September 2002 Archives

September 2002 posts

Previous September 2002
More September 2002

Olivia? S4 spoilers -- wtofts, 11:35:04 09/06/02 Fri

After watching Hush last night on F/X, I have been wondering about the significance of Olivia. (I have looked in the archives, been overwhelmed, and apologize if this has been previously discussed. Could someone direct me to the post if it has?) Why was she introduced in this episode and only seen again in Restless?

I see the exposition in the other relationships, the first kiss with Buffy and Riley, Xander realizing and expressing his feelings for Anya, Tara and Willow connecting, (of course, he whose name shall not be spoken here, did not get to participate in this aspect,) all done without speaking.

Olivia arrives as Giles' "orgasm friend", sketches a picture of the gentlemen, has an affectionate moment with Giles (where she calls him pretentious) once the crisis is over and then disappears, only to be seen in a dream many eps later.

We know Giles is capable of a relationship, he had one with Jenny. (Where was Olivia then, I ask you?.) We know he is able to sketch credibly since he drew an Initiative soldier, and we know he had a life as Ripper before becoming a Watcher. So what was the purpose of Olivia in this episode?

It is beyond my simple intellect or maybe so obvious that I am tripping over it, but as much as I like the character and that Giles had a loving relationship, I cannot figure out why she appears.

You guys are my yodas and I await your insights.

[> Re: Olivia? S4 spoilers -- Vickie, 12:42:27 09/06/02 Fri

Olivia was introduced in The Freshman. I believe you've caught her only other appearances.

I think Olivia is evidence that Giles really can (and is trying to) have a life. She's beautiful, cool, and talented (see her sketch in Hush). She leaves at the end of Hush, apparently because her answer to Giles' question ("Too scary?"), is yes.

But we don't know what Giles has been doing in England, or who he's been seeing.

As for the metaphoric/symbolic/allegorical significance of Olivia, I'll leave that to wiser heads.

[> Re: Olivia? S4 spoilers -- Amber, 12:44:24 09/06/02 Fri

I think Olivia is there just to show how difficult it is for the Scoobies (any scooby) to have a relationship with a "normal" person. By normal, I mean someone who doesn't know about hellmouths, vampires, werewolves, etc and who hasn't devoted their lives to the good vs. evil battle.

Olivia finds Giles's lifestyle too scary so she leaves.In a way this parallels Buffy's fear that if Riley, who she assumes is "normal", found out about her calling he would run away in fear. In Hush, Buffy realizes that Riley's life is just as weird as hers and maybe there's hope for them after all. Where as, Giles experiences the exact opposite reaction.

At the same time Giles is being isolated from the scoobies because they're growing up and don't need him any more. Overall, I think Olivia is just part of the struggle/mid-life crisis Giles was going through in S4, trying to figure what his place/role should be now that he'd lost his job and his "children" had grown up.

In Restless I think Olivia represents the life Giles could have had if he hadn't been a watcher. Remember, Olivia is sitting beside a fallen baby carriage and crying. If Giles hadn't been a watcher/surrogate parent to Buffy, he would have been able to settle down with a wife and kids of his own. Perhaps this is something he'd hoped to do someday. Because Olivia and other "normal" women are afraid of Giles's lifestyle (fighting evil) this option seems to have been closd off to him, or at least, he feels it has.

Still I'm hopeful that if the BBC's Ripper or Watcher series every gets made Giles will get some lovin' (and not just an "orgasm friend" this time.)

[> [> Re: Olivia? S4 spoilers -- anom, 23:35:42 09/08/02 Sun

"In Restless I think Olivia represents the life Giles could have had if he hadn't been a watcher. Remember, Olivia is sitting beside a fallen baby carriage and crying. If Giles hadn't been a watcher/surrogate parent to Buffy, he would have been able to settle down with a wife and kids of his own."

I think you've got something here, Amber. But I disagree that Olivia was necessarily scared off by what she saw in Hush. (OK, partly 'cause I already said the same thing in the "tragic mulatta" subthread a few weeks ago.) We don't know how long she was planning to stay in the 1st place, or how long she did stay. When she's talking to Giles about it (once they can talk again), she seems calm, thoughtful, with almost a musing tone. She pitched in to help figure out what was going on & didn't seem freaked out either during or after, except when she 1st saw one of the Gentleman float by outside Giles's window. Maybe she left because that's when she had plane reservations for, or she was in the States on business & only stopped by to visit Giles on her way somewhere else. We just don't have enough context to draw a conclusion.

Side note: Vickie asked where Olivia was when Giles was involved w/Jenny; I was kind of disappointed that Giles seemed to have no twinges over Jenny when he got (re-?)involved w/Olivia. Just didn't seem right.

[> Re: S4 spoilers and S7 Spec'nSpoil -- SpikeMom, 15:12:12 09/06/02 Fri

Seeing Olivia again on Hush last night made both myself and my daughter wonder if we would be seeing her with Giles and Willow in England at the beginning of season 7. We were rooting for that possibility. Olivia is pretty cool.

And if you read this and the taping thread currently on the board you will realize that I did indeed watch Hush twice, mostly because I didn't get the tape into the VCR fast enough to get the Teaser taped last night.

See you next week, everyone. It's my b-day AND Rosh Hashanah tomorrow. -- cjl, 14:26:38 09/06/02 Fri

I'll be with the family in Brooklyn all weekend.

Happy new year.

[> Hey, mine too. Happy Birthday. -- Arethusa, 14:36:20 09/06/02 Fri

[> [> Marie's too, apparently -- d'Herblay, 14:40:36 09/06/02 Fri

Happy birthday to all!

[> [> [> OMG! Does this mean a repeat of last year!! ;o) -- dubdub, 15:56:28 09/06/02 Fri

I can't wait! Happy Birthday all of you.

Strange thing I read once: in any random group of 10 or more people at least two will share the same birthdate. Don't know how that can possibly be true...

;o)

[> [> [> [> She promised not to... -- Masq, 16:41:13 09/06/02 Fri

Although I'd told her it'd be OK if she behaved... : )

[> [> [> [> Good reason for your skepticism -- d'Herblay, 16:49:57 09/06/02 Fri

Strange thing I read once: in any random group of 10 or more people at least two will share the same birthdate. Don't know how that can possibly be true...

I think that someone has overstated the occurrence of coincidence! We can easily imagine a single case where 366 people can be gathered in a group and discover that each has a unique birthday (in this case, someone must be born on February 29, as well as one each on every other calendar day). Certainly this scenario must be available for random selection!

I think that the statement you repeat is a variation on the oft-repeated observance that for the probability of two people in a group sharing the same birthday to exceed 50 percent, the group need only have 23 members. (Math. It should be noted that the math on this page, and in the further reasoning below, ignores leap year birthdays.) For the probability to exceed 99 percent that two members of a group will share a birthday, the group needs only 57 members. For the probability that three members of a group share a birthday to exceed one-half, the group needs 88 members.

Of course, our group is notoriously hard to number, so I cannot say how improbable it is that cjl, Arethusa and Marie all share a birthday. I just hope that we have festivities like last year's!

[> [> [> [> [> Okay, that makes WAY more sense...Thanks! ;o) -- dub, 21:12:37 09/06/02 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> Oh, and thanks for the memories, too! -- dub, 21:22:45 09/06/02 Fri

I re-read Marie's birthday post and the subsequent thread...what a hoot! Hope she has as good a time this year.

;o)

[> [> [> [> [> Adding an "OOOOOOHHH!" -- Marie, 01:43:00 09/09/02 Mon

This was in the b****y archives?!!! Meeaan!! And I forebore from posting this year, too!!

Marie-the-indignant

(p.s. Happy Birthday to all you Virgos out there)

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Adding an "OOOOOOHHH!" -- Masq, 09:11:19 09/09/02 Mon

"This was in the b****y archives?!!! Meeaan!!"

Mwah hah hah!

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Adding an "OOOOOOHHH!" -- Ete, 15:38:05 09/10/02 Tue

"(p.s. Happy Birthday to all you Virgos out there)"

Thanks ! Happy birthday to you too (sorry i'm late)!

[> [> [> [> HEY! -- Marie, 01:39:26 09/09/02 Mon

[> Happy birthday cjl, and Shana tova everyone ! -- Ete, 15:57:05 09/06/02 Fri

[> Best wishes for the day... -- aliera, 16:25:23 09/06/02 Fri

and may next year bring more of all you love your way.

[> Happy Birthday cjl! and Happy Rosh Hashanah -- shadowkat, 18:04:56 09/06/02 Fri

Interesting always knew there was a reason that September felt more like New Year's than January did. Wish the rest of us celebrated it that way.

[> [> Oops and Happy Birthdays to Arethusa and Marie too -- shadowkat, 18:07:56 09/06/02 Fri

[> L'shana tovah! And, while I'm speaking Hebrew, Yom Huledet Sameyach! -- Rob, 19:11:01 09/06/02 Fri

That's "Happy Birthday" for those of you not up on your eevreet (Hebrew ;o)).

Rob

[> glad this thread is still here! -- anom, 00:09:38 09/09/02 Mon

Or here again? Didn't I see it in the archives? If so, thanks for bringing it back, Masq!

Anyway, l'shanah tovah um'tukah (a good & sweet year) to everyone it applies to, & happy birthday to anyone that applies to! cjl, hope they didn't just stick candles on a honey cake, & good luck catching up on the board....

[> [> Thanks everybody. Happy belated birthday, Arethusa and Marie! -- cjl, 07:34:18 09/09/02 Mon

And anom:

Are you kidding? I anticipated this conflict (birthday/religious holiday) months in advance. My friends took me out to party the week before, allowing me time to recover from my various hangovers and devote myself to family and religious duties this weekend.

Planning, kids. It all comes down to planning...

[> Thank you everyone. -- Arethusa, 18:40:55 09/09/02 Mon

Capt Cardboard and the BtVS insult; does it fit? -- JBone, 18:11:17 09/06/02 Fri

Insults are a vital part of the show. A lot of the times, they're on target. Mostly they're funny. But one that was not on target, but very funny, was the Captain Cardboard insult that Spike hurled at Riley. This stuff hardly ever bothers me since they are "just words" about fictional characters by fictional characters. And so many are tossed about, it's impossible to keep track of them all, but fans have sicced on this one like no other, and I wonder why?

Was Riley doomed to this no matter who played him or how the writers wrote him? Are the Angel lovers so upset that someone else came along, and the Spike fans so pissed that Riley was in the way of a Spike/Buffy relationship that Riley in any incarnation would ever get a chance?

I guess it comes down to whether there is a bias against the military among the Buffy fandom. We do seem to be a free thinking, non-following orders bunch. I include myself in there, I can't stand being told where to be or what to do, unless I understand and agree with it. But I do respect the command structure and discipline it takes to be in the military. And I understand the need for it. If citizens had to organize themselves every time that we collectively found something worth fighting for, we'd all be speaking English right now. Okay, I'm officially rambling.

If you honestly believe that the Captain Cardboard moniker actually fits Riley to a tee, I don't want to hear it. I'll just dismiss it as another Spike/Angel zealot. There is something there, there. And it was a great year of tv.

