Previous September 2002

More September 2002

[> Aw. She's growing up to be such a cute li'l JD... -- cjl, 15:10:19 09/09/02 Mon

Love the ending.

You know, HonorH, I was watching "Mildred Pierce" on Saturday night, and I was thinking about how weirdly similar Dawn and Spike are to Mildred's spoiled-brat daughter, Veda, and Mildred's disgustingly jaded leech of a second husband, Monty Boregon. To those of you who haven't seen the movie or read the James M. Cain novel, I won't go into further details (mainly because it might gross you out to the point of losing your dinner); let's just say, the young lady managed to teach the older gentleman some lessons about evil....

Gives you pause, doesn't it?

[> Hehe -- Apophis, 15:54:32 09/09/02 Mon

Pure genius, HonorH. Makes me wish I had some dirt on my poetry teacher. Heaven knows I could use it.

Angel question -- Belladonna, 20:16:45 09/09/02 Mon

Hey all...I just started watching Angel towards the end of last season. I saw about half the episodes, and am a little confused. What's the deal with this law firm? I know they've been around since the beginning of the show, but that's about it. How does an LA law firm get so deeply involved in the supernatural? Why are they out to get Angel? What's their story? I'd appreciate any info you could give me. Thanks!

[> Wolfram and Hart -- Apophis, 20:28:36 09/09/02 Mon

Wolfram and Hart are apparently Evil's (with a capital E) representatives on the mortal plane. They exist in other incarnations in many, if not all, dimensions (as seen toward the end of season 2). They exist to promote evil in general in any way they can, whether that means corrupting the legal system or assisting in demonic sacrifices. They are interested in Angel because of his prophesised role in an upcoming apocalypse. They want him on their side. See the episode Reprise for more details.

[> [> Re: Wolfram and Hart -- Slain, 16:13:09 09/10/02 Tue

This kind of reminds of the time I tried to explain a running episode of Angel on MSN messenger to someone who'd only ever watched Buffy... "No, the guy without the hand, he's with the lawyers, he's sort of evil. No, not him. That's Angel, you idiot. He's only sort of evil."

[> Links........it's all here -- Rufus, 00:15:14 09/10/02 Tue

big bads

Reprise

It's all on the ATPoBTVS and ATS site, all you have to do is go to this page....Or start on this home page.

Willow and her sexuality -- Yellowork, 14:32:35 09/10/02 Tue

Is it me, or isn't exclusive homosexuality in an individual, or exclusive heterosexuality, relatively rare, in comparison with some combination? The reason why people identify as 'gay' then, is they are predominantly attracted to the same sex, with some interest in the opposite sex, which they choose not to act upon or indeed dwell upon, perhaps because life as an 'out' guy or girl is tricky enough as it is. Does the discussion regard Willow's conscious choice to identify herself with her feelings for women, or her innate sexual nature?

[> Re: Willow and her sexuality -- Etrangere, 14:36:02 09/10/02 Tue

Sexual Orientation labels are not an objective reality, it's a socialy constructed identity. By respect for people you consider them to be of the sexual orientation they claime. Willow says she's gay, hence she is. IMO.

[> [> As a reluctantly reformed X/W shipper, I'm careful about questions like this... -- cjl, 14:42:34 09/10/02 Tue

I'd like to say that Willow is what she chooses to be and her sexual orientation, therefore, is not a matter of biological predestination, but about her state of mind. But then I catch myself, and wonder if I'm not thinking like this because I want her to CHANGE her mind and link up with Xander.

I really don't want to deal with this topic anymore.

Can we make this issue go away? Please?

[> [> [> Don't worry -- Masq, 15:03:13 09/10/02 Tue

Only two weeks until new eps. Then there will be a lot less beating of dead equine on the board.

And if we do dredge up old topics, it will be in the context of new information from Joss et al.

T W O W E E K S!

[> [> [> [> Two weeks?! That's gonna feel like forever. -- VR, the lost boy, 17:54:18 09/10/02 Tue

[> [> [> Re: As a reluctantly reformed X/W shipper, I'm careful about questions like this... -- Slain, 16:07:11 09/10/02 Tue

I've got a suspicion that Yellowork didn't mean to really drege up the topic and start a new thread, but reply to the topic in the below thread. I agree that that discussion of this issue isn't going to go anywhere, even less so since 'Seeing Red'. After all, biological predestination and personal choice aren't what determine Willow's sexuality, it's Joss Whedon who does. And he's made his position pretty clear. Says a reformed W/X shipper. ;-)

[> [> [> [> RE: Willow's sexuality -- Shealynn, 17:19:40 09/10/02 Tue

I have lots of opinions that I won't leave here cuz it's been made clear that this subject has been beaten into the ground :) But, where did u find information from Joss Whedon re: Willow? Will she never go back? I miss OZ!!!! And if she does get another gf, can she have a little more depth than Tara? I tried and tried to like her...but she seemed more like a political statement than a person! OK, so I am airing my opinions. Sorry! Is there a website where I can look up the info from Joss?

Thanks!

[> [> [> [> [> Re: RE: Willow's sexuality -- shadowkat, 06:20:51 09/11/02 Wed

Yes. I found the information in Wanda's chat. Go to www.slayage.com, look for the Wanda's chats back in June and July. Pretty sure it's June since it was about Tara.
Wanda discusses Tara's death and Willow's sexuality with
Joss Whedon.

Whedon says something to the effect - MArti and I discussed this a great deal. What should we do with Willow? Can we make her bi? And we agreed that having decided to kill Tara, that Willow needed to stay gay. If she had merely left like OZ, we could have
done it differently. But that's not where the story led us.

For the record? I preferred the Willow/OZ relationship.
And am a reformed W/X person who always felt Willow had more chemistry with Xander and vice versa than these characters did with others in the show. But Whedon decided not to do romantic relationships amongst the core SG for numerous and I think valid reasons. So even if she was bi?
There wouldn't be a W/X relationship. Or a reappearence of OZ, since they are having troubles working around his schedule. He apparently is pretty hot right now. Has several up-coming movie roles.

Warning - if you go to slayage be careful, REALLY major spoilers are out right now. They came out Monday. I was warned to stay away from all sites but ATP and nonspoiler sites. Slayage does carry links to spoilers. I stopped visiting it and all other possible spoiler sites Friday. Also reminder - if you are spoiled?
Don't post the info here! This is my safe haven in the storm right now. I'd hate to have to leave.

If you want to read this try to go back in the Wanda chat archives, anything past July 13, has spoiler teasers.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Safe haven -- Slain, 15:28:39 09/11/02 Wed

Seconding the spoiler safe haven, here - I already know far to much about Season 7, especially considering I avoid anything which even looks like it might possibly have the word 'spoiler' in it. ;-)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Places to stay away from to keep S7 spoilerfree -- shadowkat, 17:54:11 09/11/02 Wed

I just accidently found out all the titles of the upcoming episodes by going to Psyche Transcripts to pick up quotes for an essay. Dang it!! Don't go there! It's not safe.

Also slayage.com is no longer safe. Buffy Cross and Stake
Spoiler Board is not safe at all.

Nor is any site with the word spoiler in it.

I'm also staying away from all other boards. I too know way more than I want to. But i'm still safe. My friends who are much more spoiled told me I was safe still. And warned me to stay away from all sites but ATP for now.

Semi O/T - Prime Time Soaps -- Rattletrap, 18:34:18 09/10/02 Tue

This article doesn't mention Buffy directly, but it seems to apply to this same genre of show. I'm curious to hear everyone's thoughts--will BtVS be affected, etc.?

From the Tulsa World, 10 September 2002.

One cliffhanger resolved this fall is the fate of prime-time soaps on network television: They're all but doomed.

The days of "Dallas" and "Dynasty," two of the most popular 1980s dramas, are long gone, and eclining ratings may have sealed the fate of the entire genre. With more viewing choices, fans can no longer be counted on to obsess over who shot J. R. or what evil plan has been hatched by Alexis. A study by Initiative Media says fewer than 40 percent of today's drama viewers see even two of three consectuive episodes.

Despite HBO's success with "The Sopranos" (it returns Sunday) and "Six Feet Under," which have hooked viewers with soap-style story lines, the major networks are mostly steering clear of developing such shows.

They suffer when new viewers are scared away by convoluted plotlines or when faithful fans miss episodes. But more important, they rarely perform well in repeats or syndication, where network TV's real money is made.

Even hits "ER" and "The West Wing" falter in reruns, when shows often run out of sequence. And there's less demand for serialized dramas in the syndication market, where comedies and the durable "Law & Order" reign.

So the emphasis is on tidy stand-alone episodes that may yield continuing character development but almost never leave plot threads hanging. Think cop, law, and crime shows, which make up four of five new CBS dramas, replacing softer series such as "The Education of Max Bickford" and "That's Life."

. . .

The article goes on to discuss the problems NBC had with "Ed" and "Providence," and FOX with "X-Files" and "Ally McBeal" last season, noting that the new substitutes tend to be a bit more stand-alone ("Firefly" is not mentioned). In the interests of space, I'm not going to reproduce the whole thing here, but you get the gist.

So my questions are this: How, if at all, does this affect BtVS? Their criticisms about reruns and syndication don't seem to be valid here, as BtVS has performed surprisingly well in both. Anyway, I have no great insights here. I'm still mulling this over, but I'm curious to hear what my fellow posters think of this.

To quote Earl: "Take it and run."

'trap

[> Re: Semi O/T - Prime Time Soaps -- Yellowork, 03:36:24 09/11/02 Wed

I think a show can probably have its cake and eat it, in certain circumstances. Buffy, as with most other shows, probably works better as stand-alones in the earlier seasons, because not just the plot, but the situation of the show itself eventually becomes more complicated. Obviously, a casual viewer vaguely aware of the show being about high-schoolers and magic might be baffled on viewing recent episodes such as 'The Body' where things have gone way beyond that initial premise. Similarly, 'Ally McBeal' has become really distorted in its final season; though I can only imagine it losing viewers. At least Buffy has not shed characters like Billy, Georgia and Larry and attempted to gloss it over with bizarre guest stars such as Barry Humphries and Jon Bon Jovi! All these shows should strive to maintain a balance between the episode and the 'arc'.

[> Re: Semi O/T - Prime Time Soaps -- neaux, 04:26:46 09/11/02 Wed

Other than my raving on why Buffy rules the world, a big reason Buffy performs well in repeats is because its a Fantasy/Sci-Fi show.

1) Than means easy money on specific cable channels that pick it up. If FX ever dropped Buffy.. like it dropped the X-files, Sci-Fi channel would pick it up in a heartbeat. Why? Because its their target group!

2) Did I have a two? Oh yeah. Monsters. If I had my choice of watching soap operas.. or soap operas with Monsters.. I'd pick the latter. who wouldnt?

