's what he was after, and it seems to me that's what
he got. Joyce and Giles are good parents. Heck, even the Mayor
is a pretty damn good father in his way. And that Faith needs
it is unquestioned. But no matter how many examples you may have
of absent, irresponsible or downright bad parenting, you can't
attribute a message to the authors without relating these images
to the work as a whole. A motif is not the same as a theme. If
you want to get a theme out of it, you have to consider not just
what appears to be shown, but how that relates to the story of
the protagonist.
Not that it can't be done in this case. But so far, I'm with Sophist.
[> [> [> [> Thanks -- Lunasea, 18:48:37
10/18/03 Sat
[> [> [> [> Re: Buffy is not us -- sdev, 22:08:52
10/18/03 Sat
Thanks for the good Yankee wishes below, generous considering
your allegiances. Unfortunately Game 1 is history now.
I didn't need to see JW's comments to know that he had trouble
with his nuclear family growing up. I think that is exactly what
is apparent in the show. I certainly am not looking at it as a
commentary on parenting in 20-21st Century America. But it is
clear to me that the parenting gaps presented in the show created
some big problems in the characters despite there fill-ins with
substitute family. Did the characters overcome it? Maybe, after
some irrevocable havoc. Willow brutally murdered someone, Xander
abandoned his love at the altar and never faced up to his fear
of intimacy, Giles has no friends or lovers and also seems to
have intimacy fears, and I consider it doubtful that Wood effectively
recovered from his life-long belief that his mother abandoned
him. I don't really want to explore JW''s real life but maybe
some unexpressed feelings about how he was short-changed leached
into the story. Granted his response is much healthier than Wood's.
As to POV and author endorsement I covered that in my archived
post. But to reiterate in shorthand. We were shown how the child
Wood perceived and interacted with his mother, and we were shown
who Wood became. That is the POV- cause and effect. The authors
don't tell us whether Wood was right or wrong to attack Spike
or to have devoted his life to vengeance. The viewer can make
their own judgement as to whether Wood turned out well. I also
agree that Buffy's message to Wood was get over it. I'm in a war.
Do you think that helped Wood reconsider his life?
"Buffy is the protagonist. The message being sent by the
authors, whatever it may be, has to do with this particular protagonist,
what her goals and needs are, what obstacles she faces along the
journey towards them, how she overcomes those obstacles, and most
importantly, in true protagonist fashion, how she changes and
develops as a result."
Yes I quite agree here otherwise the Nikki story would not resonate.
It is a disturbing echo. If you read my posts in the prior thread
I indicated that Nikki/Wood was just an overt statement of the
conflict Buffy herself expressed throughout the series which Sophist
articulated in this thread.
The change and development of Buffy is the core subject. And I
do not see a real resolution of Buffy's issues. I know from other
posts that you see a post-modern feminist theme in Chosen, but
I don't agree with that message as empowering women. That message,
even if it is achieved which I am not sure it is given the very
limited pool of Potentials, is a political (socialist/Marxist)
one to which I don't subscribe. I don't see the problem as one
of a paternalistic political system. Buffy felt the pressure to
be normal, as in to conform to norms. The pressure Buffy felt
to conform was more of a threat to her personal sovereignty than
any outside force in the shape of a Watcher's Council or Shadow
Men. Her personal conflict was the issue raised throughout then
dropped in favor of the political message of sharing and cooperation
and the illusion of a normal life.
I see the problem as personal and psychological empowerment which
occurs within a person by embracing one's uniqueness
and ab-normalness (nod to MB), not externally by creating a new
but limited class of empowered women. Buffy's answers have never
been external to her, even in the midst of an apocalypse her power
lay in her problem solving creativity and her willingness to use
her personal resources which included her well developed friendships.
She had trouble accepting her Slayer role, her specialness, and
her power. How were those issues resolved by creating others with
her power? How did she solve her problems connecting by activating
strangers? Did having Faith or Kendra, other Slayers, ever fix
her problems? Season 7 dissolves with smoke and mirrors external
to the protagonist.
[> [> [> [> [> Vengeance -- Lunasea, 09:24:42
10/19/03 Sun
We have seen what vengeance can do on the series. It resulted
in the death of the village that cursed Angel. It resulted in
Angelus being brought back. It resulted in Dark Willow. Now we
see Robin and his vendetta.
But Robin is more than his vendetta. He is camped on top of the
Hellmouth, not to find the vamp that killed his mother. "The
hell mouth draws the bad things in close, and now we're headed
for something big, Buffy. Really big, and I need to be here when
it happens. I want to help." Robin is a lot more than the
man that tried to kill souled Spike. He is also the man that was
Buffy's ally and managed to reach Faith. Robin's vengeance didn't
consume him. He goes on the same path that Buffy does and learns
that power is to empower others.
First Date really sets Robin up well.
BUFFY: Wh-why didn't you tell me about you?
PRINCIPAL WOOD: I wasn't sure about things yet.
BUFFY: Y-you didn't think you could trust me?
PRINCIPAL WOOD: No, no. No, I wasn't sure I was ready yet-ready
to jump into this fight.
BUFFY: And now you are?
PRINCIPAL WOOD: Well, now the fight is starting-or starting to
start-and I don't have time to worry anymore. I have to do something.
Robin's vengeance is transformed and shows that even this cardinal
sin of the Buffyverse doesn't make someone totally lost.
I think he was a rather fitting addition to a season about using
power to empower others.
[> [> [> [> [> resolving the protagonists issues.
-- manwitch, 20:49:42 10/19/03 Sun
The change and development of Buffy is the core subject. And
I do not see a real resolution of Buffy's issues. I know from
other posts that you see a post-modern feminist theme in Chosen,
but I don't agree with that message as empowering women. That
message, even if it is achieved which I am not sure it is given
the very limited pool of Potentials, is a political (socialist/Marxist)
one to which I don't subscribe.
Well, I have misstated and misrepresented my position if I have
suggested that I think the resolution of Chosen, which
is in my view the resolution of the entire series, was a "political"
resolution. And I certainly would never wish to suggest that its
message is ultimately one of marxist socialist politics (a very
different thing from postmdernism or postmodern feminism). In
my view, Buffy's story is about spirituality. What she achieves
in Chosen is metaphorically spiritual bliss, a unification
with the divine, the complete overcoming of ego and differentiation.
