September 2002 posts
Almost
a 'Vampire Layer'? A reason why I didn't like Buffy in season
6 -- Liam, 05:54:01 09/03/02 Tue
I didn't like the way Buffy was portrayed in season 6, and realised
that it was due to one main reason: her character became very
close to the caricature of her as a 'vampire layer' - someone
who has sex with vampires rather than killing them.
This caricature was made quite public in an episode of 'Friends',
aired on 10th February 2000, called 'The One Where Chandler Can't
Cry', the fourteenth of the sixth season. In the episode, Phoebe
Buffay is mistaken for her twin sister, Ursula, who works as a
porn actress under her name. One of the films she appeared in
is 'Buffay, the Vampire Layer', of which the following part was
seen, both by her friends and viewers:
(The movie starts, it's a vampire's lair and Buffay, the Vampire
Layer enters dressed in leather and carrying a wooden stake. Suddenly,
the vampire opens his coffin and sits up.)
Buffay, the Vampire Layer: Ah, I thought I'd find you here, Nasforatool.
The Vampire: Buffay, are you going to plunge your stake into my
dark places?
Buffay, the Vampire Layer: Actually, I was kinda hoping it would
be the other way around.
This was, of course, done for laughs; but I wasn't laughing any
more after watching Buffy's relationship with Spike in season
6, because what was a caricature was in danger of becoming real.
Buffy is the Slayer, and supposed to kill vampires. Her relationship
with Angel can be seen as an exception, due to him being a good
vampire with a soul. Also, allowance can be made for the fact
of her being sixteen and in love. This changes when we see her
get involved in an abusive relationship with Spike, an evil, unrepentant
vampire. Some questions need to be asked. Do vampires have an
attraction for her? Was Spike prophetic when he said that she
liked a bit of monster in her man? If so, then the caricature
is in danger of becoming reality.
I'd like to know what other people think about this.
[> I don't know if I'd go
so far as to say that. -- CW, 07:01:01 09/03/02 Tue
Joss seems to understand that for Buffy to actually fall in love
with pre-souled Spike would have been a betrayal of her character.
You're suggesting that just having sex with him was and maybe
that's valid. But, the reality of TV is that soap opera is popular
and if one relationship (Buffy+Riley) isn't working, to keep up
interest you have to come up with another relationship.
Personally, I liked the idea of Spike, being in love with Buffy,
while she wouldn't have anything to do with him. If it had stayed
that way, it could have ended with Spike still running off to
be changed to 'be worthy' of Buffy. It would have avoided the
rape scene that revolted so many people. But, it wasn't the story
Joss wanted to tell, and I can't be sure it would have worked
any better.
Buffy has always had problems with finding a 'normal' guy. Riley,
we discovered wasn't one. It all goes back to the normal guys
she' dated. Either like Owen they'd unwisely want to jump into
her slayer-life with both feet, or like Scott take her preoccupied
behavior as a sign she wasn't really interested. Parker was just
a user of women, so he barely counts, another type of monster
that unfortunately real women have to deal with.
But, her young friends are all in the same boat. Xander attracts
only demons and ex-demons (plus Cordelia who turned demon only
much later.) Willow's record is much the same - computer demon,
werewolf, witch. If it's wrong for Buffy to be attracted to the
monster, isn't it wrong for the others as well?
[> [> Reply -- Liam,
08:25:58 09/03/02 Tue
CW,
I think that it's wrong for Buffy to be involved with an _evil_
monster, particularly an evil, mixed-up vampire like Spike, who
has very strange ideas about what constitutes love. This is particularly
the case when she is also supposed to kill evil monsters, evil
vampires in particular. I would say the same thing about all the
others: I've no problem about them getting involved with monsters,
provied they are _good_ ones.
Xander's relationship with Anya I would regard as a very badly
written exception. When she became a regular in season 4, I had
(and still have) a problem with her, an unrepentant serial killer,
who caused torment and suffering to thousands, entering a relationship
with Xander and becoming a member of the Scooby Gang without any
of this being brought up.
[> [> [> Re: Reply
-- Miss Edith, 07:45:38 09/04/02 Wed
What annoyed me was when Xander started lecturing Buffy in SR
about dating an unrepentent killer. He made the point that Spike
had killed half of Europe making him sound like a one man plague.
Yet no mention was made of the hypocricy of him sleeping with
Anya with no qualms whatsoever in THLOD as soon as she offered
herself to him. She has killed far more and has enjoyed devising
graphic tortures for them as well. I fail to understand why this
was never brought up. She has killed for a longer period of time
than Spike after all and yet the scoobies have no problem with
he merrily describing the torture she has inflicted. She has talked
of setting villages on fire, causing men to cannibilise themselves,
making heads explode, causing men to shag sheep etc, etc. Apart
from Willow being bitchy towards Anya sometimes because Anya ordered
Willow's death in Dooelgangland no one seemed to have a problem
with it and I'm still not sure why. She offered to kill Oz for
Willow if only she still had the power to do so in SB and Xander
just smiled and talked about how sweet she was. That is what I
find disturbing personally.
[> [> [> [> And
it begins again ... -- Earl
Allison, 09:07:21 09/04/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: And it begins again ... -- Miss Edith, 09:16:13
09/04/02 Wed
Sorry I didn't realise that Anya's past had already been thoroughly
discussed as a topic. At least I assume that is what you are refering
to. I keep meaning to read the archives and catch up on all the
past discussions but I haven't got around to it yet. There is
so much informations there it overwhlems me and I never seem to
find the time.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Not that, just that Spike brings out the "attack
someone else" argument ... -- Earl
Allison, 09:25:57 09/04/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Not that, just that Spike brings out the "attack
someone else" argument ... -- Miss Edith, 09:33:49
09/04/02 Wed
Sorry I did not mean to come across as if I was attacking Anya
in order to defend Spike. I just meant that I found the treatment
of Spike and Anya as evidence of a double standard. There has
been so much focus on Spike needing a soul and needing to feel
remorse. It just seems strange to me that the same is not expected
from Anya. I was not trying to compare the characters unfavourably,
I was just pointing out the inconsistent way that the characters
are treated by the scoobies. Anya'a past is treated as a joke
(and I do like Anya) but when Buffy laughs at Spike refering to
his past she is seen as immoral. I just find that strange and
in SR I did find it shockingly hypocricical that Xander felt he
had the right to lecture Buffy about not remembering the past
of the person she was dating.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Not that, just that Spike brings out
the "attack someone else" argument ... -- Slain,
12:58:31 09/04/02 Wed
Xander, being human, is alas invariably hypocritcal, though perhaps
more than some. But I don't think Anya and Spike are the same.
I'm paraphrasing things other people have said now, but it's worth
remembering the circumstances of Anya's life. She grew up in a
time when women were effectively powerless, and rape and abuse
was condoned by society; so I don't think her being a vengeance
demon was wrong, a thousand years ago. By 10th century moral standards,
it was the nearest thing women might have come to justice.
Times have changed, but Anya (being a demon, and not being part
of humanity) wasn't able to change with them. From a 21st century
perspective, torturing men is evil, but when Anya became a demon,
that was the closest women had to feminism. So it's virtually
impossible for Anya to feel regret; she has a mindset and morality
from a thousand years ago, coupled with the morality of a demon.
That's not to say that she shouldn't feel remorse, but rather
that it's infinitely harder. Spike always knew he was evil, whereas
Anya has gone from an era in which she thought she was doing good,
to one in which she was told she wasn't.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: Not that, just that Spike brings
out the "attack someone else" argument ... -- Miss
Edith, 13:26:12 09/04/02 Wed
I understand that. What bothers me is when Anya happily recalls
the suffering she inflicted on others and none of the scoobies
show any disaprovel. Anya became a vengeance demon through particular
circumatstances, fair enough. However in order to adjust to a
new society she does need to understand why her previous behaviour
was not necesserily right. After all it could be said that Spike
was just following his nature as a vampire and needing to eat.
Not to mention the twisted family he was brought into which included
the legendery Angelous the most vicious vampire of all.
Yet as human beings we condemn Spike's actions however justified
he might feel he was. If Buffy laughs when he talks of his bloodthirty
past as a vampire she is seen to be immoral. Yet in WTWTA the
writers explicitly showed us that Spike and Anya are not all that
different. They both wistfully talked of how they could no longer
kill and maim because their powers were removed. Yet only Spike
is seen as a serial killer on a lesh with no real chance of reforming.
Anya has never explicitly been told that she was wrong to inflict
vengeance on others. Hence her returning to being a vengenace
demon when things went wrong with her new life.
And I'm afraid this is starting to come across as if I am saying
Anya was a demon too so Spike is not any worse. I am really trying
not to unfairly compare characters. What I am trying to get across
is that I don't understand why Anya's past behaviour is not judged
to be inhumane by her friends who are essentially the new society
she has been introduced too. Yet Spike is judged as incapable
of ever living among them as one of the gang and being able to
put his past behind him.
The scoobies are presumedly the only people who know exactly what
Anya has done in the past. I don't expect them to wag their fingers
and lecture her. I do however expect them to do more than they
have done. The harshest judgement from Xander when he was dating
Anya was in SB. Anya was describing doing boils on the penis and
he looked sick and said "please move on". And in ITW
he tells Anya to stop being scary for a minute and drop it when
she describes massacring an entire villiage. The result was that
Anya felt able to return to vengeance as a solution to her problems.
My point, poorly articulated as it might be, is that there is
a case of double standards in the scoobies attitudes to the two
former killers. Perhaps it is because Anya was a vengeance demon
who punished men so the writers feel more free to treat her past
as a joke? Seems a tad sexist to me if that is the assumption
they are going on.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Two reasons. . . -- Finn
Mac Cool, 14:03:51 09/04/02 Wed
One, Spike did evil as a vampire, and is still a vampire. Anya
did evil as a demon but is now human. Perhaps the Scoobies' thoughts
run along the same lines of the Angel/Angelus distinction. Plus,
it probably has some affect on how they view her in that none
of them actually met her as a vengeance demon.
The second is that what Anya did doesn't seem quite as evil because
she didn't actually do it herself. She sought out scorned women
and got them to make a wish for revenge. Because the vengeance
she wreaked was not done by her personally, but rather through
the wishes of other people, it is easier to blame others for her
acts of evil.
Personally, I think that Anya may actually be a different entity
from Anyanka (well, not completely different, but different in
that same, fuzzy way that Angel is different from Angelus). As
a demon, she is immune to remorse for human beings, but as a human
she has a moral compass. Why, then, does she team up with vampires
and try to restore a vamp infested version of Sunnydale in Dopplegangland?
I think it's because, at that point, she hadn't done anything
as a human evil enough to really cause her any guilt. She was
unaware that she might feel sympathy for dying people at that
point. And how Anyanka behaves in Entropy - Grave? Well, I think
she was suffering from the soulless - but - with - feelings thing
that Spike's been going through. She didn't curse Xander and helped
the rest of the Scoobies because she still liked them, and even
loved Xander to a certain extent. She did say afterall that she
was trying to stop Willow from killing the Trio for Willow's own
sake, not for their's. The only other non-Scooby we see Anya with
after becoming a vengeance demon again is that woman whose husband
cheated on her. Anya stopped her from making a vengeance wish,
but only because she was too busy ranting about her own pain.
Why has she never felt remorse for her actions in the past, then,
if she has a soul as a human? I think she tends to view it as
"well, the past is the past, nothing's going to change that,
no reason to feel all guilty and broody about it."
Of course, Anya and Anyanka being separate entities may very well
be Jossed in twenty days. But, until then, it's a valid theory.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Well, not so much (Anya
spoilers through BtVS S6) -- Vickie, 16:51:33 09/04/02
Wed
Anya was a human, became a demon (Anyanka), became a human again,
and is now a demon.
We don't really know what this means vis-a-vis her soul. There's
never been any indication that becoming a vengeance demon parallels
becoming a vampire. Anya may have had her human soul throughout
this process. We don't know for certain, but there's no mention
that she didn't (IIRC). I don't really see any reason to think
that Anya is a different person from Anyanka (though I'd love
to hear your evidence on this).
While a demon the first time, it appears that Anyanka loved her
work, did it well and with relish. As a human (the second time--most
of the time we've seen her), she missed her powers and never regretted
what she did as a demon. Her attitude appears to be "That
was my job. I'd certainly never do anything like that as a human."
But, as a human, under a huge disappointment and horrible stress,
she accepted her old vengeance demon job back. She apparently
sees nothing wrong with that.
I agree, Finn, that she doesn't appear to have done much as a
demon this second time. Her behavior towards the Scoobies in the
last few S6 episodes has been exemplary, better in fact than they
deserved. She may have tried to curse Xander (and had she succeeded
the first time, it would have been a truly horrendous curse with
horrible side-effects), but since then has refused to let Spike
curse him. We haven't seen her grant any other curses. She helped
find DarkWillow, warned the two nerds in jail, and risked her
own safety to stand by the Scoobies in the Magic Box.
She's easily as complex a character as any in the show and well
worth watching. But, IMO, she shouldn't get out of jail free.
She needs to understand the kind of suffering she caused as a
demon (1st go around). With Xander's leaving her (courtesy of
a former case), she may begin to. Xander's attitude (and that
of the other Scoobies) does form a double standard, when compared
with their attitude towards Spike.
As always, your mileage may vary.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Two reasons. . .
-- Miss Edith, 07:18:12 09/05/02 Thu
But Anya doesn't see herself as a seperate entity as a demon.
As a demon in season 6 she has taken the knowledge she gained
as a human and is not interested in inflicting vengeance in the
way that she was. Therefore as a demon she is not a different
entity from her human self in my eyes. She still helps her friends
and seems to have feelings towards Xander. And whether she lost
her soul as a demon is not yet known as writers seem to have different
opinions on that.
When talking of her past Anya specifically says "I".
And a lot of her former victims are still suffering. E.g in BuffyvsDracula
she is talking to Xander about how sweet Dracula is for telling
her one of her victims is cursed forever. Presumedly many of the
curses are still ongoing and as Anya would say "sometimes
vengeance can be justified". Therefore I have never found
it relevent to make a distinction between human Anya and demon
Anya as Anya herself does not and seems to think of her past as
a demon as part of who she was. E.g inviting her demon friends
to her wedding as a human. Even Xander asks after seeing Halfrek
"did you look like that" suggesting he does understand
the demon Anya was still Anya, he just hasn't dealt with that
fact yet.
I do love Anya and I don't have a huge desire to see her express
remorse. As a human she had put her past behind her and that was
always enough for me. Presumedly as a demon she has begun to learn
from her mistakes and is becoming more humane in her attitudes
to the men she is meant to curse. I am just saying Anya does talk
about her past favouraby and there is a double standard in the
scoobies attitude.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Two reasons.
. . -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:32:36 09/05/02 Thu
Angel still holds himself responsible for the things he did as
Angelus and uses "I" when talking about things done
while he didn't have a soul. I'm not sure whether or not you're
one of the people supporting Angel and Angelus being different
entities, but, if you are, then your evidence comes to moot.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Two reasons.
. . -- Miss Edith, 14:44:25 09/05/02 Thu
I don't see Angel and Angelous as being entirely different entites
either. I did when a clear distinction was made between them in
Buffy. But in his own series it has became clear that Angelous
is just the darker side of Angel, free of guilt and a conscience.
The series has explored the greyer side of Angel.
Besides Anya can only be compared to Angel if she lacks a soul
as a demon surely? It has not yet been confirmed that she does.
And the major differnce between Angel and Angelous is that Angelous
is lacking a soul. I have not seen any evience that that is the
case with Anya.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Two
reasons. . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:05:49 09/05/02 Thu
I have a theory. . .
D'Hoffryn came to Anya shortly after she turned Olaf into a troll.
At the moment, she was so full of rage that she agreed to become
a vengeance demon. Now, here is where the arrested developement
metaphor may become more closely linked to canon: as a vengeance
demon, Anya was unable of changing her feelings. At the time her
thoughts ran that all men were horribly evil, and, because vengeance
demons cannot change, she was (meta)physically unable to change
how she felt about people. Her transformation, essentially, froze
her at a single moment in time when her rage was all consuming.
Becoming human again allowed her to be able to adapt, to continue
her progression of emotions. What about Anyanka II, then? Well,
her metaphysics seem to be slightly different than orginally.
Before, she wore an amulet which was the source of all her powers.
After her second transformation, no amulet to be seen, so she
may not be frozen the way she was the first time.
Just a theory.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
That's actually a pretty good theory -- Miss Edith, 05:42:57
09/06/02 Fri
I could buy that if that's how they choose to present Anya and
Anyanka on the show.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
The amulet -- MysticalMuesli, 06:12:53 09/06/02 Fri
I was under the impression that she was wearing the amulet, but
that it was hidden from veiw so that the Scoobies wouldn't realise
she was a vengeance demon again.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
obscured amulet -- SpikeMom,
08:13:02 09/06/02 Fri
You can see Anya wearing a necklace chain in every episode post
Hell's Bells. The pendant is always obscured under her blouse/shirt/clothing.
That's what I was looking for first thing to see if she had taken
D'Hoffren up on the redemonizing offer. We still haven't seen
the actual pendant. It will be interesting to see if it's the
same as her The Wish pendant or if it will be a new design.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> IMO, the "Anyanka as feminist
avenger" position is impossible to reconcile with "The
Wish" -- KdS, 04:46:14 09/05/02 Thu
... in which she showed nothing but glee in the suffering Cordelia's
wish had caused to humans of both sexes, and didn't even regret
the gruesome death of her own original "client".
I suspect that we'd have seen a more nuanced characterisation
if ME had intended Anya as a regular character at the time, but
I can't see anything honourable or well-intentioned about the
S3 Anyanka. My personal impression re the S/A double standard
is that none of the Scoobs met Anyanka as a vengeance demon (in
the standard timeline) and that they have an impression of her
actions and motivations as rose-tinted as Slain's...
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Avenger, no, but still different
than a serial-killer vampire ... -- Earl
Allison, 09:49:35 09/05/02 Thu
It's been made VERY clear that Anyanka requires a wisher to access
more of her power. Maybe she twists those wishes (as of "The
Wish," although that seems not to be the case by S6), but
it's still a far cry from Spike, who went out and killed for little
or no reason, and killed anyone who caught his eye.
Say what you will, but Anyanka's powers needed to be summoned
by someone who wanted vengeance, even if egged on. Spike was a
mass-murderer.
Still a big difference, but I'd still rather have to defend Anyanka
than Spike (pre-chip).
Take it and run.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Isn't the fairest comparison
-- Sophist, 10:18:06 09/05/02 Thu
to a Mafia hit man? And I can't say that I see much moral difference
between her and Spike in that case.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Isn't the fairest
comparison -- Miss Edith, 15:01:28 09/05/02 Thu
I have never seen Spike as a serial killer personally. He reminded
me more of a wild animal. He killed for food and occasionally
for sport (teacher in School Hard). Creatures such as foxes will
often kill every single chicken in a coop, just for the sport
of it even though they have eaten enough. That is Spike to me.
He looked upon humans as an inferior species and felt free to
treat them as humans treat animals. Following interaction with
the scoobies he starts seeing humans as individuals, hence his
unease when preparing to kill the women in Smashed. He was in
the wrong there, no question but he did need to talk himself up
to what had previously come naturally. Marti even said that she
believed he would have experienced remorse if he had managed to
kill the girl.
Anya was pissed and was made a vengeance demon so that she could
cause widescale suffering. She seemed to enjoy the chaos she caused,
although it has been suggested that Anya did see her vengeance
as justified and helpful. But in The Wish she gloats about the
suffering she has caused and sees it as exciting. She actually
tricked Cordy into making a wish, just as Hallie did with Dawn.
Anya wasn't a serial killer either, and never killed just for
the sake of killing. Rather she tortured and killed under orders.
If we're going to use human examples I would say the closest real
world example is a hit man or the Nazi war criminals who justified
their behaviour as carrying out orders.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Anya and souls -- shadowkat, 06:22:26
09/05/02 Thu
I agree with Slain here. Although KdS has a good point on the
Wish.
I do wish that ME would reconcile this. Because it has confused
me. Did Anya become good for same reason Angel
did because she became human? Neither chose it. It was forced
on them. Anya's humanity caused by Giles and against her will,
she fights him on it. She attempts to get her powers back by first
begging D'Hoffryn and then begging
Willow to pull necklace back in Doppelgangerland. Angel
is the same way. He loses his soul and fights getting it back,
it's why he kills Jenny's uncle and Jenny herself.
Willow forces the soul on him with a curse. MEthinks Angelus would
have liked hell better without it. So I've had troubles accepting
either's redemptive arc because they didn't choose it. It was
forced on them. So my question?
Is ME really existentialist at all? Or are they only existentialist
for characters who have souls and it doesn't matter how you got
the soul, once you have it - you have a choice. Without a soul
you have no choice - so must either be killed or merely tolerated.
Because without the soul you don't care.
So wait, if that's true, if you have to have a soul to care -
if Anya has a soul as a vengeance demon and chose to do the things
in The Wish but did not choose to become human, is Anya anywhere
near being redeemed? Isn't Anya
worse than the soulless demon and more like say, Warren or Willow?
(I don't know, just wondering.) Aren't characters who have souls
and choose to do horrible things worse than
characters who have no soul and hence no choice? As Buffy said
in Gingerbread: "Someone with a soul did this?"
(Also as an aside - really don't want to make this about Spike,
even I'm getting sick of discussing him right now,
if you can't choose without a soul, how come Spike chose one?
If a demon can only be evil and would never choose to do good
or grow up, how come Spike chose a soul? Or has Whedon flipped
the metaphor to represent something else?
Maybe the soul metaphor is being stretched in Spike's case to
represent an adolescent choosing to grow up? When in Angel's the
soul just meant the abilty to choose to do good? Can you use it
for both without confusing the heck out of your audience?)
I'm not unconvinced that Anya as a vengeance demon has a soul.
I have no textual information otherwise. (And please don't quote
writer's interviews - I only believe what they visually or orally
relate in the actual show, not what they state in some interview!)Hopefully
they'll clear this up next year - from what I hear, Season 7 is
Anya's year to shine so they should.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Did Anyanka I have a soul? This
REALLY bothers me... -- cjl, 07:07:47 09/05/02 Thu
I can't believe this isn't brewing up more arguments. It's a huge
issue for me. Some time during Season 7, somebody's going to notice
that Anyanka II has a conscience, empathy, all the qualities associated
with a soul. The observant person will ask if she had a soul the
first time around. There's a good shot she'll say yes.
THEN what?
You mean Anyanka I cursed, maimed, mutilated and slaughtered all
those men, NOT because D'Hoffryn robbed her of the quality of
mercy by demonizing her, but because she was in a bad mood for
1100 years?! May I say:
Yeeeee-EEEE! (Heebie jeebie attack.)
You're right, Kat. This takes Anyanka I out of the Angelus and
Spike category, even the Willow and Warren category, and puts
her in a whole new category of horror. (Xander thinks he's having
trouble adjusting to Anya's demon status NOW--wait until this
shocker hits him.)
Maybe the situation is more complicated than the simple "soul/no
soul" dichotomy. Perhaps the soul is present, but the demonic
persona dominates and sublimates the human most of the time. (Yeah,
I know. Dicey. But I love Anya, and I want to give the girl an
"out.")
Final thought: Isn't Buffy kind of obligated to do something about
this sort of individual?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Anya and souls -- Arethusa,
07:20:36 09/05/02 Thu
I'm SOS (Sick of Spike) too. But-if Buffy said he needed to have
brown hair for her to love him, he'd now have brown hair. He chose
a soul, but not for moral reasons.
I think it's okay that none of the demons wanted to be redeemed,
but found themselves on that path anyway. It might even have made
the process more interesting, because otherwise there wouldn't
be all that juicy inner conflict when they do start to change.
Anya had totally forgotten what it was like to be human, and only
slowly began to feel and act like a human. Like an child whose
moral development occurs in stages, over many years, she was still
learning to be human-and unlearning what she once felt and did.
Watching an adult develop a moral compass in just a few years
has been fascinating. At first all of her decisions were made
for her own sake. She took what she wanted, ordering around and
insulting others without acknowledgement of their own wants and
needs. When the Ascencion threatened, she left, even though she
had feeling for Xandeer. When she returned, her scope expanded
to include the man she wanted, but he was her only concern outside
herself. In "Fear, Itself," she demanded Giles rescue
Xander, and didn't much care about the others. Then her circle
of concern expanded to those Xander cared about. But when she
was jilted, she wasn't able to retain her humanity and went back
to being a demon. She chose to help in "Grave" because
of Willow, a woman in search of vengence. Her humanity was always
a work in process, and the work has been abandoned. Which will
dominate this fall-the hard-won humanity remaining, or her demonic
nature?
Another interesting question concerns Doyle and Cordelia. Would
mixed human and demon DNA affect the condition of the soul? With
vampires, the demon DNA is dominant. Is it subordinate with other
types of demons?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Anya and souls
-- shadowkat, 08:09:57 09/05/02 Thu
The more I think about it? I don't think the soul metaphor is
just about good and evil and choosing between the two.
But I'll save my thesis on this for an essay that's been fermenting
in my brain. And I do think there's more to Spike choosing a soul
than meets the eye, just because it works too perfectly with the
Oh Grow Up theme and yes, I'm probably over-estimating writers
again. They could very well have picked the dull mundane reason,
like they have in the past. Let me. I need something to do in
my spare time. ;-) Some people play X-Box, I write incredibly
long essays about stuff I'm sure the writers never intended. LOL!
(Can't afford X-box)
Anyways on the demon/human hybrid? Well according to Anya every
demon in the Buffyverse is demon/human hybrid including vampires.
It's what she tells the gang in Graduation Day Part I - that the
Mayor ascends to pure demon. Prior to that I think the Mayor was
a demon/human hybrid or a human who could live forever?
Afterwards he became pure demon. Anya: You never fought a demon.
Buffy: Uh excuse me? Anya: those are hybrids not pure demon. Demons
are well bigger.
Now this is where Ats and Btvs often feel like separate universes.
On Ats - demon/hybrids are considered good in degrees. Lorne is
demon/hybrid and good. He does good things. Doyle - human looking
(well most of time) demon/hybrid who also does good deeds. Don't
see evil here.
Of course I might have a lax definition of evil? don't know.
Never was real comfortable defining it. On Btvs? Up until Season
6 - if it was a demon? It was evil. The only exceptions seemed
to be demons turned into humans and werewolves (not sure a werewolf
is considered a demon on Btvs, don't think so.) Now we have the
wonderful Clem (who they better damn well have in the cast next
year or I'm going to be very annoyed) who is full demon and incredibly
nice. (Only bad things I've seen him do is eat kittens and cheat
at poker, which while not necessarily the nicest thing in the
world is hardly evil. I love kittens btw, as pets, not to eat
(yuck! and ewww!)but calling that evil would be like calling some
homeless people and other cultures evil (I'm sure someone does
it but not sure who or am I confusing that with dogs?) Anyway
back on topic - Clem seems to be the exception in Buffyverse.)