[> Riley: Captain Cardboard? -- Wizardman, 18:55:05 09/06/02 Fri

Riley does have elements of "Captain Cardboard" in him, the same as Spike has elements of savage monster in him. But that doesn't mean that I don't like him. I do. He has serious depths in him that weren't fully realized in the show. He was Mr. Re-Rebound-guy. He's funny and he's kind. And most importantly- he loved Buffy. That alone made me like him. And I agree that he is unfairly judged. Parker came before Riley. He was cruel to her in ways that none of Buffy's other men- Angel, Scott, Riley, Spike- were, and yet one almost never hears him being attacked like Riley is. Riley's problem is that he is a little too good. Riley- and this is why I am at heart a B/A shipper- is too 'light' for Buffy. That's not a bad thing- between Angel and Parker, Buffy needed the light at that point in her life, but it wasn't something she needed all the time. He couldn't take the dark in Buffy's life. He may have been able to adapt if there wasn't all that other crap going on, but we'll never know. I'm not a B/S shipper for much the same reason- except Spike is too 'dark.' Buffy needs someone that has a balance- and for me, that character is Angel.

[> [> Re: Riley: Captain Cardboard? -- luvthistle1, 02:14:55 09/09/02 Mon

Spike is too dark, and Moody never smile Angel isn't???
Don't get me wrong "I love Angel".Really I do. But he is dark even with a soul. I rarly see him smile, up until Conner came into the picture. I was an Angel &Buffy shipper, (now Spike &Buffy) Spike seem closer to her age than Angel,and a little last moody. Angel will always be her first love. I also like Angel and Cordy together. when Angel becomes moody, Cordy call him out on it. She always speaks her mind, and he needs that

[> [> Parder -- verdantheart, 07:22:03 09/09/02 Mon

We don't hear Parker discussed simply because there's little to discuss. I think that virtually all of us agree that his behavior is indefensible, so why waste energy attacking it? Riley is much more debatable, given the spectrum of opinion and like/dislike regarding him. Just about everyone agrees Parker was a complete jerk.

[> [> [> Oop, that's "Parker" -- vh, 07:23:07 09/09/02 Mon

[> Re: Capt Cardboard and the BtVS insult; does it fit? -- shadowkat, 19:19:51 09/06/02 Fri

Okay I'm officially bored and need distraction tonight so I'll bite assuming this wasn't rhetorical and you didn't want a response.

I liked Riley in Season 4 through a good part of 5. But the character was horribly under-developed. In fact they wrote him out just as he was getting interesting and complex in typical ME fashion. They did the same with OZ and Tara.

The whole Initiative story line felt like a rip-off of the X-Files in a lot of ways and the storyline at times fell flat which may be why Riley got the brunt of it. Having seen Blucas in other things, most recently Sunshine State, I have to admit he has a rather wooden acting style reminiscent of Richard Beemer, Troy Donahue, and Mark Hamil. I found him often wooden in the role of Riley, looking bored a good portion of the time. Lots of actors who haven't had a lot of stage experience, have a tendency to look bored when they don't have lines or clearly have something to do.

That said, He did shine when they clearly gave him something
to do. He was marvelous in HUSH, Yoko factor, Into the Woods (one of my favorite scenes is the Spike/Riley scene
in that episode), quite effective in Who Are You - that scene with Faith would never have worked otherwise. And he
was very good in OOMM. The vamp trull storyline (which the actor went on record as not being fond of) actually showed some of his best work. But he was simply horrid in AYW, wooden and almost robotic. And let's not even discuss Where the Wild Things Are.

Also and this isn't entirely Blucas' fault - he had very little real on screen chemistry with SMG. It's a hard thing to exude chemistry. James Marsters has it with Xander, Giles, Riley, the door, everything in the show. Riley only had it with Willow. I rewatched Hush last night and nope, felt not even a shiver, it was like watching two extras kiss. They had a little chemistry actually prior to the kiss. But it wasn't enough to sustain it. Now I never thought SMG and DB had a lot of chemistry...but they had loads more than SMG and MB did. So that could be personal taste.

I think Riley was an important and interesting character. I don't know if he would have been more effective if another actor, say JM, played him. I've only seen JM play one role so have no clue as to his range. I will say I found the actors playing Graham and Forrest to be more interesting and attractive, which I guess says something. I'm also not sure if I would have found Riley more interesting if they had actually spent more time developing him and gone the route they planned before they lost Lindsey Crouse. (They'd been planning on doing a whole Oedipal/Hamlet's Mother thread with Maggie watching him and Buffy and disapproving, etc...but had to scrap it when Crouse wanted out of her contract early.)

So I think he became Captain Cardboard due to a combination of things: the writing, the actor, the change in story direction due to outside factors, the lack of onscreen chemistry, the role. I haven't seen Blucas in the Mel Gibson movie, so maybe he has more range than I've given him credit for. Also I'm sure a great bit of what I've said is pure personal taste and largely irrelevant. There are people on this board and online who actually prefer Riley to Buffy's other boyfriends and write lots of fanfic on him.
In real life? I might date the guy. But as a character?
I found him largely dull, incredibly predictable and underwritten. A true MAry Sue. (And it did not help when MN said she based him on her husband...could have done with out that, yet another instance of a writer telling us too much in interviews.) And after AYW? I was glad to see the last of him. Just my ten cents.

Not sure I added anything.

And i managed not to name him once, hee hee!

[> [> I agree with shadowkat -- lele, 20:33:28 09/06/02 Fri

I never hated riley, but I never really liked him either.
I liked the idea of him, but after he and Buffy actually got together it was neither compelling nor believable to me. It had nothing to do with the lack of angst either. Willow and Tara and even Willow and Oz were very believable and compelling and in general light on the angst in terms of their interaction. I didn't see any chemistry between MB and SMG and I didn't really enjoy MBs acting or dialogue(except for some JE and JW written eps). I saw him in another movie and felt the same way. I didn't like the initiative arc, but in the end it wouldn't have affected how I felt about B/R. As You Were didn't change my opinion on him either. In fact it made me wonder if Doug Petrie had some sort of man-crush on the character b/c there was obviously some Riley worship going on in that eppy ;)

[> [> [> Re: I agree with shadowkat -- Miss Edith, 12:59:00 09/07/02 Sat

Doug Petrie is a huge fan of Riley. On the commentry for The Iniative he never stops praising the actor and saying what a wonderful character he played. Off the top of my head I recall him comparing Riley to James Bond and his relationship with Buffy to Shakespeares finest romances. And when Riley was sweaty at the end Doug could not stop talking about how handsome he looked when sweating and I got the feeling he sees Riley as a role model. The Riley worship was just so blatent in his commentry. And the tone he used reflected that also. No other actor got even close to the amount of praise that was lavished on Riley.
I feel Marc was an adequate actor but surrounded by exceptional actors he was never likely to come across well. He also lacked comic timing which is an important part of the show. E.g in SB his reaction to Buffy's engagement to Spike was pretty wooden.

[> Riley was a sin -- Apophis, 21:24:30 09/06/02 Fri

But, and I'm ashamed to admit this, I actually feel a little sorry for him because he was doomed from the start. There was no way in any underworld that Riley would succeed as a character. The vast majority of fandom would accept no one after 3 years of B/A angst (as my subject line should've told you). I don't think even the writers accepted him. They always seemed pretty half-hearted in writing him. They wanted him to be wholsome and cool at once, but they never really put any effort into developing him enough to pull that off. They wanted comic book Captain America and gave us movie Captain America.

[> Re: Capt Cardboard and the BtVS insult; does it fit? -- Rufus, 22:15:04 09/06/02 Fri

I guess I'm one of the few who really liked Riley and the actor who played him. I'm not a fan of Bad Boys cause they are little more than a pain in the ass, but understand how dramatically the rehabilitation of one is more fun to watch than a guy who seems to have it all together.

I did notice that interest in Riley did increase when he started visiting the vamp hookers.....and people tended to be divided on the subject...some seeing his addicted actions to be worse than the killing spree of Angel and Spike. It's all a matter of personal taste. Even I could see that the character was doomed because he was a bit too dependable. If they had explored the twisted relationship with Maggie Walsh a bit more maybe we would have gotten a different outcome than we did. I like the guy, but I also like both Angel and Spike......I wouldn't marry or date an Angel or Spike, but I'd marry a Riley type. Of course I do like to give orders.....;)

[> [> So is Riley ..... -- John Burwood, 00:30:30 09/07/02 Sat

..... the sort of guy girls don't fall in love with but do marry? On the principle that
common sense can be as powerful a motivator as
love or hate?
Dredging up very old sayings, I know (Miss Marple old, one of them - I forget the other) but that does not necessarily make them invalid. So what do posters of the female persuasion think?
(That is less old - from Hill Street Blues)

[> [> [> Riley would be attractive... -- Juliette, 04:22:16 09/07/02 Sat

...in real life. In Realverse, I wouldn't go near a Spike and probably not an Angel. Riley, a nice, cute guy with a sense of humour, would be perfect. But on TV, he's kinda dull. On TV I would much rather watch JM smoulder. Also, JM and SMG have loads of chemistry. The ships I support or have spported are all based on chemistry - eg Janeway/Chakotay on Voyager, Josh/Donna on the West Wing, Carter/Abbey on ER. (OK, that last one's open to debate.) Often the relationship is not written in deliberately as a romance, it just happens because the actors have such chemistry it's impossible to ignore. For me, that was why Riley didn't work. He was written in as a romantic interest, rather than romance being developed from pre-existing chemistry.

[> [> [> [> Re: Riley would be attractive... -- celticross, 09:01:11 09/07/02 Sat

I think it's a misconception to label men as nice guys/bad boys (much like the old virgin/whore idea with women). I wouldn't marry a Riley type anymore than a "bad boy", ie Spike or Angel, simply because the bad boys don't appeal to me, and Riley was bland.

That was the character's greatest flaw. I agree with Juliette that being written as a romantic interest for Buffy, first and foremost, really hurt him, too. I didn't mind Riley when he was first introduced, but I couldn't understand his romantic appeal to Buffy. Two things killed my little bit of good feeling for him: MB and SMG's utter and complete lack of chemistry, and the sense that he was being shoved down the viewers' throats as Buffy's Boyfriend. By the time of Into the Woods, they couldn't get rid of him fast enough for me. (which is why I wanted to hit Xander for the "Run" speech)

[> [> [> [> [> I agree with this. In addition, -- Sophist, 11:24:45 09/07/02 Sat

I have access to what I consider expert advice on this topic -- 2 teenage daughters. They were both happy to see Riley go in ItW because he was so boring. When he returned in AYW, I asked my younger daughter what she thought of the episode. Her response: "Riley's still boring."