[> Re: Semi O/T - Prime Time Soaps -- meritaten, 21:26:25 09/11/02 Wed

I;m not one to obsess over ratings, so I am often unaware of what the people in power are thinking. However, I have noticed that Enterprise, the newest Star Trek series, has more of an ongoing theme than did the previous series. I had been under the impression that the trend towards season long stories was increasing.

MAny people depend on VCRs these days. Do these ratings take this into account?

Why would a vampire want an apocalypse? -- Quentin Collins, 04:26:09 09/11/02 Wed

Thinking back to season two, Dru tried to bring about an apocalypse not once but twice. Yes, Dru WAS quite mad. But Angelus seemed eager for an apocalypse in Becoming, and he was very rational compared with Dru.

Why would any vampire want mankind to be wiped out? Wouldn't that be destroying their food supply? Could they even continue to exist in any state of health without humans to drink dry? Wouldn't they end up like the "living skeletons" that Spike alluded to in "Pangs"?

It just seems to me that vampires making humans extinct would be like a human attempting to destroy all the animals, vegetables, fruits, and grains on the earth.

Am I missing something here?

[> Vampires and apocalypses -- KdS, 04:48:15 09/11/02 Wed

As far as Angelus in "B2" goes, I think he was simply so tormented by the vestiges and memory of his love for Buffy that he just wanted to die and take the world with him. Remember, the mechanics of that particular apocalypse involved the entire human race being physically transported to a hell dimension for eternal torture - pretty much the ultimate high for a pathological sadist like Angelus.

As far as the other vampiric attempts at apocalypse go, the Master was a very old vampire who had been deeply absorbed into the demon culture and was physically unable to pass as human. Wiping out humanity, for him, was a religious duty regardless of the consequences (the zeal of the convert). The one that is really difficult to explain is Spike's involvement with the Judge, given the subsequent retconning of his character. The most common explanation seems to be that he was trying to please Dru, but I think that one is very hard to explain while maintaining suspension of disbelief.

[> [> Re: Vampires and apocalypses -- Yellowork, 11:25:35 09/11/02 Wed

To begin with, Giles' speech and other dialogue in the pilot seemed to suggest that the vampires are here on earth to serve the Old Ones, the purebred demons who once ruled the earth. If they are completely subservient, it would make sense that they may sacrifice what existence they have to serve the greater demon good. Of course, Spike still does not fit in, as he does not hold with the chain of command from the start, a rookie vampire as Buffy is a rookie slayer, he takes on the ways of the human world and so on. Perhaps he was motivated by love for Dru; alternatively, it could be that the Judge had the power not to completely destroy the world, but to cause widespread chaos and destruction - now, that Spike would be into; a sort of medieval post-apocalyptic world of tribal suspicions he could prey upon as he does in the Yoko Factor.

Eventually, retroactive continuity seemed to play down the connection between the vampires and the older demons, although on the other hand, vampires have been less involved in the more recent attempts to bring on the Apocalypse.

Assaulting Deceased Equines (Villains spoilers) -- Darby, 07:29:51 09/11/02 Wed

First, a warning: Run for your life! It's a Spike thread!"

Now onward...

There's obfuscation and bad writing.

So, even if Spike didn't really "want" a soul, how do the exchanges from Villains support the demon's assuming or knowing that he did?

SPIKE'S SPIKY FRIEND: And you want to return. To your
former self...You were a legendary dark warrior - and you let yourself be castrated. Now you have the audacity to crawl in here and demand restoration? (Psyche)

Spike knows (as do we) that giving a vampire a soul does not return them to any kind of former self - Angel is neither Angelus nor Liam. That's the main point, but juxtaposing the image of "Spike the Dark Warrior" with "restoration" also provides a bit more than a red herring.

If writers want to pull the old "bait and switch" they have to remember that when episodes rerun, even less obsessed fans than we will be able to see if they played fair with their misdirection. I don't think they did here. The lines themselves don't support that the demon was going to do anything but remove the chip, and Spike's readings of more vague lines (thanks to no one telling him what his character's intentions were - here's where good acting works against them) don't support the idea that he went after a soul. The only things they have going for them is that it never made sense that Spike would have his chip removed to "show the bitch" anything, since it was ineffective against her.

I have an alternative track: instead of the bathroom scene, we could have had a situation where Dawn got hurt due to one of Spike's bad (but not necessarily evil)decisions (still very angsty for Spike) and both Buffy and Spike could blame him for it - then Spike's leaving town could have been: I'll have this chip removed and then prove to everyone, even myself, that I can be trusted even off the leash (how long could Spike have concealed being chipless? would have been an interesting question to address) or, I'll get my soul restored so Buffy doesn't see evil in my every decision.

- Darby, seeing alternate Buffyverses everywhere.

...and does anyone else see indications that vamps get less flammable with age?

[> False Assumptions -- Arethusa, 07:57:11 09/11/02 Wed

I believe you're assuming it was Spike, not William, who was the Dark Warrior. We don't know what William might have done with his life, but based on the cave demon's words, we have to assume it was William who was evil. I believe William was to become a very popular poet, whose drivel was crammed down generations of schoolchildren's throats, thereby ensuring they would quit school in protest. From there, drink, drugs and degredation would undoubtedly follow, ruining the lives of countless people.

Clever demon!

[> [> Don't forget -- Saguaro Stalker, 08:14:22 09/11/02 Wed

William also pestered a woman above his station starting her on the path to becoming vengeance demon. How many vengeance demons did Spike ever bring on the team?

[> [> [> Vengeance Demon? -- meritaten, 12:59:10 09/11/02 Wed

I missed this. In what episode was this shown???

[> [> [> [> Re: Vengeance Demon? -- J, 13:49:42 09/11/02 Wed

It's never been explicitly stated. However, the actress who played Cecily in "Fool For Love" is the same actress who plays Halfrek, and there was a brief moment of recognition between Halfrek and Spike in "Older and Far Away." However, Spike and Halfrek completely ignore each other in "Entropy," so who knows?

[> [> [> [> [> And don't take any post by Saguaro Stalker too seriously -- CW, 13:59:53 09/11/02 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> [> Are you saying that Ben and Glory are...what were we talking about? -- fresne, 15:03:07 09/11/02 Wed

[> [> [> Cecily's Love -- TRM, 14:38:13 09/12/02 Thu

I don't recall Fool For Love all that well, but your post got me thinking. While you say that Spike set Cecily off on the path towards vengeance demon, I wonder if we could elaborate on that more? On the one hand, when Anya confronts Halfrek, she insinuates that Halfrek has *cough*issues*cough* regarding poor parenting.

But Cecily did act haughtily (from what I remember) towards Spike. Perhaps, Cecily did love Spike, but was pressured by her stringent parents into abandoning her love for him and into treating him disdainingly. I've always imagined a rather tragic childhood for Cecily (to explain her ascendence to vengeance demon), and whereas I considered physical abuse, I hadn't quite thought about the mental abuse.

Indeed, William the Bloody might have been the last thread that pushed Cecily into vengeance mode. Cecily, who probably didn't recognize any love from her parents and who could only off-handedly appreciate the unbounded love of William, could very conceivably break down when she discovers that he has disappeared -- perhaps, she might blame herself and more importantly her upbringing.

[> [> About Spikes Soul -- Sharfholz, 08:18:40 09/11/02 Wed

I think some people might have overlooked one point. In order to be truely evil, in order to really HURT Buffy, Spike needs to have a soul. I think they set this up in the last episodes of Angel. When Angel Goes into Wes's hospital room he tells Wes up front, "You know this isn't Angelus, this me", and then he proceeds to try to kill himt. Why not instead go in with his game face on, and let Wes think it is Angelus trying to kill him? Because Angel knows what he means to Wes ("The man I work for means a great deal to me.")and he knows that just killing him, without letting him know that it was Soulful Angel, would somehow not Hurt him as much (Wes would expect Angelus to kill him, though he might have hoped Angel could come to for give him). If you want to really hurt somone you need a soul. All the monsters that have graced the Hellmouth in Buffy's time are pittance next to the likes of the least of human facists, souls or not.

[> I agree -- Sophist, 08:21:46 09/11/02 Wed

[> completely and utterly disagree -- leslie, 09:16:52 09/11/02 Wed

It seems to me that the tenor of the entire end of S6 was distinguishing the human realm from the demon realm. I would say that it started back at Hell's Bells--not Xander leaving Anya (red herring) but the furious melee between the wedding guests that erupted, not because Xander had stood up Anya, but because two alien species were put in too close proximity for too long.

The mainstream point of view in the Buffyverse, the Watcher's Council POV, would represent the human and demon realms in a Venn diagram as two circles that only touch at one, tangential point. The Slayer is meant to stand on this one point and prevent the demons from making their way into the human realm. What Buffy has realized during her tenure as Slayer is that the circles overlap to a far greater extent--there is a grey area that can hold vampires with souls, ex-vengence demons, witches, Keys, just-plain-Joes (or just-plain-Xanders), and floppy-skinned, pointy-eared real demons. Part of her inner conflict over Spike is that she really isn't sure whether he belongs in that place, or if the chip has given him a kind of forged ticket.

This theme is also expressed in the Band of Evil Weenies. There's been a deep distrust of modern technology expressed throughout the series, especially in the guise of the Initiative. Technology is often called "soulless" in common speech, yet it is the creation of humans. It's the flip side of demons--the two are almost like matter and anti-matter, can't exist in the same space. Okay, demons have adapted to some aspects of modern technology, but it seems to be mostly on the level of cars and television--the two most inescapable aspects of the human world. They don't even seem to use telephones unless they really really have to. Within the Band of Evil Weenies, Warren is purely technological--he has no magical skills at all, but his technological skills are of an order that we haven't seen since the Initiative--and he is also the most evil of the bunch. Jonathan is the most magical--he can perform spells to change reality and to effect (temporary) changes on his physical body--and he is also the most good of the bunch (we're talking relative goodness here, but he clearly has a moral compass even if he can be seduced or intimidated into ignoring it). Andrew is kind of in the middle--his talent is to summon demons to do their thing; he uses them as tools but does not do anything himself.

The thing is, what on earth made us think that a demon could do anything to remove Spike's chip? The chip is a technological device, it belongs entirely to the realm of the human. In this oppostion of organic and demonic versus technological and human, the minute we saw that Spike was entering a cave, with hand-painted wall paintings, talking to a demon who lurked in the shadows and had hands that clearly were not designed for neurosurgery, we should have realized that he could not have gone to this demon to get his chip out. It's like going to Radio Shack to buy fruit.

So why is Spike so pissed off about this whole thing? Yes, we're being hoodwinked into thinking that he wants revenge on Buffy, because she has been harping on his evilness most of the season and that's what evil, soulless things do. (Side note--Lurky comments that Spike's problems are because of a "woman." I think this is the first time Buffy has been referred to as a woman, rather than a girl--maybe "young woman" has been used, but never just "woman.") But I think, once the hood has stopped winking, the reason he is so pissed off is that, from his point of view, he is sacrificing something that is the cornerstone of his identity for her. ME may be reassuring us that Spike with a soul won't be Angel redux, but within the frame of the story, Spike doesn't know that, and he does know--and despises--what having a soul did to Angel. His Romantic, knight-devoted-to-his-lady side sees that she will only accept him with a soul, and therefore a soul he must have. But his fists-and-fangs side is mightily annoyed at her for demanding it.