So apparently there are graduations of good and evil in Buffy
and Angel verses.
1. Most Evil = Hell-god, The Judge, or pure demon (see Mayor)Kindergartaen,
2. Close to Evil = Doc (Glory's guy), Master, Adam, D'Hoffryn,
Annoited One, Luke
3. Psychopaths = Drusilla, Angelus, VampWillow and possibly DarkWillow
4. Sociopaths =Buffy's Roommate Kathy, pre-child Darla, Warren,
VampXander
5. Vengeance Demons= Anyanka I, Halfrek,
6. Human menace = Holtz, Maggie Walsh, Guy in Beauty & Beasts,
guys in Some Assembly Recquired, Wolfram & Hart
7. Bad boys/Bad girls = Faith, Anyanka II
8. Mislead humans = Jonathan, Andrew, Ethan
9. Possessed or detached humans = OZ as werewolf, Xander in the
Pack, Willow on magic drugs in Wrecked, the Scoobs in Afterlife,
the ghosts in IOHEFY
10. Nice demons: Lorne, Clem, maybe Skip
11. Human hybrids: Doyle & Cordelia, and presumably Angel (Although
the jury is out on how nice Angel has really been lately, I'm
still tempted to put him in Bad boy territory but that's just
me.)
I think that's the trajectory. (Now you may have noticed I left
Spike off the list. Why? Because no matter where I put him, some
demon poster is going to flame me for it. So let's throw that
one out now. Let's pretend Spike does not exist? Because I really
don't want to engage in yet another endless and now moot Spike
is evil and bad debate. We all know who hates Spike, who wants
Spike to be evil and why they want it, just as we all know who
loves Spike, wants him redeemed and why, and those of us who fall
somewhere in between. Let's move on!) Want to discuss everyone
else.
sk
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Never forget the
Evil of Good Intentions ... -- John Burwood, 10:27:26 09/05/02
Thu
... which pave the road to hell. Nor the idealism out of which
the express elevators to hell were built.
What made Hitler & Himmler etc. so evil was that that they meant
to do good. They did not attempt genocide out of selfishness or
greed but in pursuit of Utopian vision. The Khmer Rouge created
the killing fields of Cambodia in pursuit of different Utopian
visions. Religious fanatics of all sorts have always killed because
they believed it was good. Most participants in the First World
War were motivated by honour, loyalty, duty, courage, etc.
Very few are sociopathic enough to kill thousands for selfish
reasons, but in the sincere belief that it is noble and righteous
to do so? Much easier. Countless millions throughout history must
have been killed in the name of good intentions. My bet is many
more than were killed for selfish reasons.
The point about Anyanka 1 is that she was totally sincerely convinced
of the righteousness of the vengeance she inflicted -so why should
it trouble her conscience?
BTW, wasn't the Judge motivated to rid Earth ofthe 'Plague of
Humanity'. Didn't Prof Walsh believe she was acting for the 'greater
good'?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Never forget
the Evil of Good Intentions ... (Part 1.5) -- John Burwood,
11:24:14 09/05/02 Thu
oops - clicked to post prematurely.
To resume: In the black hat/white hat universe, as spelled out
by Giles at the end of 'Lie to Me' the good guys have noble motives
and the bad guys have selfish motives, yet in reality it can easily
be so different. Too often do we assume that because we mean well
we are doing good - as did Riley before Walsh tried to have Buffy
killed & he started to question. Too easy to be wrong - at all
levels from Social Workers taking children into care too quickly
to terrorists killing thousands, or vengeance demons trapping
people in houses.
Cute how Spike helped save the world for purely selfish reasons
in Becoming P2, while Willow nearly destroyed it in Grave to save
the people from all that suffering.
Nothing is ever quite that simple.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Means
and Ends -- lachesis, 14:02:44 09/05/02 Thu
I agree, never, ever simple. Choices/actions have conscious and
unconscious motives, intended consequences and actual consequences,
and I love that BtVS consistently shows all the many points at
which tragic mistakes can be made.
With regards to your point about genocide and belief, I was thinking
that ends vs. means has been a major theme recently. In the Gift,
Buffy makes it clear that no end will justify that means (killing
Dawn). Tara's attempts to reason with Willow about magic (esp.
TR) pretty much have the same point: in using magic, Willow has
come to focus on the end (fixing things) to the exclusion of the
dangers, and elimination of other people's choices, involved in
the means. It seems to me that it is this, rather than the fact
that Willow's ends are necessarily wrong in themselves, that is
the problem.
This same attitude is manifested and discussed in the last 3 eps.,
with the added point that Willow now seems to take pleasure in
the means themselves. She doesn't just want vengeance, but also
to exact it herself. In contrast, the vengeance demons would seem
not to be pursuing their own ends, and therefore to be somewhat
aloof from this dilemma, except for the fact that in OaFA Halfrek
and Anya refer to each other's 'specialities' as though they were
compulsions or fetishes. Doesn't Halfrek justify herself at one
point with 'the children need me'!
I don't percieve many (unquestioned) moral absolutes in the show,
but this one (that no end can justify a means that would otherwise
be questionable or wrong) seems to recurr. (I'm sure someone can
come up with a counter-example?) And I thought it was amusing
that Spike in Becoming 2 uses his end (getting Dru back) to justify
his means (alliance with the Slayer against his 'side') and subsequently
suffers for it...
Plus,of course,'Road to Hell: Paved with Good Intentions' is practically
the sub-title to S.6.
Just thinking out loud - thanks for the lovely post.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Giles
and Ben? -- Sophist, 14:41:55 09/05/02 Thu
And which way does Buffy sending Angel to Hell cut (pun intended)?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Giles and Ben? -- lachesis, 12:11:12 09/06/02 Fri
Ooh, two good ones. Giles and Ben: Giles (IMO) knows perfectly
well that this is murder, and wrong. He explains why Buffy would
not do it, and does not believe himself to be justified. I can
only read that scene as Giles consciously accepting the moral
and personal consequences of the act, out of love for Buffy, and
in order to prevent her ever having to compromise herself in that
particular way.
Angel, well that cuts both ways. I didn't ever see it as a moral
dilemma because:
a) She doesn't end his existence.
b) He is not (as Dawn is introduced to us) 'an innocent in this.'
Whatever the abstract arguments about resposibility for actions
under the influence of demon, it was already very clear that Angel
considered himself responsible for Angelus' actions, and felt
remorse for them.
c) Most importantly, it always seemed to me that had Buffy and
re-souled Angel had half an hour to talk about it, not just moments;
had Buffy been able to explain the situation and his part in it;
Angel would willingly have sacrificed himself - and she knew that.
None of these things make it any less of an horrendous emotional
decision, made all the worse by the fact that she knows she was
'right.'There really was no choice, she did what she had to do.
But there should have been, if the world was fair and bad things
didn't happen to good people. I was awestruck by that as a presentation
of the reward of virtue, and hooked for ever on BtVS. :)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Means and Ends -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:26:34 09/05/02 Thu
Buffy not letting anyone kill Dawn was not a moral decision, it
was an emotional one. Giles killing Ben (as Sophist pointed out)
is a contradiction to the ends-don't-justify-the-means mentality.
Frankly, I've never understood why people keep saying the ends
don't justify the means. They totally do!
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Would have to totally disagree with you re The Gift decision
-- Azrahael, 03:57:37 09/06/02 Fri
And the problem with the ends justifiying the means have been
amply demonstrated by John and Lachesis, and also by history.
The problem with the 'ends' is that sometimes we never reach the
end. And all we are left with as society is the means.
Also re the Gift, it's that irritating dichotomy between emotion
and thought once again. Morality doesn't have an emotional content?
Does the repugnance against murder not have an emotional content?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Would have to totally disagree with you re The Gift
decision -- Miss Edith, 05:52:40 09/06/02 Fri
In Choices the scoobies were all pretty horrified when Wesley
suggested they should sacriifice Willow in order to prevent the
Mayors assension and save many lifes. Wesley and Giles have both
the utilitarian mode of thought at different times (end justifies
the means) and so did Buffy originally. She choose to send Angel
to hell, knowing he trusted her and didn't really deserve hell,
in order to save the rest of the world from the same hell she
was sending Angel to. Her decision not to sacrifice Dawn was not
one that I personally agreed with as Dawn was going to die anyway
and would have suffered terrible torture if she hadn't sacrificed
herself for others. I understood Buffy's reasons though and who
knows in her place I many have done the same thing. Buffy's porblem
was that Dawn was a total innocent and she didn't believe a world
in which we must kill innocents was a world she wanted to be a
part of. If killing Dawn was the price she must pay to save the
world then it wasn't worth it. Dawn herself solved Buffy's moral
dilema by offering to jump. When Buffy refused to accept Dawn's
offer of sacrifice that was when she was acting from pure emotion.
JMO
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Some thoughts
on TV vs. reality -- Slain, 16:04:31 09/05/02 Thu
Your point is well argued, but I'd contend that, being a TV show,
BtVS doesn't have to live by the same morals of reality, simply
because everything is fiction; it might be metaphors for life,
or be based on life, but obviously it's not life. If Angel and
Spike were real, I'd probably want them tried and then locked
away in a secure facility, in the same way that we protect society
from psychopaths and sociopaths who still present a danger.
But I don't feel the need to compare Anya to Heinrich Himmler,
and to judge her or any other character by the same standards.
That's the beauty of TV, or at least it is for me; it allows you
to accept things you wouldn't do in life, like kitten eating demons,
former vengeance demons who're more concerned with shoes than
evisceration, and vampires in love; not just that monsters are
real and that the world is controlled by mysterious forces of
good and evil, but that dangerous people can be likeable. So the
show largely expects us to like Angel, Spike and Anya, and doesn't
expect us to condemn them, whether because they're complex three
dimensional characters in which we see the good and bad, or just
because (my pet theory) they're cool.
In life, I probably would condemn Anya, in the same way that I'd
condemn anyone who took pleasure remembering acts of violence,
even if they were feminists from the 10th century. But
I see TV, and BtVS especially, as somewhat of a release from that.
I'm not sure to what extent BtVS is exempt from the morals of
real life, so that's really an open question.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Souls and Machines
-- pr10n, 10:51:28 09/05/02 Thu
Three or four machines might want to represent on that list: Ted,
April, BuffyBot, and WarrenBot.
Soulless and vicious? Ted has issues.
Driven and focused to psycho levels? April is looking for her
man.
Loving and loving, plus willing to go to back-to-school-night?
The BuffyBot has soul chops galore.
Send me in Coach, I'll take one for the team? The WarrenBot gets
a little face time with DarkWillow, but it's just 3-Card Monty
for the Troika-man.
What does ME want us to do with these guys? In every situation
we're led to believe they are real (read, "souled")
people, until the plot jerks out from under us. Then they are
soulless things, and abused a lot.
pr10n
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Anya and souls -- Miss
Edith, 07:33:03 09/05/02 Thu
Spike didn't choose a soul because he wanted to be good and he
wanted to make the right decision. He choose it because of his
horror and remorse at what he had almost done to Buffy. He loved
Buffy and was tired of hurting her and not knowing his place in
life. Buffy had told him countless times that he was no good without
a soul. Ergo he sought a soul to make them both happy and give
them both what they deserved. It was mainly a practical decision
in my eyes. He was living unloved in a crypt and he wanted his
life to revolve around Buffy. We know how much having companions
and a women to worship means to him. I don't think it's necesserily
proof that all vampires can be reformed. Spike wanted acceptance
and feared being alone. He never had an innate desire to do good
or repent because he was not capable of having such a longing
whilst lacking a moral compass to guide him.
As for Anya I had always assumed she had a soul as a demon as
she seemed to feel no remorse in The Wish. When Angel had his
soul returned it hit him like a ton of bricks. Anya was just confused
at her new form. Jane has said Anya has always had a soul which
makes more sense to me than David Fury's thought that Anya keeps
losing and regaining her soul depending on her outer appearance.
I have never agreed with David Fury's more black and white attitudes
anyway so I am more inclined to follow Jane's logic. Marti has
said she was interested in greying up the Buffyverse and Anya
being compassionate as a human does seem to back up Jane's interpretation.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Anya and souls
-- shadowkat, 08:15:20 09/05/02 Thu
I actually agree with both your interpretations. Also Spike's
still fits my growing up theory.
More i think on it - I think you're right. I think Anyanka does
have a soul. And yes I think that's part of them greying the Buffyverse.
She didn't act any different as a human. She basically acted the
same. The only difference was no powers which she slowly adapted
to.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Dedemonising the
demoniser -- KdS, 09:30:18 09/05/02 Thu
You know, the more I think about it the more I feel that the best
way to deal with Anya(nka) is to take a naturalistic rather than
mystical approach. The last three years we've seen human beings
with souls do things to rival the most degenerate demon with greater
or lesser degrees of subsequent remorse (tangential, but I finally
watched the last few AtS S3 episodes over the weekend and Holtz's
actions in "Benediction" impress me as the worst behaviour
I've seen in any entity in either series).
Hence, let's assume that Anya had a soul all along and try to
reconstruct the development of her personality.
OK, she's somewhere in preliterate Siberia (by implication in
"Triangle"), which if it was anything like early 20th
century Russian peasant culture was a horrible place for a woman,
she's been horribly treated by a thug, and she turns to magic
for help. Then this weird guy with horns turns up and offers her
the chance to carry on striking back against the evils of the
male half of humankind. Trouble is, the methods she's been given
are uncontrollable, and sometimes they seem to cause a lot of
random pain. On the other hand, her new friends seem to be happiest
and most pleased with her when things get really ugly. Chaos can
be pretty fun, she never had much of a chance as a human, and
fairly soon she's taken on all the attitudes of her social circle.
Who cares what happens to a bunch of worthless, pathetic humans?
Essentially, we're looking at a person who was slowly seduced
into an elite group that saw most other people as worthless, and
deserving of whatever nastiness happened to them. Hopefully you
can see the parallels right now, but the way I see it the Scoobs'
dilemma with Anya is pretty close to the situation that developed
in Germany/Austria circa 1945, South Africa circa 1994, probably
Serbia/Bosnia/Croatia in a few years' time. What do you do with
a person who joined a crusade with ill-formed ideas and probably
good intentions, and ended up slaughtering (un)people by the gross
and walking off whistling a merry tune?
cjl: "Isn't Buffy kind of obligated to do something about
this sort of individual?"
What? Anya's shown serious capability for altruistic behaviour
and redemption (far more IMO than The Dead Guy Who Shall Not Be
Mentioned In This Subthread). Therefore, by Buffy's normal moral
code there's no good in killing her. Judicial penalties? "OK,
your friend set fire to a town and killed several hundered people.
This was where? Russia, 14th century AD? By magic? Hmmm."
Of course, the whole question is whether Anya's gone back to mass
slaughter in the last couple of months or whether she's been trying
to be a kinder, gentler vengeance demon and use her powers for
good. Even so, you may intellectually feel that an SS/Stasi/White
Wolf operative is redeemable, but do you really want your best
friend dating one?
Of course, Quentin would say that this is what happens when you
let a Slayer have friends, but Quentin would do pretty well in
any of the organisations I've alluded to above (I imagine Quentin
starts every day at the WC HQ with toast and the Daily Mail.)
Gee, I love it when things get grey...
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Anya, She-Wolf
of the VDs... -- cjl, 11:39:14 09/05/02 Thu
"Of course, the whole question is whether Anya's gone back
to mass slaughter in the last couple of months or whether she's
been trying to be a kinder, gentler vengeance demon and use her
powers for good. Even so, you may intellectually feel that an
SS/Stasi/White Wolf operative is redeemable, but do you really
want your best friend dating one?"
I can just see it now....
XANDER: You mean...you're telling me...you had a SOUL when you
did all this?! You h-h-h... (hyperventilates)
ANYA (looking concerned): Xander, I-I don't think that manner
of breathing is very good for you.
BUFFY (to Willow): Holy crap.
WILLOW (to Buffy): Buffy, I think he's going to pass out.
(SPIKE smiles to himself.)
BUFFY (to Spike): I saw that.
WILLOW: We've got to get him out of here.
ANYA: Xander? Are you all right? You know I'm trying to be good!
I-I didn't think whether or not I had a soul would make that much
of a difference...
XANDER (looks balefully at Spike): Wh--? You didn't think it would...?
(wheezes pitifully)
BUFFY (drapes Xander's arm around her shoulder and starts carrying
him off): Anya, you're not helping here.
SPIKE: Lad needs some air. Sudden rush of blood to the head and
all.
BUFFY: You're not helping either. Will, you coming?
ANYA (to Willow): Don't look at me like that. You're hardly one
to judge, Miss I'm-Going-to-Destroy-the World.
WILLOW: Yeah, well...I had a bad DAY. Give me 200 years or so,
and I think I would have calmed down.
BUFFY: Will!
WILLOW (to Anya): Later.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> lol...
"I had a bad day..." -- KdS, 05:48:02 09/06/02
Fri
[> [> [> [> [>
[> A topic "thoroughly [and completely] discussed"?
Is there such a thing? ;) -- ponygirl hoping there isn't,
09:36:18 09/04/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Not around here, so rest easy -- vh, 08:30:35
09/06/02 Fri
[> I don't think you're
accounting for Buffy's state of mind...(slight S7 spoiler)
-- cjl, 07:50:18 09/03/02 Tue
Mentally, she was in terrible shape in S6. Dragged out of heaven,
burdened with crushing responsibilities, alienated from her friends
and her sister, Mommy dead, Daddy gone, Substitute Daddy gone--and
there's Spike, Mr. Attentive (but then, what else has Spikeypuffs
got going?), willing to sit and listen, with no expectations.
She had an "out" from all the stress, and she took it.
I don't feel Buffy is a chronic "Vampire Layer" just
because she had a lot of GREAT sex with Spike. (Wait--I'm not
helping my case here...) She could have easily submitted to Dracula
at the start of S5, but she had the mental strength to fight him
off. I think Buffy will be back to full strength at the start
of S7, and we'll have no more vampire laying. She'll be sympathetic
to Crazy!Spike, but that's about it.
If she starts coming on to the Master, though, I'll print a full
apology ("Liam was 100% right") on this website.
P.S. Favorite line of that Friends episode: Phoebe walks into
to Monica's apartment while they're playing the porn tape, and
catches Buffay the Vampire Layer in action...
"Oh my God," she shrieks, "WHAT AM I DOING?"
[> From the opposite side
-- Sophist, 08:54:24 09/03/02 Tue
I find my reaction to be the opposite of that implied in your
post and in the responses by CW and cjl. I think Spuffy was a
good idea.
First, the fact that a "comedy" show (not much of a
"Friends" fan, myself) caricatures something is hardly
grounds not to do it. Aristophanes caricatured Socrates; that
hardly means Socrates was wrong to explore philosophy. That is,
for better or worse, what comedians do.
Second, I think that a serious response has to account for the
issue of metaphor here. Vampires on the show serve as metaphors
for arrested development, for "bad boys", and for forbidden
sexuality (this latter aspect has been present in the vampire
legends long before Buffy).
Third, I really resent the notion that sexuality, including its
darker aspects, can't be explored in a serious way. Regardless
of which metaphor you prefer to apply to Spuffy, I think that
S6 attempted to do this. Whether anyone personally thinks it was
successful is irrelevant to whether it should be attempted.
Finally, a long running plotline has suggested that the slayer
originated in some way related to vampires. The fascination between
slayer and vampire is hardly surprising. It's the same fascination
we would expect to find, and do, in, say, Highlander. I see the
relationship both as symbiotic and as intrinsic to the plot.
I personally think that Spike is the right pairing for Buffy.
This has much to do with personal taste, but there are also (IMHO)
considerable advantages for the show: the actors have great chemistry
together; it pairs 2 of the 3 best actors on the show; it provides
a structurally plausible reason to keep Spike in Sunnydale.
[> [> I'll be on your
side Sophist! -- ponygirl, 09:07:55 09/03/02 Tue
[> [> Agree on all points!
-- shadowkat, 09:25:20 09/03/02 Tue
I just re-watched Buffy vs. Dracula last night and was once again
taken by two things:
1. Dracula repeats to Buffy just before she tastes his blood,
the same lines Tara did in her dream: "You think you know
what you are..."
2. Dracula tells Buffy - "We're kindred."
When she sips his blood, she sees the slayer, the primitive running
in the desert and flashes from her dream.
Buffy The Vampire Slayer was never just about slaying vampires.
It is about irony. It takes what you expect and flips it on its
head. What could be more ironic than a slayer sleeping with a
vampire? What would be more ironic than a vampire falling in love
with a slayer?
Unlike most of the television shows - including the aforesaid
Friends, BTVs is metaphorical and complex, with complex themes,
complex metaphors, and complex ideas. It isn't structured to make
you life and feel happy at the end of 30 minutes. It's structured
to disturb you and make you question stuff and maybe change your
reality a bit.
It's more like Star Trek Next Generation or Forever
Knight or Babylon Five.
I remember reading an interview on slayage.com where Joss Whedon
said he was interested in seeing characters do the reverse of
what we expected. The noble captain being a coward. The mean guy
being actually sweet. Because that in his view was more realistic
and more interesting.
sk
[> [> [> B vs D
-- ponygirl, 10:00:34 09/03/02 Tue
Really Buffy vs. Dracula was the biggest tease ever! All those
hints in Restless, and then a season opener that seems to finally
promise that this year will be the long-awaited exploration of
Slayer origins. What do we get instead? Dawn, and two seasons
of fallout from that. Not that I mind the twist of course, but
still...
So I hope in my unspoiled heart that this year will see a return
to Buffy's desire to find out what she really is and what it means.
Maybe with all that she's been through this past year she'll actually
be able to better accept a darker origin than she might have anticipated.
[> [> [> [> I agree,
ponygirl! My wishful speculation... (reference to a very vague
Joss remark about S7) -- Dyna, 12:58:33 09/04/02 Wed
Joss was quoted in an interview earlier this summer as saying
that next year's Big Bad will be "everyone's worst nightmare."
I've seen all kinds of speculations for what this means--that
it would be Spike gunning for Buffy (yawn! done that, see also
S2-5,) Dawn's key powers being abused, the hellmouth, etc.
My wishful speculation is that Joss was being clever as well as
evasive, and that "everyone's worst nightmare" isn't
just a random expression of badness, but a reference to "Restless."
In that episode, everyone's worst nightmare was the First Slayer--the
primal force that Buffy springs from, and that seemed to want
to reclaim her. So my hope for next season is that the major plotline
will bring a payoff to the hints about Buffy's nature and origins,
with some kind of big drama and lots of appearances by spirit
guides, First Slayers, etc.
If they do that, I for one will be jumping up and down giggling
the whole time, I'm sure. :) I don't know why, but I just love
appearances by spirit guides!
[> [> [> [> [>
The Hellmouth Beast -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:17:27 09/04/02
Wed
In "The Zeppo", Willow and Buffy are talking about what
it would be like if the Hellmouth opened (slightly paraphrased):
Buffy: You remember that monster that came out of it the last
time it was opened?
Willow: How could I forget? Every nightmare I have that isn't
about academic failure or public nudity is about that thing.
This gives whatever is behind the Hellmouth some credibility as
"worst nightmare" potential.
[> [> [> [> Slayer
Origins -- Robert, 13:00:59 09/04/02 Wed
>>> "... to finally promise that this year will
be the long- awaited exploration of Slayer origins."
Assuming you haven't already, I recommend you read the "Fray"
comic books (6 of 8 issues have been published) and the "Tales
of the Slayer" comic book. These were written by Joss or
under his close control, so that they fit reliably into the continuity
of BtVS. They give some details about the origin of the vampires
and slayers, not given in the show.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Slayer Origins (Fray and Tales spoilers) -- ponygirl,
13:29:19 09/04/02 Wed
Fray oh Fray when will you finish? Sigh...
I liked the explanation offered in Tales that the proto-CoW created
the Slayer from demons-- though it could be argued that it came
from a hearsay source. Buffy's been pretty vehement in denying
any sort of demonic connection to herself, so her reaction to
hearing this story would be quite interesting to say the least.
I so want to find out more about the First Slayer. Was she a vampire
with humanity restored by the CoW but her vamp powers retained--
raising some interesting Shanshu questions? Or was she a girl
taken and somehow transformed by the shamans? Her nature transformed
completely and turned into a slaying machine? Or are her origins
even stranger - balls of green energy and the like?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Ded had a theory about that - last summer I think
-- Rahael, 14:51:50 09/04/02 Wed
Balls of green energy and the Slayer. I think it may have been
either June or July 2001. It's worth looking back for!
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Fray oh Fray when will you finish? -- Robert, 14:45:08
09/05/02 Thu
According to http://www.darkhorse.com/products/zones/z_buffy/index.html
Joss has submitted the script for issue #7 of Fray. The Dark Horse
site states that issue #7 will be released on December 4th. However,
they've pushed back the dates several times already. We will see!
[> [> [> Count me
in! -- DickBD, 11:46:47 09/03/02 Tue
Great post. Count me on your side. But I understand the reservations
about this season. Buffy has always been a "good girl"
and a likable person. It is difficult to be exposed to a dark
side of her. But I absolutely agree that Buffy is like Shakespeare
in that there is more to it than first appears. Even some of the
clunky episodes look better upon a re-viewing in my experience.
I don't do that with too many things outside of Shakespeare and
opera. Maybe I should.
[> [> The monsters in
us all -- Rahael, 09:50:45 09/03/02 Tue
"First, the fact that a "comedy" show (not much
of a "Friends" fan, myself) caricatures something is
hardly grounds not to do it. Aristophanes caricatured Socrates;
that hardly means Socrates was wrong to explore philosophy. That
is, for better or worse, what comedians do."
LOL - what a wonderful example!!
I'm pretty sure that it was on BtVS itself that that wordplay
originated. Can't remember which ep - but Xander asks Buffy, loudly,
in the cafeteria how the Slaying went the night before. Under
everyone's glare, he changes that to "laying". And Buffy
looks even more outraged.
Liam said:
"Buffy is the Slayer, and supposed to kill vampires. Her
relationship with Angel can be seen as an exception, due to him
being a good vampire with a soul. Also, allowance can be made
for the fact of her being sixteen and in love. This changes when
we see her get involved in an abusive relationship with Spike,
an evil, unrepentant vampire. Some questions need to be asked.
Do vampires have an attraction for her? Was Spike prophetic when
he said that she liked a bit of monster in her man? If so, then
the caricature is in danger of becoming reality."