So, its less important to me who, in the literal script of the
show, she shared power with in political terms than it is that
she overcame a limiting vision of herself and arrived instead
at boundless possibility through love and sharing. I would agree
with your comments on normalcy. I think Normal Again is
precisely a reiteration of that theme that you mention. And that
certainly holds through Season 6. But I would argue that Season
7 takes us to a new place. The resolution of Season 7 is not about
being "normal" again or surrendering one's uniqueness
in the context of our political or social conventions. Its about
transcending the division of normal and abnormal, of reconciling
the opposites, and recognizing that you are not this unique and
special body that has carried you through life, but rather you
are the life that has been contained in this body, as it is contained
in all the others. You identify yourself not with what is normal,
but with what is shared by the great family of human kind. I saw
what Buffy did in Chosen as metaphorical of that, not a statement
about politics.
The interesting thing for me is the way the spiritual elements,
which I believe are decidedly Eastern, dovetail with Postmodern
critical theory. Buffy's identity is dispersed throughout the
network of her interactions, not isolated and contained within
her. The host of binary oppositions that defined her and her mission
are disolved. I guess I would describe my take on it as postmodern
spirituality.
I think its pretty easy, actually, to make convincing arguments
that Buffy is a feminist show with a feminist message, whether
postmodern or other. I think, honestly, that its a pretty tall
order to make a convincing argument that it is not. Obviously
any work of literature or art will have unintended consequences,
themes and ideas that slip away from the conscious intent of its
creators. And it is certainly possible that some of those may
even contradict the avowed intentions of the authors. In my view,
for what its worth, that's a different sort of argument.
My position would be that while it is strongly feminist, it is
also much more. While the resolution of Chosen arguably
contains a message of female empowerment in political and social
terms, I think it is primarily a message of spiritual empowerment
that transcends gender, and any particular social or political
arrangements.
Obviously, I liked the resolution of Season 7, but then is saw
her issues as precisely the ones that were resolved in Chosen.
I have written at length, way too much length, about my spiritual
interpretation of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I will bring it up
here only to say that as early as Help it was clear to
me that Spike was being used to represent Buffy's "otherness,"
that her success this season would be predicated on some form
of declaration of love for Spike (symbolic of her finally being
able to incorporate "otherness" into herself), and that
declaration would coincide with the end of Spike (when the obstacle
is overcome, the metaphor for it is superfluous) and quite possibly
of Buffy (When she reaches Bliss, there is nowhere else to go).
I also suggested repeatedly throughout the season that Buffy would
simultaneously need to surrender her status as Chosen One (it's
her very sense of self that is her final obstruction). I was not
spoiled, and my point is not to claim any great skills as a prognosticator.
Many others were feeling the same way, and Lord knows I had no
idea how they would do it. But however it was done, it was clear
that only those things would bring about a resolution of
the protagonists issues. She was on a spiritual journey towards
enlightenment, and in Season 7 the final obstacle confronting
her was her own sense of self and how it isolated her from the
world and cut her off from divinity. As I've said before, the
First Evil was about separation. So I think the protagonist's
issues were completely and beautifully resolved. Was the resolution
internal or external to our protagonist? It was both and neither.
She annihilated the division.
(Like the Yankees do. Every year.)
[> [> [> [> [> [> clarification taken
-- sdev, 22:37:43 10/20/03 Mon
Obviously, my misread of your take on Chosen. Although, I stand
by my definition of postmodern feminism as a valid and accepted
interpretation, just not yours.
As you say yours is much more Eastern and spiritual. It reminds
me of Buffy's description of heaven in the Gift, very otherworldly.
We seem to be operating on much different levels, you and I. I
have a very pragmatic bent.
What I really wondered about is this comment:
Obviously any work of literature or art will have unintended
consequences, themes and ideas that slip away from the conscious
intent of its creators. And it is certainly possible that some
of those may even contradict the avowed intentions of the authors.
In my view, for what its worth, that's a different sort of argument.
What different sort of argument is that? I did not understand
this.
By the way, just last night I happened to read someone say that
JW was sent to boarding school (don't know if it's true). I really
don't follow lives of actors, writers, etc., so I'm kind of oblivious
to these types of facts. But I thought that was interesting in
light of our discussion.
I also wondered whether the comment you made (quoted below) indicated
you believe Buffy truly meant she loved Spike when she told him
so at the end of Chosen. From what you said, I believe you would
have to.
her success this season would be predicated on some form of
declaration of love for Spike (symbolic of her finally being able
to incorporate "otherness" into herself)
Last, I was always interested in reading your Spike and Nietzsche
analysis but can't find it in the archives. Any help welcomed.
[> [> [> [> Very nice! -- Ponygirl, 16:09:43
10/18/03 Sat
[> [> [> [> Tiny irrelevant little issue? --
Rahael, 16:29:26 10/18/03 Sat
The point of Nikki, to me at least, is that Wood is stuck.
He is so stuck that he will let the world end rather than surrender
the endless rehashing of his tiny irrelevant little issue. Buffy's
point is something akin to "I don't care what your parents
did to you, I don't care what you think they did to you. I have
responsibilities now, and so do you."
Yes, I agree that's what the ep was trying to say. And that's
one of the reasons I felt so strongly about it. Tiny and irrelevant?
Not to me. And i think BtVS loses it's moral heart when it tries
to state such a thing.
I guess it's hard for me to see why it's so trivial.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Tiny irrelevant little issue?
-- MaeveRigan, 19:04:18 10/18/03 Sat
Tiny and irrelevant? Not to me. And i think BtVS loses it's
moral heart when it tries to state such a thing.
That's really it, isn't it? Although I basically agree with manwitch,
for the most part, I must say that it would have gone a good way
towards redeeming the harshness of LMPTM if Buffy, at least, could
have acknowledged some sympathy, some awareness that Wood's issue
was not "tiny" or "irrelevant"--at least to
him--before insisting--quite rightly, under the circumstances--that
he pull himself together and grow up.
On the other hand, the episode wasn't Buffy's finest hour with
her own remaining "parent," Giles. Problematic all around.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Apocalypses, mountains
and molehills -- Rahael, 19:28:11 10/18/03 Sat
BtVS thrives on the 'big' moments. The end of the world. THe mayor
turning into a giant serpeant, ready to devour Sunnydale's citizens.
Acathla's mouth opening, sucking everyone into hell, an army of
manufactured demon-human zombies going to lay waste to Buffy's
town.
But I didn't watch BtVS for those moments. I watched it for Buffy's
heart breaking on the bus ride out of Sunnydale. For Oz and Willow
making love in the face of what seemed like certain death. For
the Scoobies taking a moment to realise they'd graduated. For
Faith and Buffy's emotional stand off, a physical fight that actually
represented something more, something incredibly resonant. I watched
it to see Buffy affirm that the world that demanded the sacrifice
of Dawn was not a world that she could live in.