[> [> [> [> [> [> But only to teenagers should 'boring' be bad. -- John Burwood, 01:28:20 09/08/02 Sun

. because learning that in real life 'boringness' is good is surely an essential part of the growing-up process.
It is like there are equations which have to be reversed. To children & teenagers the equations go something like -
Dangerous = exciting = good
and
Safe = boring = bad
But as we grow older the time come when we put aside childish things, & learn the seriousness & relentless stress & grind of real life, & stop thinking as children - and learn to reverse the equations. And the new equations go something like
Exciting = dangerous = bad
and
Boring = safe = good
Teenagers tend not to fear dangers in life as adults learn to. Natural to find safety & normalcy 'boring' - but 'may you live in interesting times' was always a curse.
Let's hear it for the virtue of boringness.
Anyone?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: But only to teenagers should 'boring' be bad. -- Juliette, 02:11:38 09/08/02 Sun

Exiting=dangerous=good could also be applied to television drama. In real life, safe and boring is good, but on TV it's much more fun to watch dangerous and exiting. In The Hobbit JRR Tolkien says that (can't remember exact quote) they stayed a long time in Rivendell and were very happy but the nice parts of journeys are not nearly so interesting as the dangerous ones, so he skipped over it.
Having said that, I'm among those who thought S6 was far too dark and depressing, so I guess a balance is needed. S6 Spike - too dangerous. S4 Riley - too safe.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Please, no ! -- Etrangere, 07:15:00 09/08/02 Sun

OK, I might be a little bit too young to say that, but boring is not good, boring is not safe, and boring is not smart.
I think getting with someone for rationnal reason because you think he's "safe" or whatever is the best way to end up hating yourself and scorn your own life.
Besides, why should boring be safe ? I think someone lacking imagination and impulsion have as many chance to break your heart or turn against you. When you burry your dark impulses deeper, you've got more chance to see them lash out violently.

As for Riley, I think the problem is not the character per se, but the character in the context of the show. Riley is just too much the frat boy, the very conformist figure, while every other characters in the Scooby Gang have some kind Otherness.
I think that's why Riley could not "work" in the gang. I though he was interresting in the relationship we saw him with the Initiative, Forrest and Graham. But inside the scoobies ? It clashed like colours badly assorted. He was not "Other" enough.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I agree... -- aliera, 08:17:46 09/08/02 Sun

There is also the difficulty of creating the relationships *for TV* as opposed to what we may see in *real life*. We often speak of them here as if they were people we know. Of course, that is perfectly wonderful as we would have much less to talk about otherwise. But for Joss the situation must be much different as he is creating a certain story in which the characters must serve different purposes.

I liked what you said about boring and exciting. Some of the most exciting people I have known often presented a very quiet mask on the surface. This facade of being harmless was one of the aspects that was enjoyable about the Batman character (and many other superheroes) and also one which reminds of how our exterior and our interior lives can be so very different. It also reminds of how we can make assumptions that beauty must eliminate brains, which is a perception not truth. It is a particularly fun aspect of Buffy that her exterior is that of a stereotype and that her reality is so very different.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: But only to teenagers should 'boring' be bad. -- celticross, 09:12:35 09/08/02 Sun

In the case of romantic relationships, boring and safe are never good things. As far as life in general is concerned, yes, a boring life isn't bad at all. I personally like my boring life, because it suits me. But I would never want to date a man who was "safe". Part of the satisfaction of a successful relationship is the challenge for the people involved. Riley didn't challenge Buffy; he didn't ever seem to really know her.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: But only to teenagers should 'boring' be bad. -- acesgirl, 10:36:00 09/08/02 Sun

"In the case of romantic relationships, boring and safe are never good things."

Well, I guess it depends on how you define "boring and safe." I consider my boyfriend safe because he would never physically harm me or sling verbal insults at me or manipulate my feelings for him. On the other hand, he challenges me every day to think about myself and my place in the world. Lachesis said in his/her post below that Buffy's real temptation in AYW was the temptation to abdicate her internal moral authority. It's so much easier to let other people make your decisions for you sometimes. My boyfriend is the person in my life who does not let me get away with that. Every time I start to cave and just go along with the group, whether they be family or friends or even him, just because its easier, he's right there to put up a roadblock, to say no way Jose, turn yourself around and make your own decision. This is the part of him that makes him exciting and interesting and attractive but also unsafe in good way. However, he is still my safe haven, my comfort, my home and that makes him safe in a good way. And let me just tell you, these aspects of my relationship do not make for fantastic lunch conversation, because they are boring from the outside looking in. Over lunch with the girls, all anyone wants to talk about is the girl with the f***ed up relationship who can regale us with tales of screaming matches worthy of Cops and power plays straight out of some daytime soap opera. Needless to say, I love living in my relationship but I would not want to see it played out on TV. Talk about zzzzzzzzzzz. On the other hand, the girl at work, her relationship is a "Lifetime Television for Women" movie just waiting to be made.

But, that's just my interpretatation of the safe=boring=good / unsafe=exciting=bad conundrum.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: But only to teenagers should 'boring' be bad. -- Kitt, 12:01:27 09/08/02 Sun

The thing is, a lot of this discussion is set up on a false premise. Safe is not necessarily boring (think rollercosters in one of those big parks - they are tested and inspected on a daily basis and are actually safer than driving to the park, but ride a good one and what a rush!), and unsafe is not necessarily exciting (like driving 50mph on a highway where road-work is going on - do it twice a day for a month and it gets really dull... but still is risky, particularly if you let boredom lower your attention to what's going on around you).

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: But only to teenagers should 'boring' be bad. -- celticross, 14:30:34 09/08/02 Sun

Ok, clarifying on "safe" and "boring"...there's a difference between someone being safe for you, and getting into a relationship solely because you don't think that person will hurt you. That latter was the definition of safe I was applying as bad.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Believe me, -- Sophist, 12:52:59 09/08/02 Sun

my daughters both understand the difference between boring on TV and boring in real life. When I related their opinion, it was that Riley was boring on TV.

IRL, I don't think people, taken as a whole, can be characterized as "boring" or "safe" or "exciting". It all depends on context and everyone can be boring at one time and exciting another.

[> [> [> [> [> Nice guys and bad boys are not always so different -- Dariel, 10:14:27 09/08/02 Sun

I think it's a misconception to label men as nice guys/bad boys (much like the old virgin/whore idea with women).

Yes--I've always seen this as a false dichotomy. Riley and Spike, both bad news as boyfriends, illustrate this very well. Although they may seem like opposites, they have something huge in common--they both want desperately to follow someone/something else, be it a mother figure, lover, or an organized group. Both are lacking in a real self, a center, and are too ready to shape who they are in order to "belong" somewhere or to someone. In Buffy's case, both project their own needs onto her without clearly seeing her or what she needs.

The trouble with so-called "nice guys" is that they can be quite self-centered and inflexible in their own desire to feel "safe." Like Riley (and Spike too, actually). I guess the problem is that "nice" and "good" are not the same thing. A good man, IMO, is one who is open to his emotions and really can see and love his partner. Who doesn't have to have a partner to feel okay about himself, but does want one. And can actually risk, God forbid, letting the relationship change and challenge him. Which, come to think of it, sounds pretty exciting!

[> [> [> [> Chemistry between Actors? -- Scroll, 10:05:03 09/07/02 Sat

I think lack of chemistry between SMG and MB really killed B/R for me. Or maybe as a die-hard B/A fan, I really couldn't get emotionally involved with Riley. I mean, he's a nice guy, but Xander is a nice guy too, and I don't want Buffy and Xander to get together. Yes, Riley also suffered from underdevelopment. But lack of chemistry is probably what did it -- even Aly and Amber, as uncomfortable as they might've been when W/T first started out, seemed to have more chemistry.

Little OT, but I think lack of chemistry is why I can't get on board with Angel/Cordy. Before Fred tells Angel about Kye-rumption, I could sort of get a hint of chemistry between DB and CC. But afterwards, when we have Angel fumbling around with his feelings for Cordy, the chemistry totally died off between the two characters. I just couldn't believe it any more. (Also, I don't think CC liked where they were going with her St. Corduffy character. And who can blame her?)

So my question is: Is chemistry between actors essential to convincing fans of a 'ship? Or should the story be enough?

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Chemistry between Actors? -- Earl Allison, 14:06:03 09/07/02 Sat

Chemistry is important, but as many have noted, the biggest problems with Buffy/Riley was that it was indeed forced on us. There was precious little evolution of the arc (IMHO), and to commment on your Angel/Cordelia subject, that too is headed for the dumpster.

As the far-more-eloquent-than-I reviewers and posters of "Television Without Pity" have pointed out, EVERYONE is shoving Angel and Cordelia together, everyone but the two who allegedly have the attraction.

There was a hint of chemistry between them, but it died stillborn in "Waiting in the Wings," when the spirits forced the two together. The whole arc, much like Buffy/Riley, looks FORCED. Like the networks wanted a within-team romance -- and with Fred/Gunn already there, what are the chances the entire group would turn, for lack of better term, incestuous?

To me, Riley had a strike against him because I HATE paramilitary/conspiracy arcs. If I liked them, I'd be watching "X-Files," and I'm not. That, and he didn't come off as military, NONE of the Initiative did, more like kids playing soldier.

Do I think he deserved the "Captain Cardboard" moniker? No, but the character just didn't grab me. Heck, neither did Tara or Dawn initially, but I didn't consider them total ciphers, as I did a lot of the time with Riley -- without the Initiative, he was exactly what Graham said he was -- true love's boyfriend -- he never made a niche for himself, didn't interact with the Scoobies as a whole, and once the Initiative pulled up stakes (no pun intended) and left, ALL he did was interact with Buffy, he didn't have a life or story of his own.

And don't get me started on his baiting and murder of Sandy ... :)

Take it and run.

[> [> [> [> [> Yes -- Juliette, 04:38:36 09/08/02 Sun

I don't like forced romantic storylines. The couples I'm interested in are the ones with good screen chemistry, even if they weren't drawn up with romance in mind. This doesn't exclude couples who were always written to end up together - Crichton and Aeryn on Farscape have great chemistry - but the writing alone won't sustain a romance without chemistry, of which Buffy and Riley are a perfect example.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Chemistry between Actors? -- vh, 07:49:24 09/09/02 Mon

I agree, yes. If chemistry can't be somehow "whipped up" between the actors, the relationship just isn't believable, no matter how well written the scenes. And chemistry extends beyond the romantic, although that's perhaps the most obvious type of chemistry. It also includes parent-child chemistry (e.g., Alias) and friendship chemistry (back to BtVS).

[> [> Riley: A needed 'shipp buffer -- cjc36, 07:30:47 09/09/02 Mon

Whether or not they planned this, ME actually needed Riley. He was the sacrifice, the scapegoat who took the wrath from the B/A folks. And since he was a normal, 'Captain Cardboard,' guy, he was a contrast to Spike (and Angel), and made the later 'monster in her man' observation relevant.

If ME had tried to go with Spuffy in S4, any B/A vs B/S shipper conflict that now exists would look like a mild disagreement by comparison.