This is me speaking from my own soapbox really, but if you were
to view Buffy simply as a show about a girl who kills the bad
guys, the entire heart of the show is gone. The fact that the
'Slayer' patrols, and walks upon the very the boundaries of reason
(as Leslie pointed out), means that she reinforces it even more
strongly for 'normal' society. By challenging it, she makes it
even more secure. So she's inevitably caught up in the darkness,
the undeath, the graveyards. She walks in the shadows, and allows
the rest of Sunnydale to live in (un)happy, sunny, illusion.
What more wonderful way of showing this as a metaphor than make
her fall in love with the undead?
And as for the 'monster in her man' - I see it as a profound statement
of Buffy's unease about her own status. Who can love a 'monster'
but other monsters? And if she let the unmonstrous get too close,
would they run away screaming? Leave her, as her father and her
mother did? As Riley did?
[> [> Is sex with the
undead ever a good idea? -- cjl, 09:52:53 09/03/02 Tue
A counter-argument:
Sophist, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your argument that
Spuffy put a much-needed jolt into the show, but I have to wonder:
did Buffy's liaison (nice word for it) with Spike really do her
any good?
Buffy main problem isn't the fact that she's attracted to vampires,
or she's courting danger by exploring the darker side of her sexuality--it's
her psychic alienation from her nature as a Slayer. Every time
she edges closer to finding out about what Slayers truly are and
where they come from, she backs away, frightened that Slayers
might be as bad--or worse--than the things she kills every night.
This isn't exactly new with Buffy. We've had it in Season 3 with
Faith, in Season 5 with Dracula, and now in S6 with Spike. How
many times are we going to do this before Buffy moves forward?
Spike, if anything, deliberately fed into this fear. His "you
are a creature of the night, just like me" routine merely
exacerbated Buffy's terror and self-alienation, and when she cut
off their affair, it seems she symbolically cut off her exploration
of Slayer Nature as well. (In Normal Again, she almost killed
Willow, Xander, and Dawn to escape from Slayerness.)
As entertaining as Spuffy was onscreen, the whole imbroglio seems
to have been one step forward and two steps back for Buffy. Yeah,
she explored her darker sexual urges, blah blah blah, but beyond
that, she's not progressing in understanding who she really is.
Sleeping with vampires just tends to cloud the issue for Buffy,
and she needs to clear her head and GET ON WITH IT.
[> [> [> Re: Is sex
with the undead ever a good idea? -- Malandanza, 11:23:21
09/03/02 Tue
Not surprisingly, I agree with you on much of what you said. However,
I do think that there is a limit to how far Buffy should explore
her darker nature:
"Buffy main problem isn't the fact that she's attracted
to vampires, or she's courting danger by exploring the darker
side of her sexuality--it's her psychic alienation from her nature
as a Slayer. Every time she edges closer to finding out about
what Slayers truly are and where they come from, she backs away,
frightened that Slayers might be as bad--or worse--than the things
she kills every night."
If it is possible for Buffy to discover more about what a slayer
is without journeying into darkness, I would agree. She has asked
Giles to tell her more and she sought out Spike to learn -- but
both of them let her down and she ended up back where she started
from. The problem with darkness, is that it's not always possible
to come back -- Willow didn't want to return, Giles still retains
his Ripper side, Faith was only able to return through Angel's
assistance and she almost didn't make it (and we don't know if
she's recovered fully after her time in prison). If Buffy were
to embrace the darkness, she would be more dangerous than Faith
ever was and even if her friends did bring her back, she would
be unable to live with herself. Perhaps Buffy's best course of
action, if she really must know about the darker side, would be
to talk to Faith.
As for psychic alienation - I would say that Angel spends much
of his time alienated from Angelus -- and this is a good thing.
When Angel gets in touch with his darker side, people die. I do
think it's possible for Buffy to repress the darkness within her
and not have a nervous breakdown. She's had lots of practice repressing
things -- she's good at it.
"Spike, if anything, deliberately fed into this fear.
His "you are a creature of the night, just like me"
routine merely exacerbated Buffy's terror and self-alienation,
and when she cut off their affair, it seems she symbolically cut
off her exploration of Slayer Nature as well. (In Normal Again,
she almost killed Willow, Xander, and Dawn to escape from Slayerness.)"
Absolutely. I see Spike's efforts as the most foolish behavior
he's ever engaged in -- he's a vampire and he wants the vampire
slayer to explore her dark side. So he can get her in bed. He
just doesn't think things through.
"Yeah, she explored her darker sexual urges, blah blah
blah, but beyond that, she's not progressing in understanding
who she really is. Sleeping with vampires just tends to cloud
the issue for Buffy..."
I think there is a tendency to regard people who thought the relationship
was unhealthy as prudes who think all sex is bad. In fact, the
people who think that Spuffy was positive are falling into the
all sex is good line of reasoning -- there was nothing good or
noble about Spuffy. It was obsession and escape, abuse and degradation.
Neither was happy and as the relationship progressed both became
more unhappy. This wasn't love. It wasn't a Courtly romance, it
was Jerry Springer.
Or, in the words of William Blake:
"Love seeketh only Self to please,
"To bind another to its delight,
"Joys in another's loss of ease,
"And builds a Hell in Heaven's despite."
from The Clod and the Pebble
she needs to clear her head and GET ON WITH IT."
The thing I look forward to most in the upcoming season is that
I think Buffy will get on with it. Willow and Spike are out of
her life for some time, in England and Africa, and these two characters
have been most influential in keeping Buffy from progressing.
The summer separation should give Buffy the opportunity to clear
her head.
[> [> [> Re: Is sex
with the undead ever a good idea? -- Sophist, 13:03:55
09/03/02 Tue
This isn't exactly new with Buffy. We've had it in Season 3
with Faith, in Season 5 with Dracula, and now in S6 with Spike.
How many times are we going to do this before Buffy moves forward?
This happens with other plots and characters also (for example,
compare Xander in The Zeppo and The Replacement). We could all
see this as the writers recycling their plots. Or we could see
it as you do -- that it's time for the characters to learn from
previous mistakes. Personally, I like to see it as ME exploring
the same, or similar, issues from a different perspective. To
me, that adds depth and richness to the characters and the storyline.
I would admit, though, that it's perhaps an overly intellectual
and detached way of looking at it.
As far as Spike and Spuffy, well, you and I are never going to
agree. I'm sure our newly souled vampire will give us something
new to debate come Sept. 24.
[> [> [> [> Or
it simply means Joss is stalling until the Big Finale -- cjl,
14:05:56 09/03/02 Tue
[> [> [> I think I
might be in the middle -- Slain, 16:11:57 09/03/02 Tue
I seem to have got into the habit of looking at the show from
an existential perspective at the moment, so I'm really not keen
on ascribing moral rights and wrongs; but in terms of character
development and the authentic self and all that, I still think
Buffy wasn't helped by her time with Spike. Does she have a dark
side? Obviously, but I don't think having sex with Spike or hanging
out with demons really qualifies as exploring that. I mean, is
Kitten Poker or shagging especially evil? I think her darkest
moment was when she tried to kill Faith.
As far as sex goes, I don't think she was exploring that, either.
It seems to me that there's often a suggestion that Buffy, to
an extent, feels guilty about sex; or that she doesn't want to
admit to enjoying it so much. I haven't seen that myself; sure,
she has a certain amount of fear of sex, which is understandable
given her history, but I don't see an unwillingness to embrace
her own sexual power.
I think with Spike it was all about escape, and all about hiding
from herself, rather than about greater knowledge of her inner
Buff. I don't think it was immoral for her to sleep with him,
but I don't think she was wrong to reject Spike.
That Slayer power comes from both dark and light I think is true,
and I'm sure we'll see more on that. But both Spike and Dracula
didn't seem to want her to recognise any duality in her nature,
but rather to solely embrace the darkness. Buffy does clearly
believe that she isn't dark, that evil has no part in her
life, and that does lead to conflict. But I didn't feel that Buffy
was dark in Season 6; just very lost.
[> [> [> [> Watch
what you say about Kittens around me......;) -- Rufus, 02:48:56
09/04/02 Wed
Kitten Poker......evil! very evil!
[> [> [> The "creature
of the night" thing -- verdantheart, 06:30:37 09/04/02
Wed
I agree, Buffy's time with Spike didn't really help her, but I
tend to think it's largely because she wouldn't let it. Because
she wouldn't open up, because she didn't lift a finger to try
to drag Spike up into the light, in fact closing that way to Spike
(by refusing to talk to him, by refusing compliments, by refusing
to relate to him except by argument, force, or sex), there was
no way left to him but to try to drag her down into the darkness.
(Then we have a writer telling us that after Spike's departure
Buffy is mourning Spike's "lost potential.") How's she
supposed to learn anything about herself if she won't look at
herself--if not through her own examination, but then by talking,
with Spike, Willow, Xander, anyone. She finally opened up to Tara,
but it doesn't look like they really talked too much about it
past the big confession. She really needs a therapist.
[> [> [> [> Re:
The "creature of the night" thing -- Miss Edith,
08:02:23 09/04/02 Wed
I don't think we were supposed to see Spike as a way of exploring
Buffy's inner darkness. The writers have made it pretty clear
that the intent of Spuffy was to show Buffy being dragged down
by the bad boyfriend at a low time in her life. The writers have
dismissed Buffy's treatment of Spike as telling us anything about
her. It was never a journey into the darkness. Jane has said Buffy's
behaviour cannot be called upon because she was screwed up and
had reasons for her behaviour, plus the attempted rape makes the
beating she doled out null and void. And Marti has said in season
6 Buffy was a strong, heroic women trying to domesticate her boyfriend
and failing.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: The "creature of the night" thing -- alcibiades,
09:26:56 09/04/02 Wed
And Joss has said that Season 6 screwed up in many ways and the
next season will be lighter.
Seriously, if the writer's have to keep interpreting the show
for the audience, there's a huge disconnect going on. Not to mention
the fact, that the writing staff in itself often seem at loggerheads
as to what is going on in the story.
And where is it written that the audience has to accept the writer's
interpretation of a story in any case, especially as in this case,
when the story that is presented to the audience has already been
interpreted first by the director, the actors and the staff cutting
the film.
So I don't think we have to stick to the tyranny of the writer's
opinion.
It's one thing if the audience asks the writer what something
meant. It's another thing altogether if the writer keeps on insisting
on correcting the audience's bad, evil interpretation.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: The "creature of the night" thing --
Miss Edith, 09:40:43 09/04/02 Wed
David Fury says Anya loses her soul when a demon and regains at
as a human. Jane says Anya always had a soul. That is what I regard
as inconsistent and sloppy. The writers have not even discussed
the different way they view the show and the characters, hence
some characters being inconsitently written. And Marti feeling
the need to explain her intentions and interpret what we are meant
to be seeing is treating the audience as unintelligent and frankly
I found her attitude to the people wanting a B/S relationship
rather insulting and patrionising.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Amen, Brother or Sister! -- Dead Soul, 09:47:04
09/04/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Amen, Brother or Sister! -- Dead Soul, 09:50:33
09/04/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Sorry for the double post. Guess I really meant
it. Hallelujah! -- Dead Soul, 09:55:50 09/04/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Agree alcibades. Wish writers wouldn't give interviews
-- shadowkat, 11:22:16 09/04/02 Wed
I was discussing this with a friend at lunch and I've come to
the conclusion that when you write or create a piece of art, half
of what you put into it you aren't even conscious of. That unconscious
part? That's the best part. That's the part that interacts with
others' interpretations and makes your art lasting and cool. And
you probably never intended half of what the audience, reader,
etc found in it. What you intended may actually be really really
mundane and boring in comparison.
ME has proven this point this past year. I actually loved Season
6 until the silly writers opened up their big fat mouths and I
made the mistake of reading them. Bad writers. Bad me. Gee what
would I rather be remembered writing? A cliche bad boyfriend takes
female hero down, she breaks free and he tries to rape her? (A
story that has appeared on every silly tv soap opera?) or
the hero explores her dark sexuality and dark side and finds new
depths through her involvement with a seductive character who
is struggling with his own identity, does the unthinkable and
hunts down a soul when he inadvertently hurts her more than he
can possibly imagine? And the hero is struck by the complexity
of darkness in herself and her friends and how darkness is not
limited to just a soul...and the complexity of unhealthy relationships.
The second. It's more interesting and hasn't been done. And that's
just one example.
Taking one that's a bit closer to home and possibly a better example:
I remember sitting in a fiction class listening to what people
interpreted in a short story i'd written. The way the class worked:
you have to stay silent and let the readers analyze your story.
Boy these people came up with better things than I ever intended.
Did I really want to admit I never thought of that? No. I actually
liked their interpretation of my story better than the one I'd
consciously written.
A bit of possibly unwanted advice to the budding fiction writers
out there - Somebody tempts you with an interview? Turn them down.
Or do what James Joyce used to do when people asked him what he
intended in his stories: "What do you think I intended? What
did you get out of the story?" And leave it at that.
Do not make the mistake of telling the viewer, reader, etc what
they should have seen in your story. Because guess what? They
don't see it? You look like a hack. And if they liked their interpretation
better and realize, whoa, that they've been overestimating you,
you've lost a fan and a reader. And hey, fans and readers are
writers' lifeblood.
Let the story speak for itself or you risk ruining it and your
career with your commentary.
BTW I've vowed to stop reading writers' interviews about their
work from this point forward, they've had a funny way of ruining
my favorite obession and I want to keep my obsession for a little
while longer, thank you very much.
JMHO...;-) SK
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Great points S'kat. I agree completely. --
Sophist, 12:48:11 09/04/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> It's what I always say... -- Slain, 13:16:44
09/04/02 Wed
... That no one is a worse critic of their own work than the artist.
I think Marti Noxon is even worse than that; she seems to have
a knack for belittling everything she does while apparently trying
to explain it. Fortunately I avoid all interviews not by Joss
himself, so (aside from some fairly annoying things about B/S
shippers), I've been sealed off from Marti and the other writers
giving their own view of the show. Although David Greenwalt (judging
on his DVD commentaries), is more like a mini-Joss, in that his
interviews bring more to the work, rather than detracting from
it.
Another reason to ignore the writers is their differences; Marti
Noxon and Doug Petrie have very different views on Spike, and
I think Petrie probably leans more towards your view on B/S, 'Kat.
The end result is a multiplicity of perspectives; some people
call that inconsistencey with the characters, but I'd contend
that it's complexity, a kind of realism in which characters are
never just one thing.
So you can always say that Spike was being truer to himself in
'Fool for Love' than he was in 'Seeing Red', and someone with
another view could say the reverse. Marti Noxon might like to
think that Spike is one thing, a bad boyfriend or whatever, but
clearly there's a lot more to it than that. In one episode, many
different influences (writers, actors, directors, producers) draw
the character in different ways, so that even in an episode which
appears to confirm one view of a character, you can always see
other possibilities.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> "Better to close your mouth and be thought
a fool, than open it and remove all doubt." -- cjl, 13:34:55
09/04/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: It's what I always say... -- Miss
Edith, 13:39:20 09/04/02 Wed
I still haven't got over Marti describing the show as "Party
of 5 with monsters". She really does need to work on her
interaction with the media. When she dismissed B/A as a high school
crush and scolded B/S shippers for not getting the correct message
she pissed off so many viewers. Particularly when she made the
insinuation that B/A shippers were stuck in the past and still
looked at pictures of their high school sweethearts. Telling off
B/S shippers and saying how she apparently hadn't got the right
message across made me feel like a scolded child.
I can sympathise as I am pretty tactless and often find my foot
stuck firmly in my mouth. I have heard a rumour that the network
are trying to convince Marti to not give so many interviews. I
have no idea of the truth of this rumour but it does sound like
a wise suggestion.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Party of five -- Azrahael, 14:15:24
09/04/02 Wed
Actually Joss described Party of Five as a wonderful programme
which made him cry. But they lacked a key ingredient - rocket
launchers. And he said that Buffy didn't have that problem. So
you could say Joss described Buffy as Party of Five, with rocket
launchers.
How are you going to get over that?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Party of five -- Miss
Edith, 07:49:52 09/05/02 Thu
I'm not saying Marti comparing Buffy to Party of Five was a terrible
thing. I am just saying she does not always conduct herself with
tact in interviews with the press. Trust me I have visited particular
sites rife with Marti hate. People will use any oppurtunity to
say she is a poor writer and doesn't understand the show. Marti
comparing Buffy to Party of Five is a quote frequently used along
with the accusation that she has worked on soap operas and wishes
to make Buffy a soap opera or daytime drama. I do think she needs
to work on her interaction with the press as it did come across
badly and seem to back up the charges certain bitter viewers are
aiming at her. It is not her job to be tactful so I am not saying
that like it's a bad thing. Like I said I am pretty tactless too.
And Marti is far from the only offender. That honour still goes
to Steven DeKnight who riled up a lot of fans and then complained
in the Bronze about obviously he shouldn't joke around any more
because certain hyper sensitive communities persist in taking
him the wrong way. He also said if you don't like the show don't
watch. That is what I regard as the writers neddlessly alieating
fans.
All of the writers do it pretty much but Marti's coments have
been focused on a lot this year as the people disapointed with
season 6 are using her as a focus for their rage. Whether Joss
said he liked Party of Five or not I am simply saying that Marti
describing Buffy as Party of Five with monsters is causing fans
to groan and say she doesn't know what she's talking about etc.
If she wants to convince viewers that she is exploring great classic
themes and Buffy has not became a soap opera under her managment
that is just not the way to do it. That's all I'm saying. Marti
is free to say what she likes but I just hope she understands
that her words are having a negative effect on a large number
of fans. The reason I came to this site in the first place was
because it seemed to be an escape from the widespread Marti bashing.
All I am saying is that she can make tactless comments that are
taken the wring way, not that I think she doesn't understand the
show or that she is a bad writer.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Party of five --
Rahael, 07:59:24 09/05/02 Thu
Thanks for clarifying Miss Edith.
What irks me is that if Joss had made that comment, certain sections
of the fandom wouldn't react that way. It'd be seen as self deprecating
witty, etc etc etc. Whereas if Marti says it, of course it shows
she's dumb.
So how much credibility does their hate of Marti actually have?
And why is saying Party of Five is a programme which ME doesn't
disrespect a sign of tactlessness? The fact that there are internet
sites out there which are virulently anti-Marti as has been hinted
at here, doesn't really act as convincing evidence to me that
Marti is tactless. You're right when you say that what de Knight
said was silly.
But I have to say, I love the writers commentaries. When I hear
them, I remember exactly why I love BtVS. Marti, Joss, Tim Minear,
Doug Petrie, Espenson et al. So I wouldn't want them to stop commenting
on their work. They do so most insightfully and give me insights
that I didn't have before.
And I'm not 'anti-soap'. Is this because one of the most dramatic
and compelling storylines I've seen this year has been on a British
soap? Okay, you may not find it compelling, but I loved the Kat
Slater storyline earlier this year on Eastenders. She inspired
me to disgust and pity and utter empathy all at once when she
went through the whole Zoe is her daughter thing. Now I've destroyed
my credibility! Please feel free to laugh at me! lol
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> On soaps and Marti
-- alcibiades, 08:22:07 09/05/02 Thu
Although I am not sure that Eastenders is actually representative
of the true horror of American Soaps. Think Passions for a local
example which as far as I can tell is unwatchable.
"What irks me is that if Joss had made that comment, certain
sections of the fandom wouldn't react that way. It'd be seen as
self deprecating witty."
Yes, but if Joss said it, it would be self deprecating and witty.
The thing is really tone of voice, in so far as this is communicable
through an interview. And in comments I have read by Marti, I
sometimes/often feel like I am being patronized, as though she
doesn't believe that BTVS actually has intelligent fans, so she
is just assigning the lot of us the IQ of a vapid American teen.
Joss doesn't seem to come off that way, at least in public. He
enthuses and thinks things are cool or self deprecates. It is
a totally different mode that brings people in and doesn't put
them off.
I liked a lot of the darkness of Season 6. I just wish she would
stop telling us what to think about it. Even if it is a dramatization
and metaphorization of traumatic events in her 20s.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The operative
word is 'read', surely! -- Rahael, 08:52:20 09/05/02 Thu
We've often talked on this board about how truly easy it is to
miscommunicate with words alone. Without eye contact, without
hearing nuance, without seeing a smile or hearing affability.
Marti talks very unpretentiously about her work, even downplaying
its significance, and giving credit to her co-workers. Seen on
the tv, she comes across as very likeable - that's all I'm going
on. (And she's HOT! Or so I'm told. I'm neutral on this issue!)
I must make a small confession here. When I got the Season 2 DVDs,
and saw all the writers and some of the actors being interviewed,
it actually really changed my perception of BtVS. I had never
paid the slightest attention to Spike until I saw JM being interviewed.
He came across as being very charming, and I went back and rewatched
all the eps he was in. If my worst fears about Season 7 and Spuffy
are realised, I guess I'll just have to keep rewatching that JM
interview!
Rah, who thinks the mid Season 6 Spuffy eps fell flat, but who
doesn't blame one writer.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Commentaries
vs. interviews -- shadowkat, 11:28:15 09/05/02 Thu
I should rephrase something here. There's a difference
between the DVD Commentaries and the Interviews. And Aersthua
didn't reproduce the worst bits from SFX one or the chats.
I like the commentaries. And I actually love JM and Joss
Whedon's interviews. Marti's annoy me because she seems to put
the stories in mundane terms about twenty-something relationships.
She may very well be right. I just like to think there's more
going on than that is all. I haven't had the pleasure of listening
to MArti's commentary. I only have Restless, Primeval, Hush, Introducing
Spike, and
Superstar commentaries. And she wasn't featured on any of these.
The others came across very well and did add something to the
show and how they create it. I just felt the interviews, particularly
the chats with Wanda and at Succubus club took away from the show.
This is of course subjective opinion. And I can from this point
forward avoid those interviews quite easily. But I won't avoid
the commentaries - those are very interesting and I think quite
helpful.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Marti's
commentaries on WML I/II are wonderful. Her laughter is infectious.
-- cjl, 12:57:55 09/05/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Marti's commentaries on WML I/II are wonderful. Her laughter
is infectious. -- JM, 16:43:51 09/05/02 Thu
I found her utterly charming. I've been mostly neutral, if forgiving,
this season. She built up some credit with me with ItW -- sorry
guys, I liked it, it was the ep that got me hooked on BtVS again
-- really hooked. That season I was watching so sporadically that
I didn't know until reruns that Dawn wasn't the usual run of Cousin
Olivers. Taught me to have a little patience from here on in.
A transcript can't really do justice. She just sounds so kind
and self-deprecating. Her talk about extras was one of my favorite
parts, as well as her bemusement about Kendra's accent and the
dramatics of working with that particular accent coach.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Negotiating
with the Dead -- leslie,
13:53:26 09/05/02 Thu
Good subject line for this discussion board, isn't it? It's the
title of Margaret Atwood's current collection of essays on writers
and writing, which I have not read (though I plan to, now!) but
a review of which I have just finished copy editing. Atwood seems
to bring up a lot of topics that are relevent to the relationship
of writers to their writing, especially that writers have to acknowledge
that once they've written something, they have to let it go, because
it is now up to the readers to find meaning in it, and that writers
who write solely for the purpose of "sending a message"
end up writing worthless works.
Here's a bit of a quote from the material the reviewer sent with
her essay:
"The title of this chapter is 'Negiotiating with the Dead,'
and its hypothesis is that not just some, but *all* writing of
the narrative kind, and perhaps all writing, is motivated, deep
down, by a fear of and fascination with mortality--by a desire
to make the risky trip to the Underworld, and to bring something
or someone back from the dead.
"You may find the subject a little peculiar. It is a little
peculiar. Writing itself is a little peculiar."
Like Buffy.
Discuss.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Negotiating with the Dead -- shadowkat, 06:52:55
09/06/02 Fri
"Atwood seems to bring up a lot of topics that are relevent
to the relationship of writers to their writing, especially that
writers have to acknowledge that once they've written something,
they have to let it go, because it is now up to the readers to
find meaning in it, and that writers who write solely for the
purpose of "sending a message" end up writing worthless
works."
I think that's a great point. Some writers actually say very little,
Faulkner and Joyce weren't big on discussing the whys and wherefores
of their works. Twain made jokes when people tried to get him
to analyze his stuff. Shakespear didn't discuss it at all. Now
I have read a memoire on writing by Stephen King, William Goldman
and another writer whose name escapes me at the moment, he wrote
Kate Vaiden I think. Those were brillant. Kings talked more about
the process of writing and publishing then what his works were
supposed to mean. Goldman did the same thing - Goldman wrote the
Princess Bride, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Marathon
Man, etc.
I love to learn about the process.
What I despise is when the writer tells me he or she is trying
to teach us something, some real-world morale. ie: You shouldn't
be with the bad boy, he'll hurt you or I'm interested in exploring
those bad relationships in my twenties or this was a book about
forgiveness and how we all must learn to forgive. Give me a break.
That stuff is obvious. You don't have to tell me you're doing
it. I'm more interested in the deeper meanings of your work.
I equally despise writers catering or pandering to audiences,
something daytime soap operas are notorious for.
You don't like what they are doing with a character?
Complain. Loudly. They'll chang it, even if it makes 0 sense.
They even have focus groups. ugh. I don't want to watch what some
fan wants to see on the screen, I can go read fanfic for that.
I want to watch what the writers of the show have dreamed up.
Recently I had an agent wanting me
to change my book from a horror occult novel to a nice little
cozy mystery about art forgery. I refused. Lost the agent. I couldn't
do that to my book. The heart of my still unpublished work is
the occult novel. Okay I'm sure I've meanandered (sp?) way off
your topic...;-)
I guess in short I feel the writer should stay true to his/her
work, true to their characters, listen to criticism and take what
he/she agrees with or feels will strengthen the work and get rid
of the rest. I also feel that while it is great for a writer to
discuss the thought process that went into creating the work,
and the themes he/she was considering. They should let it go once
it is done and not say - well you saw the wrong thing! This is
what I intended!
Maybe what the audience saw or found was something that sprouted
from the writers subsconscious and possibly more interesting than
what they intended. I think that's when you should shut up and
let your next creation speak for you.
Not sure that made sense or adds to anything. SK
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Ok, wait a minute here. Let's not carry this too far.
-- Sophist, 08:18:36 09/06/02 Fri
There certainly are great writers who wrote with the intention
of conveying a message in whole or in part. Virtually all non-fiction
falls into this category, but so does much that we consider great
literature. Here are some examples off the top of my head: The
Eumenides, The Trojan Women, The Aeneid, The Divine Comedy, Absalom
and Achitophel.