The landscape of Buffy's heart and the landscape of Sunnydale
was symmetrical. They echoed each other beautifully.
So yes, exactly, this is what I found so troubling. That it seemed
to say, "some woman died. who cares? a manifestation of ultimate
evil is raising an army of neanderthal vampires!"
Were the end of the world to come, I would be found sadly wanting.
I would not be able to get past the moment. That tiny, irrelevant
moment when I thought myworld ended. As I'm sure Wood's
did. I started watching BtVS and I watched this heroine, and I
thought, 'here is this tv show that puts my feelings and pain
and my feeling of emotional apocalypse like nothing else I've
ever seen before'. The map of my heart.
Only, some woman died. Who cares?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> The change in Buffy
from S5 to S7 -- Caroline, 21:26:25 10/18/03 Sat
There are 2 Buffys that we are talking about here. Rah, your Buffy
is Buffy from the Gift - the one that won't sacrifice Dawn to
save the world. The Buffy that Sophist and manwitch are talking
about is the Buffy of S7 - the one that would sacrifice Dawn (and
also, the one that would say that Wood's problems amounted to
a hill of beans in this crazy world). S5 Buffy would not destroy
her sister to save the world, the S7 Buffy would. But S7 Buffy
could not have come to that stance without making the decision
to not sacrifice Dawn in S7. The difference lies in the fact that
by S7, Buffy had come to a fuller realization of the feminine
archetype. In S5, she had fully realized only one aspect of it
- the nurturing, compassionate side. In S7, she had learnt that
femininity is more - it's destruction and revenge and blind justice
too. Sometimes femininity appears uncaring, but that is just the
realization of the implacability of life - birth, life, death.
Bad things sometimes happening to good people. It's hard and heart-breaking
but what I think is a great message here is that although devastating
things can happen to you, you can get to a point where they no
longer devastate you. Buffy survives and grows. I'm sorry I can't
expand on this right now as I'm on my travels, but I will try
to get to this later.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The change
in Buffy from S5 to S7 -- yabyumpan, 23:25:18 10/18/03
Sat
It's hard and heart-breaking but what I think is a great message
here is that although devastating things can happen to you, you
can get to a point where they no longer devastate you. Buffy survives
and grows.
I think one of the problems in S7 with Buffy and LMPTM (and that
scene in particular really high-lighted it), is that she no longer
seemed to care if it devasteted anyone else. In fact at times
she showed open contempt when it did. That to me is not a fuller
realization of the feminine archetype, that's just being closed
off and at the bottem line, just plain mean. The nurturing, compassionate
side seemed to get lost.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The
change in Buffy from S5 to S7 -- Dlgood, 08:27:46 10/19/03
Sun
That to me is not a fuller realization of the feminine archetype,
that's just being closed off and at the bottem line, just plain
mean. The nurturing, compassionate side seemed to get lost.
------------------
It's not lost - it's just fixated solely on Spike. Buffy has time
to nurture Spike in a highly compassionate fashion. She seems
to have no time or interest to be nurturing or compassionate for
others. It's tremendously ironic, considering that she took a
job as guidance counselor.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
The change in Buffy from S5 to S7 -- DEN, 16:29:42 10/19/03
Sun
And even there, to what extent is Buffy's nurturing of Spike instrumental--that
is, doing what is needed to bring "our best fighter"
back on line in some kind of shape? A deeper question: is overt
sympathy always the most optimal form of nurturing? Can it be
said legitimately that at times one has to be cruel--or demanding,
or insensitive--to be kind? Does Buffy perhaps understand something
correctly but execute it poorly?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Buffy
and Leadership -- Claudia, 12:03:08 10/20/03 Mon
[I think one of the problems in S7 with Buffy and LMPTM (and that
scene in particular really high-lighted it), is that she no longer
seemed to care if it devasteted anyone else. In fact at times
she showed open contempt when it did. That to me is not a fuller
realization of the feminine archetype, that's just being closed
off and at the bottem line, just plain mean. The nurturing, compassionate
side seemed to get lost.]
Was it lost even in the end? I don't think so. She still tried
to protect Dawn from the upcoming apocalypse by getting Xander
to send Dawn away from Sunnydale. I think the real difference
between Season 5 and Season 7, is that in the latter season, Dawn
was willing to participate in the final fight. In S5, she was
merely a victim of circumstance, until that final moment when
she had volunteered to sacrifice herself out of despair.
As for Buffy's leadership skills - she is partly right. In the
movie "Gettysburg", Robert E. Lee said that a good general
must be willing to destroy what he loves - namely the men who
served under him. Buffy probably realized that the only way to
deal with sending the Potentials to their possible death was to
emotionally distance herself from them. Yet, she had expressed
to both Spike and Robin Wood, how much she hated using the SITs
as canon fodder.
The problem with Buffy is that she had distanced herself too much
from those under her. Should she have become much closer, as Faith
did in "Empty Places"? Not really. Another mistake in
leadership one can make is becoming too close to the troops. In
"Band of Brothers", one officer (played by Neil McDonough)
became close friends with most of the men under his command. And
when two of them were seriously wounded, he suffered a mental
breakdown . . . because he got too close.
Perhaps what Buffy should have done was maintain some kind of
balance in her leadership style - not too close and not too distant
- as any good leader would have done.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> The landscape of
the heart -- mamcu, 19:33:09 10/19/03 Sun
I see what you're saying, and it is really a faultline in the
end of the series--the idea that one death is somehow less than
many deaths. The end of the world is an abstraction but Woods'
experience was a concrete reality, and perhaps even moreso because
the rest of the world survived intact while only his universe
was destroyed.
Perhaps though we should remember that the landscape of Buffy
is after all California, where nothing is permanent, nothing really
matters, and all is rearranged without notice by a sudden subterranean
shift--and that California is maybe a metaphor for the world we
all live in now, where the individual loss is nothing because
whatever we all are will be totally changed by the next rearrangement
of power, influence, or whatever we mistakenly think is bedrock.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Beautifully
put -- Rahael, 04:57:22 10/20/03 Mon
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Why California?
-- Claudia, 14:31:52 10/22/03 Wed
[Perhaps though we should remember that the landscape of Buffy
is after all California, where nothing is permanent, nothing really
matters, and all is rearranged without notice by a sudden subterranean
shift--]
Why California? Any part of the world can be used as this metaphor.