[> Re: Capt Cardboard and the BtVS insult; does it fit? -- Slain, 06:07:28 09/07/02 Sat

I'm one of those people who dislikes character bashing so much that they'll stand up for virtually anyone; but Riley did used to be the exception to this. In Season 4, I disliked him and found him superfluous, often thinking it would have been better for him to have been female, and be simply Buffy's friend. Listening to the JW commentary on 'Hush', I was surprised to see Joss say how great he thought Blucas was at being the solider guy, and giving orders. Personally, I found him totally unconvincing; it seemed to me plainly obvious that Blucas was not a tough guy himself, and was not comfortable in the role.

In Season 5, and towards the end of 4, his character really blossomed, and I thought Blucas seemed much happier when he wasn't trying to act like Mr GI Joe. I don't think it's fair to compare him to JM, because Marsters is in his 40s rather than late 20s, and as experienced an actor as Tony Head. Though, that said, David Boreanz did manage to convince me as Angel, so I think we can blame Riley's flatness on the material, rather than on Blucas.

[> Re: Capt Cardboard and the BtVS insult; does it fit? -- Freki, 07:16:35 09/07/02 Sat

I started watching BtVS during the summer reruns of season 5, so I didn't have any previous loyalties to Spike or Angel, and I thought Riley was kind of boring. He did catch my attention with the "She doesn't love me" line, but they skipped so many episodes in reruns, I missed the rest of his story at the time.

When I saw season 4, I liked him quite a bit until they started trying to make him angsty with the split from the Initiative. Whether it was the writing or the acting, it just didn't work for me. I didn't care about his pain, and just got impatient with him. The biggest problem I had with Riley, though, was that ME couldn't seem to figure out anything for him to do except have one Initiative-related health crisis after another (3 if you count Primeval). That just got old.

[> I thought Riley was brilliantly written... -- manwitch, 13:02:03 09/07/02 Sat

I thought Riley was brilliantly written as a symbol of, as Caroline put it, "reconstituted patriarchy."

The show is about Buffy, and everybody else in it is there to reflect something about Buffy, and about the life Buffy needs to be living, how she needs to live in the world so as to save it. And in Riley's case, the point is that the "old" world of patriarchy and its systems is inadequate, even when the guy is as nice and as decent as can be.

Riley is part of a system. Riley's participation in the military, the intitiative, the labs, etc. is symbolic of his participation in the system. The system is, of course, the whole history of western civilization since the Bible and its consequent views on the knowledge of good and evil, male and female, life and death, etc. etc.

Riley is ruled by the system. He accepts orders. He's almost fascist in that he almost demands orders (he can't survive in the gray zone). Buffy, by contrast, lives out of herself, responding to individual situations as she best can, governed only by her love for those around her. So the whole point of Riley is that there is no going back for Buffy. She can't be part of that system no matter how decent Riley is. Because, ultimately, Riley is Adam's brother. They come from the same mother, the same system. One is the best it can produce, the other the worst. But both are inadequate, and Buffy has left the system itself behind. No matter what she thinks or says, Buffy does not want "normal" guys, and the fault is not Buffy's.

So, I would think, that since Riley is in no way inner directed, but is the result of a system, ruled by a system, then Spike is right on the money with the insult. He's a cardboard cutout of a real person. Riley is not simply written with no depth. The character himself has abdicated depth. He's chosen to be Catain Cardboard.

I don't think the show is saying the military sucks. They are using the military, in this particular case, to show the dangers of a system in which someone surrenders their internal moral authority. Buffy doesn't fit precisley because she will never surrender this. Whereas Riley "knows what he needs to know," Buffy asks questions. Not all demons are evil, some demons, some vampires even aren't evil at all.

I love bashing Riley, because I think that's a large part of why he was there.

But I think the character was very very successful at what it was there to be. He wasn't supposed to be Spike.

[> [> Swayed by your logic : ) -- Scroll, 19:24:04 09/07/02 Sat

[> [> Manwitch, have you submitted a profile to meet the posters??? -- Masq, 21:26:33 09/07/02 Sat

Do so. Now.

Please????

[> [> Re: I thought Riley was brilliantly written... -- Grant, 01:43:18 09/08/02 Sun

The show is about Buffy, and everybody else in it is there to reflect something about Buffy, and about the life Buffy needs to be living, how she needs to live in the world so as to save it.

Okay, I have a bit of a problem with this sentiment. If BtVS had run only for its first season, or if it was merely a two-hour movie, I might agree with you. However, it is a show that has been on for six years. Because of this, many of the characters have gained a level of complexity that would make it foolish to place them in the ranks of mere symbols reflecting something about Buffy. Can we say that Willow is simply there for that purpose? She is a very complicated character who, as the writers have admitted, has a story of her own. Sure, we could try to give Xander a label, call him a symbol, but then we would be ignoring six years of character development. Even the less developed main character, like Riley and Anya, are still far too complicated to be dismissed as merely the background that helps us focus on Buffy. These are all main characters for a reason. They have their own parallel stories, and while Buffyís story is at the center, it is most definitely not the only story.

You may have a case about some of the minor characters. Kendra, for example, was clearly just put in to contrast Buffy and teach her a lesson about life and slaying. However, a look at the supporting characters also suggests how tenuous your concept is. Two of the most popular characters ever to appear on the show, Faith and Spike, were both originally slated for very short runs. Faith originally was supposed to only be around for five episodes. And Spike was slotted to die during season two. However, the writers realized that they had a good thing on their hands with both these characters, and they allowed the two to develop into two of the richest and most complicated characters on the show.

In fact, a number of the minor characters have come back in substantial ways. Chantarelle from the vampire cult became Lily who helped Buffy in Anne, and then grew even more as a character as Anne on Angel. Jonathan went from being comic relief and a running joke kind of character to being a far more complicated guy who played a central role in the sixth season. The critical thing to remember is that the writers of BtVS are trying to create vibrant and complicated characters that approximate humans as closely as possible. Occassionally, they get lazy and create a character that can simply be dismissed as a symbol, and these characters are usually never heard from again after an episode or two. Most of the characters, Riley included, are far too complicated for so simple a label. And so to say that BtVS is merely a show about Buffy is to say that 1 Henry IV is merely a play about Hal rising from immaturity to become a great leader, and ignoring the complexities of Falstaff.

And in Riley's case, the point is that the "old" world of patriarchy and its systems is inadequate, even when the guy is as nice and as decent as can be.

The crux of my problem with your argument in your post comes from this statement. You say that Rileyís niceness and decentness make him somehow an exception from the system, the ìbestî the system has to offer. To me, however, Rileyís niceness and decentness comes directly from his belief in ìthe system.î Without this belief, he would have simply been another of the multitude of morally ambiguous characters running around. Now, everyone loves to have fun with the morally ambiguous types and the antiheroes, but they really can get quite boring after a while. So with Riley, the ME writers tried to create something completely different. And they succeeded, although not without a few rough patches.

I am an incurable and unapologetic Shakespearean, so I often try to find parallels between the BtVS characters and Shakespeareís characters. This is usually quite difficult, because both the ME writers and Shakespeare tried to make human characters, and no two humans are ever alike. However, one match that I have always found very easy to see is between Riley and Othello.

To explain this, perhaps I should first give my analysis of Othello. He starts his play as a great general, a man ìwhose solid virtue / The shot of accident nor dart of chance / Could neither graze nor pierceî (IV.i.59-61). When he is about to be accosted and arrested by an armed party commanded by a well-respected Senator, he refuses to flee and hide, stating, ìI must be found. / My parts, my title, and my perfect soul / Shall manifest me rightlyî (I.ii.30-32). This is how strong his faith in the system is, that he, a moor and thus by birth the enemy of Venice, is willing to submit himself to a wrongful charge, knowing that he will overcome it. However, if the Othello of the beginning of the play is a great General who commands respect, the Othello of the end of the play is a angry and irrational fool. He loses the commanding speech that he had early in the play, at one point even falls into a trance as part of a complete nervous breakdown, and, of course, murders his wife. What has happened to make the great general who truly had a ìperfect soulî into a vile murderer? Othello has lost his faith in the system. As a soldier, he believed in a completely black and white world. In this world, those who appear honest are honest, villains are punished, lieutenants do not betray their generals, and wives do not cheat on their husbands. Iago manages to create enough doubt that this world is destroyed for Othello. This loss of faith in the soldierly beliefs that had served as his foundation through his life has disastrous consequences, as seen when Othello delivers this speech to Iago:

I had been happy if the general camp,
Pioner and all, had tasted her sweet body,
So I had nothing known. O, now for ever
Farewell the tranquil mind! farewell content!
Farewell the plumed troop, and the big wars
That make ambition virtue! O, farewell!
Farewell the neighing steed and the shrill trump,
The spirit-stirring drum, thí ear-piercing fife,
The royal banner, and all quality,
Pride, pomp, and circumstance of glorious war!
And O you mortal engines whose rude throats
Thí immortal Joveís dread clamor counterfeit,
Farewell! Othelloís occupation gone! (III.iii.345-357)

At this point, Othello would prefer Desdemona had slept with every soldier in his camp as long as he did not know about it. The world his ìknowledgeî has left him with is a world where his occupation is gone. He can no longer go on being a general, because he no longer can trust in the system. He can no longer have faith that he is good and the enemy is wrong. And he can no longer trust that his subordinates will carry out his orders instead of betraying him. Othello thus reaches a point where his only logic is ìshe must die, else sheíll betray more menî (V.ii.6). His hope is that by murdering Desdemona he will restore his world, when in reality he is merely tearing himself away from it.

I hope by this point the parallels between Riley and Othello are clear. They both start out as model men, and they have attained this status mostly through their powerful belief in the system. And when they are lead to doubt this system, the consequences are horrible for both men. Especially worth note is the similarities between the breakdowns Riley and Othello go through after they lose their faith. They both lose their ability to speak coherently and they both suffer a collapse. And, they both try to go after the person they see as responsible for destroying their faith in the system. Othello goes after Desdemona, and Riley goes after Buffy.

Unfortunately, they both choose the wrong target. The system has never failed Othello, as he has not been betrayed by either Cassio or Desdemona. It is merely Iagoís machinations that make it appear so, and if Othello had instead removed Iago he would have succeeded in restoring his previous world. The system also never failed Riley, Maggie Walsh merely abused it in such a way that caused Riley to question the system itself. Riley and Adam are both results of the system, but they are not simply representatives of the best and worst it has to offer. Instead, Riley is the result of the success of the system while Adam is the result of its abuse. It is here that Riley manages to surpass Othello, as he comes face to face with his enemy and realizes that it is not Buffy. It is rather people who abuse the system and use it for their own gain, in this case personified by Adam.

It is important to note that from this point on Riley never fails to follow the system that he has trusted for so long. You might assume that this is what happens in New Moon Rising, but that is only the case if you make the mistake of completely associating the Initiative with the system. That is not true. The system is not a concrete entity but rather a collection of beliefs that guide men like Othello and Riley. These may be the beliefs that organizations like the army of the Initiative start with, but that does not mean that these organizations might not pervert these beliefs. This is what happens with the Intiative, which is originally abused by Walsh and later by McNamura. Riley returns to the Initiative with the hopes that it will continue to follow the system that he believes in without the perverting presence of Walsh, but when it becomes clear that they are not he decides to do his best to fix the abuses (by freeing Oz) and then to join a group that he feels better represents the system (the Scooby gang).