The key, I think, is that the work has to succeed on 2 or more
levels. If the writer gets too caught up in the message, s/he
is likely to pay insufficient attention to the other levels. That's
the trap.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Ok, wait a minute here. Let's not carry this
too far. -- leslie,
11:44:53 09/06/02 Fri
Okay, look at what I said (paraphrasing Atwood): "writers
who write SOLELY for the purpose of "sending a message"
end up writing worthless works." One level, didactic.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> requested spelling -- anom, 12:26:52 09/06/02
Fri
"Meandered."
I'm making so little progress catching up w/the board after its
down time last night that spelling corrections are about all I
have time for! But I'm enjoying the discussions in this thread
& wish I had time to write adequate responses.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Party of five
-- Miss Edith, 08:22:13 09/05/02 Thu
I agree it's unfair. The problem is Joss created Buffy and people
respect the comments he makes. There is a double standard of course
as some fans are displeased with Marti and seize upon any quotes
to confirm their beliefs that she is not a good writer. On certain
sites people discussing Buffy will say "Marti is to blame
for everything, if you are pissed at something just say I hate
Marti for this." People are honestly doing that. It is now
treated as a joke with people saying "you don't like something
in your life, blame Marti, she is at fault for everything and
is a suberb scapegoat".
The problem is the more extreme fans are riling up the fans who
don't have anything in particular against Marti by using her quotes
out of context to try and make Marti look like someone who doesn't
understand the show.
To use an example of the effect Marti's comments have had. On
moderate boards such as the cross and stake Marti's interviews
have caused outrage and offence for various comments made. B/A
shippers were annoyed when she suggested they were hung up on
the past and still looked at pictures of their high school sweethearts
which they never got over. It caused many indignant remarks from
B/A shipers such as they had kept the show going in the beginning,
they were buying merchendise etc. And Marti did say that she didn't
understand why people could support Spike as he had tried to kill
Willow in season 4. That caused people to ask if the past 2 seasons
were meant to mean anything, with the character development in
FFL etc. Quotes like that are used to make Marti look like an
idiot. The problem is certain people are keen to manipulate and
stirr up the Marti hate. But like I said the writers have all
been tactless at one time or another. David Fury was the one who
caused outrage in season 5 when he compared people fantasising
about B/s to people who write to serial killers. The Buffy community
is very internet savvy and feel they have a close relationship
with the writers. Hence the outrage when the writers lied about
Tara's demise and then laughed it off saying people were naive
to believe them in the first place. And David Fury's comments
caused many on-line fans to be accused by others of loving serial
killers when they defended Spike. That is what I am refering to
when I say that writers can have their occasional lack of tack
used against them.
I myself am not anti-soap. I agree the Kat Slater story was complelling
particulaly with the flashbacks used of her staring at the moon
as a child. The actress earned a lot of well-deserved praise for
the role. But without wishing to offend any American's I think
the American soap is slightly different. They are usually pretty
tacky and far-fetched with stories about people becoming possessed
by the devil, and long-lost twins etc. There is a lack of realism
and I don't think the soap opera as a medium has much respect
in America from what I have heard. Indeed when Eastenders first
started the writers tried to insist it was not a soap and refered
to the show as a "drama serial".
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Marti & Bill
Gates -- Darby, 09:33:51 09/06/02 Fri
Your comments about how all bad things lead to Marti reminded
me of someone who I met recently who blames all computer problems
on Bill Gates. When his data disappears, he grabs his monitor
and cries "Give it back, Bill!"
Of course, the difference being that the Bill blaming is
totally on the mark...
To comment on another part of this thread, I found Marti's commentaries
on What's My Line? to be fairly uninteresting and uninformative
(why exactly did everybody love Armin Shimerman - or was that
a joke?) and I thought treated the extras with very little respect.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> If I may make
an unfair generalization about American soaps... -- cjl, 12:59:43
09/06/02 Fri
From what I've learned in my long and spotty history of daytime
TV viewing, I think American soap operas have exactly one purpose:
keep you watching until the end of the show, so you can see all
the advertising--then, on Friday, convince you to come back next
week, so you can see all the new advertising. Period.
American soaps do this by blatantly appealing to the fans' emotions.
Serious character development has no place here. Neither does
plot logic. Long-time rivalries, long-dead characters, and long-forgotten
loves will be revived, killed or resurrected on a whim if the
creators are desperate enough and if the fans cry loudly enough.
Anybody remember the movie Soapdish? A slightly above average
satire of soap operas with an all-star cast. I always found one
scene particularly amusing: head writer Whoopi Goldberg has been
assigned the unenviable task of reviving Kevin Kline's soap character
after he's been dead for 20 years. Whoopi says there's no way
to do it. The producer asks why, and Whoopi shouts, "because
he was DECAPITATED, that's why!" The producer blandly tells
her to work around the problem and get Kline back in the scripts...
That, in my opinion, is American soap opera in a nutshell.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> In defense of Party of Five
-- shadowkat, 12:08:47 09/05/02 Thu
Actually Joss said and I agreed with him. PArty of Five
was a really cool concept show when it began. It was
about five kids orphaned by their parents and it dealt with the
real struggle of finding your way in the world without someone
telling you what to do. The first season was actually quite innovative
and interesting. Then it got bogged down in heavy-handed plotting
and syrupy messages and became very well...smulchy and soap-operaish.
Joss
loved the first season from what I read and wasn't fond of where
it went. He doesn't watch much TV and he loves bad tv according
to JM in an interview on marsters.com (I think).
Someone asked JM if he watched Passions and he said no, SMG did
and she got Joss hooked, they are fans of bad tv.
Joss' father wrote Benson and Joss wrote for Roseanne (in the
good days of the series).
So although I agree PArty of Five was not the best in later years,
it was pretty good to start. And it was a darling of the critics.
Hardly something to bash and not a soap opera starting out.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Now my stompy foot comes down --
pr10n, 14:46:51 09/04/02 Wed
Message? Marti has a _message_ she intends to convey? On a show
about vampires 'n stuff?
With my pro/am writer hat on, "message" is a kiss of
death. I've been in critique groups where the writer was not quiet
during the reading of their work, where instead they said, "No
no, what I meant was [MESSAGE]." Making the subtext the text,
to paraphrase Oz.
These were always the most amateur writers with the most to learn,
myself included unfortunately. A pro will seek out professional
opionions, stick the work out there, listen to critiques, and
then make decisions about where to go next. A mentor of mine said,
in response to my worry over other writer opinions, "And
you care what they think? You're going to let them change the
story and everything?"
Editors rock, collaborators rock, peers rock -- still I'm the
guy driving the pencil, and I'm the last word (unless there's
a lot of money riding on the change, in which case we should talk).
Whoa. Was that outloud?
pr10n
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> So what are you saying? --
MaeveRigan, 10:02:33 09/05/02 Thu
Do you think that ME writers should continue to try to answer
viewers/fans' questions? Because that's where most of these much-scorned
comments by Noxon, DeKnight, et al., came from in the first place.
Everyone seems eager for these interviews, then gets all cranky
if the answers aren't what they wanted to hear.
Or are you saying that as the writers, they should ignore the
viewers'/fans' angst and just write it as they see it? Let the
message(s)/subtext(s) fall where they will?
Or both?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: So what are you saying?
-- pr10n, 12:05:28
09/06/02 Fri
Thanks for asking -- I say write it as they see it. The original
WhedonVision is what we're in love with, but that doesn't mean
Joss/ME can't grow -- none of us saw S6 coming, i think, but it
is natural for the Scoobies to grow and feel pain, character-wise.
I agree with your point, that fan-crankiness stems from writers
giving interviews where they assign real-life motivations to fictional
characters, because the fans want more information.
I prefer not seeing the writer behind the characters. If I know
Marti's college years are the impetus for Spuffy, then what is
Marti talking about in her interviews: Spuffy, or the MadMoyfriend?
Why clutter up a good story with some distracting facts about
one real person?
When an author lets "the way it really happened" get
in front of the storytelling, then the story suffers. Sure, subtext/message
will happen, but managing the backstory is different from Mallegory.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Some Noxon quotes for Slain -- Arethusa,
14:12:15 09/04/02 Wed
A while ago I promised you some quotes from Marti Noxon on her
views of the B/S relationship-I found these at Slayer News. Also,
the SFX magazine shadowkat mentioned has more information, and
in the archives are a few discussions that document the issue
rather well. Sorry it took so long, and isn't more complete. (How
can a person with no job be so busy? Sigh.)
"It [Spuffy] has also created a sizable cadre of fans who
think a few years of microchip-induced harmlessness have reformed
platinum-haired bad boy Spike, whose capacity for such human emotions
as love and compassion is still counterbalanced by his lack of
a soul and resultant amoral ruthlessness.
"I understand why people feel the way they do about Spike,"
Noxon says. "I understand why they feel that a couple of
years of changed behavior is enough to warrant complete trust,
but I don't share that opinion. It's OK that there's a difference
of opinion."
Long ago, it was Joss' idea that Spike would start to get a crush
on Buffy. We had no idea where we would go with that at the time.
It was just like, "Doesn't it seem like he'd become obsessed
with a woman who could beat him up so badly?" Spike has always
been drawn to women who abuse him. So now, with Buffy, this is
the ultimate. But once he got the chip, he started to develop
scruples, against his will. I think he genuinely cares for her
and cares for her goodness. At this point, that means something
to him.
Why can't Buffy fully love him?
Because he's evil! Even though he has come a long way, I still
wonder what would happen with that chip out of his head. He's
not someone you should fully trust. And given that, how could
she ever fully give herself to him? It's not like Angel, who has
spent 300 years atoning.
"I don't feel like it's a failure to communicate. We've made
our case. Certain people get it and understand it, and other people
are going to be Spike-shippers (a term for those in favor of the
Spike-Buffy relationship) no matter what. That's in no small part
due to the charisma of the actor."
"It's hard to hate him, but I think I feel like we've made
a pretty good case for the fact that they probably shouldn't ride
off into the sunset together, at least not the way things are
now."
"In general, there's controversy, and people have their feelings.
I definitely don't take it personally. If people out there are
like, 'Oh, the Marti Noxon season sucks,' I laugh, because Joss
is just as involved in story-breaking as he's ever been."
From: http://tv.zap2it.com/shows/features/features.html?25999
"I think Spike has become a much better guy. He's proven
to be a much more loyal person than anyone expected," Noxon
said. "But he still has a lot of moral impulses that are
self-serving. He has done a lot of great things for Buffy and
others, but he's still out for himself.
"It's one of those relationships you have when you're at
a certain age," Noxon said. "You're drawn to something
dark and sexy. He's not the guy you're going to bring home to
Mom.
"He still does not have a soul. He has a long way to go before
he's a great boyfriend.
"We've read messages from fans that Spike has not gotten
his due. They don't like how (Buffy) has treated him. But if you
are a viewer who has watched the entire evolution of the character,
you'll remember he tried to kill her two seasons ago."
From: http://www.slayernews.com/Articles/05192002.php
Noxon is also responsible for shaping the rather risqué
relationship between the Slayer and her new vampire squeeze.
"My mom called me and said I knew it was your [writing] in
the first scene because it was dirty (laughs). We do have standards
and practices. They don't have a separate department at the UPN,
they caution us on things, but they aren't so worried about language.
It's definitely one for the grown-ups. We've gotten cautioned
a lot more this year on Buffy than almost anything else. [Spike
and Buffy's relationship has a] feeling of violence to it that
is a little more dangerous. It's not as romantic as the relationship[s]
of the past, to put it lightly."
However, Noxon cautions that this kind of sexuality isn't anything
new to Buffy, especially during the early years when Angel and
Buffy were crossing this very same line on a weekly basis as well.
"We've done stuff where there's all naked backs and scratches
and little corners of things," says Noxon. "And somehow
it's the idea that people freak out about it. Yeah, the idea of
Buffy and Spike and their sexuality has been pretty dirty. It's
unavoidable and given UPN's well-founded reservations, they've
been really wonderful. Creatively they have really been on board
with the way the show is going and they haven't [been] particularly
interested in changing anything we've been doing."
James Marsters has said that he feels his character Spike is Buffy's
"heroin," but Noxon thinks there's more to it than that.
"He is in a way, although there's some genuine affection
on both sides," says Noxon. "It's a really tricky situation
and where they are going nobody knows."
While the show's creator, Joss Whedon, has tried to step back
from the series, he hasn't succeeded. Noxon knows why.
"Basically, he is still Buffy's bitch. He can't get away
from the show if he wanted to. He's tried; he gets sucked back
in. I have to say he sucks at stepping back. He's stepped [away]
from most of the production side. He doesn't do any of the mixes,
or he'll take a pass in editing, but aside from that he spends
a whole lot less time on the technical [side]. He is still very
involved in the story breaking; he just won't walk away."
By contrast, Noxon has seen her influence on the direction of
the show increase this year.
"I've had more say in taking stories further so that Joss
has to spend less time on that, and that's just wonderful,"
says Noxon. "It's the hardest part of the process, and to
be weaned of our total dependency on him is a really good thing.
Hopefully I am getting better at it. But to me that's what separates
the wheat from the chaff."
Part of that process involves setting up the season-long story
arcs that have made the show such an addictive must-see for fans.
"We usually end on some kind of cliffhanger and you have
a lot of loose ends to tie up and a lot of things to set in motion,"
says Noxon. "The first episodes are always about finding
the show again, finding the voice and your bearings for the characters.
Some of it is that we are ramping into storylines that are going
to take all season to develop, and then you are in the meat of
it."
While Marsters uses a drug metaphor to describe the Buffy/Spike
relationship, another character is also struggling with a familiar
kind of addiction.
"I do think the Willow/Buffy parallel is the strongest arc
of the season," says Noxon. "The fact that they are
both using stuff to not be here. Buffy comes out for a different
reason than Willow, because of what she has been through, and
Willow because of how she feels about herself. The two of them
have a real journey to take. To me that's all about being in their
twenties. Regardless of the substance you are abusing, the twenties
is the time where you are making bargains. 'How much do I have
to really step up now? Do I have to work this hard? What are the
rewards and the penalties if I only do so much?'"
From: http://www.slayernews.com/Articles/03072002.php
"We've been getting so much feedback from fans," says
Noxon. "They see Spike as a hero now. I've said to you and
other people that the relationship is basically something we thought
would reflect the kinds of relationships you choose when you're
choosing the wrong person."
"People have been very upset about that. They're like, 'He's
not the wrong person. He's all redeemed.' Part of what needs to
happen at this point is to show that redemption is possible for
Spike, but he's not redeemed now, and their relationship is really
based on things that are not healthy."
It doesn't mean that things won't get better for them, but what
it's based on right now isn't healthy. It's not showing Buffy
in the greatest light, but our intention was to show that they
need to change what it's about, or it's never going to last."
Asked about showing Buffy -- who is supposed to be the hero of
the story, and a moral person -- inflicting pain out of anger
on someone who is not fighting back, Noxon says, "This will
probably inflame fans of a different opinion, but my only answer
to it is that this relationship isn't bringing out the best in
either of them. Maybe it's bringing out the better in him in some
ways, but it's not bringing out the best in her."
"This is bringing out a desperation in her, and she's going
to have to deal with that. Long-term, there are definitely repercussions
to what's happened."
From: http://tv.zap2it.com/news/tvnewsdaily.html?23792
Long ago, it was Joss' idea that Spike would start to get a crush
on Buffy. We had no idea where we would go with that at the time.
It was just like, "Doesn't it seem like he'd become obsessed
with a woman who could beat him up so badly?" Spike has always
been drawn to women who abuse him. So now, with Buffy, this is
the ultimate. But once he got the chip, he started to develop
scruples, against his will. I think he genuinely cares for her
and cares for her goodness. At this point, that means something
to him.
Why can't Buffy fully love him?
Because he's evil! Even though he has come a long way, I still
wonder what would happen with that chip out of his head. He's
not someone you should fully trust. And given that, how could
she ever fully give herself to him? It's not like Angel, who has
spent 300 years atoning.
At the end of last season, we started asking ourselves, "What
are we going to do with these guys?" We also started thinking
about what relationships were like in our twenties, when we were
all in college. And it seems like so often you pick the person
who is not necessarily the one you are going to be with the rest
of your life, but the person who causes you a lot of grief and
a lot of drama--and a lot of lust.
At the end of last season, we started asking ourselves, "What
are we going to do with these guys?" We also started thinking
about what relationships were like in our twenties, when we were
all in college. And it seems like so often you pick the person
who is not necessarily the one you are going to be with the rest
of your life, but the person who causes you a lot of grief and
a lot of drama--and a lot of lust.
From:
http://www.eonline.com/Gossip/Wanda/Archive2002/020125c.html
In the meantime, Noxon said that she will take over much of the
day-to-day production chores on Buffy next year, as Whedon spends
more time developing a proposed Buffy animated series, comic books
and other projects. "I'll be co-running Buffy with Joss,"
Noxon said. "Now, I'm sort of second in the chain of command.
But next year, we're going to be more equals, although there is
no equal to Joss [laughs]. But in title, we're going to be more
equal."
From:
http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/art-main.html?2001-05/02/13.00.tv
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: Some Noxon quotes for Slain
-- Masq, 15:00:09 09/04/02 Wed
OK, now that I've read this, I don't get what everyone's complaining
about. Marti sounds reasonable to me.
My summary:
Spike is still largely (not fully) motivated by self-interest.
He is capable of falling in love with a woman, partly because
she's abusive to him. He's still largely dark, and that's a big
part of Buffy's attraction to him. The relationship is therefore
not completely healthy for her. Other women have had similar experiences
to this.
She says nothing about it being a typical example of an S/M relationship,
nothing about it being what all "bad-boy" relationships
are like. Nothing about Spike being a "typical" bad
boy.
Everything she says I got out of the show by myself without the
benefit of her quotes. How is she contradicting what's going on
in the show?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Ditto -- Rattletrap, 14:58:06
09/05/02 Thu
The same goes for me. These quotes thoroughly impressed me with
Marti's insight into the show. She is basically confirming the
things that I'd pulled out of it on my own, but is adding some
interesing amplification. I love her reference to Joss as "Buffy's
bitch" too :-)
Just my $.02
'trap
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Nice editing, Arethusa -- Medusa,
sarcastically, 17:04:14 09/04/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: Some Noxon quotes for Slain
-- Slain, 16:38:39 09/05/02 Thu
This all kind of confused me, and I honestly went back to the
"other boards re: noxon" thread to check which side
of the argument you were on, Arethusa! Because these quotes, I
have to agree with Masq and Rattletrap, aren't that bad at all,
and not what I expected. In my above post I said that I thought
Marti had a habit of belittling everything she does by giving
interviews (after which I then said I hadn't read many of her
interviews... not a great argument), but I think I'll have to
revise that opinion.
I did enjoy Marti's DVD commentaries on Season 2, and I think
these quotes seem much in the same vein. Okay, they're a little
patronising, and I don't think it's a good idea to constantly
remind fans of what they should think about Spike (though it is
possible she was trying to prepare Spuffy 'shippers for 'Seeing
Red'). But she does acknowledge that her view of Spike is an opinion,
and I think that stands very well in her favour.
The quotes do add credence to the view that Marti has a lot of
control over the show; but I don't disagree with that. I just
think that's more in terms of production and the day to day running
of a TV series, not artistic direction; simply because I thought
Season 6 was far too schizophrenic to be largely the vision of
only one writer!
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Some Noxon quotes for Slain
-- Arethusa, 04:42:36 09/06/02 Fri
As shadowkat noted, there are a few articles that state Noxon's
views on bad boy relationships more clearly. Those have already
been quoted from in earlier posts so I didn't add those. I became
interested in the discussion when I read Noxon herself thought
up the AR, the only part of Season 6 I really disliked. But all-in-all,
I loved the fact that we saw the flaws of our realistically characterized
heros spiral out of control. In real life, things fall apart all
the time (well, in my life, at least!) and watching the Scoobies
deal with the pressures of adulthood was fascinating, if sometimes
painful. Most tv producers etc. are afraid to let the audience
experience pain (except inadvertently, through badly done tv)
and I admire everyone at ME, including Noxon, for taking a risk.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Agree with this. --
shadowkat, 06:57:21 09/06/02 Fri
"But all-in-all, I loved the fact that we saw the flaws of
our realistically characterized heros spiral out of control. In
real life, things fall apart all the time (well, in my life, at
least!) and watching the Scoobies deal with the pressures of adulthood
was fascinating, if sometimes painful. Most tv producers etc.
are afraid to let the audience experience pain (except inadvertently,
through badly done tv) and I admire everyone at ME, including
Noxon, for taking a risk."
Ditto. Said very well and absolutely agree.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> No disagreement here!
-- Slain, 13:02:55 09/06/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Exactly -- vh, 06:25:56 09/06/02 Fri
If you have to explain your work, have you said what you wanted
to say? It should speak for itself.
[> [> [> [> [>
and we never do anything significant -- Vickie, 20:46:17
09/04/02 Wed
when we're upset or depressed? right.
Saying that S6 tells us nothing about Buffy because she was "screwed
up" at the time indicates that the speaker has no idea how
people really work. sheesh
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: and we never do anything significant -- Miss
Edith, 08:32:13 09/05/02 Thu
I'm not disagreeing with you. Just saying that Jane was asked
in an interview if Buffy would ever express remorse for her beating
of Spike in DT. Jane's reply was to immediately mention the attempted
rape as if that absolved Buffy of her guilt. Jane then said Buffy
was depressed which is fair enough. But a lot of people are screwed-up
or depressed when they ill-treat someone. I would still hope that
Buffy's behaviour in season 6 is at least addressed in season
7. Her epithany in the finale was not enough for me personally.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> "Long-term, there are definitely repercussions
to what's happened." Noxon -- Arethusa, 08:49:02 09/05/02
Thu
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: "Long-term, there are definitely
repercussions to what's happened." Noxon -- Miss Edith,
09:00:47 09/05/02 Thu
That's fine and if Buffy does admit her part in the abusive relationship
and realise she does have something to apologise to Spike for
I will stand corrected. I am just not encouraged when writers
suggest Buffy was simply trying to domesticate Spike in seson
6 or that Buffy's behaviour and lack of visible remorse will not
be addressed as she was in a screwed-up place at the time.
I have no idea really what the writers have planned and I guess
all we can do at the moment is just wait and see.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: "Long-term, there are definitely
repercussions to what's happened." Noxon -- vh, 06:42:13
09/06/02 Fri
" ... trying to domesticate Spike ... "? That's exactly
my point. They keep saying that, but I saw exactly no evidence
of it.
[> [> [> [> Why
does Buffy have to be responsible Spike's redemption? -- HonorH,
11:24:20 09/04/02 Wed
Just asking. She was in a terrible place this year. How was she
supposed to "help Spike toward the light" when she couldn't
see it herself? Especially as the light wasn't really the place
Spike wanted to be. We've got no canonical evidence Spike wanted
to be good for the sake of being good--as a matter of fact, we've
got plenty that he was still pining for the old days--just that
he wanted to be where Buffy was. With Buffy in the shape she was
in, it was easier for him to drag her down to where he was than
it was for him to try to come up to the level she'd been before
her death.
Were Honorificus present, she could go on about people nattering
on about how Buffy was supposed to leap happily out of her grave
(understanding that it was all a big misunderstanding, of course),
be back to her old self within a week, better for the experience,
be Mom of the Year to Dawn, persuade Giles and Tara to stay, knock
Willow out of her magical whatever, save Xander and Anya's relationship,
redeem Spike's nonexistent soul, stop the Geeks in their tracks
with a glare, and keep a lid on the Hellmouth, all while standing
on her head juggling flaming tomatoes.
But she's not, so she can't.
[> [> [> [> [>
Although she *can* juggle. :) -- Arethusa, 12:13:14
09/04/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
She doesn't. She's only responsible for her own moral behavior.
-- Sophist, 13:05:10 09/04/02 Wed
If I understand it correctly, the claim is that (a) Buffy failed
to meet her own moral standards in some of her conduct with Spike
(ironically, most people agree with this conclusion but cite different
actions as evidence), and (b) if she had done so, Spike might
have behaved better.
If this is correct, Spike's character and the difficulty of Buffy's
return don't make any difference.
Whether she is "responsible" in any larger sense depends,
I guess, on how you view Angel's epiphany.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Personally, I find the whole claim very problematic.
-- HonorH, 13:49:22 09/04/02 Wed
Spike might have behaved better in the short term, yes, but in
the long term? Going back to show canon in the matters of Harmony
and Darla, there's evidence to say that Spike would eventually
have reverted to type, no matter how Buffy treated him. How long
would it have been before Buffy's mere friendship wasn't enough?
This season, he didn't get past OMWF without telling her to leave
him alone if she didn't want to go further.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> It is problematic but that's why it's so intriguing.
-- acesgirl, 14:28:23 09/04/02 Wed
I'm not disputing the claim that any show of support or encouragement
from Buffy toward Spike would have led him into the light. It
is likely that it would not have been enough based on the past
examples of Harmony & Darla. And in the end, that is the final
statement that ME made. Spike cannot be redeemed without a soul.
Whether or not he can be redeemed with a soul still remains to
be seen.
However, Spike's circumstances (chip/love of Buffy) are unique
from both Harmony & Darla. And the amount of "good"
deeds that he did do without any support or encouragement and
indeed under much duress and criticism leads to speculation about
what might have happened under different circumstances. That's
all, just people wondering what if. Alas, that is not the story
that was told on screen but it doesn't make it any less intriguing
as a story idea. On the other hand, maybe it does make it less
intriguing to some people and I'm just being presumptious.
For me personally, I like the story that they told but wouldn't
mind seeing some recognition by Buffy & the Scoobies of the "what
if" scenario. Haven't you ever looked back at a mistake you
made and the impact it had on others and wondered "what would
have been different if I'd turned left instead of right?"
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> I think that's still missing the point -- Sophist,
16:37:27 09/04/02 Wed
It really doesn't matter whether Spike could have been "rehabilitated"
by or through Buffy's love. I happen to agree with acesgirl and
s'kat that there was a much more interesting story to be told
than the one that the writers insist we see. That's neither here
nor there either.
Let me use an analogy. Suppose there is a student -- call him
William -- who is struggling with math. Another student, Joan,
knows William and knows that he is struggling with math. Joan
is good at math.
I see 3 basic attitudes Joan could adopt:
1. Let William work out his math problems on his own.
2. Voluntarily help William with math.
3. Tell William that his struggle with math proves that he's both
stupid and lousy at math.
Whichever path Joan follows, William is the one who remains responsible
for learning math. He can't blame anyone but himself if he fails
to do so.
By the same token, Joan is responsible for her own behavior. She
has to decide which approach best fits her moral standards. If
option 3 contravenes her moral standards, then she would be wrong
in adopting that approach regardless of the fact that William
probably wouldn't learn the math anyway. If option 2 best
fits her standards, then that is what she should do. It makes
no difference if William still fails to learn math despite her
best efforts to help; Joan has behaved correctly and William remains
ultimately responsible for learning math.