Nothing is permanent anywhere in the world. How did California
earn this reputation?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> San Andreas
fault -- mamcu, 16:50:21 10/22/03 Wed
But in my life there, which was extraodinarily happy, I also thought
it was more than most places prone to violent inexplicable changes
of heart in public and private life (did someone say Arnold?)
[> [> [> [> [> Misunderstanding? -- Sophist,
21:22:58 10/18/03 Sat
manwitch is perfectly able to speak for himself, but I'm wondering
if there's a misunderstanding here. Here is what he said:
the message is how people develop the ability to love, to share,
to take care of themselves, to free themselves from the demons
of the past. The point of Nikki, to me at least, is that Wood
is stuck. He is so stuck that he will let the world end rather
than surrender the endless rehashing of his tiny irrelevant little
issue.
The "tiny, irrelevant issue" was not Nikki's
death, it was Wood's failure to believe -- against the evidence
-- that his mother loved him enough, a failure that set him off
on a vengeance quest against a "person" who no longer
existed. Wood's erroneous belief, and the consequent vengeance
quest, were, in the overall scheme of things, "tiny and irrelevant".
At least that's how I understood manwitch.
[> [> [> [> [> [> I hope so -- Rahael,
08:21:15 10/19/03 Sun
I'd claim that Wood's erroneous belief was a big plot device hoisted
on him by the writers. I don't think that my world view is anything
out of the ordinary, and I don't feel the need to beat people
up. As for Wood's issues, dealt with with dignity, they needn't
have been tiny and irrelevant. I mean, the did she didn't she
love me thing - if that is tiny and irrelevant, well, if we were
to start categorising what is 'important' and 'unimportant', Buffy's
most blazingly eloquent dilemmas and heartaches would be 'unimportant'.
One might have to start judging her back and forth love life with
a lot more condemnation and a little less understanding.
Rahael, who has learnt that a cup of coffee and the Sunday newspapers
and a good book may all be unimportant and irrelevant, and yet,
the no less significant and meaningful and joyful than the big
dramatic moments.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh, and -- Rahael,
08:23:37 10/19/03 Sun
I forgot to say - the idea that Wood's real quest is trying to
reach his distant and supposedly unloving mother - that's Spike's
interpretation. Wood's ostensible and self stated reason is his
sense of injustice and anger that the killer of his mother was
still walking around, wearing her coat, and there was a question
mark over his sanity and self.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Oh, and
-- Malandanza, 21:46:09 10/19/03 Sun
" Wood's ostensible and self stated reason is his sense
of injustice and anger that the killer of his mother was still
walking around, wearing her coat, and there was a question mark
over his sanity and self."
I think Wood's real issues are how he was raised. We know from
FFL that the last fights of a slayer are often undocumented
-- Giles speculates that it is because the watchers, who have
trained and cared for, in some cases from infancy, their slayers
found it too painful to continue with their duties. So Crowley
raises Nikki's son. Is it coincidence that Wood followed his mother's
career? I think he lost his childhood in military training and
WC indoctrination -- he was raised to hate vampires and trained
to kill them. But eventually, as he became older, he started asking
questions -- which led him to Sunnydale. The passion for vengeance
had just about burnt itself out when he saw Spike in his mother's
coat -- and the slayer protecting him. He regressed to early days
and saw Buffy as a traitor -- certainly she would have been in
Crowley's eyes. He might have felt a sense of injustice and anger,
but it was Crowley who placed it in him to begin with, and nurtured
it during his formative years.
In Buffy's defense, I think she believes souled Spike is a different
entity and should be treated accordingly, just as she did not
hold Angel responsible for Angelus' crimes (I think she actually
blamed herself in that case) or Oz for Ozwolf's crimes or Willow
for DarkWillow's crimes. She is consistent, rather than showing
special treatment. I do think, though, that had Buffy known Spike's
duster was a trophy from Wood's mother, she would have had a very
different reaction -- at the very least it would have gone the
way of the other cool jacket that season.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I Don't
Think So -- Claudia, 12:13:00 10/20/03 Mon
[I do think, though, that had Buffy known Spike's duster was a
trophy from Wood's mother, she would have had a very different
reaction -- at the very least it would have gone the way of the
other cool jacket that season.]
I don't think so. I think the issue of Spike killing Nikki and
Wood's attempt at revenge would have remained the main issue for
Buffy. And I think that too many people have placed importance
on that jacket . . . just as Wood did.
Wood needed that jacket even less than Spike. He needed to get
over Nikki's death and move on. Some say that Spike should have
apologized or shown remorse. I doubt very much that Wood would
have accepted Spike's apology. Here is the reason why:
From "Lies My Parents Told Me" -
MOTHER: Get out. Get out! (they struggle, she vamps) There, there,
precious. It will only hurt for a moment.
WILLIAM: I'm sorry.
(cut to Spike vs Wood)
PRINCIPAL WOOD: What?
SPIKE: I'm sorry.
(Cut to past. William/Spike stakes his mother; back to present)
PRINCIPAL WOOD: Sorry? You think sorry's gonna make everything
right?
If Spike had genuinely expressed remorse or an apology, Wood would
have rejected it, anyway. He was too caught up in his vengeance.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
I Don't Think So -- Dlgood, 16:11:53 10/20/03 Mon
If Spike had genuinely expressed remorse or an apology, Wood would
have rejected it, anyway. He was too caught up in his vengeance.
-----------
We'll never know, because Spike didn't express genuine remorse,
and didn't try to make a case. And certainly, the victims unreadiness
to hear apology is no excuse to be unapologetic.
-------
And I think that too many people have placed importance on that
jacket . . . just as Wood did.
-------
And a lot of folks think too much importance is placed upon the
confederate flag. It's a symbol. Putting that confederate battle
flag on a state capitol doesn't mean the advocate is racist or
in favor of slavery - but it does reveal a tremendous insensitivity
to those who are offended, and have a legitimate grievance. It's
the type of attitude that cost Trent Lott his position as Majority
Leader of the US Senate.
To Wood, (and likely to the SiT's if they knew where it came from)
the coat is the symbol of a slayer's scalping. And Spike knows
that. Continuing to wear that coat in front of Wood, doesn't mean
Spike's evil. But it does mean he's willfully unmindful of the
pain it inflicts upon a past victim. It's a divisive symbol at
a time when unity to the mission is supposed to be a primary value.