I would say that this shows Riley to have a very strongly developed internal moral code. However, I do agree with you on one point. Riley cannot survive in the gray zone. No one who follows the system can. I do not, however, find that this is to be taken as a point against him. If there were more people who followed the system, the world would be a much happier place. It would also, however, be a much more boring place, because all men would be angels (and consequently, no government would be necessary). The world is most likely never going to completely banish the gray zone. But that does not mean that we should all hate Riley and those like him for dedicating their lives to a very difficult code and doing their part to make the world Giles speaks of at the end of Lie To Me a reality.

So after all that pointless rambling, I would like to attempt to address the question of the original post by saying that I do not believe that Captain Cardboard is a particularly insightful nickname for Riley. But then it was produced by Spike, who has always been a romantic since even before he was vamped. He would thus see Riley as someone who follows orders because he cannot give himself orders, rather than because Riley is a person who believes in a system whereby the orders of a commanding officer are going to be right and true. I think that a far better and more insightful nickname for Riley is ìthe clean marine,î which was offered by Faith in This Yearís Girl. She is essentially calling Riley the modern equivalent of ìwhite knight,î which is a great description of who he is. I believe that Faith has this level of insight into Riley because, unlike Spike, she has actually believed in the system herself. The Faith of early season three goes out of her way to come all the way to the library and help out, never complains, never talks back to Giles, and never refuses a task, even when it involves her being cooped up all night in a library babysitting a werewolf. It is only after Revelations, when she is betrayed by ìthe system,î that she starts her trek down the dark path. This gives her a great position to comment on Riley; she can call him a white knight because she has the experience of actually trying to be one once.

Thatís the meat of my response, but there was one other thing I wanted to tackle as a bit of an aside.

Riley is part of a system. Riley's participation in the military, the intitiative, the labs, etc. is symbolic of his participation in the system. The system is, of course, the whole history of western civilization since the Bible and its consequent views on the knowledge of good and evil, male and female, life and death, etc. etc.

Okay, I know that ìwestern civilizationî has become something of the bogeyman of modern academia, but is not your use of the term here a little untenable. Western civilization covers such a broad range of nations, peoples, literature, art, and thinkers that to try and restrict it into a single system is to generalize beyond reason. I would be much more comfortable if you had continued to use your earlier example of ìreconstituted patriarchyî to qualify the system Riley follows. Even though I disagree, at least in that case you are using something specific and concrete rather than indefinite and amorphous. The statement, ìThe system isÖthe whole history of western civilizationî is kind of like saying, ìThe sentence is the Complete Works of Shakespeare.î Obviously, the complete works of Shakespeare contains many, many sentences, and most of them are quite varied. Pick one.

Unless, of course, your point was that the whole history of western civilization since the Bible is synonymous with reconstituted patriarchy, in which case I would highly suggest you find a new book to get your complete history of western civilization sine the Bible from.

Wow, I donít think Iíve ever typed the word ìsystemî so many times in my life.

[> [> [> About Buffy -- manwitch, 10:10:27 09/08/02 Sun

I don't subscribe to your vision of art, here. I don't mean to denigrate it. I know not everyone subscribes to mine.

I think the show is about Buffy for all six seasons. I say it in the spirit of a theory of art rather than a critical stance on writing. I think I will post something more extensive on this when I have the time.

I don't see any reason why being about Buffy is incompatible with extensive character development of any and all characters.

Secondly, I absolutely agree that Riley is NOT an exception to the sytem. That is, in fact, the point I was trying to make. Think of it this way: Riley is never the model to whom we are being asked to aspire. Buffy always is. The contrast between the sources of moral authority for Riley and Buffy is clear and explicit. Which source the show favors is equally clear. Surely, no one could argue that Buffy should join the army, and accept "good" orders. To use my little phrase again, "the whole point" is that moral authority can never be external, unless you are looking to make monsters.

I know you disagree. I stand behind this view completely.

Finally, I am quite comfortable with my Western Civ reading list, thank you. But I appreciate the suggestion. I expect your issue would be less with my reading list than with how I read it.

Kinda like Buffy. Great show though, isn't it?

[> [> [> [> Re: About Buffy -- Grant, 18:46:00 09/09/02 Mon

I don't see any reason why being about Buffy is incompatible with extensive character development of any and all characters.

I just think that while Buffy is the central character, while she has the central story, it is important to remember that she is not the only characters, and that she does not have the only story. There are a lot of things that the other characters can teach us on their own, not just as they reflect something about Buffy. That is why a couple of them have gone on to get their own shows (Well, at least Angel has. Ripper is kind of up in the air right now and we still don't know whether there will be some kind of future spinoff after SMG leaves the show. Still, I think there is a good amount of evidence that the ME writers think that the other characters have important things to teach us and show us on their own).

You are right in that it is mostly a matter of interpreting art and writing. As a Shakespearean type, I have trained myself to try and examine every character as if they were actually living and breathing human beings. This leads me to dislike defining characters based on things external to the text. So I might say that Riley and Buffy cannot stay together because Riley believes in a strongly black and white world that makes it difficult for him to live in the gray area, whereas Buffy very much lives in the gray area. This would be an examination of the characters and their beliefs and relations that is based on evidence entirely internal to the text. But I could not say that Buffy rejects Riley because he is a symbol of reconstituted patriarchy and Buffy rejects such a system, because this would be an arguement based on things external to the text and one that treats Riley as a thing rather than a person. That's just my view on literary criticism, and there certainly is room for more than just my view in the world, and I am very interesting in reading your further post.

Secondly, I absolutely agree that Riley is NOT an exception to the sytem. That is, in fact, the point I was trying to make. Think of it this way: Riley is never the model to whom we are being asked to aspire. Buffy always is. The contrast between the sources of moral authority for Riley and Buffy is clear and explicit. Which source the show favors is equally clear. Surely, no one could argue that Buffy should join the army, and accept "good" orders. To use my little phrase again, "the whole point" is that moral authority can never be external, unless you are looking to make monsters.

I don't think we can say that Buffy is always the model of who we are suppossed to follow to. She certainly is the most common model, but she makes mistakes too. A good portion of the discussions on this board have even been focused on whether some decision by Buffy was the right one or not. In fact, I think most of season six was about showing how Buffy could be the model of what not to do.

Anyway, I disagree that Riley's moral authority is external. He actually has one of the strongest internal moral authority's of any character on the show. This strong internal moral authority is what forces him to believe that the world is black and white, that the good guys are always stalwart and true and the bad guys are always easy to distinguish by their black hats or pointy horns. To him, any attempt to claim that there is a gray area is just making excuses. It is this internal moral code that cuases him to be like Othello in that he "thinks men honest that but seem to be so." That is why he is willing to put so much trust in systems like the Initiative. It is not because he has ceded his moral authority to them. Rather, his internal moral code tells him that the Initiative must be a force for good and that Maggie Walsh would not be abusing her authority to conduct strange experiments and create weird man-robot-demons. Indeed, even the members of the initiative who betrayed his trust realize that he is not just a machine that follows any orders. Colonel McNamura says something along these lines when talking to Walsh in The Yoko Factor, where he comments, "Quite
frankly, I don't think he was ever the soldier you all hoped he was. Boy thinks too much." This is essentially him admitting that despite their belief that Riley had no moral standards of his own and would simply follow orders, that he really only was following his orders because his internal moral standards told him that they must be the right orders. However, when he saw the opposite to be true he quickly left the Initiative, something he could not have done had he no internal moral authority.

I would also caution viewing Adam as an example of having no internal authority, only external. After all, the first thing he did after he woke up was to kill Maggie Walsh, which I kind of took as a pretty strong rejection of her external control of him. Adam's problem seems to be that he only has internal moral authority. He rejects any kind of external authority and only follows his own master plan. In fact, he explicitly wants to destroy human and demon society, and tear down the traditional external moral authorities of those societies, in order to erect a society based on himself. This makes him, at least in my mind, Mr. No External Only Internal Moral Authority.

And not all external moral authority can be considered bad. The soul, at least in its Buffyverse connotation as a sort of super conscience, is very much an example of external moral authority. Sure, it is inside your head, but it is not really you that are controlling it. That is why in a lot of art the conscience is portrayed as a voice in the back of your head, a little angel on your shoulder, or Jimminy Cricket. What also makes it external is the fact that one can, and many do, ignore it. Using your internal moral systems you can decide to either embrace what your conscience is telling you or ignore it and do what you think is right.

I personally think that a good mix between internal and external is the best policy. The external moral authority usually is the collected wisdom of humans through millenia of experience. It may not be perfect, but I've always found it beneficial to learn from the experience of others like I try to learn from my own experience. Having external moral authorities also allow us humans to live together in societies so that mutual moral values can be upheld. Otherwise, it would be pandemonium with everyone choosing their own moral standards and no outside force to say that one moral standard is right and one is wrong. However, in spite of the benefits of external moral authorities you still need a strong internal moral code to show you when the external might be wrong. This is probably Riley's greatest failing, that his internal moral code makes him far too trusting to those external moral authorities, since he is drawn to assume that they must be good. Where it a perfect world, or were the world composed entirely of Rileys (Somebodies nightmare, I know), his moral code would serve him quite well. However, in the real world he runs into some problems, which is why the best place for him is probably in the much more black and white world of the military.

Kinda like Buffy. Great show though, isn't it?

Anything that I can compare to Shakespeare without being joking definitely counts as pretty good in my book.

[> [> [> Lovely! Shakespeare and BtVS together, and in support of Riley! -- Vickie, 10:33:51 09/08/02 Sun

Thank you for your careful analysis. I've always liked Riley, though I have to agree that he wasn't (ultimately) right for Buffy. Your post explains why, much better than I could have.

[> [> [> One sign of a good post is that I spent all weekend thinking about it. -- Sophist, 09:22:58 09/09/02 Mon

That said, I don't agree. The comparison to Othello doesn't work for me, except in an odd reversal sort of way. Let me try to explain.

The basic structure of Othello is, as you explained, one in which Iago pulls Othello away from the trust Othello has in the system. The system does not fail Othello; in a sense, he fails it by not trusting it enough to recognize Iago's evil.

Riley provides the opposite case. The system does fail Riley; Prof. Walsh is evil and the Initiative abuses its legitimate ends. The plotline twists our expectations. After first making it appear that Buffy will leave the SG behind for the Initiative, the writers show us that it is Buffy who pulls Riley towards her instead. Since I'm sure you don't mean to argue that Buffy equates with Iago, the structural parallel doesn't work here.

There are 2 possible Iago figures. Forest does his best to pull Riley and Buffy apart (again with the irony that Forest first encouraged Riley to pursue her). Forest does so, however, in order to pull Riley back towards the system, which is the opposite of what Iago did (and would have had the opposite effect because of the Initiative's corruption).

Spike might also fit nicely as Iago. In his case, though, Spike tried to and did separate Buffy from Riley, but had the effect of sending Riley back to the system.