[> [> Brilliant, Leslie! Very KABOOMy! -- Rob, 09:21:54 09/11/02 Wed

[> [> Bravo leslie. Completely and utterly agree. -- shadowkat, 09:32:11 09/11/02 Wed

[> [> Wonderful post -- Sophist, 09:40:56 09/11/02 Wed

But Darby gave alternate possible endings, one of which had Spike with a soul. So while I agree with Darby, I also agree with you.

I hardly know what to do now that I've been so agreeable.

[> [> [> Write another Xander post? (Did I say that?) -- dream of the consortium, 10:52:28 09/11/02 Wed

[> [> [> [> ROFL -- Sophist, 10:59:26 09/11/02 Wed

[> [> Re: completely and utterly disagree - with what? -- Darby, 10:12:21 09/11/02 Wed

I don't disagree with most of your points, but I think you missed mine. I don't think that Spike should have gotten his chip out rather than his soul back, but if the intent of the scripts was to imply one and then grant another, they did a poor job, especially when you get a chance to review the sequences.

I will disagree that magic could not remove the chip - it's pretty easy to come up with anything from pinpoint teleportation through itty-bitty demon rock-crunchers and temporal flip-flops that would allow Mr Glowy Greeneyes to eliminate the chip. Heck, if Willow can start a car a demon should be able to turn off a microchip. What got Spike to Africa could have been anything. But wouldn't it have been smarter to go to Willow for resouling? Even if she couldn't do it herself, she could have set it up. Heck, even Wesley is a better choice, he's got to have a contingency for the return of Angelus (yeah, yeah, crossovers are verboten, but anyway...). And on the other hand, what sort of demon can reach into the human afterlife and retrieve souls? Where would he access such power and why wouldn't he be on several Most-Wanted-Dead lists? That, to me, seems more far-fetched than a demon with enough technological know-how to deal with a bit of silicon.

[> [> [> Re: completely and utterly disagree - with what? -- leslie, 10:26:10 09/11/02 Wed

What I disagree with is a tendency to blame "bad writing" for not agreeing with or liking the way the writers have chosen to present the story. In any narrative, there are infinite possibilities for where it can go--the fact that there are alternatives, even alternatives you, as the audience, would prefer to have seen, does not vitiate the writers' choice of another option. I was trying to show that the choices they made were entirely consistent with the oppostion of technology versus organic and human versus demon that they have been playing with for really the whole season, and which have become even more explicit in the last third of the season. I say this in an entirely supportive and encouraging way: If you want to see something else happen, if you have another vision of what might be, write your own story, create your own universe, don't whine that the people who own the story--because they're the ones creating it--are writing "badly."

[> [> [> [> Response and question to the crowd. -- Darby, 10:46:27 09/11/02 Wed

I think - well, I hope - by now most of the people here don't think that my criticisms of the show's writing somehow hide a distaste for the direction the plots go. But writing is a craft that can be critiqued in pure terms of quality, and that was what I was doing (and what I pointed out in the follow-up). ME wants to take Spike toward resouling and make the audience think he wants the chip out? Fine, but you can screw up the actualization of that plot, and I think they did, and that there were other more elegant ways to do it (and I wouldn't be making the effort if I didn't absolutely believe them capable of doing better, more sophisticated work than this). My take is that you are taking any criticism as an overall indictment of the show, and lashing out with a personal attack (or as close as we get in these confines) that is more reflexive than rational.

Okay, I'm going to try to draw more people into this because I'm never sure if what I've written is as clear as I'm "sure" it is. Did anyone else see me here (and feel free to draw in my other criticisms I've posted) as launching an attack on ME's "vision," or as whining while doing it? Am I making points or just annoying people? Or both, which would be good to know too, I guess. C'Mon, I've got a pretty thick skin, and I'm trained to not cry over my keyboard.

And, on another note, the more I think about S6 the more I see an integration of technology and magic, a blurring of the boundaries between human and demon (kind of the reverse of S4, notwithstanding Adam), rather than the opposite.

- Darby. And aren't you glad that I didn't revisit the Cliche-That-Shall-Not-Be-Named? My wife wanted me to...

[> [> [> [> [> Don't ever change, Darby! But at the same time... -- ponygirl, 11:31:12 09/11/02 Wed

... I agree with all of leslie's points in her posts in this thread. There has been a tendency by lots of different people to blame arcs or twists that they didn't like on poor writing, I'm sure I'm guilty of it myself. It's hard to know when personal preferences interfere with the critical faculties -- well, they probably always do but we have to be aware and police ourselves a bit. Obviously there are people who disagree with the way Spike's story went and and there are people who agree. For myself I speculate wildly on the outcomes of stories, but once it actually happens, I don't usually dwell on the could-have-beens. That's just me. I certainly don't think you were whining, and I don't think leslie was attacking you, merely suggesting that if your alternate vision of the arc is possessing you strongly you can give it a creative outlet.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Sometimes you've got to call bad writing bad writing. -- cjl, 11:49:11 09/11/02 Wed

Since most of us have been posting on this board for more than six months, we have to assume (I know...dangerous!) that everyone has a deep, abiding respect of Joss Whedon's vision, and think Buffy the Vampire Slayer is just...neat. It follows then, that nobody here wants to needlessly slag the creative team, and understands that Joss, Marti and the rest of the crew are trying their best to provide the gosh-darnedest best piece of entertainment out there today. (I think I'm channeling Mayor Wilkins...)

Still, even the most diligent, creative, hard-working writing staff can screw up from time to time. They're human. It happens. They write an amazing scene that, in retrospect, doesn't quite match with the rest of the episode (or the following episode) or rubs against the overall themes of the season; they write themselves into a corner and then extricate themselves--but not without seams showing; and they stumble into those continuity errors, brain-freezing lapses in logic, and OOC moments that drive us all insane during the natural course of events.

We're lunatics here. We HAVE TO point these out. We might have trouble agreeing which particular moments are bad writing, or our personal dissastisfaction with a particular plotline, but usually come to a general consensus. Again, this is not meant as a blanket condemnation of the staff and an invitation to clean house. We're all convinced Joss and his crew are going in the right direction, because if we weren't, we wouldn't be posting to this board anymore. But every once in a while we have to call bad writing bad writing. Because if we didn't, we'd be working 24/7 to spackle the gaps, and there ain't enough spackle in the world to do it...

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> It's odd... -- Slain, 15:46:18 09/11/02 Wed

But is there such a thing as 'bad writing'? Bear in mind here that I wrote a disseration entitled "What is good literaure?", and more importantly that I've had a little to drink. Anyway. I didn't consider the end of Season 6, with Spike, to be bad writing, not even for a second. However, obviously this is subjective; so if someone didn't agree, I think it's fair enough to criticise it. However, as leslie says, there is a tendency for some fans to use the term "bad writing" when they actually mean "a plot direction I didn't like". But I don't think that happens much on this board, and certainly not, by Darby, in the above post. In that post, there are some perfectly good reasons why something could be seen as bad writing. My reponse to them would be:

Spike believed that the chip hadn't simply stopped his ability to kill, but had also made him revert to his romantic, Williamesque state, I think. Spike believed that the chip was to blame for his falling for Buffy, and for his apparent conscience. Spike didn't want to feel guilty for the attempted rape, he wanted to feel as he might have done back in Season 2. As for the demon restoring his soul, again I think it's a case of "be careful what you wish for" - the demon decided to teach Spike a lesson, and restored him literally to what he once was. Perhaps Spike has just pissed off the demon a little too much!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: It's odd... -- leslie, 16:04:37 09/11/02 Wed

"Bear in mind here that I wrote a disseration entitled "What is good literaure?", and more importantly that I've had a little to drink."

Ah, now, you see, when I started grad school in folklore, I immediately got off on the wrong foot with the then-chair of the program when, after he told us how folktale collectors always should ask around for the best tale-tellers, I asked "Does anyone ever study bad tale-tellers? What are the differences?" I don't do much on bad folklore per se, but I've spent a lot of time looking at bad movies and bad television to try to determine how they got that way. I think one thing that they are trying to write one thing, usually conforming to genre expectations, and something else is burbling there in the subtext that is quite at odds with it. Another thing is that they usually use stereotypes unthinkingly, not realizing when they are at odds with the plot, or they use the wrong stereotypes for the plot. (My favorite, a little Hammer number called "Viking Queen" that takes place in Britain during the first century, clearly based on Boudicca's rebellion, a good 700 years before there *were* any Vikings.) I find very little of this kind of thing in ME productions, certainly not enough to call them ever "bad writers." Sometimes better than others, of course.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: It's odd... -- shadowkat, 17:43:48 09/11/02 Wed

"I find very little of this kind of thing in ME productions, certainly not enough to call them ever "bad writers." Sometimes better than others, of course."

Have to agree with you here. Having rewatched every single episode of Ats and Btvs about four times now and having watched a heck of a lot of bad tv shows and movies in my time, ME really isn't what I'd call bad. Some of their episodes are not quite up to par. But let's face it some of their episodes are the most groundbreaking best episodes on television. HUSH, OMWF, RESTLESS, INNOCENCE, The Body - just to name a few. Amazing. Flawless in places. And multilayered like an onion. (Which is probably why we are critical of the subpar episodes because we expect to see The Body or HUSH or something that good every week...impossible.) I can't really say this about the other things I've seen. And I've watched Sopranos, Six Feet Under, MASH, Masterpiece Theater, I love Lucy, All in the Family, Star Treks, etc. To me a good tv show is one that you can rewatch the episodes and see something new and engaging every time, when it doesn't bore you. Even my least favorite episodes of Btvs have held my interest - there is something in them that makes me laugh or makes me want to see it again. Can't say that about much else. Most tv I see, I have no interest in rewatching. BTVS I'm not only interested in rewatching, I make a point of rewatching.
BTVS and ATS are also the only shows I have tapes of every episode or have saved.

So no, I don't think I could characterize any of the writing on Btvs as bad. There are a few plot gaps I'd like
them to smooth over here and there (most prominently in AYW and Villains), but most television shows have this problem occassionally. You try and write 22 episodes a year with a staff of 10 or more different writers and you see what happens. That's the problem with movies and tv and what makes them different than books - they are written by a team - it's a collaboration. Having done the collaborative writing experiment? I can tell you - it isn't as easy as it looks, your compatriots will disagree with you, at times quite strongly and even when you think you all agree?
They will go their own frigging way, the stubborn fools - and leave you with something that makes you go: what the??? And what the heck am I supposed to do with that??? Let's face it when we all interpret characters differently - and these intepretations have a tendency to clash. Methinks ME ran into much the same troubles this year and methinks they handled it far better than some of us would have.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I don't think anyone has suggested that ME were bad writers. -- Sophist, 19:55:41 09/11/02 Wed

I do think some have argued that certain scenes were badly written.