Many people do blow the "coat issue" out of proportion,
but I think it's deeply significant nonetheless.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Disagree -- Claudia, 12:31:11 10/22/03 Wed
When Spike said, "I'm sorry," twice, Wood thought that
Spike was apologizing to him and being remorseful. But Wood didn't
care and more or less said so. Whether or not Spike had apologized
or act remorseful, the latter would have been one dead vampire,
as far as Wood was concerned. He still proceeded to kill Spike,
but the latter snapped out of his funk and stopped him. Watch
the scene again.
[To Wood, (and likely to the SiT's if they knew where it came
from) the coat is the symbol of a slayer's scalping. And Spike
knows that. Continuing to wear that coat in front of Wood, doesn't
mean Spike's evil. But it does mean he's willfully unmindful of
the pain it inflicts upon a past victim. It's a divisive symbol
at a time when unity to the mission is supposed to be a primary
value.
Many people do blow the "coat issue" out of proportion,
but I think it's deeply significant nonetheless]
I disagree. The coat, in the end, really meant nothing. It should
have no longer matter to either Wood or Spike. Should Spike have
gotten rid of the coat? Maybe. You're right that the coat represented
Spike's killing of Nikki. And he is mindful of the pain of what
wearing that coat in front of Wood meant. But giving the coat
to Wood would have been a mistake. By attempting to go behind
Buffy's back and conspire to murder Spike, Wood proved that he
was too caught up in his own vendetta to realize that he was succumbing
to evil. And for Spike, I guess it is hard to apologize or act
remorseful to someone who is trying to kill you out of revenge.
Revenge is not a good reason to give in to evil. And by having
that coat, Wood would have been stuck in the past for good.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Burying the Hatchet -- Dlgood, 15:39:44 10/22/03
Wed
1) How many months did Spike spend desperately trying to tell
Buffy that he loved her, and to convince her that he meant it,
despite her rather firm denials and rejections. Suddenly, somebody's
unresponsive and Spike turns away from something he really feels?
I don't buy that Spike was remorseful, and refraining from apologizing
because Wood didn't want to hear it.
---
The coat, in the end, really meant nothing. It should have no
longer matter to either Wood or Spike.
---
2) Did you see my analogy w/respect to the Confederate battle
flag. Perhaps it shouldn't mean anything to the descendants of
slaves, but it does. That coat certainly means something to Spike
or he wouldn't have taken it off Nikki's corpse in the first place,
reclaimed it with such pride in "Get it Done", or taken
it back from Wood in LMPTM. Spike knows it does mean something
to Wood, and his lack of sensitivity about that, IMHO, is a black
mark on his character.
Wood's behavior should have no bearing on whether or not Spike
should apologize. By making his expressions of remorse conditional
on Wood's behavior, Spike avoids having to take full responsibility
for his own acts. Giving the coat back, not wearing it, or at
the least acknowledging that it does mean something to Wood -
these are all means to bury the hatchet and end their conflict
in a constructive manner. Spike ends the conflict on a note of
domination and fear - it does little to resolve the resentments
that led to the conflict in the first place. It does not make
them go away.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Good analogy -- mamcu (now in another place altogether),
16:54:17 10/22/03 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Tiny irrelevant little issue?
-- OnM, 12:13:53 10/19/03 Sun
*** There are 2 Buffys that we are talking about here. Rah,
your Buffy is Buffy from the Gift - the one that won't sacrifice
Dawn to save the world. The Buffy that Sophist and manwitch are
talking about is the Buffy of S7 - the one that would sacrifice
Dawn (and also, the one that would say that Wood's problems amounted
to a hill of beans in this crazy world). S5 Buffy would not destroy
her sister to save the world, the S7 Buffy would. ***
...... Caroline
For what it's worth, I think all of us are grasping parts of what
this is about, but not necessarily the totality. I certainly can't
do more than present my own reading, but take into consideration
that there can be more than one truth here, not just a single
one.
I agree with you, Rah, when you state that it is Buffy's moral
heart that makes the show worth delving into to the degree that
we do. But Buffy does not always behave well, and that
to me is merely a depiction of human reality, not a betrayal of
her basic moralistic/spiritual nature.
***
BUFFY: We've had this conversation before, Giles. When I told
you I wouldn't sacrifice Dawn to stop Glory from destroying the
world.
GILES: Things are different now, aren't they? After what you've
been through. Knowing what you're up against. Faced with the same
choice now... you'd let her die.
(Buffy hesitates, as she realizes her answer.)
BUFFY: If I have to. To save the world... (quietly) Yes.
***
OK, you see, I don't believe her, and I think that was the point.
Faced with the same decision again, Buffy would make the same
choice. Also, if one studies the scene in The Gift where
Buffy is debating this issue with Giles, it seems clear (at least
to me) that she understands that she may have to kill Dawn
to save the world, and that she would do it if there
is truly no other choice. But to give in at this point, and
'accept' the 'inevitability' as Giles has already done,
is to deny who she, Buffy, is.
In LMPTM, Buffy is still in 'generalissima' mode. She knows that
this modality does not fit her, but she is desperate for another
alternative. Giles and most of the others have dumped this load
on her, and expected her to somehow intuitively 'get it'. She
is trying to meet their expectations at the same time it is grating
on her personally to give up that which she feels to be the 'right'
way to do things.
So, pressed and pressed and pressed by her father-figure, Giles,
she finally relents and states to him that she would kill Dawn
if it was necessary, because she knows this is what is expected
of her. That doesn't make her believe it.
Then, disaster occurs-- she has just revealed this painful 'truth'
to Giles, and then within seconds she becomes aware that her 'father',
her mentor, has betrayed her.
***
BUFFY: Oh god... You've been stalling me. Keeping me away--
GILES: Buffy, it's time to stop playing the role of a general
and start being one.
(Buffy stares at him in shock, then turns and runs...)
***
Consider the emotions present at this moment, and
then think again how she treated Robin Wood:
***
(Buffy walks into the garage. Wood sees her, tries to get to his
feet. She goes to his side to help him.)
BUFFY: I lost my mom a couple years ago. I came home and found
her dead on the couch.
(Wood wipes the blood from his mouth.)
WOOD: (softly)I'm sorry.
BUFFY: I understand... what you tried to do. But she's
dead. He killed her.
WOOD: She got herself killed.
BUFFY: And none of it matters. We're preparing to fight a war,
and you're looking for revenge on a man who doesn't exist
anymore.
WOOD: Don't delude yourself. That man still exists...
BUFFY: Spike's the strongest warrior I have, and we need him if
we're going to get through this alive. (then) If you try anything
again, he's going to kill you, but more importantly, I'm going
to let him.
(Wood looks down -- he can't bring himself to meet her gaze.)