I also lean towards manwitch on another point. I do think the show is mostly about Buffy, just as I think Henry IV is mostly about Hal. I don't see any contradiction in having fully developed supporting characters; it's their development that creates opportunities for us to learn Buffy's lessons. I like the way manwitch phrased this issue. When I said (or intended to say) awhile ago that Xander saving the world didn't work for me because the show is supposed to be about Buffy, not many agreed. C'est la vie.

I do think that manwitch overstated the case about Western Civ, though. IMHO.

[> [> [> [> Agree except for... -- shadowkat, 18:55:37 09/09/02 Mon

"Spike might also fit nicely as Iago. In his case, though, Spike tried to and did separate Buffy from Riley, but had the effect of sending Riley back to the system."

Uhm actually Spike didn't separate Riley from Buffy here.
Xander has that honor. Xander told Riley about Buffy and Angel and suggested that Buffy boinked Angel in LA. Then Angel came back and furthered the problem. Ironic because Xander actually wanted Buffy and Riley together and Angel and Buffy apart. Xander's actions do aid Spike play Iago in the truest form and cleverly separate Buffy from the rest of the SG. But then (b/c the writers wrote themselves into a corner according to Fury's commentary on Primeval DVD) Spike ironically lets info slip so that Buffy confronts her friends and they get back together again.

Another point of irony you missed though didn't intend to:
Professor Walsh pushes Riley towards Buffy. Riley even admits in I in Team that Walsh liked Buffy before he did. If it weren't for Prof Walsh mentioning that she liked Buffy
in The Iniative, Riley may never have pursued her. Then Walsh turns around and wants to break them apart, get rid of Buffy. So you have the creepiness of Walsh pushing him to her - maybe to somehow incorporate Buffy into her little Initiative Cult, even to the extent she watches them have sex on the monitor, to the coldblooded attempt to kill her off because she is getting Riley to start to ask questions.

Riley doesn't ask questions until Buffy motivates him too.
Something the Iago's may cause.

But I agree on the whole, with that minor exception. Nope don't really see Riley as Othello. Saw Buffy actually more in the role, but it's been too long since I've read it to do a fair comparison.

[> [> [> [> Re: One sign of a good post is that I spent all weekend thinking about it. -- Grant, 20:17:48 09/09/02 Mon

Actually, the Iago I was thinking of was more Maggie Walsh. The parallels between Walsh and Iago are pretty good. They are both very smart and charasmatic with a good understanding of human psychology. And they both were the people that their respective victim trusted the most. Iago had been with Othello during all of his great campaigns, while Desdemona and Cassio were both newcomers. And Iago also served as the ensign, who carried Othello's colors into battle and thus was in the most respected position in the army except for the general himself. Walsh was Riley's mentor and CO for several years and clearly was well-respected by Riley until the very end. Buffy, meanwhile, was a relative newcomer just like Desdemona and Cassio.

It is thus a matter of being betrayed by the person you trust the most, which sets up a conflict between believing that the person you trust the most is right or believing that the person you love is right, when your moral code and everything you believe tells you that they must both be write. This of course leads to a very big internal moral conflict that leads to both Othello and Riley going slightly crazy. This yields some very similar speeches from the two characters:

Riley: Right. Except - it seems like the rules don't apply much these days,do they? Like, if I shot you right now, I don't know if I'd have a corpse on my hands or one pissed off vampire... I mean, who do you believe? First it sounds like lies. Then it sounds like truth...

Othello: By the world,
I think my wife be honest, and think she is not;
I think that thou art just, and think thou art not.
I'll have some proof. Her name, that was as fresh
As Dian's visage, is now begrimed and black
As mine own face. If there be cords, or knives,
Poison, or fire, or suffocating streams,
I'll not endure it. Would I were satisfied!
(III.iii.384-390)

These speeches are also important in adding to my argument that Walsh is Riley's Iago because of the context in which they are delivered. Othello's speech, his demand for truth, is given to Iago, who is able to subtly tilt Othello's moral struggle toward believing him over Desdemona. Professor Walsh, however, is dead at this point and thus Riley only has Buffy to ask for answers. Riley is not completely convinced by her, just as Othello does not completely decide to kill Desdemona and Cassio for another act or so, but this is the beginning of him being swayed to her side and eventually realizing the truth. We can only wonder whether Othello might not have also been swayed to the truth had Iago died in the third act of the play.

In the end, it is not the system that betrays Othello and Riley but rather trusted individuals who abuse the system for their own ends. Iago uses the trust Othello has placed in him in order to completely destroy the general for no real reason. He was not betrayed by Desdemona, or even the military in general, in this case represented by Cassio, merely by Iago. Walsh uses the trust Riley has placed in her to carry out her strange experiments and move towards her master plan. Riley was not betrayed by Buffy or by the military in general. This can be seen by the military not only acknowledging that the Initiative/Walsh's plan was a mistake, but also being a force for good that Riley can go back to when he decides to leave Buffy in season 5.

The biggest difference between Iago and Walsh is that Walsh at least cares about Riley, even if her concerns may be more focused on her work than on him. Iago, on the other hand, seems to not actually care about anybody, including himself.

I also lean towards manwitch on another point. I do think the show is mostly about Buffy, just as I think Henry IV is mostly about Hal. I don't see any contradiction in having fully developed supporting characters; it's their development that creates opportunities for us to learn Buffy's lessons. I like the way manwitch phrased this issue. When I said (or intended to say) awhile ago that Xander saving the world didn't work for me because the show is supposed to be about Buffy, not many agreed. C'est la vie.

Hal is the central character of Henry IV, but that does not mean that he is the only one who has anything to teach us, the reader/theatergoer. In fact, Falstaff's character should have been one that was only around to reflect something about Hal, namely to merely tempt Hal so that we could all see how good a king he would be when he throws asid temptation. In the normal state of affairs, Falstaff should have actually died on the Shrewsberry battle field. However, Falstaff was a much more complicated character than that, far too complicated to be simply cast aside as the symbol of temptation that Hal symbolically rejects. Sir John had a very important lesson to teach Hal about life, but Hal refused to listen. Thus the only people around to learn that lesson is us. And his lesson is frankly much more interesting and important than the one Hal teaches us about how to lower expectations until becoming a good man and a good king is easy. Falstaff can be analyzed and can teach us quite a lot without even bringing Hal into the equation, and the same is also true, thought to a lesser extent, with Hotspur. Because of that, it would be foolish to say that the only person we should pay attention to learning from is Hal. Indeed, one lesson that you definitely learn while reading Shakespeare is that the main character is often not the model you should aspire to follow. In King Lear, for example, Lear is a pretty bad role model while Edgar is a very good one.

This all relates to Buffy in a caution to not ignore the stories of other characters to focus only on Buffy. She has the central story, but other characters have things to teach us on their own. You can see that the writers clearly agree with this in their approach to a number of the characters. Take Angel, for example. What other reason would the writers have for giving Angel his own show except that they thought he had his own story and his own stuff to teach us loyal viewers? And to use the example you gave, of Xander being the one to save the day at the end of season six, remember that Willow and Xander were friends long before Buffy came along. When she invited them into her world of slaying vampires and saving the world, they invited her into their friendship. However, the relationship between Willow and Xander has been the longest and strongest one on the entire show. And I think that the idea that strong and true friendship can sometimes save the world is an important lesson to learn, even if it doesn't involve Buffy.

[> [> [> [> [> Nice post again -- Sophist, 09:50:25 09/10/02 Tue

You left out a good parallel between Walsh and Iago -- she watches Riley and Buffy make "the beast with two backs" on the video monitor.

Still, I don't think Walsh works as Iago. She simply doesn't live long enough (although it may have been ME's intent to use her in that role had the actor been available). True, she sets up the chain of events that leads to Riley's dilemma at the end of S4. But that's a move away from the evil system and towards Buffy. The real Riley/Othello, Buffy/Desdemona issues arise in S5 and Walsh is not there. Besides, the real evil of Iago is the subtle and insidious way he spreads his venom. Walsh was too direct for that.

I don't want to overstate my views regarding Buffy as the main character. I do agree that we can learn some lessons from the other characters; we're clearly intended to in specific episodes like The Wish, Doppelgangerland, and The Zeppo. For the most part, though, Buffy is the eponymous hero and our guide. Indeed, the few instances in which she is wrong seem also intended to give us a moral lesson.

I would say it this way: it is from Buffy that we are to learn the really big lessons, but from the minor characters we can learn small ones. The end of S6 was a big lesson, and was Buffy's, not Xander's, to teach us. That failure by ME led at least one viewer (me) to dismiss the episode instead of applauding it.

However, the relationship between Willow and Xander has been the longest and strongest one on the entire show.

Here, I think, you've violated your rule and gone outside the text. We have been told that Willow and Xander were best friends before they met Buffy. What we have been shown, however, is that Buffy and Willow have the strongest relationship on the entire show. Yet one more reason why Xander's role in Grave simply doesn't work.

[> [> Re: Yes -- lachesis, 04:19:11 09/08/02 Sun

I agree completely, and you sum it up perfectly:
"They are using the military, in this particular case, to show the dangers of a system in which someone surrenders their internal moral authority. Buffy doesn't fit precisley because she will never surrender this."

This is why I liked AYW - Riley and Sam come breezing in like a breath of fresh air from some golden age of childhood. Everybody remembers just how sweet and easy and normal life used to be two years ago, compared to now: of course they want that back. But the truth of the matter is that Riley is back with the program, entirely happy with a circumscribed world of orders and certainties, sure that he's one of the decent ones.

What did he *learn* from S.4, from his demon brother, from the fact that he was de- and re-programmed, from the fact that in the end they had to burn it down and sow the ground with salt? I thought that the helicopter scene was lovely - we see that Riley has really thought about what happened, about what Buffy truly is. While he can say, truthfully, how amazing she is, and how incorruptible, what his life shows is that she scared the pants off him, that for the sake of his sanity he went back to order and certainty, even though he had stared its evil in the face. And then they scoot off in their helicopter, with their life that is enviable in every respect except the fact that its *not* real.

And Buffy is left, standing alone in the dark, and we know that this is what is real. That the abdication of depth, of internal moral authority - is her true temptation. Her 'path's unbeaten and its all uphill' but that is the price of self-hood and freedom. Of course she's afraid of the dark, both within and around her, but she has proved her integrity time and again, and as long as she refuses to abdicate, to 'make it easy on herself' she will continue to do so.

Just my opinion on what seems to be an unpopular episode. I liked it, but I loved your post.

[> [> [> Excellent posts, lachesis and manwitch. -- Arethusa, 07:36:02 09/08/02 Sun

In "Normal Again" Buffy faced a similiar decision-choose the unreal safe world or the life of uncertainty. Her whole life has been a series of decisions that could cost her (and the world) everything, but our hero refuses to make it easy for herself if it means turning her back on those she loves.

But not everyone is that kind of hero. In his own world Riley is heroic, battling monsters to the death to save people, just like Buffy. The rewards of his life-confidence in himself and his mission, his life with his wife-are very real to him too. Not everyone can deal with knowing the plural of apocalypse.