In other words, sometimes even good old Homer nods.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Exactly. Thank you, Sophist. -- cjl, 07:19:01 09/12/02 Thu

Wait...are we agreeing?

Must be another apocalypse on the way...

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOL -- Sophist, 08:15:57 09/12/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Then where does the "bad writing" come from? The insiduous machinations of the Bad Writing Fairy? -- leslie, 08:38:26 09/12/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> There's a distinction made... -- cjl, 09:05:36 09/12/02 Thu

...between good writers who have an off day, and bad writers.

I, for one, think the ending of OMWF (Xander as unwitting culprit) does not work. With Xander as the prime mover, the SHC body count racked up during the ep becomes a much more serious issue, and it ultimately detracts from the breeziness of the musical. Also, the nature of the spell cast would almost demand Xander spill the beans 15 minutes into the ep-- but that doesn't happen.

(JMO, and I'm only mentioning it in this context. Please don't start a discussion on this topic AGAIN. Let them poor horses rest in peace!)

In this case, I believe Joss wrote himself into a corner and couldn't work his way out. (You could probably think of other examples.) Do I think Joss is a bad writer? Don't be ridiculous. He is an Evil God, and I am still a worshipper. But that doesn't make him perfect. (As Sophist said, even Homer probably had a couple of bad stanzas every once in a while. And Shakespeare, while the greatest playwright in the history of our language, didn't hit it out of the park every time, either.)

So, while I admire old Numfar's work, he doesn't get a free pass on this board. Nobody does, not even me. (Right, Sophist?)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> That's what I meant -- Sophist, nodding. Like Homer., 09:23:52 09/12/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Just a little misreading -- d'Herblay, 00:01:28 09/12/02 Thu

This may say something about cultural/generational influences, but I read "My favorite, a little Hammer number called 'Viking Queen' [ . . . ]" and immediately thought, "MC Hammer recorded something called 'Viking Queen'? Was this before or after his popularity bubble burst? Because I'm having trouble imagining a rap from either the bubblegum of his original incarnation or the pseudo-hardcore of his attempted comeback that's based on Boudicca's rebelli . . . oh, wait. She means Hammer Films."

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> ROFLMAO!! ;o) -- dub, 06:42:44 09/13/02 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: It's odd... (WARNING: multiple Spike references) -- pr10n, 17:29:22 09/11/02 Wed

> Spike didn't want to feel guilty for the attempted rape, he
> wanted to feel as he might have done back in Season 2.

Huh. This makes me think about Spike's ability to choose, and wonder the same about any Jossverse demon. We have discussed (in a different thread) that Angel attacking Wesley was not Angelus attacking Wesley, that it was clear that Angel was "soulfully" whacking the Watcher. (Uh... never mind.)

Angel = choices, Angelus = evil soulless thing.

So, S2 Spike = evil soulless thing, clearly. Does S6 Spike (where S6 = (S2 + Chip)Plot) have free will? All the time? Does he choose, or want? Or is he still evil and soulless, like a (wait for it...) machine?

I'm asking, because Slain made me think, "Huh. What is Spike's motivation: love or revenge or guilt? Or just plain evil contrariness?"

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: It's odd... (WARNING: multiple Spike references) -- meritaten, 21:55:30 09/11/02 Wed

Where is it written that evil soulless things can't make choices? It is just that they have no conscience. Angelus made the choice to kill Jenny, just as Angel made the choice to attack Wesley. The distinction is that Angel has a conscience and actively decided to engage in this action despite his conscience.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Souls choosing evil -- Scroll, 07:15:22 09/12/02 Thu

I don't think "choice" here means the actions we take (i.e. Angelus choosing to kill Jenny). My take on pr10n's post is that Angel, because he has a soul, can choose between good and evil. Just like Warren, Andrew, and Jonathan can choose to be good or be evil. If vampires truly are evil soulless things, they simply don't have the capacity to choose good. Their automatic default is to evil. They can't even conceive of what "good" is.

Of course, the question is whether Spike, because of the chip, has managed to learn what "good" is. Whether he now (before he got souled) had the ability to be good and evil. My take is that Spike, having hung around the Scoobies for three years, had learned to recognise good but was incapable of truly understanding/believing in good for himself. He did good things, protected Dawn, helped Buffy, but his love for the Summers girls didn't extend to the rest of the world. If he saw a baby about to be run over by a car and Buffy wasn't around, he probably would've watched the baby get run over so he could go eat it. (Of course, this is JMO.) Spike can't really be good by himself, which is why he went to get a soul.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Scroll is right on the money, interpretation-wise -- pr10n, 09:10:44 09/12/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Souls choosing evil -- Masq, 09:42:40 09/12/02 Thu

Or he might choose to save the baby, not because he feels for the child or because it's the right thing to do, but because he knows that's what Buffy would do or that's what Buffy would approve of.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Souls choosing evil -- pr10n, 11:31:31 09/12/02 Thu

So that's where I get a little teetery on the "choice" part. If Spike is doing something because, as Masq says,

> that's what Buffy would do or that's what Buffy would
> approve of.

Whoa!... whoa. About went all Judeo-Christian there. You know, says I to myself, it seems that I make a lot of decisions by asking myself what a particular entity would do in similar circumstances. So Masq's baby-saving time bomb is an argument for MY soul, if soul = free will (NEW! Now with Good AND Evil!) because hey, I'm no vampire, and I like to think I'm not DeterministicBoy.

Ok, so here's my conclusion to my own questions, and it mostly agrees with Scroll -- Spike is learning the difference between good and evil by following the examples of the Scoobies. This is a perfectly appropriate response for a maturing being of any stripe. I might argue that the S-Dog is almost growing his own soul in S6.

I think I might even argue that Spike's character is now way the most complex on BtVS, with the runner-up being Anya, because of the big soul issues.

And then I whack myself with the idea that hey, Where'd Dawn get her soul, if she's basically built from a kit? I know the dying monk said she's human, Summers' blood and all, but Willow was prepared to zap her into green blobbiness again, so where would the soul go?

Boing, boing, boing... good thing BtVS is fiction. Uh, right?

[Campbell scholars reach for their World-as-Myth-o-Zappers.]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Souls choosing evil -- meritaten, 14:39:56 09/12/02 Thu

Has the topic of the soul status of demons ever been addressed in the show? We've seen "good" demons. Do they have souls? I'm sure there has been speculation on the board, but do we KNOW the Buffyverse rule?

I still see a soul as something akin to a conscience, but I might well be projecting my view of the cosmos onto the Buffyverse.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Souls, Good, Evil, Altruism and Environmental Response -- AngelVSAngelus, 11:23:59 09/13/02 Fri

I think a definite stumbling block in communication here is the fact that people are operating with differing definitions of what exactly good or evil are. You can't debate whether or not a soulless creature can attain goodness or behave in a good fashion if you've not first defined what it means to be so.
Personally, I apply an altruistic perspective to Good when I'm talking about it. Good for good's sake. At least in relation to fictional characters. Angel saves people because its the right thing to do. Because he doesn't want others to suffer. Buffy wants to make the world a better place by killing demons. These heroes do what they do FOR OTHERS. Others in general. Buffy and Angel both have a capacity for empathy for all human beings, and this is presumably why the soul has been previously defined as a conscience. Vampires can care, they can love, but selectively. There isn't a soulless vamp in the world that cares for most human beings.
Which is why Spike's actions, guided by the star of Buffy's moral inclinations, guided by his selective affection for her, aren't validly Good to me. They may have good results, but they won't be valid to me in relation to him until HE CARES.
Others have different definitions for good. Someone earlier mentioned that they consider basing your actions upon a positive model is a perfectly acceptable form of Good. I don't agree, but that's me.
Inversely, soulless creatures tend to be evil because they lack the capacity for compassion for most human beings. They care about personal ties only, and its always a twisted way through which these personal ties are made with vamps in the first place. Spike loves Buffy because he loves pain, he's got an obsession with Slayers, and he can't kill her. Least that's my interpretation of things.
Another problem is the fact that other types of demons convolute things here. We've never been given clarification of whether or not good demons had souls, and how exactly they metaphysically differ from vampires if not in being able to choose good. Prio Motu, Lorne, these are interesting characters, but they confound me simultaneously in the way they make EVERYTHING so damn ambiguous...

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Souls choosing evil -- meritaten, 14:47:12 09/12/02 Thu

I'm learning towards the idea that those without a soul can choose to do good, but they don't care about the distinction between good and evil.

Angel - "You don't know what its like to have done the things I've done and CARE." (Not exact quote - it is from memory.)

Angelus made a choice to kill Jenny. Nobody force him to do it. However, he only cared about the morality of this action when his soul was restored.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Buffy, Literature and Criticism -- Darby's Wife, 20:38:04 09/11/02 Wed

No, this is not an aka for Darby - I'm the actual wife (and really the better half, ask anyone!) This post brought up a really interesting question for me. First let me just say that I think the reason Buffy does work so well, and inspires so much discussion (much of which is frighteningly over my head) is that most of the time it works as a piece of real literature. We can analyze character motivations because they are consistent and true to the people that are developed in front of us every week. Normally, the characters don't just say what is needed to move a plot point, instead the plot works within the character development so that you can try and understand the behaviors and emotions, and have all this fun analytical stuff. Without this consistency it would be meaningless to discuss anything. Thats why I get cranky when I see what I would consider sloppy writing. Not where the plot goes, but what are the characters saying and doing, and does it ring true. I don't mind so much if I don't understand a character's motivation, as long as I'm convinced that there is really one there. So I'm on the side of Spike's trip as a poorly written subplot - not that he shouldn't go to Africa (though it is an awful long drive) or that he shouldn't want his soul back, just that the writers did not effectively create an ambiguous situation that was understood by principles of the scene, just hard to read by we voyeurs, but instead wrote a scene that said one thing while really meaning another. I call it cheating, but then I'm much more irritable then Darbs.

Anyway, that isn't even the question I find so interesting. It was the "What is good literature?" (sounds like a cool disertation) I'm always fascinated by the questions of "What is art?" and "What is bad art?" when looking at contemporary art. Since you can't judge concept art by technical criteria of craft (or can you, I'm not sure?), it makes it very hard to know the difference between your preferences, like that - hate that, and a real judgement of quality. I love this question, probably because I don't have a clue to the answer and it leaves a whole world of possibilites open, but I've never considered the question of what is literature. As a lifetime reader, and one of the millions of english majors floating around in the world, I've always been confident in judging what's good, what's bad, what's literature, what's just fun reading. Writing always seemed like something that could not be judged without craft (how clearly are ideas expressed, how well are words used) which seemed different from the visual arts which often breaks away from technical aesthetics. But Darby reminded me of our experience in college reading "Gravity's Rainbow" probably the worst book I've ever had to endure, other than "The Naked Lunch" which was the only book in my four years that I refused to finish. Both of these horrors (I'm not judgmental, am I?) are critically acclaimed pieces of literature - so am I wrong if I say they suck? Is it personal preference or is there an objective way I can say YUCK! Is there a difference between literature and popular fiction? (I took a class in science fiction and one in detective fiction for my B.A., aah for the good old days...) Can you say that there's good and bad literature, or is it all just taste? And when you're done answering those questions, I was wondering about the meaning of life...