Two other points seem relevant. First, we know from psychology
that people who are told they are stupid tend to internalize that
and come to believe it themselves. Second, while we have no obligation
to help others (that is, option no. 1 cannot be criticized as
an immoral choice), it would certainly be a shame if people with
a high capacity to help others failed to do so.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> I feel like I'm in a revival tent...
-- Dead Soul, 16:44:31 09/04/02 Wed
the amount of "amen"ing I'm feeling inspired to do.
Let me hear it again - Amen! Give it to me louder - AMEN!
Dead (and meant to get saved but never got around to it) Soul
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> on a lighter note -- Rahael, 16:50:37
09/04/02 Wed
The maths tutoring analogy reminds me of Willow's most effective
study help strategy in Dopplegangland
Rah, whose grandfather was a dedicated maths teacher who said
that no one could possibly fail to grasp the essentials of basic,
and even complex maths. As long as they were very, very afraid
of him.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Is your g'father still available to
tutor my daughter? -- Sophist, 08:20:44 09/05/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> He'd do it for free! LOL
-- Rahael, 08:58:29 09/05/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: I think that's still missing the point
-- HonorH, 17:04:15 09/04/02 Wed
Good analogy, but the problem is, Buffy, in this case, wouldn't
have made a good tutor because she herself was lost. The whole
reason she got involved with Spike was because her moral compass
went all wonky. She told Giles last season that where with Angel,
she'd known what was right, now she didn't have that anymore.
Intellectually, she could have told herself what her moral code
was ("brave, and kind of righteous"), but she no longer
felt it ("now I find I'm faltering"). It no longer meant
anything--she was "Going through the motions." It wasn't
until the end of the season that she started to feel the world
was worth preserving, as was her own life.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: I think that's still missing the
point -- Dochawk, 21:45:11 09/04/02 Wed
Boy do I hesistate to get involved here, but the anology does
not hold. In your analogy Soph, you assume (rightly) that William's
potential is really unknown. But, no matter how you slice it or
dice it, according to canon and more importantly everything Buffy
holds dear, Spike is evil and irredeemable (a point made vividly
by Angel earlier this season "Vampire's can't change".
Besides the fact that we have seen other vampires in love and
love doesn't change them, think of the implications to Buffy if
she is the modus of Spike's developing conscience. If Spike can
change, so can other vampires and Buffy, who routinely stakes
vampires freshly arisen, prior to their having any opportunity
to show any motivation. Her entire basis of what she does would
be shaken even more than it was. Buffy is the last person who
would want to believe that Spike has the opportunity for goodness,
for it would challenge the entire fiber of her being (which is
already in a difficult situation).
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I think that's still missing
the point (B6/7 spoilers) -- MaeveRigan, 06:12:02 09/05/02
Thu
Gotta go with Dochawk and HonorH on this one. "William"
in the Buffyverse is not just "another student." As
a vampire, even with a chip in his head, he's not human. Ultimately,
nothing Buffy can do will "help" him. Call her a bitch
if you like, but the fact remains within the canonical Sunnydale:
as Xander says (yes, even Xander can tell the truth about vampires
now and then) Spike's "conscience" is just "a leash
they jammed in his head").
Even Spike knows this about himself, which is why he decides to
"make" things change by (according to JW) acquiring
a soul. A soul doesn't redeem him, but is the only thing that
makes him potentially redeemable--like Angel. "How lame is
that?" Only season 7 will tell us the answer.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Still doesn't matter Doc
-- Sophist, 08:40:25 09/05/02 Thu
The point I'm making is that Spike is irrelevant to this discussion.
Buffy can't control Spike; he's responsible for himself.
Buffy's obligation is to live up to her own moral code regardless
of whether it will actually help Spike.
You and I have discussed before the difficult questions of canon
raised by Spike (in fact, Angel raises them also). I think there
are answers to these. But whether you agree or not, if Spike really
sought a soul (and I'm not convinced he did), doesn't that fact
itself create the very problems you raise?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Still doesn't matter
Doc -- alcibiades, 09:28:23 09/05/02 Thu
"But whether you agree or not, if Spike really sought a soul
(and I'm not convinced he did), doesn't that fact itself create
the very problems you raise?"
Changing the subject a bit here.
After seeing Seeing Red over the other night, it really is now
possible to read Spike's "Get nice and comfy Slayer, things
are going to change when I get back" or wtte, in a totally
different light. One which is just as emotionally provocative
for Buffy because it is also something she'll regard as deeply
unsafe since it will force her out of her whole pattern of thinking
about Spike, but not chillingly evil because it implies he'll
get the chip out and come back to kill her.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> And it's still a case of
the blind leading the visually challenged -- HonorH, 12:37:32
09/06/02 Fri
Buffy couldn't have tutored Spike in the humanities in S6 because
she herself didn't feel human. All they ended up doing was dragging
each other down. If she had still been morally and emotionally
secure, she'd never have gotten involved with him.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> I so agree. Simple and clear. And beyond
that... -- alcibiades, 19:37:18 09/04/02 Wed
...Joan has already learned the previous year that if she helps
William just a tiny bit, he improves astronomically and is capable
of random bits of brilliant mathematical thought.
Personally, I think that unconsciously Buffy wanted Spike to fail,
because if he failed morally there was no painful relationship
quandary for her to solve. The problem would cease to exist for
her because her moral imperative would be clear and it would outweigh
her attraction to him. She would no longer be susceptible to the
multiple seduction that is Spike. Thus she reinforced only his
negative behaviour and his belief that he was a disgusting evil
thing.
This unconscious desire motivated much of her behaviour with him
from the moment she got involved, i.e. from her first kiss on.
It was a defense mechanism to keep her safe with a strong passive
aggressive component. IOW, intially, she was unwilling to enforce
her will about the relationship, but her unconscious made sure
she got what she want in the end -- the dissolution of the relationship
because of Spike's unworthy behaviour.
[> [> [> [> [>
Could. not. agree. more -- Azrahael, 14:31:25 09/04/02
Wed
There's a line of thought that really really gets to me - and
that is the age old idea that the love of a good woman will reform
the baddest bad boy.
It's all her fault obviously. If only she'd stood by him, nurtured
him, guided him carefully toward the good and straight way, Spike
would be a loveable defanged puppy!
Because he's not complex at all! No, he's spent his unlife searching
for that one guiding light, even while he was murdering and torturing
and plotting. Even as he beat up Drusilla to make her love him,
or staking Harmony, we all know that all Spike needs is Buffy
to be open and affectionate.
I sincerely doubt that someone as screwed up as Spike would have
*gone* for a healthy relationship. He was first attracted to BUffy
because she was unattainable. Then, when he thought she'd come
back wrong, he knew he was in the same old familiar territory.
The Slayer, who had been up in the night sky, was down in the
gutter with him. They got their rocks off because the relationship
was so unhealthy, so bad for them.That was the point. It takes
two to tango, and two to create a F***ed up vibe.
And then they ended up in a place so bad, they had to change.
Yes, Buffy has problems with openess - so she should talk to Willow?
the person whose mental state was so healthy she was mind wiping
her partner? Spike, the person who would suck a woman dry if he
wasn't chipped? Xander, who was so open, he jilted Anya at the
altar?
Yes, Buffy probably could do with some cognitive therapy for that
PTSD. Spike could do with some deep thinking about his purpose
in life. But the story of BtVS is about demonstrating this *dramatically*.
I bet we'll see both these characters go through this process
in a way that is entertaining to the viewers. We many not see
an ep where Buffy simply sits and talks to her therapist, but
we will se her get stronger, more open, and happier. And we'll
see Spike struggling with a whole new world. That's what drama
is. What we do in real life, they show us in the metaphor of Horror.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Could. not. agree. more -- leslie,
16:21:23 09/04/02 Wed
"There's a line of thought that really really gets to me
- and that is the age old idea that the love of a good woman will
reform the baddest bad boy."
And even more, why she would want to, why she would have to, and
why he would put up with it. This notion that women essentially
have to "mother" their men into civilized behavior frankly
makes me physically sick. Seriously, I get so mad I want to beat
up strangers on the street. The only other thing that makes me
feel this way is reading Samuel Richardson's _Clarissa_.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Clarissa -- Rahael, 16:29:08 09/04/02 Wed
Love that book! Surely Lovelace is one of the most sinister, yet
charming villains in lit!
I've tried to make recommendations for it on the board by comparing
Lovelace to Angelus.
Agreeing with you totally on the rest too.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> lol (Spoilers for Clarissa) -- Rahael,
16:36:20 09/04/02 Wed
Okay, having an official dim moment here. You hate Clarissa!
Is the book really a resounding argument in favour of trying to
reform the bad boy? She ends up dead and saintly, her efforts
to reform him failing miserably.
Still think that Lovelace is a great, great character. But Clarissa
is the caricature of Buffy I sometimes meet. The book as a whole
I found a very powerful read.
But hey, bring on the angry flame wars of early modern lit! LOL
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> I'm with leslie here -- redcat,
17:31:53 09/04/02 Wed
The only thing worse than having to read Clarissa is being told
you have to teach it. To freshman. As an example of Great Modern
Literature. And the boss isn't smiling when he says it...
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I'm with leslie here (yes,
thank god, I agree with myself) -- leslie,
18:13:21 09/04/02 Wed
The prospect of having to teach Clarissa is, and I am *not* making
this up, the reason why I did not get a PhD in a relatively employable
field like English--I was going to specialize in 18th century
Brit Lit, and I cannot even *read* Clarissa. I've never gotten
more than about 100 pages into it--the amount of homicidal rage
it arouses actually frightens me. I tried watching the PBS series
of it a few years ago and I couldn't even watch it. I've waited
several years and tried it again, and then waited more years and
tried it again again, thinking maybe my life has changed enough
that it won't enrage me like that, and I still can't stomach it--it
makes me physically ill, I'm practically shaking just thinking
about it right now. I've read plenty of criticism of it, and I
can understand its importance, I can understand the allure of
Lovelace, it actually kind of interests me in a theoretical sense,
but ... god, seriously, the way it makes me feel is the way Buffy
looks when she's beating Spike's face in in the alleyway, uncontrollable
rage. I think it's that Clarissa *is* supposed to be so saintly,
but she just isn't saintly enough--she dares to have personal
preferences and she is so incredibly punished for it. Absolutely
perfect in every way except she doesn't want to marry the pig
her parents have sold her off to. Would she ever have agreed to
elope with Lovelace if her family hadn't put her in that position?
I don't see how anyone could compare her to Buffy, in fact, because
I think she's the prototype of the blonde in the horror movie
who gets gruesomely killed for having sex, exactly what Buffy
is supposed to contradict.
Who was talking about wondering what would happen if you turned
left instead of right? Honestly, I might actually be gainfully
employed as an English professor right now if it weren't for Clarissa.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Speech, Silence and Clarissa
-- Rahael, 04:07:05 09/05/02 Thu
'Clarissa' works on many levels for me. I should confess upfront
that it's one of my favourite novels, and along with Tristram
Shandy and Tom Jones, my three absolute favourites of 18th C literature.
First off, I've always regarded society, rather than Lovelace
as the ultimate villain in 'Clarissa'. Is Richardson punishing
Clarissa, or is it that 18th C society will not allow moral goodness
to go unpunished?
The reason why her plight was so compelling to me was that I too
lived in a society where arranged marriages are common. Not only
common, but I see and live with the effects of it. My grandmother
married the man her daddy told her to. Her daughters rebelled.
But each one of her daughters have at times been regarded as pariahs,
whores or fallen women for the highly unsuitable men they did
choose to marry. They fell down the social scale - one of them
even ended up in prison (for political reasons). I remember once
hearing someone say of me 'she's not a real woman. Just like her
mother'. This was when I was ten.
When my aunt 'rebelled' by having an American fiancee (she got
a scholarship to study in the states), she was called back home,
locked up in a room and beaten. The engagement was ended. Her
second choice was even more unsuitable, but she won through. Even
now, my grandmother's eternal sadness is the way that other women
in her community speak about her - a bad mother, who couldn't
control her daughters. Her status and pride find it too much to
take. Every one of her daughters were made 'examples' of, by their
society.
This all, of course, happened before I was born, but the effects
of it are very much felt. Then there were the numerous injustices
I witnessed as I grew up. My youngest aunt's best friend who was
locked up by her mother until she agreed to marry the man they
had chosen for her. She must have been in her late teens early
twenties at the time. She killed herself, and to this day, her
family blame my young aunt for her death and intransigence. It
was a society which threw out young women who were dishonoured
by rape, onto the streets in the middle of a war. I remember the
story of a very young girl who saw her entire family murdered
by soldiers who then raped her. Knowing that her fate was now
untenable, she went out into the garden and threw herself into
the well.
I saw all these women in Clarissa, and her fate. Her formerly
loving family turning overnight into her enemies. The society
which she had grown up within, rejecting her. Driven into making
unwise decisions which lead her further downward. And of course,
Clarissa refuses to kill herself - she lives unshaken in her beliefs
and principles even to her deathbed. Yes, Clarissa dares to have
personal preferences - and yes, she's still the moral centre of
the novel! She never really regrets running away from her family.
Her problem is that Lovelace also betrays her, just as her family
did. Clarissa always tries to act correctly. But she's doomed.
Yes, I too am overtaken by anger when reading 'Clarissa', but
perhaps for different reasons. My experience in life is that women
frequently get punished, and very severely too, for having sex.
It is obvious that Clarissa wouldn't have run away with Lovelace
if she wasn't subjected to a forced marriage. The reason that
he's such a complex and compelling character is that we, the readers
find him as attractive and fascinating as Clarissa does in the
beginning, but slowly, his inward ugliness gets revealed to us.
The second reason I love the novel is that I have a predilection
for very long books ( A la Recherche, War and Peace, Ulysses).
Reading 'Clarissa' is an experience - because it is an epistolary
novel, you feel as if you are an interested onlooker, reading
over other people's shoulders while they write. It's the sheer
weight of length, so that it sinks into your consciousness slowly.
I've read 'Clarissa' four times through now, and it still captures
me. And it reminded me of the discussion about speech and silence
some days ago. Because the novel is full of speech. There's no
central narrator (until the very end, when Clarissa dies). Clarissa
always speaks directly to us. She's never silenced. It's all in
the different viewpoints of various characters. I just love the
fact that we learn through their eyes and their perceptions and
that events happen, observe and are written about, and that you
are a fellow traveller with them.
I also like 'Tom Jones' as a counterpart to Clarissa, because
Tom's behaviour contravenes the accepted modes of sexual behaviour,
and though he comes very close to death, he escapes. But of course,
TJ is a comedy and Clarissa is a tragedy.
(On a side note re Silence, Speech and Life choices. I always
expected that I'd end up doing English Literature at University.
This expectation was ended when I went to Sixth Form College (the
last two years of the American version High School). After my
first term there, my English teachers told me not to speak in
class anymore. Not to answer questions, not to discuss work, to
remain silent. The reason I was given for this was that I 'intimidated'
other students. My work was returned slashed all over with red
pen. 'Too crude' 'not relevant' were the comments written next
to my work. Unlike every other subject I was taking - history
and politics as my 'fillers' - I was predicted a 'B', not an 'A'.
This was important because these were what Universities looked
at when they decided whether or not to accept you. I started truanting
all my English classes, convinced I was no good at lit crit. and
started loving history more and more. Of course, in the end I
got an A. Of course, my two pieces of English coursework received
a 100% mark. My only little revenge against those two teachers.
Who I should thank really, because I loved what I ended up doing.)
Clarissa/Buffy comparisons - I didn't compare Buffy to Clarissa
- I simply meant that the frequent caricatures of Buffy's behaviour
- rigid, heartless, haughty, despising Spike for who he was. Clarissa
could appear to be so. But having thought about it overnight,
though I think Clarissa sometimes appears as a cypher, a calm
paragon, I really rather like her. I certainly cheer for her all
the way when I'm actually reading the novel.
Rah, who thinks Clarissa is great work!
(Of course, I may simply not be enlightened enough to recognise
it's true misogyny. But it's still a darned good read. Much, much
can be forgiven for powerful, beautifully structured novels)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Speech, Silence
and Clarissa -- shadowkat, 06:55:06 09/05/02 Thu
Well, I'm glad I read Rah's before responding. Having been one
of the few people in my college class who actually made it through
all 1500 and some pages of Clarissa, I can see both Rah and Leslie's
points of view.
I read Clarissa and Les Liasons Dangereux in an 18th Century Lit
class in which I also wrote an essay. Can't remember the grade
since it was 14 years ago and such things really make no difference
in the long run. The novel, however stuck with me. And I did see
the excellent British Television Miniseries starring Scean Bean
in the role of Lovelace.
Lovelace is the cliche scoundrel. Nothing like Spike by the way.
Actually he reminds me more of Angelus or Warren.
He seduces Clarissa, hoping to get her to elope with him so he
can get her inheritance. When he discovers that her parents have
disinherited her and won't give him the money, he rapes her rather
brutally. The rape is one of rage. It is not seductive. He is
NOT in love with her. In some ways it felt perfunctory - basically
he wants to make them husband and wife and prevent her from getting
annulment.
Clarissa is a romantic. She believes the words of Lovelace
and wants desperately to escape the trap of her family.
She reminds me a great deal of the character in Jane Austen's
Mansfield Park and Maryanne in Sense and Sensibility. She also
reminds me of the politician's wife in Les Liasons that Valmont
seduces, ruines and falls for.
Actually Valmont reminds me more of Spike. Although the woman
he romanced was nothing like Buffy (more like a human Drusilla)
and boy I wanted to smack her too. Sorry weak simpering females
get on my nerves. It's a personal thing.
Not relevant to the board. Clarrisa is truly trapped like many
women are in 18th and early 19th century lit, probably why I never
could abide it, because I can't identify with that type of trap.
I've been lucky, no arranged marriages,
no societial binds on what I can become. These women weren't.
Clarissa can't move without Daddy's permission. And she is being
forced into a marriage she doesn't want. So when Lovelace writes
her that he will spirit her away from it all, love her, give her
the fairy tale. She buys it. It may seem silly to us. But people
do odd things when they can't see a way out. Unfortunately Clarissa
trades the frying pan for the fire. Lovelace is worse than her
father.
What I disliked about Clarissa was not the style. The style was
quite lovely. (Oh if you haven't read it yet - check out Possession
(not the movie) the book by AS Byatt, she does an excellent job
of satirizing and critiquing in a fictional format literary criticism
and the epistolary style. The book contains all sorts of love
letters between two romantic poets from the 19th Century (I think)
and several fairy stories. It is amazing and if you liked
18th Century or 19th Century lit? You'll love it. But skip the
movie, it doesn't do the book justice. I've seen and read both.)
What I disliked is what Leslie disliked, Richardson's preachy
style and patriarchial views. I actually thought Les Liasons to
be more fun. And it was certainly more realistic. But then French
writers tended to be a bit looser then the Brits were in that
decade. ;-)
I'm sorry Rah, I don't see Clarissa as being a good comparison
to Buffy. Les Liasons...closer. But no. Doesn't work for me. I
see Spike being more like the character in Burgess' A ClockWork
Orange. And I see Buffy as being more
like contemporary heroines in film. She strikes out on her own
quite a bit and doesn't let men dictate to her - quite the reverse
of most 18th and 19th century heroines. Although she does at times
remind a little of Edith Wharton's and Austen's heroines. But
very slightly. Joss actually seems to be more a film buff than
a literary buff, from what I've read of his interviews and commentary.
Just my ten cents.
SK (who was an English Lit major.)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Speech,
Silence and Clarissa -- Rahael, 07:18:11 09/05/02 Thu
Glad someone else liked it, however mildly!
But a couple of things: I'd be hard put to find any writer in
the 18th Century who was anti-patriarchal in the way that would
satisfy us. I thought Clarissa is in itself a complex portrait
of the power and powerlessness of women in that society, and the
way that women of their time had to negotiate their way through
the restrictions they faced.
For example, we see that Clarissa is an heiress - she has inherited
money. It's this very money which changes everything in her relationship
with her family. It's only after she gets this bit of power that
her sister and her brother turn against her.
Secondly, I'm also puzzled - Richardson rarely speaks as the narrator
in the novel - the letters are all written by characters. I can
see how the letters might all enforce a patriarchal mindset (though
Clarissa, the woman is the only person who is clear sighted and
moral, not the men, who abuse their power) but how precisely Richardson
be preachy, precisely?
Also, I don't see her as Marianne, because Clarissa is not satirised
by Richardson. Nor is she seen as foolish. She doesn't run away
with Lovelace because she wants to marry him - he semi tricks
her, and she, for a long time refuses to marry him (little knowing
that his offer is bogus anyway). All she ever wants to do is become
independent, away from the pressures of family and Lovelace. She
is always cautious about him, though she is struck by his good
qualities.
Finally, you must have misread me SK. I didn't compare Buffy to
Clarissa! Indeed quite the opposite. I merely said that a comparison
might be seen between the CARICATURE OF BUFFY. Just so that's
clear, LOL.
Thanks for the recommendation of Possession btw - I might actually
overcome my allergy to the current crop of celebrated UK authors
(been scared off by the praise given to authors like Iris Murdoch,
Margaret Drabble and Muriel Spark et al. Those don't really drive
me into a rage, more a desire to sleep).
But I promise to give Possession a try.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Speech,
Silence and Clarissa -- shadowkat, 08:27:29 09/05/02 Thu
Can't stomach Iris Murdoch or Margret Drabble myself. Byatt
is a mixed bag. Haven't made it through her other novels. But
Possession was a rare treat. I really adored it. The recreation
of the espositolary (sp?) style was just wonderful.
Sorry, I did misread you. I did get a little confused on how Clarissa
came up. Not even sure its a good CARICATURE OF BUFFY but hey,
that's personal opinion and it has been a long time since i read
it.
Richardson is preachy in the intro and in his analysis of
his story, another example of why a writer shouldn't comment on
his work. (I think, it is possible I'm confusing him with someone
else.) You are right - no one else besides maybe her female friend
comes across as sympathetic. She
inherits money, her sister and brother turn against her and the
trap tightens. The reason Lovelace rapes her is to force her into
marrying him. (I couldn't remember if he did it before or after
the marriage - but I knew he only touched her to get a specific
result) And he tells her she's nothing, not important, just a
way to get money.
She actually comes across pretty well in the story.
And maybe you're right she really wasn't as flightly as Maryanne.
More sensible like Maryanne's sister who I can't remember the
name of.
You're right that's what I hate about 18th century lit - everything
is very patriarchial. 19th Century lit isn't much better. Actually
Les Liasons came the closest with the wonderful although flawed
character of the Marquise.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> George
Meredith's The Egoist -- Arethusa, 08:44:44 09/05/02 Thu
Loved it. The wealthy heroine spends the entire novel almost frantically
trying to avoid marrying the rich, handsome, well-born "hero",
who is insufferable in his egoism. It's set just as firmly in
its time and place as other 19th century novels, but Meredith
had a slightly more open mind. He "presents a sympathetic
but ultimately ambiguous view of the confining situation of marriage
for intelligent women, as well as being a poignant reflection
on the complex changes taking place in relationships between middle-class
men and women in Victorian society."
From:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/englit/victorian/INTRO/meredith.html
It was published in 1879, much later of course than Clarissa,
but I still think he was ahead of his time. It's an antitdote
to all the patriarchal novels of the time, and is amusing, too.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Speech, Silence and Clarissa -- leslie,
09:16:47 09/05/02 Thu
I agree with Rah's analysis of Clarissa, from what I've been able
to read of it and the lit crit I've read--the reason it enrages
me so much, I think, is mostly the representation of her family
situation, rather than her relationship with Lovelace. Rah speaks
of the disasterous consequences for women in her culture who try
to escape being forced into arranged marriages; believe me, that
makes me infuriated, too, in the same way, but somehow, reading
the letters in Clarissa make it too immediate for me to bear.
I think it's the feeling of absolute powerlessness that makes
me want to hit things.
By the way, SK, the reason this whole Clarissa thing came up was
my saying that I hate the whole idea that women have to "domesticate"
their boyfriends and the only thing that makes me angrier is reading
Clarissa! I guess both come down to my feelings about gender relations--I
regard myself as an independent human being first and a woman
second, and I expect men to be the same (except, of course, being
men rather than women....). I find the "Clarissa" stance--that
women are purely pawns of men and must be punished for attempting
to reach autonomy--as offensive as the "domestication"
stance--that women are "angels in the house" who have
to constantly patrol male irresponsibility in order to maintain
Civilization As We Know It. You know, it's hard enough being responsible
for myself, I don't see why I should have to do it for another
adult of normal mental capacity.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Hear, hear! -- MaeveRigan, 09:36:51 09/05/02 Thu
You know, it's hard enough being responsible for myself, I
don't see why I should have to do it for another adult of normal
mental capacity.
"That's what it's all about," as Buffy said to Giles
in "Intervention."
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
No disagreement here. -- shadowkat, 12:23:17 09/05/02
Thu
Thanks for clearing up the whole Clarissa thing.
I actually agree: I sooo don't like the good woman will change
the bad boy cliche
any more than I like all she needs is a good man cliche.
I guess I'm an existentialist - I don't believe you can change
people, reform them any more than they can change or reform you.
I am responsible for my own course and decisions in life not anyone
else's and I'm certainly not arrogant enough to think I can reform
or change anyone.
Two messages I hate to see in media: the good girl reforming the
bad boy. Or even worse the good boy reforming the bad girl.
(An aside: I may be going out on a limb here, but I didn't get
the impression from any of the posts on this board that people
thought Buffy was responsible for reforming Spike? Did i misread
the whole board again?? Just that she was responsible for treating
him in a brutal and clearly abusive way. Goes back to Giles' statement
in Something Blue -"We won't hurt a harmless creature"
- although whether Spike is harmless or not is another debate
I really don't want to get into at the moment. And for the record?
I thought Buffy did feel bad for treating him horribly. I saw
that addressed. I still it being addressed. The writers commented
on it. It was mentioned briefly in OAFA and she mentioned it in
AYW. And it will probably come up again next year. )
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> 18th
C anti-patriarchs -- Sophist, 09:16:45 09/05/02 Thu
I'd be hard put to find any writer in the 18th Century who
was anti-patriarchal in the way that would satisfy us.
Ok, I see this as a challenge. Damn, it's tough in the 18th C.
I could probably do better in the 17th and certainly in the 19th.
How about Abigail Adams or Mary Wollstonecraft and William Godwin?
Lady Mary Wortley Montagu? Erasmus Darwin? I'll think about it
some more.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
18th C anti-patriarchs -- Rahael, 09:27:46 09/05/02 Thu
I have every faith in you Sophist!