BUFFY: I have a mission: to win this war, save the world. I don't
have time for your vendettas.
(She turns her back on him, begins to walk away.)
BUFFY: The mission's what matters.
(And she leaves him. Alone.)
***
It had become clear to Buffy that the only way she was going to
do what had to be done was to make it clear to Robin who was in
charge here. This didn't mean she didn't feel Robin's pain at
the loss of his mother. The fact that Robin persuaded Giles, her
mentor, to go along with this shows that Robin was willing to
challenge her authority big time. That path leads to failure.
Nevertheless, she wants to keep Robin on her side if at all possible.
Does she succeed?
***
(ROBIN WOOD is at his desk. He's still a little banged up from
his encounter with Spike. Cuts, bruises, a
bandage on his neck. He looks up when Buffy knocks on the door.
She enters, a little wary. )
BUFFY: You look better.
WOOD: No, I don't.
BUFFY: No, you don't.
WOOD: But I'll be okay. Unless, of course, you start beating on
me now.
BUFFY: I won't. I thought about it some, drew a couple little
doodles, but...look... far as I'm concerned, we're on even
ground. I meant what I said before -- I don't have time for
your vendettas -- but I need you in this fight. I want you
on my side.
WOOD: Thank you. That means a lot.
BUFFY: So we're good.
WOOD: Absolutely. (beat) You're fired.
BUFFY: That makes me feel so much -- What?
WOOD: Effective immediately.
BUFFY: You're firing me? I just refrained from kicking your ass!
***
At this point in time, we begin to see the decline of 'the generalissima'
and the gradual return of the Buffy we knew before, which culminates
in the scene where the gang 'casts her out'. When Faith follows
Buffy out the door of the Summers' house, Buffy offers not anger
but only the desire that Faith fully understands what she needs
to do-- to protect everyone. And Faith does understand,
and is further struck by Buffy's lack of what she would normally
expect to be rage directed at her.
I could go on, but I think this sort of presents the gist of things.
So, the comment you made that...
*** Buffy's point is something akin to "I don't care what
your parents did to you, I don't care what you think they did
to you. I have responsibilities now, and so do you." ***
...does not represent Buffy's thinking, it represents the thinking
that others tried to impress upon her, and which over time,
she rejects.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Agreed. Great post, OnM!
-- Rob, 13:04:47 10/19/03 Sun
[> [> [> [> [> [> Agree. Well said --
sdev, 13:17:36 10/19/03 Sun
I posted similarly above but not as thoroughly or persuasively.
Buffy had the role of Commander in Chief foisted upon her. She
never claimed to know what to do with it and it was not in the
Slayer calling description.
I also really agree that Buffy would not have treated Dawn differently
S7 (in the midst of it all she tried to send Dawn away to spare
her once again) and that barring the solution she came up with
in the Gift she would have done the right thing by the world.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Agree. Well said
-- Rob, 14:38:16 10/19/03 Sun
"...in the midst of it all she tried to send Dawn away
to spare her once again..."
Also a really good, and incredibly important, point.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yes, you did indeed,
so credit where due. -- OnM, 20:58:25 10/19/03 Sun
I just got a chance to go back up the thread a ways and read your
response-- one of the hazards of jumping in in the middle of a
discussion!
Besides our obvious points of agreement, I also liked your last
observation:
*** That she never discusses or wants to address Spike's killing
of Nikki, a Slayer and mother, is interesting from another perspective.
She probably doesn't want to think too much on that for fear of
igniting her own reaction to Spike. She is trying to treat
him as a new person because of the soul and because she needs
him right now. To open up that past would create conflicts in
her so she does what she has often done, repress. In all fairness
she implements that standard for herself and expects it from others
including Wood. ***
A fine insight, and I tend to believe an accurate one.
As fidhle has commented below, this is turning out to be an excellent
thread. I'm hoping to get to read the rest of it tomorrow or so.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks -- Rahael, 14:50:54
10/19/03 Sun
That's a great explanation, and as I was saying to Sdev above,
is one that makes sense within the larger themes of BtvS. Intellectually,
I think that is what they must have been trying to do. But I don't
think they were successful at conveying it on the screen, or at
least, it seems that what they were trying to say did not resonate
with me, for the first time in the series. I'm glad it did work
well for other peope, but also glad that I'm not quite alone in
'getting' it, or feeling fully satisfied.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Thanks --
DEN, 15:53:41 10/19/03 Sun
And the whole Dawn question is a familiar subplot in the war-film
genre I outlined above: the new replacement,often a younger relative
of someone in the unit, who has no chance of coming back but must
be sent out anyway. The issue of duty versus love, head versus
heart, is a near-cliche in these films. The conventional solution
is the "masculine" one, often expressed in overt gender
terms. Fans of the Civil War film "Glory" will recall
the dialogue between Mathew Brodrick and the Irish drill sergeant
over how to treat Brodrick's friend the bespectacled black intellectual.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yes, I've seen
Glory -- Rahael, 16:01:22 10/19/03 Sun
I have to say, you've provided the most compelling reading of
S7 yet.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Figuring out s7,
or hello to the pain -- Ponygirl, 15:55:10 10/19/03 Sun
There have been some great posts in this thread which have really
helped me start thinking again about the season. At the very least
I'm not going "lala" and covering my ears when people
are talking about it (sadly not joking). I still think I'm going
to wait until the dvds are out before I do a big rewatch on seven.
I know that I for one need a bit more critical distance on to
truly assess the successes and failures of the season.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Lol! me too!
-- Rahael, 16:18:31 10/19/03 Sun
[> [> [> [> [> [> There's one problem with
your argument -- Caroline, 19:42:11 10/19/03 Sun
and that is that Buffy's final act is to allow someone that she
says she loves to sacrifice himself to save the world. Spike and
the amulet is the equivalent to Dawn wanting to jump in the Gift.
In one, Buffy sacrifices herself to save a loved one, in the other
Buffy allows the sacrifice to occur. The mask of general may have
been imposed on her by others but that does not mean that Buffy
has not learnt leadership. Not the type that Giles tried to impose
on her, but the type that she felt comfortable functioning with.
She exerted leadership with Wood even though it was in direct
opposition to Giles. And she took the Bogart in Casablanca position
- that there are some things that are greater than us. She also
took that position when she allowed Spike to sacrifice himself.