- Sara, aka Darby's wife, who likes to ask the big ?'s

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> What Sara, Darby's wife, said -- meritaten, 22:01:09 09/11/02 Wed

I agree with Sara's assessment of the soul / chip plot.

"I don't mind so much if I don't understand a character's motivation, as long as I'm convinced that there is really one there. So I'm on the side of Spike's trip as a poorly written subplot - not that he shouldn't go to Africa (though it is an awful long drive) or that he shouldn't want his soul back, just that the writers did not effectively create an ambiguous situation that was understood by principles of the scene, just hard to read by we voyeurs, but instead wrote a scene that said one thing while really meaning another. I call it cheating,..."

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> all hail Darby's wife! post more, post more!! :) -- celticross, 23:17:45 09/11/02 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy, Literature and Criticism -- leslie, 09:05:57 09/12/02 Thu

This is why I am so peeved by the ease with which people toss around the "bad writing" assessment. (And I would like to say that the original post that started this off was more of a straw that broke this camel's back than singling out Darby.) I work in a field, Celtic Studies, that until about the middle of this century was generally felt to be full of "bad writing." Oh, people said, it's all so emotional and mystical and imaginative and it just fills me full of warm fuzzy national/ethnic/racial pride, but you know, it really isn't well written. What they *really* meant to say was.... And they would proceed to essentially rewrite what they considered the "real" or "original" story. (W.G. Gruffydd's _Math_ is a prime example of this--shadowkat may have run across it.) Finally, some scholars started to say, wait a minute. Maybe it's "badly written" by modern standards because the composers and tellers of these tales weren't trying to write a nineteenth century novel. Maybe they had other aims and other structural standards. So they started to try to look at the material without, as much as possible, preconceptions of what it *should* be and tried to understand what was actually in front of them, and whadda ya know! there were all kinds of underlying structural techniques being used that everyone had completely missed!

You may have seen the Spike in Africa thing as vague and sloppily written, I saw something approaching the medieval technique of interlace. I'm not saying that this episode was something that only us select few who happen to be medievalists or mythologists could sufficiently appreciate, my my aren't we so clever and elite; I'm arguing for saving "bad writing" as a criticism of last resort. "Even Homer nods" is not the same as "bad writing," you need consistent evidence of being asleep at the wheel for extended periods of time to achieve "bad writing." And the phrase "even Homer nods" dates from a time when expectations of single authorship, relatively compact time of composition, and complete authorial consistency were expected of even ancient "writers"; the whole field of oral literary criticism, started by Milman Parry and Alfred Lord (_The Singer of Tales_) arose as an attempt to understand *why* Homer "nodded"--and as a result, it is now understood that the Iliad and Odyssey were not literally written down from the inception but originated as oral, essentially improvised performances constrained by traditional *plot*, not consistent detail, and that audience--and performer-- expectations of consistency in oral cultures are not the same as in cultures dominated by print.

But I digress. True, the writers at ME don't belong to a different culture than their audience (I think....), but they are writing, as shadowkat pointed out, as a group rather than as individuals with complete authorial control. I'm also not saying that some episodes aren't better than others. I'm just advocating that before saying "bad writing" we give some serious consideration to what else might be going on that we're missing.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Writers Intentions and Success -- Darby's Wife, 09:29:25 09/12/02 Thu

Very interesting point about judging work from other times by our standards - it's so easy to view everything through the vision of modern context, but...

Buffy is in modern context, so our critical criteria is easier because we don't have to adjust our view of the world, or what we consider craft. The question becomes, if a writer attempts to accomplish something and is perhaps short sighted enough to tell us with some precision what that something is, can we call it bad writing if we look at the result and say - nah, didn't make it. Darbs and I were talking about this at breakfast and we came to the conclusion that if we didn't know that Spike was going specifically to get his soul back the scene would have had enough ambigiouity in intention to work. But with the writer's intentions made crystal clear (maybe they talk too much) the scene looks like a cheap play for misdirection rather than a subtle well built one. And this brings up another question I like to ponder, once a writer says "THIS IS WHAT I MEANT TO DO" is it still fair game to analyze differently, or do we just judge based on the success or failure of intent vs end result?

- Sara, who especially likes to ponder when trapped at someone else's desk waiting for a copier machine to be fixed

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Writers Intentions and Success -- Dochawk, 11:28:07 09/12/02 Thu

Leslie,

Your parallel of previous expressions of what was called bad writing doesn't follow here. You are talking about proffesional critics who examine past works within their own 'contemporary understandign". That is not the case for this criticism. And those professionals certainly didn;t have the authors of their work tellign us what they meant to say.
Most of us thought that the end of "Grave" was fine when we saw it, Spike went to Africa (alright the timeline in this is ridiculous, but we pass by it) in order to get his chip out (thats what is implied by the anger and the words of Spike) so Buffy can get her just desserts for treating him poorly. But, Lurky looked inside Spike and saw that what Spike really wanted was to get Buffy back and saw that she had fallen in love with a vampire with a soul, so he gave him back his soul. That all works. but now Joss comes along and tells us that Spike's intention all along was to get his soul back. On repeated reviewing, most of us still can't see that. Therefore the writers failed at what they intended, ergo bad writing. Doesn't mean that ME or any specific writer is bad, it means that this arc didn't convey what it was meant to and the fault can only be in the presentation.. the writing, directing and acting. Since JM has told us that he played it the way we understood it, means the fault has to be with the other two. Simply put, (or not so simply?) many viewers didn't see what the writer said he put there.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Show vs. Tell. and Bad Writing -- shadowkat, 12:08:44 09/12/02 Thu

Oooh cool thread! Thanks for posting Sara. As one fellow ex-English major to another, I salute you!

1. Bad writing in literature:
I also have studied the mythic, epic and oral style of storytelling that leslie discusses. Not real familar with the term interlace, but I remember from my studies - that
when you tell a long epic story or myth, it's not heavily plotted. It's not like what most people on this board are used to. It's more, well free-flowing from the characters and less precise and multilayered. I actually prefer this to precisely plotted stories, where plot comes first and foremost - I find precise plotting to be predictable, tedious and often dull. That is a personal opinion/preference. I prefer the more stream of consciousness free flowing form.
That does not mean I don't enjoy both. I do. From your post Sara - I'm assuming you have very little patience for stream of consciousness free-flowing story telling which is the nature of Gravity's Rainbow, Naked Lunch, Joyce's Ulysses, Faulkner's Sound & the Fury and several other works. They aren't bad writing. It's just a difficulty with a certain type of style.

I have rather ecclectic tastes. Will read anything. And pretty much watch anything. I've read bad writing - those pulp novels where the hero is described in stilted flowerly language that makes you want to giggle. (Some of the Harelquin novels are famous for this.) Or the plot suddenly for no apparent reason drops out of the sky. Or cliches abound. Bad writing - to me at least - is usually when the character is a cardboard cut-out, stereotype.
The plot is so confusing it - no one can figure it out or so simplistic that you know the ending in the first chapter.
Or perhaps the best sign? The grammar is so bad, you want to re-write the novel yourself or kill the copy-editor.
Bad writing like bad movies can be humorous fun. Tremors which is considered a Bad Movie - is one of my all time favorites, makes me laugh every time.

Then of course there's the type of writing you just don't like or find unreadable. It's not bad per se as just not your taste. You can't read it. When Joyce's Ulysess was first published, numerous people found it unreadable. Others adored it. Same thing is true with Shakespeare - there are people out that despise reading Shakespeare. Just as there are people who consider listening to Opera akin to listening to nails raked across a chalk board. Does this make Opera bad music? No. Does this make Shakespeare bad writing? No. Does this make the people who hate it, idiots? Of course not. Lock states that we all sense things differently, our different tastes make us who and what we are. You might love oranges, find them sweet, while I might find them sour. It does not make you right or me wrong. We just have different tastes.

2. "And this brings up another question I like to ponder, once a writer says "THIS IS WHAT I MEANT TO DO" is it still fair game to analyze differently, or do we just judge based on the success or failure of intent vs end result?"

I really, really wish writers wouldn't do this. It ruines the art and make it difficult for us to analyze it affectively. The wise artists don't do it. When someone asked Joyce or Twain what they meant or intended? They laughed at them and asked well, what do you think I intended? Jackson Pollack was the same way.

Telling the audience what you meant to do - is belittling their intelligence and your art in my humble opinion. What happens if the audience liked their interpretation better?
They think they overestimated you. What happens if they didn't see it? As is the case here? Then they think you're a hack. ME's biggest mistake this season was apologizing.
Never apologize for your art. Let it stand and speak for itself.

I would have preferred Joss Whedon have kept his mouth shut regarding Spike's soul. Let us believe he went after the chip and got tricked, then tell us the truth through his writing. That would have worked better. Just as I would have preferred ME did not do interviews regarding Tara and Willow and just remained silent - addressing the issue next year through their writing. Or that Marti did not tell us what she meant to do with Spike and Buffy. But I understand why they did these interviews - TV is so ratings driven and they pannicked (I can't spell this word to save my life, sorry spelling police). They were afraid they scared off their audience. Actually I think it would take a lot to scare off this particular audience...but having met TV network people? I can understand their concern. Also I'm sure the internet didn't help. The internet has in many ways changed the face of entertainment. For the first time
fans across the world can endlessly analyze, critique and discuss art without ever meeting and do it daily. And writers, marketing people, network execs - can see what their fans think of their art. Must be a source of endless frustration, amusement, and ego-boosting for them. Also probably leads to the temptation to tell us what they intended more than they should.

Anyways to answer your question : "it still fair game to analyze differently, or do we just judge based on the success or failure of intent vs end result"

I think it's still fair game to analyze differently. Regardless of what the creators intended - it's what is on the screen that counts. Particularly in television - where the writer is working not solo but collaboratively with actors, producers, stunt men, set designers, cinematographers, etc. Marti Noxon admitted this - "I guess watching it is different than when your working on it." SFX
Vampire Edition. Yep, it is. The finished product, particularly one created by a team of over 20 people, has to be different than what is in your head. Everyone puts something into it. It takes on a life of its own and you should be doing a happy snoopy dance if it comes close to what you wanted or even comes out wonderful. The Collaborative Process is NOT as easy as it looks. And when something works? It's pure magic.