Actually, I thought of Mary Wollestonecroft as soon as I posted,
and wondered who was going to bring her up!
I love 18th century lit, and in the best work, the power of patriarchy
(which is fluid and adaptable) and gender politics are described
in an extremely complex way.
And should it not be factored into considerations that women were
the larger part of the readership of 18th century novels, and
Clarissa was an extremely popular book?
After all, it's clear from Northanger Abbey, as well as Jane Austen's
letters ( a real delight! I recommend them!) that the reading
of novels was seen as a rather low brow way to spend one's time.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: 18th C anti-patriarchs -- Sophist, 10:38:35 09/05/02
Thu
I probably should keep my fingers closed about this, but....
The stereotypical 18C view of women is more complex than leslie
may be giving credit for. Yes, women were expected to civilize
men. That was intended as a compliment. Men were seen as naturally
inclined to less civilized behavior. That was not a compliment.
Women were important because they could ameliorate the more unattractive
features of masculinity. It's probably fair to say that most women
agreed with this view and appreciated that aspect of their role.
They may have seen it as a duty, but it was also a happy consequence
of what they saw as their natural strength.
In some sense, this was a progressive view. Gender power relations
are always more complex than they appear on the surface and in
legal codes. The idea that men needed civilization and manners,
and that women could provide that refinement, gave women influence
(though not political power).
Unless you believe that men and women are fundamentally identical
-- that gender is purely a social construct -- then men and women
do bring different strengths to social and personal relationships.
In that case, it's to the advantage of both to use those strengths.
That doesn't make it a duty, though it's easy enough to slide
over to that conclusion. Just a good partnership.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: 18th C anti-patriarchs -- leslie,
11:04:50 09/05/02 Thu
Hmm, I don't know, I think this is a two-edged sword. Yes, women's
role as civilizers was seen as the source their power, but this
coincided with the increasing move toward keeping women in the
house; the task of "civilizing" was a sop to keep them
out of the public sphere. The idea of men and women as partners
with complementary strengths was much stronger and much more in
accord with the reality of people's lives in the pre-modern era.
This actually links up with some of what people have been saying
about Anyanka's putative female oppression in her mortal, tenth
century life. In fact, she was much more likely to have an equal
amount of freedom as her peer males, it's just that neither men
*nor* women had much in the way of freedom as we currently define
it in those days; however, families were expected to work together
as a team, with different spheres of responsibility, and men's
and women's work were regarded as equally necessary. It was, ironically,
upper class women who were more likely to be oppressed by reason
of their gender, not peasant women. It is as you get the rise
of the middle class that women are increasingly required to stay
at home while men are expected to work out of the home, a division
between the public and private worlds in which the first is the
male sphere, and the more valued sphere, and the second is the
female sphere, and both the less valued and the more expected
to exist purely to support the efforts of the males in the public
sphere. This is just starting in the 18th century and becomes
more dogmatic in the Victorian era with the ideal of the "angel
in the house" who provides a refuge from the nasty, dirty
world for her bread-winning husband. The fact that in the twenty-first
century, when both men and women generally have to work outside
the home, the woman is still generally expected to take care of
the housekeeping and cooking and making things "homey"
shows how much we are still stuck in this mindset when the social
circumstances that created it no longer obtain.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Private spheres, Public spheres -- Rahael,
11:22:21 09/05/02 Thu
Just a quick comment - how much of the public sphere/private sphere
dichotomy, where men and women were assigned their proper place
was rhetoric, and how much was reality?
What meaning would that dichotomy have for a woman who worked
as a servant, far from her home, who had travelled to the city
to find work? How true would it be for a farmers wife, who probably
worked pretty hard. How true was it for the Duchess of Devonshire,
who participated in politics at the highest level?
I think the dichotomy is ambiguous - certainly many women were
confined to the home, and rhetoric argued that it was their proper
place, but I also think the reality did not quite match up.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> I agree. -- Sophist, 12:49:31 09/05/02 Thu
The one point I would add is this: life before 1700 tended to
be pretty brutal and violent (yes, I realize what a gigantic generalization
this is). This could hardly be seen as an advantage to women.
The ideology of the 18C removed them from this world, and then
tried to use women to ameliorate these tendencies in men as a
means of breaking that cycle.
There are lots of arguments about how much this ideology was actually
practised, whether it was successful (as opposed to other factors),
and about its effect on the attitudes men and women had about
themselves and the "other". But in the 18C it was seen
as progress, and it's not impossible that it had some beneficial
effects. (Of course, I run the risk here of being seen as writing
The British Rule in India, which is not my intent.)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Courtly Love -- Rahael, 13:19:42 09/05/02
Thu
Doesn't the ideal of courtly love also posit that women can 'reform'
rough rude men, into civilised and 'courteous' behaviour?
There's definitely a growing trend toward a new form of 'polite'
behaviour, which can be seen in publications like Tatler, which
attempted to bring the ancients and Shakespeare to the common
man (okay, the 'middle class'). However, I'd seen that as a gender-neutral
activity, which both men and women participated in (boorish Squire
Western, as opposed to the civilised Allworthy). But I'd definitely
be interested in any book recs for gendered idea of cultural change.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: Courtly Love -- Sophist, 13:34:44
09/05/02 Thu
I would say no to the point about courtly love. My understanding
is that the love of the unattainable woman led the knight to perform
heroic deeds. I don't believe the idea of "civilizing"
the knights (at least, as the term "civilizing" was
understood in the 18C) was present. I hasten to add that I know
just enough to be dangerous on the topic of courtly love.
You are quite right that the 18C emphasized "polite"
behavior. This focus on manners then led to later criticism of
"hypocrisy". The attribution to women of a civilizing
force, was consistent with the overall project of improvement.
But showing polite manners -- which both genders might or might
not do -- was not necessarily the same as ameliorating mens' natural
rude appetites (hehe). So, consistent with but not identical to.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Courtly Love -- Rahael,
14:50:20 09/05/02 Thu
Requoting myself from June...
"Just adding a few more opinions on the above.
Courtly love doesn't just idealize the man and the woman in the
depicted relationship - it was necessarily and unrealistic and
artificially idealized relationship. Why unncessarily? because
the woman was usually married, and married to a more powerful
man than the loving supplicant. Think of the social chaos that
would be caused if people acted upon it!
Georges Duby's famous thesis is that courtly love was functional
-that it served to socialise restless young men, and the young
man's worship of the woman was really a way of worshipping her
husband. In fact, the woman becomes completely invisible, despite
being the central figure on the story. Like all ideals, she's
just something to aspire to. Now Duby's contentions have been
qualified, but I think it still holds force (and I'm not a functionalist,
so I'd still prefer to think of literature as being more than
that).
Of course, there is a famous example of a knight who rapes a woman,
and that is in Chaucer's Wife of Bath. There to, the real issue
is that of power. The moral of the story is that women should
have the power, that the man should cede power to women within
the marriage. The Knight's slow path to this realisation starts
with his rape of an innocent woman. The king wants to punish him
with death, but the Queen usurps the King's power, and suggests
that she would be content if the knight is raped by a woman. And
that, metaphorically is what happens. The knight has to agree
to sleep with an old hag. Luckily for him, this being the stuff
of romance, she turns into a beautiful woman at night.
I had got the impression that Capellanus' take on courtly love
was satirical? but I'm not very familiar with it, and I'm weak
on medieval history. But an early modern take on courtly love
is 'The book of the Courtier' by Castiglione, which presents both
sides of the argument in the form of a debate (a la the Symposium).
I wouldn't really call it a page turner though, so this isn't
a recommendation"
Rahael, off to look up her copy of Maurice Keen's 'Chivalry'.
I would not at all claim any special knowledge in this area -
I was ill the week we did it!
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Courtly Love --
MaeveRigan, 19:25:05 09/05/02 Thu
I think you've got two versions of the loathly-lady tale conflated
there, but be that as it may--
Here's an up-to-date rundown on courtly love:
http://icg.fas.harvard.edu/~chaucer/special/lifemann/love/ben-love.htm
I really don't think there's any better explanation available.
Benson is a professor of medieval lit. at Harvard, so I'm pretty
sure he knows what he's talking about.
Though the Buffy Database's "Spike & Courtly Love" is
a lot of fun! Recently updated with Season 6 appendix!
http://vrya.cstone.net/buffy_action-essay1.htm
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Courtly Love
-- Rahael, 04:20:37 09/06/02 Fri
You may well be right, re conflation.
Thanks for the essay on courtly love - it was very interesting,
though brief.
Many things were touched upon, though not explicated:
The construction of the idea of masculinity through the language
of courtly love, but not in islotion from constructions of femininity.
And the link between aristocratic virtue and the language of love.
Also, the fact that sometimes, all this was tongue in cheek, i.e
Capellanus. Sometimes, the language and conventions of courtly
love were just a game - for instance, Philip Sidney's poems to
the Stella he probably harboured no romantic feelings for. Thomas
Wyatt's bitterly satirical poems playing off on the language of
chivalry, and its reality.
The essay mentioned Henry's courtship of Anne, and his use of
courtly love conventions. But Wyatt mocked those in his 'whoso
list to hunt', where the sordid reality (the defender of Faith,
the pious and religious Henry VIII playing around with a loose
woman). By translating Petrarch's sonnet about the beautiful and
mystical Laura, but comparing it to what was really happening
in the English court, Wyatt tears away Henry's pretensions, to
aristocratic virtue, kingly magnanimity and piety.
Petrarch says that Laura 'belongs to God', and says Noli me tangere,
but when Wyatt translates, we know who really 'owns' Anne/the
deer, and when she says 'Noli Me Tangere', we know that she's
really only open for the highest bidder. No one can touch her.
Apart from the King.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Courtly Love --
lachesis, 06:51:40 09/06/02 Fri
I always found the coincidence between the beginnings of the courtly
love tradition and the papal decision to revoke women's 'marital
rights' interesting. (I don't remember which Crusade it was -
2nd or 3rd? round about then - but up until that point, women
had an equal right to demand that their husbands be available
to provide, essentially, sanctioned sex. And then they didn't,
because many wives prevented their husbands going on Crusade).
Such an ad hoc decision, but it surely had an enormous effect
on gender relations in the West...
Wish I remembered the book - maybe its in Riley-Smith's 'The Crusades'?
Ah well, just a thought.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: 18th C anti-patriarchs -- Arethusa, 11:12:59
09/05/02 Thu
At the same time, women were considered to be morally weak and
susceptable to corruption, as well as corrupting others. (As in
the Eve story already discussed.) And both views were held simutaneously,
which makes this 21st century woman suspect that men said whatever
was expedient for getting their own way, and would convince women
to be conplicit in their own subjugation.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Woah! -- Rahael, 11:13:23 09/05/02 Thu
I'm going to have to disagree with you here! I agree that in gender,
biology and society interact to give us notions and narratives
of behaviour, but I think your pov here is an example of socially
constructed models of behaviour for men and for women.
Are you really arguing that women are more civilised than men?
Or characterising 18th Century thought as mistaken in that regard,
albeit benignly? What throws me is that you use the word 'civilised'
which after all is how we denote socially constructed behaviour,
a way of being that is drummed into our heads. Your conclusion
seems to be that women and men are fundamentally different, and
they can 'help' each other out as partners. So what happens to
single sex couples? Are they in some fundamental way not a partnership
as heterosexual ones? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you here.
I'd say that the early modern situation is more complex than you
say. For example, contrast the view of noble men and women, with
the poor. The menu peuple. Most commentators saw the menu peuple
as an undifferentiated, uncivilised mob who needed controlling.
Who needed to be taught civilised behaviour, whether they were
women or men. Whether it be through the church, or the civil court,
or through the sword.
I'd say that the description you give here about gender politics
is actually just rhetoric. Women were *told* they were passive
and gentle and sweet, but if that were indeed the reality, why
did it have keep being drummed into their heads in prescriptive
literature? Also it's not true that women didn't have political
influence. Gender also interacts with class, and certain women
in the late 18th and early 19th century could wield behind the
scenes power.
Also, if you read prescriptive literature for men, the view of
men being boorish and uncivilised doesn't always bear out. In
many ways, masculinity was the epitome of being 'civilised'. Can
you be truly civilised if you didn't read Latin, compose a song
in a spare moment, wear magnificent clothes, joust well, know
how to move in society? The way that men were socialised was just
as much through other men (fathers, tutors, peers) as women. In
fact, in early modern France, young boys were *taken away* from
the society of women that they had spent their early lives, so
they wouldn't become 'unmanly'.
What about the Renaissance view of manliness? How does that fit
in with women humanising male society? Consider the caricature
of the 'molly' and the 'fop' in 18th Century society. How did
he need to be 'feminised' even more?
There's a whole train of thought in early modern society which
*feared* women. Feared their 'irrationality', their 'monstrosity'.
Built up this rhetoric of the 'good wife and mother', who fitted
neatly into a hierarchy that made them subservient to the power
of their fathers and husbands, precisely because if they weren't
made to fit in there, the consequences for society would be horrific.
Nature overturned.
I mentioned arranged marriages before. The culture has changed
in recent times - a degree is now seen as an asset in the marriage
market. But as I grew up, I was taught 'feminine' skills. At school,
I was taught how to walk in a lady like manner!! (They failed.
I still defiantly sprawl in the most inelegant way).
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Woah! indeed. -- Sophist, 12:37:30 09/05/02
Thu
Not so fast.
I admit my post could be read as approving the specific 18C view
of women as civilizers, but I don't believe that and that is not
what I meant. (Personally, I think of myself as responsible for
civilizing my feral daughters. Hehe.) Nor am I subscribing to
the 18C view of men/masculinity. What I meant was:
1. We have to understand, rather than criticize, the way the 18C
saw gender roles. As you rightly point out here and in response
to leslie, these are much more complex than the dogmas of the
time suggest.
2. The concept that men and women might bring different strengths
to the table is not inherently irrational. Whether the specific
strengths claimed are justifiable is a conceptually different
question.
The inherent problem is that any categorization of "men"
or "women", rational though it may be, tends to imprison
individuals. Thus, because the 18C saw women as a civilizing force,
we see that quintessential Enlightenment figure Thomas Jefferson
recommending that his daughters learn music, dancing, and similar
"civilizing" skills in order to perform their civilizing
role. In contrast, he had long lists of classical reading and
mathematics to recommend to his nephews. In my view, both ideals
can be seen as constraining.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> lolol -- Rahael, 13:08:53 09/05/02
Thu
Very much agree with you.
I totally agree that essentialist ideas of 'male' and 'female'
are constraining - I think I misread your last paragraph.
Certainly I agree that 18th century notions of gender are more
complex than prescriptive literature suggests. Because the complexities
of gender and politics and human relationships are acted out by
real men and women who do not conform to the expected models of
masculinity and feminity. And it's not so much that men gave women
the right to a civilising power over them but that human relationships
are always complex, and as SK's posts on power and sex demonstrated,
ideas of 'powerlessnes' and 'power' can be deceptive.
The reason why I'd have difficulty with ascribing any particular
characteristic as belonging to 'men' as a whole, and not to 'women'
is because first of all, my innate world view is somewhat different
to the European, and my ideas of masculine and feminine are quite
different. Which always suggested cultural factors being fed into
men and women's strengths.
I mean, I have more in common culturally, and in terms of modes
of behaviour, with a male friend of mine born into the same culture,
(more than I do with my best female friend, who is half French
and half English.) Everyone at University always commented on
how much we both smiled all the time, how cheerful we always looked,
how affable, and hospitable. But we both knew that we were just
behaving politely!
I think our peers judged him to be quite a 'feminine' man, but
I knew that he really was quite a traditional man, 'masculine'
man. It just depended on the cultural context you were working
from. He knew I was completley beyond the pale, and was quite
a 'masculine' girl/ But a lot of our Western peers just saw a
smiling, polite, retiring type. That's until I opened my mouth
in tutorials of course.
Re Thomas Jefferson - I have to point out here that I was also
given music lessons. And dancing. And sewing I also got maths
lessons but that's a cultural peculiarity! lol.
As for your feral daughters, I'm afraid that my father too would
sympathize with your sentiment! And I remember a quote from Amanda
Vickery in her book 'Gentlemen's daughters' a study of 18th century
women's history, which went:
"the darling daughter was patriarchy's achilles heel"
Her study demonstrates that women were discriminated against,
and if they had a bad marriage, they had very little recourse
to escape it, or have independent lives. But she also shows many
loving, affectionate, equal marriages. Which is why I like Tristram
Shandy, Tom Jones *and* Clarissa.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Fathers and Daughters -- Arethusa,
13:40:32 09/05/02 Thu
"And I remember a quote from Amanda Vickery in her book 'Gentlemen's
daughters' a study of 18th century women's history, which went:
"the darling daughter was patriarchy's achilles heel"'
How funny. I read that one of the reasons businesses started opening
up to women in the late sixties and seventies is because of all
the businessmen with Ivy League-educated daughters who couldn't
get hired. Their "darling daughters'" frustration made
them more receptive to hiring women for positions of responsibilty.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: 18th C anti-patriarchs -- redcat, 11:32:28
09/05/02 Thu
Sophist,
If you haven't read it yet, I think you would really enjoy Cornelia
Hughes Dayton's "Women before the Bar: Gender, Law and Society
in Connecticut, 1639-1789." Dayton argues that even reading
the law (in this case, through court records) shows evidence of
the highly contested nature of gender relations in the period,
as she examines the role of those contests (over the differential
definitions of women's and men's moral capacities, for example)
as they work to culturally re-construct notions of what women
and men "are by nature" in the early modern period.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
18th C anti-patriarchs -- redcat, 11:13:42 09/05/02 Thu
Sometimes it's a bitch being on the other side of the
world from the rest of you guys! Sophist, I
got on the computer pretty early this morning but you still beat
me to answering Rah's
challenge -- LOL! You listed everyone I immediately thought of
when I read Rah's post and
one author I'd completely forgotten about, Erasmus Darwin.
The only other two 18thC "writers" (in English, at any
rate) that I think might also warrant
consideration here are, first, Jane Mecom, Benjamin Franklin's
favorite younger sister, whose
letters over a lifetime to her famous brother, while not strictly
anti-patriarchal, certainly
demonstrate a real 18thC British-American "common woman's"
analysis of , disdain for and
struggles against the system in which she was as surely trapped
as the fictional Clarissa. If
anything, I find reading her letters a much more poignant experience
than reading the novel.
They're also a whole lot shorter... (grin). And the second "writer"
would be Martha Ballard, a
late 18thC New England midwife who left a nearly-500-page daily
record of her life of running a
farm, a family and a midwifery business in what were at that time
the "wilds of Maine". Her
diary entries have been beautifully edited, commented on and contextualized
by Laurel
Thatcher Ulrich in her "A Mid-Wives' Tale." I would
**highly** recommend this book to anyone
interested in the life of rural 18thC British-American folks or
the complex issues of 18thC gender
relations, even if only as a contrast to the more commonly-written-about
life of British urban
society.
And I'm not sure if this would count, but the 17thC text "A
Woman of Genius," by the Mexican
author Sor Juana Ines de la Crus, became widely available in English
to British and American
readers only in the early 18thC. Although Sor Juana was quite
limited in what she was allowed
to publish by her male superiors, including her Bishop and the
Pope, I think her work stands
alongside Wollstonecraft's "Vindication of the Rights of
Women" as a brilliant and courageous
claim for women's political, social and spiritual autonomy at
a time when women like her had
few choices other than entering a convent to escape an unwanted
arranged marriage.
I'm not surprised that several people here have had quite strong,
if completely opposite,
reactions to "Clarissa." I've found the same fervor
of both love and hate at most of the lit crit
and Women's Studies conference sessions I've attended where the
novel has been discussed.
Personally, I find it more annoying than rage-producing, which
is a good thing, since having to
grade essays about it written by first-year college students is
rage-producing enough, thanks.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Thanks, rc, both for the compliment and the recommendations
-- Sophist, 12:52:01 09/05/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Speech,
Silence and Clarissa -- fresne, 18:23:02 09/05/02 Thu
LOL - I suppose it says something that while reading this I was
mixing up Clarissa, Pamela and Evelina into this sort of weird
slew of Literature. Made it hard to make heads or tales of the
discussion. Thank God for Amazon and the "Oh, that book."
realization.
I'm sure someone will correct me, but it was my understanding
that when the novel as an art form started to coalesce into being
in the 17 and 1800s, they were primarily aimed at women readers.
Or rather novels in 3-part serialized format available at subscription
lending libraries were targeted at the burgeoning market of semi
to actively literate (this would just be England mind you, I don't
really know much about other countries subscription lending libraries)
middle class women, who were being socially circumscribed but
still had access to the household accounts. (i.e., books were
cheap, but they made big money) Particularly "horrid"
novels. The Monk, Mysteries of Udolpho, Castle Otranto, etc. Or
at least that was the contention of my Women and the Gothic
Novel class.
Novels frequently featured female main characters and often focused
on women's adventures. Circumscribed adventures fraught with difficulties,
but the hardest thing in this world is to live in it.
And since we are talking about the Angel of the household, I have
to throw in a somewhat earlier figure, Moll Flanders. I can't
call her a model of literary feminine splendor, but she's no simpering
miss.
As to Miss S******'s responsibility to Mr. S**** of London, her
role in reforming the bad boy, blah, blah, part of the problem
is that ladies' role within the story as an Enabler.
In this context I mean Enabler in the positive form of the word,
someone who enables by word, deed or example others to see strengths
within themselves. Xander's "What would Buffy do." speech
in the Freshman is a wonderful example of how Buffy can inspire
and in turn can/should receive comfort and inspiration from her
community.
While each individual is responsible for their own behavior, people
exist with a larger world. The problem is finding a balance between
being responsible to aim for behaviors which positively influence
your community and carting people around like big dead weights
(enabling in the lower case and just plain icky form of the word).
Actually, most of the characters have barely had the steam to
cart themselves around this season much less someone else.
Though so far my Lit vote goes (provided I can't vote for Jane
Austen), I would have to go with Tristram Shandy. The plot squiggles
resembles this thread.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> While we are
citing literature from other centuries... -- alcibiades, 07:26:05
09/05/02 Thu
I can't see Buffy as remotely similar to either Clarissa or Mme.
Tourvel.
Nor can I see Spike as Valmont. He wasn't playing a game -- although
that Marquise de Merteuil that Valmont is playing with, I can
see as kind of a Darla/Angelus figure. Set them up for the long
torture and sit back and watch the bloody show.
Although it is by no means exact and is written some part of a
century later, Spike is more like Julien in Le Rouge et le Noir,
a morally ambiguous man helplessly in love with the women he seduces.
Although Spike does fall in love before he attempts to seduce
Buffy, not as he is doing so as an intellectual exercise.
And Buffy is more similar to Mademoiselle de la Mole, defying
those around her for love, although more in respect to Angel than
to Spike -- now there is a quippy action heroine for the 19th
century who takes control in her own hands. Boy if she isn't the
polar opposite of Clarissa, I don't know who is.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agreed,
re Julien Sorel! -- Rahael, 07:31:14 09/05/02 Thu
I love Rouge et Noir! And I did a comparison of Julien to Spike
on the board a month or so ago!
though I have to say once again I DID NOT COMPARE BUFFY TO CLARISSA!(Once
more, with feeling!)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: While
we are citing literature from other centuries... -- shadowkat,
08:35:47 09/05/02 Thu
Lot's of misreading going on around here. I don't think Rah and
I saw either book as being close to Buffy. And the only character
that comes close is Valmont and he does remind a little of Spike
in his wolfishness, also quite a bit of Angelus. But you're right
not close enough to warrant an essay on the topic.
Actually I'd be hard-pressed to even compare The Red and The Black.
Although you are right it comes closer. But it was even longer
ago that I read it - uhm let's see, Clarissa was 14 years ago
in college, REd and The Black was in high school, so 20 years?
Another miniseries was shown recently on that one as well.
Didn't watch all of it.
Also, isn't the Red & The Black less about love and more about
the struggle between the clergy and the state?
I always got the feeling Julien was struggling with the moral
issue of where he belonged and this was used to show the struggle
for power between church and state in 18th Century France? Maybe
I'm wrong. It's been a very long time since I read it. Fact I
remember it at all is actually amazing.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
While we are citing literature from other centuries... --
alcibiades, 09:16:43 09/05/02 Thu
"Another miniseries was shown recently on that one as well.
Didn't watch all of it."
I tried to watch it -- thought it was horrendous. IMO, the director
had the actor concentrate only on what was narcissistic and egoistic
and disagreeable about Julien -- everything he consciously articulates
-- and none of the innate positive which was natural and unconscious
-- it kind of presented a deconstruction of the character to the
extent that it undermined the entire book. If the main character
is unbearable, so too the mini-series.
"Also, isn't the Red & The Black less about love and more
about the struggle between the clergy and the state?"
Well about both. But Stendahl's forte really was being a psychologist
and explicator of love. That is where much of his brilliance lies
-- and in his use of the ironic voice.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Could. not. DISagree. more -- alcibiades, 20:08:12
09/04/02 Wed
I am so not getting the comparison to Clarissa. Okay blond and
involved with a bad boy but under completely different circumstances.
The point is Buffy is a war leader - she claimed Spike as part
of her band of buggered in Season 5, and great war leaders take
an interest in the moral well being of their men, even when they
themselves are not in tip top condition. And even ill, Buffy attempts
to perform this function with Willow. You may as well ask why
Willow would put up with it.
Meanwhile Buffy is sleeping with Spike. Doesn't that make him
a relevant person in her life, much as superego wishes he weren't.
I think that Spike would put up with moral guidance because he's
motivated still by seeking effulgent moments. He had one of a
sort in Intervention, as he escapes he lands on the elevator in
the shape of a cross.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Could. not. DISagree. more -- leslie, 21:00:11 09/04/02
Wed
"The point is Buffy is a war leader - she claimed Spike as
part of her band of buggered in Season 5, and great war leaders
take an interest in the moral well being of their men, even when
they themselves are not in tip top condition."
Well, buggered or missionary position, war leaders are not supposed
to sleep with their men. It screws up the chain of command. (Which
is, I suspect, the real reason why Buffy has never slept with
Xander.) I think that's part of the reason why Buffy and Spike
can't figure out their relationship--are they equals (which is
what they were when they were enemies, the respective war leaders
of their "tribes") or is he her subordinate in the Slayer
Brigade? He is, frankly, too powerful to be an effective subordinate.
Look at how she utilizes him in S5--she puts up with him because
he's the only one who can substitute for her--oddly enough, *he's*
almost as much of a stand-in for her as the Buffybot is. His moments
of being tolerated in the SG come when Buffy is absent. For all
that he has this romantic notion of "serving his lady,"
he does not fight well with others.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: Could. not. DISagree. more
-- alcibiades, 21:36:04 09/04/02 Wed
"For all that he has this romantic notion of "serving
his lady," he does not fight well with others."