I think that there is something about Buffy's development that
has been missing here. Her death and resurrection was like a trial
of fire, one that honed and polished her. Amid the confusion she
emerges without self-pity and looking to do the right thing. She
has survived and grown such that her own experiences no longer
devastate her and subsequently, she can take a more objective
and less personal view of circumstances, see the larger picture
and not just the personal one. Some may see her treatment of Wood
as harsh, but sometimes justice is so. There is a reason that
justice is often depicted as a woman carrying scales and a sword
and is blind-folded. Because while she may feel, she must impartially
decide on what is right. Buffy of the Gift is not an archetype
of justice, Buffy in the latter episodes of S7 is. Buffy in S5
is all passion but the Buffy of S7 is passion tempered by reason.
I agree with you that the exploration of Buffy's moral stance
is an essential element to my enjoyment of the show. But sometimes
I find Buffy most enjoyable when she does things that I don't
agree with. She does not have to be an examplar of morality for
me. I just wanna figure out why she does stuff, even when I think
that she is wrong.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Except... --
Rob, 20:28:47 10/19/03 Sun
...I'm not sure if she allowed Spike to sacrifice himself.
From the way the amulet worked, it didn't seem like she would
have had much choice in the matter either way. We don't know if
the amulet could have been taken off at that point, while it was
doing its job, and if it were, it seems likely that he would have
just burned up from the sunlight streaming through him, only sooner.
Before the amulet did his job would have been too soon for her
to not allow Spike to wear it, because she did not know that it
would result in his death.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: There's one problem
with your argument -- OnM, 20:30:29 10/19/03 Sun
*** Spike and the amulet is the equivalent to Dawn wanting
to jump in the Gift. ***
Hummm... an intriguing argument, but I'm not sure that it follows.
Dawn was a child, under the care of adults, particularly that
of her sister. Spike is an adult. (Well, sort of. Not going
there just now! ;-). Dawn's death would represent the sacrifice
of an innocent (Buffy even terms it this way in her prior conversation
with Giles in the training room at the Magic Box). Dawn did not
choose to become a pawn in a cosmic game played by evil beings.
It is up to the adults trusted with her care to defend her to
the greatest extent possible.
Spike chose to become a 'warrior', to fight; that is his right
as an adult. Dawn may eventually decide to do the same (and it
appears that she very well might, even if it is in the form of
a Watcher to the newly minted Slayers, as many fans have theorized).
But as a child under the guardianship of others, that right would
need to be deferred at the time unless Buffy or her other guardians
could not find another alternative to allowing her the choice
of sacrificing herself.
I believe that a great part of the reason that Buffy was so upset
with Giles in the early part of The Gift was that he seemed
to be doing what Buffy had always seen as one of the classic weaknesses
of advanced adulthood-- giving in to despair, and presuming the
outcome could only be the worse possible scenario. Indeed,
how many times over the years has Giles mouthed the words "We're
doomed!" or something similar? On the one hand, it's funny,
but on the other hand it's a defeatist attitude. This is also
a secondary meaning to the word 'innocence', as it refers to the
belief that a good outcome can occur despite all contrary indications.
Ironically, I think it's a given that one of the things that Giles
admires most about Buffy is the same thing that Spike denotes--
she's not a quitter, she always tries.
One sometimes wonders if in his mind Giles habitually walks the
knife-edge between believing in his despair and believing in the
abilities of Buffy to vanquish it.
***
BTW, anyone been following the latest re: Mother Teresa?
http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Oct/10182003/saturday/103026.asp
"If we went to them [the poor] with a sad face, we would
only make them much more depressed," she once explained.
And following her own admonition, Mother Teresa's perpetual smile
was as integral to her image as the weathered face and blue-trimmed
white robe.
But exterior sunniness masked an astonishing secret -- known to
a handful of clergy counselors but no other close colleagues --
that was revealed only through research for her sainthood candidacy.
Mother Teresa was afflicted with feelings of abandonment by God
from the very start of her work among the homeless children and
dying persons in Calcutta's slums. From all available evidence,
this experience persisted until her death five decades later,
except for a brief interlude in 1958.
Season 6 Mother Teresa? Will wonders never cease.
:-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: There's
one problem with your argument -- Malandanza, 22:15:11
10/19/03 Sun
"Dawn's death would represent the sacrifice of an innocent
(Buffy even terms it this way in her prior conversation with Giles
in the training room at the Magic Box). Dawn did not choose to
become a pawn in a cosmic game played by evil beings. It is up
to the adults trusted with her care to defend her to the greatest
extent possible.
Spike chose to become a 'warrior', to fight; that is his right
as an adult."
Yes -- it's a matter of choice. Spike chose to wear the amulet
-- he demanded it, in fact. There is no indication that Buffy
or Spike knew how to stop the amulet to save Spike once the spell
had begun (since the Scoobies didn't bother to research the trinket
from the not remotely trustworthy evil lawfirm). Plus we see Spike
reaffirming his choice by saying he wants to stay and see
how it all ends. The similarity between Dawn and Spike comes when
Dawn offers to jump to save the world and Buffy takes her place
-- there is no evidence at all that Buffy could have taken Spike's
place (or that Spike would have let her -- Dawn had no choice).
She could have stayed with Spike to die with him (as she had intended
to do with Dawn -- "the last thing she sees will be me protecting
her"), but Buffy had grown past her death wish by then (The
Gift was part noble sacrifice and part suicide).
Buffy's refusal to sacrifice Dawn in Season Five was also influenced
by her Season Two decision to sacrifice Angel to save the world.
In Season Five she tells Giles in no uncertain terms that she
will not make another such sacrifice.
So, Season Two, she was willing to sacrifice her true love to
save the world.
Season Five she would rather die than make that same choice
Season Seven she was willing to let someone else choose to sacrifice
himself to save the world
Of course, Buffy has always been willing to sacrifice herself
-- starting with Prophecy Girl.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Was It
a Sacrifice? -- Claudia, 12:58:52 10/20/03 Mon
Was allowing Spike to wear the amulet a sacrifice? I don't know.
Angel had told Buffy that wearing the amulet might be dangerous,
but no one was certain that it would result in death for the wearer.
Besides, Buffy and the others had as much of a chance of being
killed, as Spike. So was it really a sacrifice on her part?
As for Spike demanding to wear the amulet - he only did so, until
Buffy mentioned that it was to be worn by a champion. Spike had
withdrew his demand, believing that he was not a champion.
[> [> [> [> [> [> I agree with this, too.