Personally I find the analysis of the art that goes against the writers interpretation of it, more interesting. Sometimes the viewer or reader can see something the writer, who is far too close to it, can't. Sometimes an objective party gets a better more interesting view. I know the readers of my essays and stories I've written have seen things that were far better than anything I intended. Sometimes I'd rather hear their take then mine. HEck last night I asked my mother, who loves Buffy, but is unspoiled
and not nearly as obsessed, what she thought of Villains and her take was very different than my take. To her? Spike
consciously wanted to get out his chip but it was ambiguous in how he did it. Willow was consumed with rage and that was very realistic because she could imagine feeling similarly consumed to the point rage takes over. It's why so many of us come to the board to get a different take on the show than our own.

It would be different of course if the work was still in the editing process, not yet published or on the screen - in that case yes, it is probably better to critique it based on whether it lives up to the writers intent and you can tell them how they should change it to make it better.
But once it's out there? What's the point of continuing to criticize it? How does it add to the work? Or to the analysis and enjoyment of it? Unless of course you're trying to figure out how to do your own tv show and just want to see what not to do wrong - then yes, this type of criticizing is a good exercise.

3. Spike seeking a soul - I agree it could have been better written. A lot of things about Villians - Grave could have been better written, they were sub-par episodes in my opinion. And way too similar to a bad movie I saw recently called VAMPIRES with James Woods. But still much better than anything else on TV this year with the exception of the last three episodes of Angel which were actually far tighter and more gripping. But it's too late to change that and I don't think harping on it adds much. So I'd prefer to analyze the events in the episodes and what they mean for the characters and the story. And what metaphors and themes were being examined then criticizing the writers for not living up to our expectations.

I really did enjoy both yours and Darby's posts, Sarah - some of the best threads I've seen recently. And As many on this board know, I have done my own share of criticizing/harping - particularly on AYW. But I'm beginning to think I may have been out of line to do that. It's beginning to feel a bit like harping over spilt milk. But that could just be me.

;-) SK

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Show vs. Tell. and Bad Writing -- celticross, 13:53:08 09/12/02 Thu

The tiniest of disagreements here, s'kat, and not because I don't agree with the main thrust of your post (though it is in my nature to gripe and harp on plot elements I don't like for some time after they happen, unforunately). I only disagree on using Shakespeare as an example, simply because I think it's a bad idea to make ANYONE read Shakespeare. I've known many people have no idea what the words on the pages are saying when they read Shakespeare's plays, but a good performance of those works can make it all clear. I find so much meaning in the various interpretations of his plays that just reading it for myself isn't enough.

Thread hijack over. :) That was my disgruntled daughter of a disgruntled theatre prof voice. I'm better now. :)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Show vs. Tell. and Bad Writing -- shadowkat, 15:45:31 09/12/02 Thu

Ah but I've had the opposite experience. I've seen horrible performances of Shakespeare then read the play and realized what I was missing.

As a teenager, I had the opportunity to act in Midsummer
Night's Dream - played Helena and it was a marevolous experience. I learned to appreciate the beauty and twisty meaning of the words. Having been forced to write a sonnet?
I can also tell you how hard it is to write this stuff.

While every play is far better on stage, I do suggest that you read them as well, particularly before seeing the performance. I was forced to read MacBeth, Hamlet, Twelth
Night, etc prior to seeing them performed and it made it that much richer for me. Just as it did reading them afterwards.

Not that I think anyone should be forced to watch, read or hear something they don't want to. ;-) SK

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Writers Intentions and Success -- shadowkat, 12:11:50 09/12/02 Thu

Oooh cool thread! Thanks for posting Sara. As one fellow ex-English major to another, I salute you!

1. Bad writing in literature:
I also have studied the mythic, epic and oral style of storytelling that leslie discusses. Not real familar with the term interlace, but I remember from my studies - that
when you tell a long epic story or myth, it's not heavily plotted. It's not like what most people on this board are used to. It's more, well free-flowing from the characters and less precise and multilayered. I actually prefer this to precisely plotted stories, where plot comes first and foremost - I find precise plotting to be predictable, tedious and often dull. That is a personal opinion/preference. I prefer the more stream of consciousness free flowing form.
That does not mean I don't enjoy both. I do. From your post Sara - I'm assuming you have very little patience for stream of consciousness free-flowing story telling which is the nature of Gravity's Rainbow, Naked Lunch, Joyce's Ulysses, Faulkner's Sound & the Fury and several other works. They aren't bad writing. It's just a difficulty with a certain type of style.

I have rather ecclectic tastes. Will read anything. And pretty much watch anything. I've read bad writing - those pulp novels where the hero is described in stilted flowerly language that makes you want to giggle. (Some of the Harelquin novels are famous for this.) Or the plot suddenly for no apparent reason drops out of the sky. Or cliches abound. Bad writing - to me at least - is usually when the character is a cardboard cut-out, stereotype.
The plot is so confusing it - no one can figure it out or so simplistic that you know the ending in the first chapter.
Or perhaps the best sign? The grammar is so bad, you want to re-write the novel yourself or kill the copy-editor.
Bad writing like bad movies can be humorous fun. Tremors which is considered a Bad Movie - is one of my all time favorites, makes me laugh every time.

Then of course there's the type of writing you just don't like or find unreadable. It's not bad per se as just not your taste. You can't read it. When Joyce's Ulysess was first published, numerous people found it unreadable. Others adored it. Same thing is true with Shakespeare - there are people out that despise reading Shakespeare. Just as there are people who consider listening to Opera akin to listening to nails raked across a chalk board. Does this make Opera bad music? No. Does this make Shakespeare bad writing? No. Does this make the people who hate it, idiots? Of course not. Lock states that we all sense things differently, our different tastes make us who and what we are. You might love oranges, find them sweet, while I might find them sour. It does not make you right or me wrong. We just have different tastes.

2. "And this brings up another question I like to ponder, once a writer says "THIS IS WHAT I MEANT TO DO" is it still fair game to analyze differently, or do we just judge based on the success or failure of intent vs end result?"

I really, really wish writers wouldn't do this. It ruines the art and make it difficult for us to analyze it affectively. The wise artists don't do it. When someone asked Joyce or Twain what they meant or intended? They laughed at them and asked well, what do you think I intended? Jackson Pollack was the same way.

Telling the audience what you meant to do - is belittling their intelligence and your art in my humble opinion. What happens if the audience liked their interpretation better?
They think they overestimated you. What happens if they didn't see it? As is the case here? Then they think you're a hack. ME's biggest mistake this season was apologizing.
Never apologize for your art. Let it stand and speak for itself.

I would have preferred Joss Whedon have kept his mouth shut regarding Spike's soul. Let us believe he went after the chip and got tricked, then tell us the truth through his writing. That would have worked better. Just as I would have preferred ME did not do interviews regarding Tara and Willow and just remained silent - addressing the issue next year through their writing. Or that Marti did not tell us what she meant to do with Spike and Buffy. But I understand why they did these interviews - TV is so ratings driven and they pannicked (I can't spell this word to save my life, sorry spelling police). They were afraid they scared off their audience. Actually I think it would take a lot to scare off this particular audience...but having met TV network people? I can understand their concern. Also I'm sure the internet didn't help. The internet has in many ways changed the face of entertainment. For the first time
fans across the world can endlessly analyze, critique and discuss art without ever meeting and do it daily. And writers, marketing people, network execs - can see what their fans think of their art. Must be a source of endless frustration, amusement, and ego-boosting for them. Also probably leads to the temptation to tell us what they intended more than they should.

Anyways to answer your question : "it still fair game to analyze differently, or do we just judge based on the success or failure of intent vs end result"

I think it's still fair game to analyze differently. Regardless of what the creators intended - it's what is on the screen that counts. Particularly in television - where the writer is working not solo but collaboratively with actors, producers, stunt men, set designers, cinematographers, etc. Marti Noxon admitted this - "I guess watching it is different than when your working on it." SFX
Vampire Edition. Yep, it is. The finished product, particularly one created by a team of over 20 people, has to be different than what is in your head. Everyone puts something into it. It takes on a life of its own and you should be doing a happy snoopy dance if it comes close to what you wanted or even comes out wonderful. The Collaborative Process is NOT as easy as it looks. And when something works? It's pure magic.

Personally I find the analysis of the art that goes against the writers interpretation of it, more interesting. Sometimes the viewer or reader can see something the writer, who is far too close to it, can't. Sometimes an objective party gets a better more interesting view. I know the readers of my essays and stories I've written have seen things that were far better than anything I intended. Sometimes I'd rather hear their take then mine. HEck last night I asked my mother, who loves Buffy, but is unspoiled
and not nearly as obsessed, what she thought of Villains and her take was very different than my take. To her? Spike
consciously wanted to get out his chip but it was ambiguous in how he did it. Willow was consumed with rage and that was very realistic because she could imagine feeling similarly consumed to the point rage takes over. It's why so many of us come to the board to get a different take on the show than our own.

It would be different of course if the work was still in the editing process, not yet published or on the screen - in that case yes, it is probably better to critique it based on whether it lives up to the writers intent and you can tell them how they should change it to make it better.
But once it's out there? What's the point of continuing to criticize it? How does it add to the work? Or to the analysis and enjoyment of it? Unless of course you're trying to figure out how to do your own tv show and just want to see what not to do wrong - then yes, this type of criticizing is a good exercise.

3. Spike seeking a soul - I agree it could have been better written. A lot of things about Villians - Grave could have been better written, they were sub-par episodes in my opinion. And way too similar to a bad movie I saw recently called VAMPIRES with James Woods. But still much better than anything else on TV this year with the exception of the last three episodes of Angel which were actually far tighter and more gripping. But it's too late to change that and I don't think harping on it adds much. So I'd prefer to analyze the events in the episodes and what they mean for the characters and the story. And what metaphors and themes were being examined then criticizing the writers for not living up to our expectations.

I really did enjoy both yours and Darby's posts, Sarah - some of the best threads I've seen recently. And As many on this board know, I have done my own share of criticizing/harping - particularly on AYW. But I'm beginning to think I may have been out of line to do that. It's beginning to feel a bit like harping over spilt milk. But that could just be me.

;-) SK

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ack!! Double post. Just read the one Writers & Success please -- shadowkat, 12:15:09 09/12/02 Thu

suffering from computer demons...!!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> What is interlace? -- alcibiades, 10:31:45 09/12/02 Thu

You may have seen the Spike in Africa thing as vague and sloppily written, I saw something approaching the medieval technique of interlace.

What do you mean specifically by this Leslie?

What is the medieval technique of interlace?

And how does the Spike scene approach it?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: What is interlace? -- ponygirl, 12:47:53 09/12/02 Thu

I was intrigued so I did a google and found this quote about Tolkien and the technique of interlace. It's taken from a review of book on Tolkien by Tom Shippey.