Spike fights well with Buffy, he doesn't fight well with the others
in large part because the others don't fight well. Buffy gets
pretty annoyed by them as well. They have improved, but they are
not great shakes. Do you remember Riley trying to fight with them
in FFL? They were the comic relief.
As for war leaders not sleeping with their men, that seems very
modern. They certainly did it without detriment in the past, just
read the Iliad.
In any case, sleeping together has not dinted Spike and Buffy's
ability to fight well together.
Frankly, I always thought what made Spike a less effective member
of the brigade was a certain moral confusion about why he was
fighting with the white hats. And of course, they have to show
him as less capable than Buffy because the show is called BTVS.
I do hope some of that moral confusion about why he is fighting
the "enemy" clears up in Season 7 with the addition
of the soul.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Could. not. agree. more -- vh, 07:29:45 09/06/02
Fri
Being a romantic, I'm a sucker for "love conquers all,"
but I will also gladly go for the other side if well presented.
On the other hand, I'm not going to castigate the "big bad"
for "dragging the lady down" when the lady doesn't let
any light in. Buffy is the heroine. If she's not going to try
to "bring him up," she shouldn't let herself in for
his "bringing her down"; she should LET HIM ALONE. My
point is not "is Spike's redemption Buffy's responsibility,"
but "given that Buffy insists on being with Spike, should
she a) Beat him savagely and tell him that he's irredeemable whenever
he says he can change, or b) Assist him in improving his behavior?"
Hm, I wonder which course of action would be more heroic?
When it comes down to it, yes, each character is responsible for
his/her own actions which includes both Spike and Buffy. If Spike
would make himself Buffy's slave, it is then Buffy's responsibility
how she responds.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Could. not. agree. more -- Rahael, 08:06:11
09/06/02 Fri
I think we have very different views on the idea of what constitutes
heroism, moral decision making and the dynamics of bad relationships.
People learn from mistakes. Sometimes people (yes, even the moral,
the heroic) are drawn into destructive modes of behaviour. Most
narratives about heroes depict fatal flaws.
Also, my view of 'morality' and 'heroism' is that those two are
not a 'state of being' but a process of behaviour. Buffy can behave
nobly, and morally, but she can also make mistakes. Rigidiying
character, saying that 'I'm a hero! This is not how I should behave!
If I have unheroic thougths like I wish my little sister would
go away, I must be bad. Must be wrong. Must be a monster"
That's Buffy's mistake precisely. She, the hero is facing complex,
dark things. She's trying to integrate them into her view of the
world. Is she in heaven? Is she in hell? or is she simply on earth.
Is she a monster or a hero? Or is she simply human?
The greatest love stories contain dark emotions. It reaches deep
into our psyches, makes us vulnerable. We leave ourselves open,
dependent, trusting. This can create havoc for those who are troubled.
Buffy, hating herself, tried to lose herself in so many ways -
in irresponsibility, in invisibility, in depression, in drinking
sessions, sex sessions with Spike.
As for 'helping' and drawing up other human beings. I'd advise,
when helping someone who is deeply troubled, you should not have
sex with them. That way leads to bad things. It needs toughness,
a little detachment, a clear sight.
I think it would have been better for everyone if Spuffy hadn't
happened, yes. Spike is not a suitable person for a relationship
with depressed Buffy, because she could not help him improve morally,
in the way you suggest. But I also think that Buffy wouldn't have
gone to him if she had been happy.
If the relationship did happen, at this point, it would indeed
be dark and destructive.
So the options are: No sexual relationship, or a dark relationship.
Sometimes, two dark and disturbed people just bring out the worst
in each other.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> addendum - unequal relationships -- Rahael,
08:20:21 09/06/02 Fri
Just a more general thought.
I don't understand how any relationship can be healthy where one
is considered a 'hero' with greater moral responsibility, and
the other has a 'lessened' expectation. They should be equal,
one way or another. Imagine how it would be if one partner were
constantly aware that the other had superior views on life, love
and morality. How could that, in itself, constitute a healthy
relationship? Shouldn't there be a trust that each person would
behave in a certain ethical way? Why is someone abasing themselves
in front of you considered romantic, or attractive?
That's why I have such a knee jerk reaction to the idea that one
be a 'moral tutor' to the other. I'm afraid I'm a believer in
love founded on equality, respect and trust. As the starting point.
On the other hand, if you do indeed believe in the transformative
power of love, turning unhealthy to healthy, amoral to moral etc,
you should then not expect a fairy tale, rose strewn process.
There's going to be a lot of pain involved. A slippage of power
from the 'tutor'.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Indeed -- vh, 08:35:01 09/06/02
Fri
That is why the relationship should not take place. It was inherently
unequal from the outset, with unequal expectations on the part
of both parties. Spike may have said "things have changed,"
but the words were empty.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Could. not. agree. more -- Arethusa, 08:33:05
09/06/02 Fri
I think we all agree that both parties behaved badly. This debate
reminds me of a theme running through most of Jane Austen's books-the
importance of picking the right husband or wife, since an unwise
choice was permanent (barring death), and a spouse can elevate
or drag down the couple.
In Persuasion, Austen writes, " Charles Musgrove was
civil and agreeable; in sense and temper he was undoubtedly superior
to his wife, but not of powers, or conversation, or grace, to
make the past, as they were connected together, at all a dangerous
contemplation; though, at the same time, Anne could believe, with
Lady Russell, that a more equal match might have greatly improved
him; and that a woman of real understanding might have given more
consequence to his character, and more usefulness, rationality,
and elegance to his habits and pursuits. As it was, he did nothing
with much zeal, but sport; and his time was otherwise trifled
away, without benefit from books or anything else."
http://elf.chaoscafe.com/austen/persuasion/index.html
But is Buffy really in this position? She didn't have a romantic
relationship with Spike, just a sexual one. She was not strong
enough emotionally to morally elevate Spike, just as he was not
mature enough emotionally to help elevate her out of her depression.
The best she could do at the time was tell him that she was mistreating
him, apologize, and refuse to continue to mistreat him. That's
a pretty good example for Spike to follow, and it did inspire
him to seek a soul, although (IMO) not for altruistic reasons.
Getting up in the morning and forcing yourself to take care of
your family and fulfill your obligations when you can't even take
care of yourself emotionally is heroism, too.
[> [> [> [> [>
So, Honorificus, who are those "nattering people?"
-- Sarand, 15:14:00 09/04/02 Wed
The fans or the characters? Because I agree that once Buffy came
back, all the characters seemed to expect her to take care of
everything - work, slay, take care of Dawn, the house, solve her
friend's problems - and it really bothered me that they couldn't
see that. One of the most annoying scenes for me all season was
in AYW when she came home from working at the Doublemeat, clearly
worn out (yeah, I know, she had just boinked Spike but don't go
there, please). Dawn, with Willow standing right there, reminds
her that it's garbage day and she has to take out the garbage.
And I'm thinking, why aren't they taking out the garbage their
damn selves! Sorry, just had to get that off my chest, it was
really bugging me.
And, further, I don't think that Buffy is responsible for Spike's
redemption. At best, a good relationship with her might have been
another leash, like the chip, restraining him from doing bad.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: So, Honorificus, who are those "nattering people?"
-- HonorH (forcibly restraining her Super Evil Alter-Ego), 15:26:29
09/04/02 Wed
Both the characters and the fandom. I've seen numerous examples
of the aforementioned natterers on messageboards and at FanFiction.Net
asking, in essence, "Why couldn't Buffy just snap out of
it and fix Willow/Dawn/Xander/Spike?" Makes me believe these
people have absolutely no idea what depression is like. Furthermore,
the burden is far too much for one person--a whole team of therapists
could have descended on Sunnydale last season and not been enough
for the Scoobies (not to mention the walking personality disorder
known as Spike).
As to the characters, this season was all about them all becoming
very self-centered and unable to see beyond their own problems.
I'll give them a grudging pass if they do better next season.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Why does Buffy have to be responsible Spike's redemption?
-- Miss Edith, 16:06:01 09/04/02 Wed
There is indeed no real evidence that Spike wanted to be good.
I do think there is a suggestion that he was tired of being a
monster and wanted to fit in and be defined as either a monster
or a man. He obviously valued his interaction with the scoobies
over the summer and Afterlife is the first example that Spike
was never really thought off as part of the team. He feels able
to treat Xander as an equal as he throws him against a tree during
the angry confrontation, and clearly thought off Xander as a comrade
"I worked beside you all summer...you didn't tell me".
In OAFA he again tries to socialise with the scoobies and states
"figured we're all on the same team". But this time
it is Buffy who is shocked that Spike would turn up at her house,
and she is also displeased to see Clem. Spike does eventually
recognise that he does not fit in with the scoobies. We see the
real pain this causes him in SR when he tells Clem "I'm nothing"
because he doesn't feel he's evil enough any longer but as he
tells Dawn in TL he doesn't feel he can be good either. I believe
Spike's real aim was for companionship and to have a defined role
in life, rather than to become good. It was really his love for
others that inspired him to get a soul. In season 5 he clearly
loved Dawn as well as Buffy, and was inspired to do good because
of that. But without a moral compass he did not have an innate
desire to be a good person.
And Buffy was certainly not obliged to help Spike towards the
light. Just as Angel could have rejected Faith's need for absoulution
by casting her aside following her torture of Wesley. It speaks
higly of Angel that he was able to find it in his heart to forgive
Faith and guide her towards the light. But he was never obliged
to do this and Faith was responsible for the path she chose to
take. We do indeed make our own choices in this life.
I think what is relevent is calling Buffy for her own mistakes
she made, rather than saying she mistreated Spike and is thus
to blame for the downward spiral that his life became. I hold
Buffy responsible for the way she degraded her own character and
her own value system. I believe that is all we can expect from
others, to have them behave in an humane way. I understand Buffy
was suffering but still in my eyes she did not meet that criteria.
JMHO. And I do love the character of Buffy but it does concern
me when her behaviour is dismissed as understandable by the writers.
Jane Epsenson has said that because of Spike's rape attempt there
is very little chance of Buffy acknowledging her own poor behaviour
towards Spike. That is what saddens me as I believe Buffy still
has a lot to learn about her character, and until she shows some
remorse for her disgraceful treatment of Spike (justified as he
was a "thing") I will find it difficult to respect her.
It's as if we are expected to forget all of the mistakes she made
and never took responsibility for just because she had yet another
epithany in the finale.
What people may be refering to when saying Buffy did not guide
Spike towards the light is an interview with Marti in which she
stated that was what Buffy had been trying to do. I understand
that Buffy was doing this in the remaining episodes of season
5 ("you treat me like a man") but it does surprise me
when Marti makes the rather bewildering claim that in season 6
Buffy was a "strong heroic women" who was trying to
"domesticate" her bad boyfriend and failing. Apparently
Buffy was disapointed with Spike's wasted potential and the thought
of what he could have been in Villians when she is sad about his
departure. Marti suggests he was forced to seek a soul because
Buffy had accpeted that she could not guide him towards the light.
That is so different from what a lot of viewers saw on screen
that it has caused some indignent people to protest that Buffy
treating Spike as a "soulles thing" and drumming this
lesson into his head with puches was detrimental to his development.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Noxon quotes -- Azrahael, 16:22:21 09/04/02 Wed
The Noxon quotes that Arethusa posted all seem pretty understandable
readings of Season 6 - would it be possible for you to give us
the full quotes on the comments you attribute to her? Or the context
they're made in? Or the questions they were in response to?
Because they seem rather at odds with what she says here:
"Asked about showing Buffy -- who is supposed to be the hero
of the story, and a moral person -- inflicting pain out of anger
on someone who is not fighting back, Noxon says, "This will
probably inflame fans of a different opinion, but my only answer
to it is that this relationship isn't bringing out the best in
either of them. Maybe it's bringing out the better in him in some
ways, but it's not bringing out the best in her."
"This is bringing out a desperation in her, and she's going
to have to deal with that. Long-term, there are definitely repercussions
to what's happened."
From: http://tv.zap2it.com/news/tvnewsdaily.html?23792"
And since all the quotes that Arethusa posted seem to tally with
each other, I'd really like to see the context in which Marti
might have in one place said Buffy was a strong heroine (she was.
She struggled to put a roof over Dawn's head, coped with trauma
and walked alone), as well as mistakenly thinking that Spike was
safe to mess with. If I'm wrong, and Marti did make those comments
in exactly the light/context you said above I'll have to rethink.
Just a side comment about character and moral standards:
In my view, the hallmark of a truly moral person is not someone
with a clear, sure view of life, but someone who is thoughtful,
who struggles, who tries to search for the right answers. And
yes, someone who fails that standard too.
Human beings are unpredicatble and dynamic, and darkness resides
in the heart of heroes, just as courage is closely linked to cowardice,
faith to doubt, joy to sadness, so on and so on.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Noxon quotes -- Miss Edith, 15:22:38
09/05/02 Thu
Sorry but I really can't remember where the quotes came from which
I'm sure won't do much for my credibility. I lurk on the Cross
and stake board occasionally and just remember that interview
being mentioned. The most I can remember is that in interviews
during season 6 Marti was saying Buffy and Spike were both screwed
up and Spike was the bad boyfriend you encounter in your 20s dragging
Buffy down. When the season finished in the interview I am talking
about Marti was discussing Villians I believe and the reson for
Buffy's sadness at Spike's departure. She claimed Buffy was a
"stong and heroic" women who had tried to "domesticate"
Spike and ultimately had to conclude it wasn't possible and he
was unable to reform, hence Buffy's sadnes. I can remember all
the outraged responses and it was a fairly recent interview is
all I can tell you. To be fair though Marti has suggested she
is getting a lot of e-mails from fans who see Spike as reformed
now which has obviously caused her some frustration. But it still
seems a rather puzzling statement to make.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Buffy did fail her own standards. -- HonorH, 16:56:33
09/04/02 Wed
That's not what I'm arguing, and thanks, Azrahael, for the quotes
and the backup. The point is, though, do we lose respect for her
because in a very dark time in her life, she lost her way temporarily?
She knew she'd lost her way. She felt like she wasn't even herself.
Part of her mistreatment of Spike was contempt she was heaping
upon herself. The alley beating in DT closely paralleled the scene
in "Who Are You" when Faith-in-Buffy was beating up
on Buffy-in-Faith. Buffy was beating the monster she saw in herself.
Not that that excuses it; it simply explains it.
Would things have been different if she'd treated Spike differently?
Of course. Would he have been good because of her? Quite possibly.
But for how long? He was a caged predator living among prey. Buffy's
actions hastened his reversion, but they did not cause it. She
could never redeem him, no matter what she did.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> And if we're using the Angel/Faith analogy, btw
-- HonorH, 18:08:50 09/04/02 Wed
we need to parallel Buffy and Angel's states of mind at this point.
By the end of AtS S1, Angel was in a pretty good place emotionally
(for him, at least). By mid-BtVS S6, Buffy was in about the worst
mental place she'd ever been (and that's saying something). It
would be more accurate to discuss just how much help to Faith
Angel would've been, say, mid-AtS S2, pre-"Epiphany".
The prospect leaves me personally rather dubious.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: And if we're using the Angel/Faith analogy,
btw -- alcibiades, 20:36:52 09/04/02 Wed
I don't think that Buffy had to have the entire weight of Spike's
moral development on her shoulders, obviously she couldn't have
handled it. But if you look at what intially motivated his whole
upward swing in Season 5, it was the fact that she trusted him
enough to protect her mother and sister. and then once they had
worked out the boundaries a little - no you cannot chain me up
and demand my love, - yes I will let myself be tortured rather
than spill to Glory, etc, just some small details, his moral reality
changed drastically.
Spike at heart is nothing like Darla -- not a moral genius when
she was living, or Harmony, a complete ditz. Unlike them, he was
a good man. Even as a vampire and especially with the chip operating
in a Pavlovian sense so that killing and blood lust were no longer
pleasure centers in his brain and nervous system, he was capable
of more than either of them. He might not have been good, but
he was capable of being a whole lot better than he was last year.
In my opinion, what a waste.
I also think that Buffy consistently fails in compassion -- unlike,
for example, Dawn, who reads people emotionally immediately and
always asks how they are. And I do think a side effect of depression
can be greater empathy, so that is no excuse for Buffy last year.
It was not by chance that when Dark Willow breaks down in Grave
and begins to feel herself again, the Willow who appears in her
place is overwhelmed by feeling from the world to such an extreme
that she feels she has to destroy it.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Have you ever *been* depressed?
-- HonorH, 21:02:45 09/04/02 Wed
It's a very self-centered state of being. You can't see past your
own misery a lot of the time. It's a painful, very lonely existence.
The difference with Willow, as explained in the shooting script,
was that the "true essence of magic" that Giles gave
her connected her to everything else so she had no choice but
to feel it. When you're depressed, you feel like the weight of
the world is already on your shoulders, and you can't take another
feather.
Buffy saw Spike, in this state, as her own dark reflection. She
despised him because she despised herself and he was willing to
be with her in this state. Once she started moving into the light
again, she broke things off with him in a kind way, addressing
him by his human name. She no longer despised him, though she
wasn't comfortable around him.
As for Darla, she was dying a miserable and bitter woman, yes,
but other than that, we know little of her mortal life or the
circumstances that turned her into a whore. We do know that when
she came back human, her soul nearly drove her mad, but she was
able to accept it and accept her own impending death eventually--if
only for a moment. Also, under the weight of Connor's soul, she
was even willing to die for her son. That tells me that she was
not, inherently, an evil person outside of her pure vampire years.
As to Buffy's compassion, I really don't see where you're coming
from. It may be that she's not as naturally empathetic as, say,
Dawn, but she's spent the last six years saving the lives of total
strangers for very little in the way of thanks. That's a very
wide-ranging compassion.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Have you ever *been* depressed?
-- alcibiades, 21:25:45 09/04/02 Wed
"It's a very self-centered state of being. You can't see
past your own misery a lot of the time. It's a painful, very lonely
existence. The difference with Willow, as explained in the shooting
script, was that the "true essence of magic" that Giles
gave her connected her to everything else so she
had no choice but to feel it. When you're depressed, you feel
like the weight of the world is already on your shoulders, and
you can't take another feather."
Yeah, I understood that already. I'm just saying I don't think
it is incidental to Willow's depressed state that once she unfroze
from her evil state "the true essence of magic' (boy that
sounds kitschy) connected her to the pain of the entire world.
In other words, depression causes a lot of self involvement in
your own pain, but once you begin moving out of it, it also connects
you effectively with the pain of others. So that I think the 'true
essence of magic' bit is really working as a metaphor for an emergence
from the frozen state of depression.
As for Buffy being kind to Spike, that happened on one occasion.
She called Spike William in AYW, but IMO she was too bitchy and
condescending in that scene to think of her behaviour as kindness.
She was kind in Hell's Bells because she talked to him straight.
And she started off being natural in Normal Again, until her friends
arrived and she was too ashamed of being seen having a conversation
with him so she turned back to humiliation mode.
As for Darla, we know that as a human she never felt love. Very
much like Liam. That she felt it first for Connor because of Connor's
soul. I'd say that was a pretty big hint she, like Liam, was not
a very nice person.
As for Buffy and compassion, I was thinking of IOHEFY where Buffy
is unable to feel compassion for whatever the boy's name is whose
body she inhabits until her emotions are harnessed to his situation.
On a macro level, Buffy saves the world a lot, but on a micro
level, Buffy's compassion is usually reserved for the people she
already loves or people whose situation she has been in herself.
Some people like Dawn or Tara are naturally compassionate. Buffy's
compassion to actual people and not to the abstraction of the
world, has always been presented as more limited.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Have you ever *been*
depressed? -- HonorH, 21:55:35 09/04/02 Wed
"I'm just saying I don't think it is incidental to Willow's
depressed state that once she unfroze from her evil state "the
true essence of magic' (boy that sounds kitschy) connected her
to the pain of the entire world. In other words, depression causes
a lot of self involvement in your own pain, but once you begin
moving out of it, it also connects you effectively with the pain
of others. So that I think the 'true essence of magic' bit is
really working as a metaphor for an emergence from the frozen
state of depression."
Even taking this, though, by your own admission, it's not until
you begin moving out of depression that you start empathizing
again. Buffy was mired in the worst of her depression when she
took up with Spike.
Also, Willow wasn't in a true state of depression--she was in
raging grief that was eventually buried under all the power she'd
taken in. Depression will come later. You don't snap into a state
of depression in a few hours, and you don't snap out of it quickly,
either.
"She called Spike William in AYW, but IMO she was too bitchy
and condescending in that scene to think of her behaviour as kindness."
Having trouble harnessing Honorificus here. Where do you get this?
She stated her reasons for why she was breaking up with him--"I'm
using you. I'm being weak and selfish, and it's killing me"--told
him she had to be strong now, apologized, and walked away. Textbook
example of how to break things off with a guy. Nowhere in her
words or her expressions was she either bitchy or condescending
unless you're projecting your own feelings about her onto that
scene.
As for IOHEFY, her problem wasn't lack of compassion--it was overidentification,
correctly identified by Cordelia. She felt she should be punished
for what she inadvertantly did to Angel, and that was why she
was condemning James. This was made both implicit and explicit
several times during the episode.
For specific examples of compassion, let's take a few: in "The
Wish," when Buffy attempts to speak to a heartbroken, wounded-pride
Cordelia outside the Bronze; in "Passion," when she
wraps her arms around a grief-stricken Giles; in "Consequences,"
when she says she's not going to give up on Faith; in "Wild
at Heart" when she holds a near-hysterical Willow after Oz's
betrayal; in "Family" when she stands up for Tara, who
she doesn't really know at that point; in "The Gift"
when she sacrifices her own life for Dawn's; in "Normal Again"
when she hugs Xander after he bolts from the altar; and in "Entropy"
when she really wants to comfort Anya, who's just not in the mood
to be comforted.
I'm not saying Buffy's a saint, by any means. I'm just saying
that she's a remarkable young woman who's done far more than her
Calling for years, even when she makes terrible mistakes. Call
her human.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Have you ever
*been* depressed? -- alcibiades, 06:56:47 09/05/02 Thu
"Even taking this, though, by your own admission, it's not
until you begin moving out of depression that you start empathizing
again. Buffy was mired in the worst of her depression when she
took up with Spike."
And I find her behaviour to Spike more problematic as she rises
out of her depression. In NA and Entropy, in particular, where
she is working her way out.
"Also, Willow wasn't in a true state of depression--she was
in raging grief that was eventually buried under all the power
she'd taken in. Depression will come later. You don't snap into
a state of depression in a few hours, and you don't snap out of
it quickly, either."
You also don't destroy the world because your girlfriend was just
killed. I am looking at the story telling not only on the literal
level but as metaphor as well that tells you something about levels
of grief.
"Having trouble harnessing Honorificus here. Where do you
get this? She stated her reasons for why she was breaking up with
him--"I'm using you. I'm being weak and selfish, and it's
killing me"--told him she had to be strong now, apologized,
and walked away. Textbook example of how to break things off with
a guy."
I might agree with you if this hadn't been proceeded by Buffy
blowing up his crypt in the weakest plot point of the season,
admittedly not Buffy's fault, by which I mean the one that made
no sense at all and was never explained ex post facto. And then
her statement the next morning:
BUFFY
No. I'm not here for... and I'm
not gonna bust your chops about your
stupid evil scheme. That's
just you. I should've remembered...
You're stupid and evil and I'm breaking up with you.
Now wasn't that just sweet of her. Especially after she used him
for five hours straight the night before strictly in order to
feel better about herself and then humiliated him in front of
Riley first opportunity she got.
"Nowhere in her words or her expressions was she either bitchy
or condescending unless you're projecting
your own feelings about her onto that scene."
I think this kind of accusation can be fruitfully left out of
the conversation. Sure I am projecting to some extent; you think
you are not? We all are. That is what good story telling does.
That is why we are all here arguing about a stupid TV show. But
when you word it this way, its meant as a rhetorical point to
shut the other person up because you have shamed them into silence.
Turn it on its head and projecting or empathizing with them based
on our own experiences is a great strength because it also allows
us to have insight into their situations.
As for the compassion argument, I don't disagree that Buffy can
be greatly compassionate to the people around her, the people
she loves, the people in her inner circle. But her circle is pretty
limited. Tara is the only example you site of people not quite
in her circle, and that "compassion" which is really
given out as a military leader standing tough for one of her people
has to be solicited by Willow. FWIW, and I am sure you won't think
much, I also agree with Anya that Buffy's compassion to Anya in
Entropy is much less compelling than her compassion to Xander.
Because Xander is the one who is her friend.
Look, I'm not condemning Buffy for it, although I do feel impatient
with her behaviour at times because of it. I'm really more pointing
out that I don't think it is one of her strengths, of which I
think she has many, and that it is something she has to work on.
And hopefully she will throughout Season 7 if she finally gets
to work on the Love, Give, Forgive track they teased us with in
Season 5 but never completed.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Have you
ever *been* depressed? -- HonorH, 10:14:27 09/05/02 Thu
Buffy's behavior toward Spike during NA and "Entropy":
believe it or not, I have very few problems with it. She should've
told her friends about her and Spike--that's a given. So the embarrassment
in NA could have been avoided. But it was a natural response to
her uncertainty about how to relate to Spike at that point. As
for "Entropy," she accepted his statement that he wasn't
the one spying on her with cameras, and even accepted his statement
that he wouldn't hurt her--in spite of the evidence to the contrary.
I agree that her "You have to move on" speech was ill-timed,
but it wasn't unkind. They had a very unique exes relationship,
and if she'd handled it perfectly, I'd have been very surprised.
BUFFY
No. I'm not here for... and I'm
not gonna bust your chops about your
stupid evil scheme. That's
just you. I should've remembered...
You're stupid and evil and I'm breaking up with you.
Not really following. His scheme was stupid and evil, but as Buffy
states, that's not why she's breaking up with him. The scheme
was a reminder that Spike is still soulless, still amoral, and
the fact is, Buffy may have to fight him again.
As for the fact that she'd been using him earlier, of course she
was. She admits as much. "I'm using you, and it's killing
me," is her stated reason for breaking up.
You're right that I was wrong to accuse you of projection. I apologize.
And yes, I'm also doing some projection, as I went through a very
serious depression myself and identified greatly with Buffy this
season. When you're in that much pain, and burdened by that much,
it's hard to be a hero.
Buffy's compassion isn't limited to those around her, either.
"Earshot" is a good example. She could've just overpowered
Jonathan, but she chose to talk to him, identify with him, instead.