My father was in the Air Force in the mid-to-late sixties, flying reconnaissence for bombers. He and his leadeers were doing what they thought was right, fighting for the freedom of people across the world. To be effective they had to accept the orders and beliefs of those leaders. A battle fought by soldiers who take the time to judge the morality of every action will be lost. Despite the doubts many of them must have had, they never lost their belief in their country, and many of them, including my father, died for their beliefs. There is not always safety in surety.

The Scoobies know all this too. They've all done things of dubious morality-Buffy knifing Faith, Xander not telling Buffy about the soul-restoration spell, Giles killing Ben, etc. Buffy is unique, and so are her moral delimmas. But they have put their belief in each other, and their love is their greatest surety-and it even saved the world. A lot.

[> [> Re: I thought Riley was brilliantly written... -- Slain, 12:25:23 09/08/02 Sun

I really abhor character bashing, and I wouldn't consider your post bashing. In fact I generally agree with it. It is a simplification of his character, though; which I why I also agree with Grant, as Riley does have depth. But Riley was the system, and we weren't supposed to like him as Black & White Guy, we were supposed to want him to change, become more like Buffy. Yet he couldn't handle making his own decisions, being an 'anarchist', so instead substituted one mother (Walsh and the Initiative) for another (Sam and Black Ops). The fact is, he was probably right to do this; Season Five showed us Riley was unhappy outside of structures. Which was why Riley could never stay in the show; he was happier working for someone else, whereas the Scoobies live by their own rules. Unlike Giles, who had a rebelious streak, Riley just didn't have it in him to become a Scoob.

Unlike many other characters, I don't think Riley was there purely for Buffy's character advancement. I think certainly Oz and Tara were primarily there to advance Willow, but I always felt that Riley had little impact on Buffy, especially when compared to Spike or Angel. Riley was his own little plot arc, at least from the end of Season 4 onwards, while Buffy's brief flirtation, then rejection, of the Initiative was the only major impact I can think of.

[> [> [> Agree largely with Slain here -- shadowkat, 06:15:55 09/09/02 Mon

I agree and I too loved Manwitch's post. Riley is an interesting character and did have an impact, but it was more subtly felt than other supporting characters.

"Unlike many other characters, I don't think Riley was there purely for Buffy's character advancement. I think certainly Oz and Tara were primarily there to advance Willow, but I always felt that Riley had little impact on Buffy, especially when compared to Spike or Angel. Riley was his own little plot arc, at least from the end of Season 4 onwards, while Buffy's brief flirtation, then rejection, of the Initiative was the only major impact I can think of."

I agree, Riley wasn't there purely for her advancement. The only characters I felt were only present for another characters advancement were oddly enough the characters involved with Willow. Their relationships with the characters outside of Willow and their lives outside Willow seemed largely underdeveloped. OZ - we knew so little about.
No clear idea about family, or friends outside the band.
All we really knew about OZ was he was in a band and a werewolf. Tara was actually more developed, which was odd because unlike OZ she wasn't a contracted player. But Tara
also felt outside the group more. She only began to interact with Dawn and Buffy in Season 6 and this was limited. Unlike Spike and Anya who we see literally interacting with everyone on group and one to one basis. Now Angel was more like OZ/Tara, from the beginning he interacted less with the other characters than with Buffy. It wasn't until he got his own show that his character was truly explored. Riley is different than Angel in that - he seemed to have his own story explored a lot faster than Angel did. But Angel we actually got more background on. We still don't know anything about Riley's family life or friends outside the military or for that matter when he joined the military. We actually know more about Tara than we did about Riley.

That said I disagree with you on this one point: "Buffy's flirtation and rejection of the Initiative is only impact I can think of".

Actually there's another one. Riley was Buffy's normal boyfriend. The sturdy guy. Who could fight demons with her, go out in sunlight and treat Buffy like a normal girl. It didn't work. Why? Because as we see in Restless - Buffy's primal self scared the heck out of Riley. Joss says in his Restless Commentary that Riley leaves in her dream because he can't deal with the "primal" slayer. He thinks he can in
Season 5, but it gets harder and harder for him. Part of the reason he goes to the vamp trulls is to figure her out.
As he states in Into the Woods - he wanted to see what the attraction was, why vamps turned her on. An attraction she denies.

Riley also is yet another of Buffy's older boyfriends. While we are never given an exact age, I would guess Riley is in his late 20s when he meets Buffy. He was obviously just posing as a student and had been in the military a while when he met Buffy. So once again we get the father complex - an ongoing theme in the series. Buffy at the beginning of Family is discussing with Giles how she can't send Dawn to her father, since he had bailed on them and is off with a secretary. Shortly after that, we see an angry Riley leave Buffy, because she can't open up to him. She can't tell him about Dawn. Riley tells Buffy in Into the Woods - that he wants to be her support system, to protect and defend her. (His speech reminds me a little of Angel's spiel in I Will Always Remember You), a spiel that Buffy rightfully rejects. Buffy tells Riley he can't handle the fact that she is stronger than him. Which is true, he can't, no normal guy can. Even Xander has struggled with this. Also Riley can leave Sunnydale - go into the jungle, Buffy can't and Buffy can't follow him there, even though of the two of them it is more likely Buffy would have survived. The irony? Of the two of them, Buffy is the one who is truly in danger in season 5, not Riley - who goes in search of it. Buffy is also the one who dies. When Riley comes back he is prepared to tell her all about how horrible the jungle is and how she can't imagine it, etc, and Buffy cuts him off with a quick "didja die? - I'm gonna win." Riley will never be able to win a pissing match with Buffy and he knows it. The fact that he would likte to? Is part of their problem. Something else that she picks up on.
Buffy is actually fairly insightful when she's not preoccupied with saving the world.

With Riley - ME explored what it would be like for Buffy to have the normal guy relationship and they showed why it didn't work. On the surface it looked perfect. Both hunted demons. Both seemed superstrong. Riley wasn't a monster like Angel. They could have sex without any problems. It seemed perfect. Yet if you look closely, you see the cracks. The first to see them is Xander. But he doesn't want to acknowledge them, because it appears to be the "perfect" relationship. Boring. Safe. Ordinary. But there are problems. Buffy can't trust Riley with the truth about her sister and the last thing she wants to do is trust the military. Riley trusts order and organizations, Buffy has learned the hard way not to, to just trust herself. So we have the comparison of the individual fending for themselves with a small select group of other like-minded individuals choosing to help them(as manwitch pointed out) vs the individual taking orders from an organization and fighting as an employee or portion of the organization. This comparison has been going on since Kendra was introduced in Season 2. And may even have been introduced with the MAster in Season 1. Next, we have the powerful strong manly man who protects fragil little girl vs fragil little girl protects strong manly man - very interesting twist on the horror show - and another on-going theme. (See Riley in OOMM and Into The Woods and even FFL
for demonstrations of this struggle). Buffy is right, once
Riley lost his superstrength and couldn't keep up with her, their relationship began to breakdown even more. Then we have the male fears of the primal female - as is explored in Restless, Buffy-vs.Dracula and with the vamp trulls.
And this causes Buffy to deal with her own inner darkness the fact she could be a monster inside - which she comments on in IWMTLY, Intervention, WOTW, and the Gift. Finally
with the return of Riley in AYW - we have the temptation, which manwitch and others comment on about the safe, orderly world, with benefits, full time pay, and cool gadgets as opposed to the world where you never get rewarded for good deeds and life is an ongoing struggle and your boyfriend/girlfriend is something to be ashamed of instead of the supermodel of perfection.

So you see Riley had a major impact on Buffy's storyline.
A much larger more complex one than Angel did or even
Spike up to now. I would argue that actually Angel and Spike's stories are more separate from Buffy's than Riley's is, simply because we know more about Angel and Spike. Riley is still a fairly faintly drawn character - whose interaction has largely been limited to Buffy.

I hope this made sense. I feel like I may have contradicted myself at least once in this ramble. Excellent posts, Slain, Grant, manwitch and lachesis.

SK

[> [> Thanks, your post really helped -- vh, 08:03:59 09/09/02 Mon

[> [> Re: I thought Riley was brilliantly written... -- alcibiades, 08:25:01 09/09/02 Mon

I love bashing Riley, because I think that's a large part of why he was there.

Frankly, the writer's and production staff gave us cues that they were bashing or undermining Riley in the very same episode that Buffy and Riley first kissed -- the one after Hush.

I mean, what kind of guy is codenamed, "lilac"?

Uh, I guess one who is so manly that his macho is reinforced by a poster on his wall that says, "Balls", just so he won't forget that is what he is all about.

It's a big visual joke, both funny and ironic imo, at least.

[> [> [> Posters on walls -- shadowkat, 09:31:32 09/09/02 Mon

Yes found it very amusing that Riley's wall poster is "Balls" and Buffy's is a huge array of "Chocolats" arranged in what looks like a flower.

[> [> Re: I thought Riley was brilliantly written... -- Cheryl, 21:25:00 09/09/02 Mon

"But I think the character was very very successful at what it was there to be. He wasn't supposed to be Spike."

Amen!

I'm really enjoying all this discussion on Riley. I liked the character and the actor, and actually thought there *was* chemistry between SMG and MB. But, I understand he was rebound guy and didn't have a chance after Angel.

One thing I noticed after rewatching Doomed last week, was that Riley recognized early on (in S4) Buffy's 'doom and gloom mentality" - something highlighted in season 6, and especially Normal Again, when Spike basically told her the same thing Riley had two years earlier. The following comes courtesy of Psyche's awesome transcripts:

From Doomed (S4):
Riley: ìNo, I mean youíre stupid. (Buffy looks at him) I mean... ñ I donít mean that. ñ No, I think maybe I do.î

Buffy: ìWow, with sweet talk like that, youíll definitely melt my reservations.î

Riley: ìIím serious. You have this twisted way of looking at things, this doom and gloom mentality. You keep thinking like that and things will probably turn out just the way you expect.î

From Normal Again (S6):

SPIKE: You're addicted to the misery. It's why you won't tell your pals about us. Might actually have to be happy if you did. They'd either understand and help you, god forbid ... or drive you out ... where you can finally be at peace, in the dark. With me. Either way, you'd be better off for it, but you're too twisted for that. (pauses) Let yourself live, already. And stop with the bloody hero trip for a sec. We'd all be the better for it.

Even though Buffy and Riley loved each other in their own limited ways, it couldn't work in the reality of the Buffy Universe. But still, they still care for and respect each other. Buffy "loved" Sam and was happy for Riley. And after Riley learned about Buffy and Spike he still had the utmost respect for her:

From As You Were (S6)

RILEY: Buffy, none of that means anything. It doesn't touch you. You're still the first woman I ever loved ... and the strongest woman I've ever known. And I'm not advertising this to the missus ... but you're still quite the hottie.
BUFFY: You know, it goes away after many bathings.
RILEY: (laughs) This isn't about who's on top. I know how lucky I am right now. I love my work, and I love my wife.
BUFFY: I know. And I kinda love her too.
RILEY: So you're not in the greatest place right now. And maybe I made it worse.
BUFFY: No.
RILEY: Wheel never stops turning, Buffy. You're up, you're down ... it doesn't change what you are. And you are a hell of a woman.
BUFFY: (deep breath) Riley, that night... (Riley just looking at her) I never got the chance ... to tell you ... how sorry I was. About what happened between us.
RILEY: And you never have to.