I'd love to hear leslie's views but in the meantime I thought this was interesting:

Like the Beowulf-poet (and like the novelist John Gardner, another student and translator of Anglo-Saxon poetry), Tolkien excels in the technique of "narrative interlace," a technique in which "adventures are never told for long in strict chronological order, and continually 'leapfrog' each other." Interlace creates a "strong sense of reality, of that being the way things are." And when it serves the author's purposes to do so, this technique also reinforces a sense of confusion, befuddlement; as Gandalf says, "Even the very wise cannot see all ends." This notion is captured in a quotation from Fellowship of the Ring, currently a favorite bumper-sticker on college campuses: "Not all who wander are lost." It was Tolkien's purpose to show characters who don't know where they are going, but who from an omniscient perspective are part of a grand narrative

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: What is interlace? -- leslie, 15:18:06 09/12/02 Thu

I would only add to this that the scenes that are cut between (interlace can have an almost cinematic quality to it) generally concern different aspects of the same theme. For instance, I think that the intercutting of Spike's trials and Willow's descent into darkness offer parallel explorations of the value of souls. Think of it this way--how ironic would it be if just as Spike got his soul back, Willow actually managed to end the world? Wouldn't that have been a waste of time! Buffy has been throwing the "soulless" thing in Spike's face all season, yet here she is fighting her best friend who, let's face it, is doing more damage to her than Spike managed even in the attempted rape. Willow's descent into darkness takes three steps: her initial grief at Tara's death, the black magicks she absorbs from the books in the Magic Shop, and the magic she absorbs from Rack--the latter of which seems to be what really sends her over the edge. Parallel Spike's three trials in the cave. Both are consumed by rage directed against Buffy but which really derives from their own self-hatreds. There's probably even more I could come up with. But these parallels are presented, not in a linear fashion and not didactically, but by "interlacing" two sets of activity and letting the audience figure it out themselves.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Logically speaking, -- Sophist, 12:14:45 09/12/02 Thu

and I'm really not trying to be Spockish here, there are 2 possibilities:

1. All writing is equal.

2. Some writing is better than other.

If we acknowledge that no. 2 is what we believe, then describing some writing as "bad" seems inevitable; it's all relative.

What happens, of course, is that one person's gold is another's dross. This means that I say one scene is "bad", Darby says another is, cjl adds a new one, etc. We may not even agree with each other (though I do happen to agree on the two scenes cited as examples in this thread), but the net result is that many accusations of bad writing are made even though a particular viewer subscribes to only a few of these.

This surely is frustrating, and from the writer's viewpoint hard on the ego. But each critic is individually justified, as long as s/he has gone through the effort you suggest to make the scene work. In the particular cases, again, I have no doubt that the posters did so (and my agreement with them on the result doesn't bias me at all).

The best part of posting a claim like this here is that it creates the opportunity for others to point out alternatives that weren't imagined by the quondam critic. Here, we got a great post from you on Spike's motivation and S6 themes that would never have occurred to me.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Objective and subjective -- Slain, 13:52:05 09/12/02 Thu

Perhaps the problem is just a case of semantics; for me, 'bad writing' sounds like an objective term, in the same way that 'a bad writer' or 'a bad actor' does. When, as we're all aware, it's completely subjective. To an extent, there are certain things it's possible to identify as bad writing (cliches used as if they're original phrases, confusing exposition, inconsistencies with time, I could go on), I don't think that's strictly relevant here; not just because, as leslie says, many people enjoy things others would think of as badly written, but because I didn't see that 'Grave' conformed with any of the commonly-recognised aspects of 'bad writing'. The time lapse thing was debatable, but I'd simply assumed that it wasn't supposed to be read a linear sequence of events, with Spike in Africa taking place at the same time as the events in Sunnydale, but rather as a flash forward. The rest of the episode strikes me as conforming to a purely subjective view of bad writing; it must do, because I thought the finale was flawless, while others disagree.

Which returns me to my original point. As a term 'bad writing' (like 'good literaure') sounds like it's an objective term. Most people have, unconsciously, developed little boxes in which certain elements fit into as being good or bad. A scene from 'Sunset Beach' would often get slotted into 'bad', but not in a 'I personally dislike this writing' way, but rather in a 'this is simply bad' way. Not to say that the scene couldn't be enjoyable, but that it would still be seen as bad writing.

That's why I don't think 'bad writing' is a good term to use when criticising Buffy. When we say something in Buffy is 'bad writing', I think we can only mean it in a purely subjective sense; all we can mean is 'I didn't like this' or 'I wasn't convinced by this'. Simply because, even though it might seem to fit into the more objective view of bad writing, someone will always disagree. I don't think Buffy is ever objectively bad writing (or at least not for a long time), like 'Sunset Beach' is. So, for me, phrases like 'that was bad writing' don't work for Buffy. Even though you can argue that something is inconsistently, clichedly (er) or simply badly written, someone can usually disagree with you.

I think that's at the root of people objecting to the use of the term 'bad writing'. It sounds objective, and in certain circumstances, arguably, it can be. But with Buffy, it's always subjective. One man's bad writing is another man's interesting and unexpected plot development. I'll stop now, before I reproduce my dissertation.


***SPIKE DISCUSSION AHEAD!***

I should also point out I never read the Joss interview where he describes Spike going in search of his soul. Perhaps this was somewhat of a spoiler, as his intention was for the truth of Spike's journey to be revealled later, and that for the moment we were supposed to have thought it was a simple case of "Spike wants his chip out, he gets his soul put in instead".

However, in retrospect it makes sense to me that the demon interpreted the true meaning of the line 'So, give me what I want. Make me what I was... so Buffy can get what she deserves.' Reading that line again, it does strike me as making more sense that Spike's soul would be restored, than his chip removed; he asks to be 'made as he was', not to have something as little as a computer chip removed, but to be completely remade, perhaps. So does Spike gets what he wants, what he was, and Buffy gets what she deserves? Spike probably doesn't want to go back to being an unfeeling killer (to, effectively, being dead), and Buffy certainly doesn't deserve whatever unchipped Spike would have done to her.

A lot of this hinges on a reading of Season 6, and of Spike in general, in which he is 'happier' with Buffy than with Dru or Harmony, and happier fighting vampires instead of fighting with them... or, in other words, it hinges on whether or not you think Spike has the capacity for good. That seemed to be M.E.'s opinion of what 'the fans' though about Spike (judging from their comments). Maybe the scene is ambiguous, but as I recall 'Restless' wasn't exactly free of opacity!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> When evil fictive gods speak -- fresne, 16:58:35 09/12/02 Thu

Hmmm...okay no. Well, actually, yes.

Good. Bad. Subjective. Objective. Mainly, I'm not sure that comparing the fevered opaqueness of Restless with the more linear Grave is entirely useful. Restless is a dream. A vision. It causes hunger where it most satisfies. When first tasted sweet, when further drunk sweeter still. All roads lead to Restless. Its language is symbol and rhythm and half forgotten things. Plus Giles sings.

I liked Grave. It's a darn fine rollicking ride of a story. It's symbolic in the way that stories are, but it's not a dream. And while I'm sure that further episodes will increase the richness of the story, I doubt they'll actually change my interpretation of the story. Even if Spike says that he went to Africa for a soul. I'm not sure that I'd believe him.

I wasn't going to say anything. Everyone's pretty much saying everything I could say and more. I mean come on Homer, Shakespeare. This is a nicely literate thread.

I'm willing to agree that the text could be read that Spike went to Africa to get a soul. By nature I can read all sorts of explanations into the text, people, friends, Romans, countrypersons.

Although, ahem, I don't read it that way and (heresy ahead) I kind of don't care what Joss or ME says. Sometimes writers lie. Who said that all writers are liars?

When what a writer says enhances my sense of their work, serves as lens through which my understanding of the text increases several fold, then huzzah. When what the writer says makes me go, "hmmm...well, I guess", but secretly in my heart of hearts I say, "What the holy heck are you talking about." then I shed my skin and move on. Even when it is an evil fictive god who booming voice speaks.

After all, who knows what things lurk in the writer's, director's, actor's subconscious's. Maybe what Joss/ME really meant is that Spike went to Africa to learn to finger paint in blood, thus making him the bloody awful painter. Teetering on the abyss of how seriously I'm supposed to take what writers say about their own work, especially serialized on-going work, I turn and go right (Dante has not yet been mentioned in this thread and that's just plain wrong.)

Personally, I prefer to read the text as Spike consciously went to get his chip out and subconsciously other stuff was seething. He is after all the King of Cups, which is associated with water, and now that it is his birthday, he got a gift. He shed his coat, sloughed his skin in the fire, saw himself in a mirror face to face (heh), because it's time to put away childish things.

The beauty of this is that I get to read Spike's statements two ways. What he admits. What he suppresses. And really, why would I be satisfied with just one interpretation, when I could have two?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: It's odd... -- meritaten, 21:47:39 09/11/02 Wed

Ok, I'm tired and very emotional from watching 911 specials, so maybe I misundersood what you wrote.......but it sounds like you don't know that Joss says that Spike had actively SOUHGT the restoration of his soul?

I like the plot, I just think that the sudience had to work too hard to see what the writers intended.

I obviously love the show or I wouldn't be obsessing over this. However, I think this particular event fell short of the usual high standard of writing and plot development we come to expect. I'm not as analytical as many of the posters here, but I'm not stupid. I was glad that Spike got a soul - great idea. ...But it took a while for me to accept the fact that Spike had gone to Africa in order to get his soul back. I think if the resouling was written better, I wouldn't have had to struggle to believe this.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You're quite right - I just don't read interviews! -- Slain, 13:56:28 09/12/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> Answering your question -- shadowkat, 11:35:00 09/11/02 Wed

In response to your question:

"Did anyone else see me here (and feel free to draw in my other criticisms I've posted) as launching an attack on ME's "vision," or as whining while doing it? Am I making points or just annoying people? Or both, which would be good to know too, I guess. C'Mon, I've got a pretty thick skin, and I'm trained to not cry over my keyboard."

No more so than anyone else I've seen on the board. We've all critized some of the decisions made this year, myself included. I think that's part of the interaction. Some of us, uh, get a tad carried away and make a crusade out of it, which makes me wonder about people's sanity. It is after all just a television show. But I wouldn't say you did that in any shape or form in this post. Now if you revisited that cliche...maybe. ;-)

Actually the points you've raised have been raised by numerous other people in other posts and if you hadn't raised them? We wouldn't have had leslie's excellent post
which I loved and has my mind skipping about in joyous
wonderment and expectation. Organic vs. technological - ah another essay, no wait, already did Robot Metaphors, this could be seen as redundant...and working on Soul metaphors now which your post sort of motivated me to finally start.

So to sum up, Darby? This post was not out of line in any way. While I agree with everything else leslie said. I don't agree with the view that you were blasting the writers, you just seemed to be wondering if maybe they could have been clearer or another approach may have been more effective. I've done that with great literature, often coming up with the conclusion that in the end? The writer told it better than I could.

PS: thank you for not doing the cliche thread again, so sick of it..