-- manwitch, 19:42:34 10/19/03 Sun
To the degree that it contradicts things I said before, I would
revise what I said before.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Completely agree with you
on this. Well said,OnM. -- jane, 22:28:17 10/19/03 Sun
[> [> [> [> [> [> Sacrificing Dawn --
Buffyboy, 04:43:59 10/21/03 Tue
BUFFY: We've had this conversation before, Giles. When I told
you I wouldn't sacrifice Dawn to stop Glory from destroying the
world.
GILES: Things are different now, aren't they? After what you've
been through. Knowing what you're up against. Faced with the same
choice now... you'd let her die.
(Buffy hesitates, as she realizes her answer.)
BUFFY: If I have to. To save the world... (quietly) Yes.
When I first heard these words my immediate reaction was to think:
"What the Hell? What did she just say? No! She didn't just
say that, did she? No! She couldn't mean it!" Yet, I now
believe that at that point in time Buffy meant just what she said.
For me the scene from The Gift between Buffy and Giles in the
training room has always been one of the true high points of BtVS.
Not only was Buffy refusing to accede to Giles' Utilitarian logic
through her rejecting a world that demanded that she acquiesce
in its evil ways, through her refusing to reconcile herself to
the death of Dawn as the world's price for not being destroyed,
but she seemed to be demanding a world where no one need sacrifice
her Dawn if I may be allowed to generalize the point. Though this
last demand went unmet, Buffy did find a way to avoid the dreadful
alternative through her own self-sacrifice. An act though extremely
moving and profound, none the less still involving the giving
in to the world's demand for a sacrifice.
So what transpired between these two points? Two important developments
at least. (1) Of course, Buffy had died and gone through the trauma
of her resurrection: a trauma that very nearly destroyed her.
(2) From season one to six, Buffy found herself caught between
her desire to be a normal girl with friends and her desire to
be a Slayer, a tightrope she adroitly walked in spite of numerous
slips and even falls, culminating in her forging the new and unprecedented
role of Slayer with friends. Ultimately, Buffy was the near perfect
person for this near impossible feet of acrobatics. Yet, in season
seven Buffy faced a new role, not as I had previously thought
just another manifestation of the tension between being a slayer
and being a friend, the role of military leader-a role for which
see was not cut out.
Beginning perhaps with her great speech in Bring on the Night,
Buffy took on a new role, a role handed to by the Scoobies in
general and Giles in particular in that same episode, the role
of military leader. By the time of Lies My Parents Told Me, Buffy
was beginning to become a military leader, beginning to believe
what she thought a military leader needed to believe. When Giles
asks her if she would now be willing to sacrifice Dawn, she said:
"If I have to. To save the world... (quietly)Yes." And
as the script importantly indicates "(Buffy hesitate, as
she realizes her answer.)" Buffy hesitates because she is
realizing that she's not giving the answer that she expected herself
to give-- to some extent Buffy is even surprising herself with
this new answer. She now would sacrifice Dawn if the fate of the
world was at stake, just as Giles now more or less expected she
would-he understood, perhaps better than she, how this new role
was transforming her.
By Lies MY Parents Told Me, Buffy had become a military leader.
What else could she do? Giles now seemed only useful for bring
in more potentials, the potentials were in want of serious amounts
of training, Willow was afraid of her own power, etc. As the weeks
advanced Buffy's speeches became increasingly strained and repetitive,
the morale of the potentials continued to decline and her military
plans were often ill advised. By Empty Places Buffy's failure
at her new role was obvious to all and she was unceremoniously
tossed out. This was actually the best thing that could have happened
to her at that time. Suddenly the pressures of the role of military
leader were relieved and Buffy could once again begin the think
and feel as a Slayer. Ultimately, in The End of Days the Guardian
gave Buffy everything she need: the gift of the scythe, the new
knowledge that the power of the Slayer was not just the creation
of the Shadowmen and their heirs in the Watcher's Council but
had a older and non-patriarchal origin and the cryptic remark
"But you already have weapons." Though at this point
Buffy was not yet able to put the piece of the puzzle together,
her return to her role of Slayer with friends was about to work
its final magic.
In Chosen Buffy was finally in a position to offer one final dramatic
reinterpretation of Slayer role she had forged: a Slayer who shares
her power. As she for the first time faced the First appearing
as herself, as she faced a Buffy split in two, and as the First/Buffy
began the recite the litany: "One...One..." she suddenly
saw in her imaginary other that she was no long One, but that
she had been split into more than one. This was all it took and
Buffy immediately saw the pieces fall into place, realizing that
with the help of Willow she could in fact share her power. Buffy
was now in a position where she no longer needed to impose a sacrifice
on others or on herself. She no longer needed to sacrifice Dawn
(or anyone else for that matter) to save the world nor did she
need to substitute herself in a heroic act of self-sacrifice.
To be sure, individuals still needed to risk their lives and some
would loose their lives. But once Buffy understood that her power
could in fact be shared, the need for a military leader who would
demand or even bring about the sacrifice of others or a Slayer
who would substitute herself in a heroic self-sacrifice, melted
into air. The risk of one's life could now be autonomously assumed
by a person and not ordered or taken away through substitution
by a superior authority.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Excellent post
-- Rahael, 05:29:22 10/21/03 Tue
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well said! --
Caroline, 11:29:30 10/22/03 Wed
and I think that you show that Buffy has moved to a new place
morally from S5 to S7, which I was trying to say (very badly)
above. Many thanks for an excellent post!
[> [> [> [> [> isolation -- sdev, 16:44:29
10/18/03 Sat
I can't help but metanarrate here:
Here I am practically alone, with a different POV, pitting myself
against the apocalyptic force of disagreeing voices trying to
defend my thesis against seemingly insurmountable opponents when
all I want to do is watch the Yankees in the World Series.
[> [> [> [> [> [> well, that explains it
-- manwitch, 21:27:31 10/18/03 Sat
I lived in Boston for 15 years. And the north side of Chicago
for twenty years before that.
I don't want you to watch this world series.
But best of luck to your Yankees.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> exactly -- mamcu,
19:23:13 10/19/03 Sun
Cub fan for far too many years. I know what evil is.
[> [> [> [> Re: Buffy is us -- jane, 17:14:48
10/18/03 Sat
Really agree with this. I too saw the message to Wood as being
that of "your mother made choices that affected your life,
but those choices were not about you, exactly. She had other responsibilities
that she could not deny. So stop being stuck, deal with it and
move on."
I like Joss's quote about families. I love my family, but I am
closer to some of my friends than to my sisters. They are my family
too. I think part of the message of Buffy is that you can make
your own choices about who your family is, above and beyond blood
ties.
Well said, Sophist and Manwitch. Very interesting posts.
Current board
| More October 2003