This gave her the impetus to break up with Spike - so Riley served his purpose in what was an otherwise disappointing episode. So I'm very glad ME gave us Riley, the good and the bad.

[> [> Woo hoo! I got quoted! Great post manwitch! -- Caroline, back from holidays, catching up with the board, 09:08:16 09/10/02 Tue

[> A small backtrack -- JBone, 23:33:16 09/07/02 Sat

I was looking to pick a fight Friday night, which is odd. You'd think that I would get enough carnage from running the tournament. But I saw one too many Captain Cardboard references, and it just pissed me off. I saw an anti-military sentiment that I guess wasn't there. So for that, I apologize. Thanks for your thoughts on the subject, I'm just going to leave it alone now.

[> Re: Capt Cardboard and the BtVS insult; does it fit? -- Betheldene, 01:41:06 09/08/02 Sun

I remember actually liking Riley at the beginning before he became involved with Buffy (heh).
At the time, I thought the actor seemed fresh, he was not your typical soapie actor-looking type, he seemed very natural, and I thought he was a good choice.
But i did not understand why, suddenly, after hardly noticing Buffy during the previous episodes, he did a complete 180-degree and decided, "yup, that's the gal for me."
My problem was... where the heck did *that* come from?
After that Riley just kept acting like a mook around Buffy. I'm not saying he wasn't OK, but after a certain amount of time I think I should have taken to him more, but I don't believe he was really developed.
By the time season 5 came around, he was so marginalised, and it was so hard to fit him into the storyline that I was not surprised they wrote the character out.
Re: fan backlash for Buffy/Angel:
I did like Buffy/Angel, but I was ready to give Riley a go. He made a good first impression, problem was he couldn't sustain it past the first two or three episodes.

[> Characters vs. plot -- matching mole, 12:49:23 09/08/02 Sun

The merits of Riley (or lack thereof) are being debated on three separate criteria, or so it seems to me.

1) Is/was Riley personally appealing and/or consistent and believable as a character? There seem to be mixed reviews with a majority opting for a negative view, particularly with regard to his 'regression' in AYW. He is nice but boring.

2) Did Riley contribute to the viewer's immediate enjoyment of the show? Criterion number 2 follows number one pretty closely. Riley's romance with Buffy did not elicit the same sort of interest as her previous one with Angel or her later one with Spike. He did not seem to fit in well with the Scoobies after he abandoned the Initiative.

3) Did Riley advance the plot and the issues being addressed in the longer term story? Here we have a strong defender in manwitch who defends the very characteristics of Riley that make him so unappealing as being central to an important point ME is making.

This split doesn't surprise me because it mirrors my own interest in, and ultimate frustration with, the character of Riley Finn and is a specific example of a problem now facing BtVS. For me, personally, a truly engaging piece of fiction has to have both interesting, believable characters and an entertaining story with some meat in it. In creating fiction these two elements are often in conflict to some extent.In a unitary piece of fiction the writer can craft the characters and set up the situation so that events roll on to desired conclusion. Even so, characters often take on lives of their own (by the admission of the writers themselves) that pull the story in different directions than the writer originally intended. This conflict between character development and plot had to be much worse for open-ended pieces of fiction such a television shows. I imagine that this problem is a contributing factor to the static nature of most TV characters. It is too easy to paint yourself into a corner when you don't know what the final picture is going to look like.

Hence the conflicted view of Riley in our collective perspective on the show. And based on the statements I've read on this board (I have never read an interview with a BtVS writer myself) it sounds like the writers may have been conflicted about Riley themselves. Personal admiration for him vs. his role in the initiative. I think that Riley was symbolically potent in S4. Unlike most military stereotypes he was a nice guy, affable, helpful, and, on the surface, fairly non-judgemental. He was also a believer in order and discipline without being fanatical about it. Most military stereotypes seem to be either rebels, putting personal loyalty and/or moral absolutes above hierarchical concerns or power-mad control freaks. Riley enjoys a relaced cameraderie with his subordinates and a pleasant business-like relationship with his boss. Not unlike my own work-place relationships. However he runs into problems when his worldview runs into conflict with the Scoobies and the duplicity of his mentor and other superiors is revealed. Riley attempts to revise his world view but is unable to do so and eventually leaves, returning to his former 'system.'

The S4 Riley had an interesting story to be told. Unfortunately this story was somewhat in conflict with his other role in the series, that of Buffy's boyfriend. With the focus of his character's screen time being on the B/R relationship, Riley's own philosophical conflict never got the attention it could have. I must confess a personal bias here. The anti-authoritarian bent of BtVS seemed to fit in well with a protrait of adolescence. Adults just don't get it. However the extension of tha viewpoint beyond parents, teachers, and local authorities to groups that are, in some sense, in the know such as the Initiative and the Watcher's Council seems more problematic. In one sense, Buffy and the Scoobies and just as guilty as the WC or the military in making decisions on behalf of others without consulting them. The residents of Sunnydale are never given a say in the important decisions that confront the town. I'm certainly not condemning the show for this but I do think that Riley's presence in the group was not used as fully as it might have been both from the point of view of Riley's personal struggle and of the Scoobies' interaction with society as a whole.

However this interesting story clearly did not fit into the plans ME had for Buffy in S5 and S6 and the show is named after Buffy rather than Riley. So Riley's story gets nipped in the bud and he reverts to becoming a plot device in S5.

I'll also admit that I have a deep ambivalence to manwitch's statement that BtVS is all about Buffy. I recognize the power of the narrative of a personal journey. But it also makes me uneasy. I have a real fondness for the ensemble, for the slice of the world. While the idea that we can learn from and be inspired by a strong central character is a powerful one I almost always identify more strongly with supporting characters.

I had more I planned to say but I have other things I need to do.

matching mole

[> Re: Capt Cardboard and the BtVS insult; does it fit? -- luvthistle1, 02:26:54 09/09/02 Mon

I think it fits Riley a little bit. He was to perfect. When Faith (in Buffy body) was talking dirty to him,he seem like he was disgusted by it. When means that he not open to new ideas. He wants everything and everybody to be perfect. I do not think it reflect on the military , considering the other guys did not seem to act that way. actually very few guys would act that way with someone they love or want to bed.

When they call Spike the "undeadenglishpatient" it really suits him.lol

[> Re: Capt Cardboard and the BtVS insult; does it fit? -- vh, 08:22:23 09/09/02 Mon

"The Initiative" was such an unrealistic portrayal of the military that I have a difficult time correlating it with any views I have of the military in general.

[> [> Re: Capt Cardboard and the BtVS insult; does it fit? -- Finn Mac Cool, 16:42:44 09/09/02 Mon

People make the mistake of equating the Initiative with the military. The difference is that the Initiative is a military project/top secret government conspiracy. Think of the Marines meets the CIA, FBI, and Black Ops organisations.

[> [> Views of the Military -- Robert, 17:14:03 09/09/02 Mon

>>> "... I have a difficult time correlating it with any views I have of the military in general."

Can you give some examples? What are your views of the military?

[> [> [> Re: Views of the Military -- vh, 08:41:35 09/10/02 Tue

Oh, just what I've seen of documentaries observing military operations, and what I've observed from conversations with military veterans (I've met enough of them during my first job, contracting for the DoD). Of course, I must say, I've never seen a documentary on a black-ops project ( ;) ), nor were any of the contracts I worked on "black" ones. The people I've met were mostly down-to-earth and not particularly super-macho or gung-ho. However, I admit that a friend of mine worked with some "spooks" and said that they seemed to really get off on the "game," so perhaps they're not so far off after all from the black ops side.

My views of the military? Complicated. While I'd like to think that I'm at heart a pacifist, I recognize the necessity of protecting oneself against the actions of those who are not peaceful. The military is needed in the protection of a nation. However, it is compromised because it answers not only to the needs of defense, but the requirements of politicians. For example, the pentagon provided a list of bases that it felt should be closed. Many of these bases are still open last I heard (several in CA, in important electoral state), meanwhile, Hill AFB, which was recommended to stay open as one of the most productive bases, was targeted for closure by president Clinton (Clinton finished 3rd in Utah in both elections).

Back to BtVS, I would have to wonder about a black ops project of the type presented in which Adam could just stroll out undetected in a facility in which demons are kept under lock and key (even with Dr Walsh's key card--wouldn't they use a form of bio-recognition or at least a key-punch lock with something this sensitive). You'd think they'd post one or two guards at each point of egress and have everything well-monitored with cameras (heck, they had one in Riley's bedroom).

[> [> [> [> Re: Views of the Military--addendum -- vh, 08:45:52 09/10/02 Tue

>>However, it is compromised because it answers not only to the needs of defense, but the requirements of politicians.

Oops. Forgot to add: The ambitions and foibles of the officers involved can also occasionally cause significant problems, as, for example, with McClellan.

[> [> [> [> Re: Views of the Military -- Robert, 14:10:42 09/10/02 Tue

Thank you for expanding on your original posting. I never served in the military. Since my father was a chaplain in the Navy, I feel I was raised by the Navy and the Marine Corps. In addition, I was employed at a navy lab as a civil servant for a 4 or 5 years, living on-base for that period. Neither of these experiences is adaquate to really know the military. Plus, the services behave and operate quite differently from each other. My wife's father was similarly a chaplain in Air Force, providing us some interesting and contrasting views.

I agree with you that the Initiative in the fourth season BtVS does not resemble anything I ever saw, but I never had any contact with black operations (thank God!).

>>>"My views of the military? Complicated. While I'd like to think that I'm at heart a pacifist, ..."

My views of the military are a little different. David Weber best summed it up for me in his science fiction novel The Honor of the Queen, Baen Publishing, ISBN 0-671-72172-0. On page 35;

... War may represent the failure of diplomacy, but even the best diplomats operate on credit. Sooner or later someone who's less reasonable than you are is going to call you, and if your military can't cover your I.O.U.s, you lose.

Thus, while the stated purpose is the defense of the realm, the real purpose of the military is currency of diplomacy. Even with the most powerful military, the diplomats can still screw it up. Take the gulf war for example. If our diplomats had better explained to Saddam what our response would be, I don't think he would have taken Kuwait. His military certainly couldn't cover his I.O.U.'s.

>>>"... in which Adam could just stroll out undetected ..."

I am probably wrong, but my impression was that Adam was using some kind of a cave back entrance to the secret lab (room 314, if I remember correctly). If you recall, the commanding officer who replaced Prof. Walsh knew nothing about the lab. This suggests that Prof. Walsh and her lab rat were the only ones who knew of its existance, and thusly it might make sense to have a secret back entrance. I think they were running their own game with Adam that no one else in the military was privy to.

Current board | More September 2002