There was also the girl in "Beauty and the Beasts,"
the one who was getting beaten up by her boyfriend. We see her
compassion most strongly with those in her immediate circle, as
those are the ones we see most. But I believe compassion *is*
one of her strongest points. Yes, she's got to be a military leader,
but that doesn't rule out compassion.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Juat
to butt in -- Miss Edith, 15:45:58 09/05/02 Thu
Some examples of compassion from Buffy in season 1 are:
The Witch: She is sympathetic towards Amy and when Xander reveals
neaither of them made it as cheerleaders her first thought is
of Amy.
The Pack: She rescues Lance from the hyenas in gym class.
Nightmares: She is kind to Laura in the hospital following the
attack. She also befriends Billy the frightened kid in a coma.
All minor examples fo Buffy showing random acts of compassion
in her everyday life. Can you tell I've been watching the season
1 DVDs recently?
I do feel Buffy is capable of great compassion. And I really felt
for her in season 6. Her depression was evident and when she choose
to protect her friends from the truth of their actions that was
one of her finest moments. I understood her depression causing
her to disengage from the world, hence her lack of interaction
with Dawn etc.
What disturbed me about Buffy in late season 6 was her cruelty
towards Spike. Following the kiss in TR she beats him down calling
him an "evil disgusting thing". In Dead Things she beats
Spike to a bloody pulp until he can hardly speak and then abandons
him in an alley. The writers have revealed the original plan was
to have Buffy completely demolish Spike's face so they clearly
felt she was capable of some pretty henious acts. In AYW she demands
Spike tell her he loves her in order to make herself feel better.
She orders him to shut up when he tries to continue talking. In
front of Riley she punches Spike and when he tearfully says she
always knew what he was and yet still punishes him for it she
says she can never get him to shut up. I found this behaviour
disturbing in its callous cruelty and beneath Buffy, regardless
of whether people may feel Spike deserved it.
I love the character Buffy and have no problem with her having
flaws. But I do expect them to be explored next season. And I
do want to see Buffy express remorse and feel she owes Spike an
apology for her own part in the abusive relationship. I understand
she was severely depressed and would not hold her actions against
her, provding the writers show me she regrets her actions in season
6. Her epithany in the final was not enough to convince me.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Spike
and Buffy -- HonorH, 16:33:52 09/05/02 Thu
Thanks for the backup on the compassion issue.
As for Buffy and Spike, I've said it before, I'll say it again:
her contempt for him was thinly-veiled contempt for herself. I
totally agree that she treated him badly, and hey, it was a mutual
thing. He also accepted her treatment of him, saying outright
in AYW when she said she was using him, "Really not complaining
here." I also believe her treatment of him in AYW was one
of the reasons she broke up with him in that episode. She wasn't
treating him with respect, she was using him, and she recognized
that it was the worst thing for her, whether or not he was willing
to put up with it.
Not gonna go into the DT thing again. Just not worth the hassle.
As for next season, I'm very much looking forward to how they
interact. The whole soul thing, to me, kinda blows their other
Issues out of the water--small potatoes compared to what they're
going to be dealing with now.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Lost
agency -- Rahael, 04:07:39 09/06/02 Fri
I agree with both Honor and Edith.
One of the things about depression is that you believe you are
powerless, and that you have no agency in the world. You yourself
have no effect, no presence upon the earth (hence Buffy's dead/alive
status being such a great metaphor). Part of recovery is realising
that you have power, responsibility and that you can take control
of your life.
Therefore, Buffy's exploration of her feeling of powerlessness
'why do I let him do these things to me?', and why she finds herself
doing things she would never had done before, is part of her anguish.
Because, the most terrible thing about the forced ressurrection
was that Buffy had her agency taken away from her. She had chosen
to die, but was brought back without any consent in the matter.
Giles walked away. She said she had 'more pain than she could
bare'. She then put herself, throughout Season 6 in situations
where she could experience the complexities of power, powerlessness,
and consent.
And so, just as her state of depression lead to these kind of
events, I presume that her recovery will lead to her becoming
less scared, and more responsible. She'll know she has power,
and agency. She doesn't need to test out her issues.
[> [> [> [> Wow,
maybe I'll start posting more again -- vh, 07:48:55 09/06/02
Fri
Usually my comments are just dead ends! Thanks, guys, this was
very interesting.
[> Buffy's hardly jumping
vampires left and right. -- HonorH, 09:42:06 09/03/02 Tue
Think about it. How many has she met? Most of them are dead. Of
all of them, she had sex with two. One was good, and the other
appealed to all that was dark in her. She had a dark, unhealthy
relationship with Spike, one which she was deeply ambivalent about.
She realized just how bad it was, got up the gumption to break
it off, and stuck with her decision. I hardly consider that track
record to qualify her for "Vampire Layer" status.
[> Good people/bad choices
-- cjc36, 09:50:49 09/03/02 Tue
[QUOTE FROM LIAM]
I didn't like the way Buffy was portrayed in season 6, and realised
that it was due to one main reason: her character became very
close to the caricature of her as a 'vampire layer' - someone
who has sex with vampires rather than killing them. [END QUOTE]
Is doing the act that is caricaturized elsewhere in itself falling
toward caricature? I don't know.
At first glance I think not. Buffy always felt very bad for 1)
being attracted to Spike and 2) actually having sex with him.
Her spiral of self-loathing was the 'thing' that kept this interesting
for me. It about laughs or eyerolls, even unintended ones. It
was a seriously stupid path our heroine had set for herself.
No matter how cool Spike was, how we empathized with him while
in his own 'viewpoint' (a tribute to JM's abilities), Spike was
a creature who could very easily rape a woman. He is/was that
messed up.
[QUOTE FROM LIAM]
Buffy is the Slayer, and supposed to kill vampires. Her relationship
with Angel can be seen as an exception, due to him being a good
vampire with a soul. Also, allowance can be made for the fact
of her being sixteen and in love. This changes when we see her
get involved in an abusive relationship with Spike, an evil, unrepentant
vampire. Some questions need to be asked. Do vampires have an
attraction for her? Was Spike prophetic when he said that she
liked a bit of monster in her man? If so, then the caricature
is in danger of becoming reality.
[QUOTE FROM LIAM]
I think that it's wrong for Buffy to be involved with an _evil_
monster, particularly an evil, mixed-up vampire like Spike, who
has very strange ideas about what constitutes love. [END QUOTES]
Wrong from a moral pov, or storytelling one? From a moral one,
Yes, it was wrong for Buffy to seek out the thing she was most
against and is in fact supposed to kill. But this comes down to
a basic taste issue with dramatic fiction: Should a hero(ine)
always do good and right? Is there room for characters to be silly,
petty, stupid and wrong, and still, at the end of the day, be
protagonists and still win the hearts of the viewers? I think
so. It is one of the reasons I like BtVS - the Scoobies are almost
as petty and selfish and motivated by 'enlightened self-interest'
as people I know. In S6 Buffy (and Willow) fell down more than
a few pegs. There were reasons, sure, and Buffy knew Spuffy was
wrong from the get go. But she let him in anyway. She wished she
was dead, so Spuffy was a better alternative than undoing her
resurrection by suicide. Thing is, the bill came due in that bathroom.
No, she didn't in any way deserve to be nearly raped, but she
knew what Spike was. And he proved his monster side to her. The
only positive out of that incident was Buffy told him NO! and
meant it, for real, and Spike finally got her NO! as NO! after
she kicked him across the bathroom. And he finally stopped trying
to read into her motivations his own.
[> [> Re: Good people/bad
choices -- JM, 17:53:05 09/05/02 Thu
In my view, that is the difference between heroes I can enjoy
for a few hours in the theater and ones I can enjoy for a series.
If my series heroes don't screw up I can't really root for them;
however unfairly I begin to take them as reproaches of my human
failures. Buffy was wrong to get involved with Spike, because
he was evil, and wrong to treat him the way she did, because he
is a sentient creature with feelings. And in someways she had
every right in the world to do these wrong things. She was desperately
trying to cope with something horrible, or trying to try at all.
And that attempt is what made her truly a hero to me. Buffy at
the end of this season for me is the most heroic she's ever been.
Sure she's done unbelievably brave hard things over and over again.
But her struggle to try and want to live was the bravest, most
moral, and most selfless thing I've ever seen her do. And for
that I can forgive her quite a lot of stumbles.
[> Counting the number of
times.. (some guys do that minor s6 spoils) -- neaux, 10:56:40
09/03/02 Tue
We could count exactly how many times Buffy has done the deed..
but I'm sure someone already has.
But someone tell me this.. Lets take The Normal Again episode
alternate reality scenario. If Buffy really is institutionalized,
she would have had sex Zero number of times! ^_^ I think.. my
math sucks.
[> [> Unless... --
monsieurxander, 18:38:08 09/03/02 Tue
It seemed to me that the Asylumverse affected the Buffyverse,
and vice versa. Assuming that, in fact, they are alternate universes,
or the Asylumverse is real and Buffy's "reality" isn't...
While Buffy thought she was with Angel, Parker, Riley, or Spike
she could very well have been sleeping with other patients or
members of the staff...
*chuckles*
Sorry, product of my overactive adolescent hormonal imagination.
[> Marti Noxon has a "thing"
about bad boys.... -- Rochefort, 15:32:43 09/03/02 Tue
She's trying to get over it, and hopefully in season seven she
will have triumphed over her demons and we will see the results
in Buffy. Our thoughts are with her.
[> [> Yes, obsessions
can be overwhelming. -- Underworld, 20:12:27 09/03/02 Tue
[> [> [> LOL --
Azrahael, 03:17:24 09/04/02 Wed
[> [> [> I am not
familiar with this concept you call...obsession. -- Deeva
;o), 08:39:19 09/04/02 Wed
[> [> [> LAMO! Confession
of the buffy obsessed(ie. are we in fact the obsessed) --
shadowkat, 09:55:23 09/04/02 Wed
Question: are we in fact the obsessed not Marti?
Well, let's see...am I obsessed?
I've written over 30 essays on Buffy and posted them to
a posting board and a website. And I'm not getting paid
anything for doing it.
I tape all the episodes, even have duplicate tapes. And tapes
of commentaries.
I've downloaded interviews. Religiously read posting boards and
respond to posts.
Read fanfic. Too much fanfic. Will not go there.
Actually I think I'm more obsessed than Marti who appears to have
a life outside of Buffy. And wait, MArti gets paid for doing this.
Ack. LMAO!
Anyone else care to confess? Come on! It's fun!;-)
SK
[> [> [> [> Not
obsessed, just focused.... really really focused -- ponygirl,
10:56:05 09/04/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> I am
merely "very deeply interested." -- Arethusa, 12:19:07
09/04/02 Wed
And the Buffy board game, Angel comics, Watcher's Guide,
Monster Guide, X-Box game, SFX Buffy issue, box of videotapes,
and Seasons 1&2 DVD were all presents. Really!
[> [> Re: Marti Noxon
has a "thing" about bad boys.... -- Miss Edith,
09:04:37 09/04/02 Wed
Actually I think Marti has an obsession with punishing the heroine
for getting involved with the bad guy. She was so obsessed with
showing how the relationship was wrong she practically rewrote
Spike's character. Buffy was meant to be perceived as the victim,
hence her lack of strength in the attempted rape. The experience
was based on one of the writers experiences and Buffy was shown
from that persepecive, rather than as the superhero that Joss
had designed her as.
It was clear the writers were desperate to show Spike as wrong
hence the idea to make him an international arms dealer for just
one episode in order to contrast him with Riley a character besed
on Marti's husband and named after her dog. Riley was meant to
be seen as the perfect boyfriend and the one that got away. Buffy
was meant to be regretting what she missed out on, hence Riley
catching her working fast food in stripey orange and seeing her
in bed with Spike who completely humiliated Buffy, calling her
his "bint". And there you have it. The cliche of the
bad boyfriend. We were presumedly meant to ignore the way Spike's
love for Buffy was portrayed at the end of season 5 following
Intervention. Not to mention his efforts to comfort her in Aferlife
and TR etc. The character was completely rewritten with random
plot points being thrown at us and an attempted rape scene being
contrived at the last minute. James Marsters has confirmed that
season 6 was "the Year of Marti" and the season was
basically based on her life when she was in her 20s. That is why
I felt characters were inconsistently written. Spike was there
to serve a point, he was the bad boyfriend and we were supposed
to see him from that perspective and perceive Buffy as the hero
and his victim.
[> [> [> Re: Marti
Noxon has a "thing" about bad boys.... -- Earl Allison, 09:22:22
09/04/02 Wed
I would question whether Spike's character being re-written didn't
start as early as S4, myself, when ME decided to keep him around
as a series regular.
Like that view surprises anyone.
Also, while Spike was written more in gray, and while the characterization
veered about wildly, there were also some viewers who decided
that no matter WHAT Spike did, it could be explained away, that
he was nice and tamed.
I say this while admitting that some blurring of the lines occured;
like Xander, I personally never forgot WHAT SPIKE WAS, a chipped
vampire who tried to kill someone as soon as he thought the chip
was broken. Did be love Buffy? Probably, and by extension Dawn.
He either tolerated or liked the Scoobies, depending on which
character (Xander at one end of the spectrum, Willow at the other),
but he was still a vampire, an unrepentant mass-murderer who looked
on wistfully as the demon bikers tore Sunnydale apart.
IN truth, Spike was probably neither the nasty SOB the extreme
evilistas painted him as, NOR was he the wonderful, misunderstood
White Hat extremists on the redemptionista side claimed.
A lot of things came down to what you felt of Spike initially.
While you see him as character assassinated, I largely felt that
way about the Scoobies -- why in Hell would they accept Spike
so readily? How many times in S4 and S5 did he make it clear that
he was out for himself?
But like I said, that was MY view, and clearly not one shared
by too many.
ME found that they had gone too far in one direction, making Spike
almost "good," without addressing the issues they wanted
addressed.
I can't go into too much more without this becoming a Spike bash,
but the borderline Marti-bashing isn't too much better.
Take it and run.
[> [> [> [> Re:
Marti Noxon has a "thing" about bad boys.... --
Miss Edith, 09:53:05 09/04/02 Wed
I'm sorry if you felt I was bashing Marti but everything I wrote
in my post about her was true. James Marsters very words were
that season 6 was "the Year of Marti" and I personally
felt it did cause inconsistencies. I know she based Spike on an
abusive ex because she mentions it in so many interviews and I
simply did not feel her life experiences were made relevent and
I found season 6 poor as a result. I do think Marti is an excellent
writer and I have enjoyed most of her episodes immensely. I just
felt the way she choose to handle seaosn 6 meant something was
lacking.
I admit I am somewhat of a redemtionist, but I would like to think
that I don't have blinkers on when it comes to Spike. I personally
feel Joss writes Spike best. The musical was a perfect example
of how I see Spike. Torn and conflicted as he sings "first
I'll kill her, then I'll save her".
[> [> [> [> [>
Forget about it -- chalk it up to being sick of Spike :)
-- Earl Allison,
10:04:23 09/04/02 Wed
Don't take it personally, there's maybe only one person on the
boards here I'd really take issue with, and it's not you :)
Just sick to death of all the Spike talk -- no offense to you.
Take it and run.
[> [> [> My View
-- Finn Mac Cool, 14:56:31 09/04/02 Wed
In my personal view, there is a reason to explain what you call
character inconsistencies in Spike. Ever since Spike fell in love
with Buffy (and maybe even before that) he was always playing
an act around her. He tried every role and image imaginable to
make himself appealing to her. Near the end of Season 5, he found
something that had a little success: protector of Dawn and a sort
of courtly romance role. When Season 6 began, though, Spike began
to see that just being Buffy's knight and confidant would only
get him so far, hence his anguish in Once More With Feeling. It
was after Buffy kissed him on two occassions and Spike discovered
he could hurt her (assuming from that that she was part demon)
that he changed his approach. He became that person who is horribly
bad for you but that you want. The inconsistency occurs because
Spike is playing two different roles for Buffy.
As for my views on redemption:
1) Under ideal conditions, a soulless vampire can be reformed
and redeemed.
2) It is impossible for a soulless vampire to be redeemed.
This may seem like a contradiction, but it isn't. A vampire without
a soul can only be redeemed under ideal circumstances. But ideal
conditions can never be maintained. Under ideal conditions, one
bacteria multiplying can cover the earth within the course of
a day. Eventually, something goes wrong, and you're left with
imperfect circumstances. And a soulless vampire, once this happens,
will innevitably revert to evil.
[> [> [> [> Re:
My View -- Miss Edith, 08:54:37 09/05/02 Thu
I was really refering to AYW in which Riley was build up as the
perfect man, and Spike was an international arms dealer and the
sterotypical macho guy spreading his legs in front of Riley and
bragging about Buffy being his "bint" now. That just
seemed like a poor way of contrasting Spike with the good guy
Riley and the one that got away and I felt it was poorly done.
I did find some of his unpleasant behaviour consistent. I did
not like his rather cruel attitude in Smashed when he smirked
about Buffy having come back wrong and challenged her to a brawl
but it did make sense to me and was consistent with Spike's character
development. There were just certain instances where I felt too
much effort was being made to present Spike as the bad boyfriend.
Marti did say in interviews that she was worried about people's
reactions to the relationship and felt the need to reiterate why
B/S are unhealthy as certain people weren't getting the right
message. She also said that she is writing Spike based on characteristics
of her abusive ex. I will admit those comments may have made me
slightly too critical and prone to point out instancs where Spike
was the bad boyfriend and it did not fit the character Joss had
created.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: My View -- MaeveRigan, 09:46:20 09/05/02 Thu
"I will admit those comments may have made me slightly too
critical and prone to point out instances where Spike was the
bad boyfriend and it did not fit the character Joss had created."
The character Joss had created, or the character you wanted to
see and had built up in your mind?
Fandom's a funny thing...
[> [> [> [> [>
It all comes down to, what did you want to see? -- Earl Allison, 10:02:17
09/05/02 Thu
I should know better, really. I have horrible visions of the more
venerable (in post counts and reputation) posters shaking their
heads sadly when I post now, knowing it'll be a variation on the
one theme I harp on.
Still, you say that you felt certain things were heavy-handed,
because Marti wanted the viewers to GET IT.
Personally, I think the entire redemption storyline, indeed, the
fact that Spike remained un-staked through his betrayals in S4
and his less-than-stellar behavior in "Crush" during
S5 are things I have problems with.
It comes down to what you wanted to see in Spike, more than anything
else.
Marti may have been low on metaphors, but I'm sure that EVERYONE
puts themselves and their experiences into their work. Some just
hide it or dress it up better. Simply because she used her own
views for Spike doesn't make them wrong, merely things you didn't
feel fit the character.
Am I making sense, or just digging myself in deeper?
Take it and run.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: It all comes down to, what did you want to see?
-- Miss Edith, 15:31:45 09/05/02 Thu
I do admit to liking Spike and Buffy together and enjoying his
development in late season 5 and early season 6. But I also enjoyed
Spike as the villian in seasons 2-early season 5. Although I would
have been disapointed if the hint of redemption with Spike wasn't
followed through I wouldn't have minded if I felt it was consistent
with the character. Seeing Spike as the abusive boyfriend or Buffy's
scabby and groveling minion was not what I wanted to see so perhaps
I am being too hard on the writers.
I can be cynical sometimes and when I read interviews with Marti
proclaiming that viewers are not getting the right message about
Spike being a bad boyfriend and then see episodes like AYW it
does cause my inner cynic to raise its ugly head.
[> [> [> Re: Marti
Noxon has a "thing" about bad boys.... -- vh, 08:27:41
09/06/02 Fri
OK, I'll try to post this one last time ... (hope it doesn't show
up 3 times! ...)
Remember when James Marsters said the fascinating thing about
Spike was that, while he was evil and all, he was still "the
perfect boyfriend"? That is, his behavior towards Drusilla
was "perfect." Her wish was his command. He didn't want
to destroy the world, but she does? Fine, he'll go out and assemble
the Judge for her. It's only when she's tight with Angelus and
he's in a complete tortured jealous snit that he subverts her
schemes.
Now we're to believe that he's the "bad boyfriend" when
the "good boyfriend" has been established as a primary
and outstandingly paradoxical charactaristic of the character?
It was there in the text and in the subtext (as interpreted as
Mr M). I have a lot of trouble buying the change.
Plus, you've mentioned (in other posts) that it's been said that
Buffy "tried to domesticate" Spike? I really saw no
evidence of that. Unless you count pounding someone into jelly
as "domesticating" them .... That subtext was so deeply
buried as to be in the writer's subconscious.
Perhaps the writers would be better served if they stopped basing
characters on people in their own lives so much ...
[> [> [> [> Re:
Marti Noxon has a "thing" about bad boys.... --
Miss Edith, 11:21:14 09/06/02 Fri
I find it interesting that in an interview at the beginning of
season 6 James Marsters said Spike appealed to women because although
he was a bastard he always treated his women with love and respect.
He notes laughing women will forgive you anything if it's all
for her. In the feauturette on Spike (season 4 DVD) he noted that
Spike was sexually drawn to Buffy in the beginning, but he was
devoted to Dru and would never have cheated as he was the perfect
boyfriend. In a convention following the AR he is keen to stress
that Spike is a bad boyfriend "take note ladies and say it
with me, if he's mean to others he'll be mean to you". That
is not consistent with Spike's character, that is a generilasition
on all bad boys and why women shouldn't be with them. I find it
interesting that James was previously judging Spike's behaviour
based on the characters past and his distinguishing features build
up over the years. And at the end of the season he is resorting
to cliches when describing the character, drawing parallels to
bad boys in general. That is why I feel Spike's individuality
was lost.
[> [> [> [> I think
I can finally rest in peace.... -- Rochefort, 11:49:16
09/06/02 Fri
Because it's nice to see quite a few others agree about the basic
inconsistencies of Spike and Buffy's character even WITHIN the
season and how these were caused by forcing our characters into
the strange little story Marti wanted to tell. (I'll come back
to the basic bad writing of many season six episodes another time)
It makes me tired to be frustrated by it all alone. I think I
can finally rest in peace now. And happily...happily... await
the spring of September 24 and a Whedon written episode. YAY!
[> [> Re: Marti Noxon
has a "thing" about bad boys.... -- JM, 21:11:35
09/04/02 Wed
Last season I got the impression that Spike as classic bad-boy
relationship was just one of the things they were exploring with
the metaphore. He stood for a lot of other things -- using people
who love you more than them, losing yourself in the physical,
perpetuating misery through company, how moral you can be when
your ability to choose is circumscribed, whether by nature or
circumstance ("That Was Then . . .").
And personally I think it's an interesting subject to discuss.
I was never active enough to seriously commit myself to a bad
boy relationship, but I've know a lotta, lotta women who did.
As a phase in their growing up. And they wouldn't be the people
they are now if they hadn't been there. I thought it was interesting
and important that they explore it. I certainly don't think less
of these women, probably a lot more. And often I feel a llittle
heart-sore for these men who have been relegated to learning experiences.
Not necessarily because they were bad or manipulative or callous.
But mostly because they were unwise emotional investments. And
that's one of the things BtVS did well that Lifetime-type entertainment
often fails at. Buffy wasn't really forced into this environment,
she intiated the relationship for reasons that had much more to
do with her own psyche than with her attraction. And I suspect
that is often so in the real world. How often are women involved
in bad relationships that are overwhelming, but that they honestly
know won't succeed in the long term. Bad versus good boy is not
really about a moral lesson. It's about the parts of many of our
pasts we'd rather paper over.
[> [> [> Re: Marti
Noxon has a "thing" about bad boys.... -- MaeveRigan,
06:32:38 09/05/02 Thu
Very insightful. Viewers who are totally invested in Spike probably
won't see it this way, though.
[> [> [> [> Re:
Marti Noxon has a "thing" about bad boys.... --
JM, 16:32:02 09/05/02 Thu
Thank you MR. Especially for responding to a post so far down
the totem. I don't want to disrespect anyone's opinions. And I
too am actually a huge Spike fan. (But an even bigger Wes and
Giles, and lately Anya fan.) I find the character and actor quite
magnetic. For my own enjoyment I've always found it important
that he remain at least partially Evil. Not in the sense of a
souled being with the capacity to choose, or even a not irredeemably
evil demon with a less forceful dark guiding star. (I remember
the discussion about gradations of integratability of demons based
on their nature in AtS's "That Old Gang of Mine.") Vampires
and chipped Spike in particular interesting because they are organically
evil, in a manner that they are not capable of changing. I've
always thought that it was an interesting commentary on human
nature. Almost an intense version of original sin. I've just thought
that ME has done a very interesting job of exploring this netaphysical
concept. Even though I grieved for Spike and Buffy in SR.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Marti Noxon has a "thing" about bad boys....
-- Rahael, 04:00:16 09/06/02 Fri
Just wanted to say that I've enjoyed all your posts on the board
this last day!!
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Marti Noxon has a "thing" about bad boys....
-- JM, 04:10:16 09/06/02 Fri
Thanks. I always look for yours. They're always very cogent. Have
to go away again for a little while now. Darn this stuff is addictive.
But soon it'll be a brand new season. Yeah!
[> Re: Almost a 'Vampire
Layer'? A reason why I didn't like Buffy in season 6 -- Purple
Tulip, 11:09:45 09/04/02 Wed
Well,I'm in the camp that actually likes Buffy and Spike together.
I found watching them to be fascinating and their chemistry together
was just explosive. It might be because I just started watching
the show this year that I like them together, because my friends
that got me watching this show have been watching since the beginning
and hate Spike and Buffy together. Granted, I didn't really like
Buffy this year, but I think it was neccesary for her character's
survival that she went further into her dark side. Just because
she's some super-hero, doer of good, doesn't mean that she doesn't
have a dark side- she does and she had to see what was there.
If it wasn't for her "relationship" with Spike, then
I don't think that she ever would have been able to pull herself
out of that place. He showed her what was there and she really
didn't want to be there, she wanted to live again and be with
her friends. And I'm really not trying to bash Buffy here, but
she treated Spike just as bad, if not worse, than he treated her
throughout the entire season. She used him and beat him when she
knew all along that his feelings for her were real. And I'm not
trying to justify what Spike did to her in the SR scene because
there is no justification for it. But I just think that people
are too quick to blame one or the other for what happened when
they were both in it equally and they are both responsible for
their actions.
As for Buffy liking "a little monster in her man," she
said it herself in the Thanksgiving epsisode from season 4 (I'm
blanking on the name right now) when she told Giles "I like
my evil how I like my men- evil." I don't think it can be
said any better---Buffy has a thing for the bad boys which would
explain Angel, Parker, and Spike, and it would also explain why
it didn't work with Riley or Scott---she cared about them, but
they just didn't do it for her the way the dark side could.
[> [> Thanks! --
Liam, 04:42:45 09/06/02 Fri
To all of you who posted in response to my initial question, thank
you!
Current board
| More September 2002