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Response and question to the crowd. -- leslie, 11:36:18 09/11/02 Wed

"My take is that you are taking any criticism as an overall indictment of the show, and lashing out with a personal attack (or as close as we get in these confines) that is more reflexive than rational."

No, I think that we have a deep and fundamental disagreement on how to "read a text," in this case an ongoing television series. If I wanted to make a reflexive backlash against any criticism of the show, I would be saying "but why does it matter, we got to see Spike with his shirt off."

My point is that before you go off saying something is "bad writing," you have to look at it both in the context of what has gone before and in the understanding that we don't know what is coming. And no matter how many spoilers you've read, unless you've been sitting in the writers' meetings, you don't know. One of the things that constantly amazes me about BtVS is that episodes that made me go "what the hell is this?" when they first aired become increasingly inevitable as the story progresses. The question of whether something "worked" for you only applies to you--you can share your opinion with others and see if they agree, and usually some will and some won't. That is not an indication of "bad writing," which is a phrase I find tossed around far too frequently and far too quickly.

Until the series is unequivocally over--BtVS and all spin-offs--the most we can do, and god knows it is enough, is look at what has been presented to us and try to see how it fits together, how it is layered, how it evolves. (I also find the concept of "canon" pretty annoying, but then, I went to college in an era when the whole point of literary studies was to question the very concept of canon.) We have to be comfortable with ambiguity and capable of deferring gratification. Behind-the-scenes insight into what the writers meant or how the actors were told to read the scene is all well and good, but in terms of interpreting the series, the only thing that ultimately counts is what's on the screen. That's the text.

JRR Tolkien hated Shakespeare. He especially hated Macbeth, and the rationalization of the prophecy about Birnam Wood--he wanted real marching trees, dammit, not a bunch of guys in camouflage! (A play which is a potent example of being careful about how you interpret a prophecy, by the way.) That's how he came up with the Ents. There's a Welsh poem that he was probably familiar with called Cad Goddeu, the Battle of the Trees, in which trees do just that, and which may have influenced him, too, and which may ultimately underlie the the prophecy that made it by roundabout ways into Shakespeare. But Tolkien didn't go around saying that Shakespeare had written Macbeth badly because he didn't conform to Cad Goddeu, he just went out and wrote what he wanted to see happen if you have "marching trees."

[> [> [> [> [> [> Hey! Watch the Spoilers for Macbeth in the Above Post! -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:27:52 09/11/02 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> [> My problem with your post..... -- meritaten, 22:14:23 09/11/02 Wed

"Behind-the-scenes insight into what the writers meant or how the actors were told to read the scene is all well and good, but in terms of interpreting the series, the only thing that ultimately counts is what's on the screen. That's the text."

My problem is that I needed the behind-the-scenes insight to interpret what was on the screen. I would still firmly believe that Spike wanted the chip out if not for the behind-the-scenes insight.

I think the writers are generally great, I just don't think the scene was effective in telling the story that the writers say they intended. I'm not sure what to call that expect a poorly written plot. I'm not trying to bash the writers.

Analogy: I'm a student. I get a grade for each assigment I turn in or exam I take. On a recent exam, I misread a question. I was graded accordingly. The prof couldn't give me an exam grade based on the course as a whole. He had to give the exam grade that I deserved. Fortunately, because my overall work was good, I got an "A" in the course. The writers of "Buffy" still get their "A" for the series. ...But that plot ... not an "A". The idea was great, but it was not written clearly.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: My problem with your post..... -- leslie, 09:14:18 09/12/02 Thu

"My problem is that I needed the behind-the-scenes insight to interpret what was on the screen. I would still firmly believe that Spike wanted the chip out if not for the behind-the-scenes insight."

My original post, above ("completely and utterly disagree") was an attempt to show that, once we got to the end of that sequence, when Spike got his soul back, it was possible to look back at what had happened, without any intervention on the part of Joss in terms of extracurricular explication, and see that this *was* what Spike intended all along, and that it fits with the themes of the season, which were also evident without authorial intervention. To me, this is the key element of a good twist--it *requires* two readings, the second one being the one where you're hitting your forehead going "well, duh!"

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: My problem with your post..... -- meritaten, 14:59:56 09/12/02 Thu

I would agree IF I had said, "well, duh!" (I gleefully said "well, duh!" at the end of the Sixth Sense.) However, on this soul issue, I didn't believe it until I read Joss's statement. I did need the intervention of extracuricular explication. I can now see that the "text" can be read that way Joss says it was written, but it is, IMO, too ambiguous. It could equally well be the way I "read" it the first 5 times, that Spike wanted his chip removed, but got a surprise soul instead.

Doesn't the fact that so many people have been very confused over this point to the problem?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Exactly! -- Earl Allison, 18:42:27 09/12/02 Thu

Good writing, or at least CLEVER writing, makes you realize the plot. This, IMHO, was neither well-constructed nor clever. Too many people either still don't actually see it, or feel it was a cheat/lie/bad writing.

Worse, there have been multiple times this season that writers have felt the need to clarify themselves in interviews -- I don't recall that being the case last year. Too much TELL and not nearly enough SHOW -- again, IMHO.

There are too many people who have an issue with this, otherwise thoughtful people, for me to feel the fault is with viewers.

Take it and run.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> nervously delurking -- posthaste, 06:01:42 09/13/02 Fri

'I got my last clean dirty shirt out of the wardrobe'

I'm sort of thankful how it went. An overt request for soulage could have been written in a way that was mawkish, sentimental or otherwise overwrought, IMO. At least like this it was kept minimal, violent and kind of edgy. Strikes me that the soul thing was Spike's last very recklessly played verging on suicide card. No wonder he or the writers were bluffing. Personally, I really didn't mind the apparent complete reversal of intent. Perhaps that's why there was so much gambling on screen this season. One of the themes. But there again, I had to wait for the video box sets so by the time I got to watch it was from a very spoiled perspective anyway.

'and I just suppose it goes to show the lie dream of the casino soul scene'

Running away now:)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Welcome! -- Earl Allison, 08:10:21 09/13/02 Fri

Don't be shy! Belly on up to the bar and feel free to voice your thoughts -- we're a friendly bunch!

Take it and run.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Let's blame Joss. It's been ages since we did that. -- Slain, 12:33:35 09/13/02 Fri

As I wrote in one of my above posts, I think the intention was for this to be made clear in Season 7, and that Joss' interview (again, not read it) acted as a spoiler of sorts. I'm sure, without his help, we'd have read that Spike wanted a soul as a subtext sooner or later, but he's stepped in here and made an interesting subtext into a big, confusing text. I think the fault therefore is not in the scene or the 'bad writing', but in Joss' opening his big mouth and telling us something we should have either figured out for ourself or, as often happens, figured out much later, on the evidence of new episodes.

I fact, I'll bet that there'll be an episode in which a newly-soulled Spike admits/explains/whichever that what he really wanted was to have his soul back, not his chip removed. Mark these words! If this doesn't happen, then I'll shout from the rooftops about how these scenes in 'Grave' were badly written, but until then (disregarding the interview) this scene still works for me, with the soul as subtext.

Joss, guilty. David Fury, innocent.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: My problem with your post..... -- Miss Edith, 12:58:56 09/13/02 Fri

It was possible for some viewers to realise that Spike had wanted his soul all along. However it was not immediately obvious. Many viewers were discussing Spike's look of surprise when he recieved his soul, and speculating that he asked for the chip removel and the soul gave Spike what he wanted in his heart. When the episodes first aired people were talking of how Spike should be careful how he phrases his demands as demons are notorious for tricking others. I did not have an "oh I see moment". I was one of the fans assuming Spike getting a soul was a subconscious desire. Since then I have been told on other boards that most people felt the same way until Joss's interview. That was why I personally believe the twist failed. It just didn't make sense in the contest in which it was done to a lot of viewers.
On other Buffy boards I have been told by some posters that the writers have admitted lying to viewers in the past, and I should trust the story on-screen which only makes sense based on the way it was acted if Spike's conscious desire was to lose the chip. Therefore Joss's words should be ignored until the story confirmed them as true.
I have also been told by others that they knew from the beginning Spike waiting for so long to get the chip removed when it could have been done all along made no sense. E.g when he kidnapped an iniative doctor to get the chip out. I was advised to ignore the misdirection in the finale and concentrate on what makes sense for the story.
Therefore my argument is that there is enough confusion amonst fans, even internet fans with access to writers interviews, that the twist was not quite the success you see it as. I am not disagreeing that it is possible for viewers to make sense of the twist. I just don't think it was executed as well as it could have been. In particular misdirecting James Marsters struck me as a grave mistake as he gave entirely the wrong performance, with no subtle suggestion as to what he truly wanted so that when we look back it would make sense. This was entirely down to the writers wanting to trick the audience with a good twist at the end for the cliffhanger, and I didn't find it satisfying personally.

[> [> [> [> [> It seemed clear to me ... -- Earl Allison, 11:40:10 09/11/02 Wed

You're right, if you can't pick it up CLEARLY in rerun-watching, and if the writers have to come out and TELL someone something -- the writing was, IMHO, lacking.

I didn't consider your comment whining or a personal attack.

Take it and run.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Response and question to the crowd. -- celticross, 12:03:59 09/11/02 Wed

Jumping in here to your defense, Darby, because I had a lot of the same issues with the season finale that you mentioned. It seemed to me that the delibrate ambiguousness of Spike's trials was a case of the writers setting things so that no matter what we thought was going to happen, we'd be wrong. But that doesn't bother me as much as the fact that the entire Spike-in-Africa subplot really didn't fit into the flow of TTG/Grave. And well, there's the whole Willow is possessed/It's the Magic Crack's fault, which still strikes me as a cop-out, but that's another thread...

I don't think there's anything wrong with noticing and commenting on plot elements we don't like or agree with. It *is* the writers' story, and they can tell it however they wish, but we are still the audience and if something doesn't ring true to us, it doesn't necessarily mean that we didn't get it.

[> [> [> [> [> Since I'm sure my own criticisms of S6 are perceived by many as whining, -- Sophist, 12:43:16 09/11/02 Wed

I feel eminently qualified to say that I don't think you meet the criteria for my club.

As several have already pointed out, there is a clear difference between complaining about the story line itself and critiquing the writing, stagecraft, etc. of the story as presented. The first says "I didn't like the plot." The second says "Assuming this was what they intended, they didn't do it very well." I understood you to say the latter. And I still don't see leslie's original post as necessarily inconsistent with yours.

I'm right behind you on the cliche thing. Further back. No, even further. Ducking behind the concrete; can't you see me?

[> [> [> [> [> [> I never thought that ... sorry if I acted that way ... -- Earl Allison, 15:14:10 09/11/02 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> No need to feel defensive. -- Sophist, 16:08:02 09/11/02 Wed

I didn't mean you or anyone in particular. Just speculating that some might actually perceive my whining as, well, whining.

[> [> [> [> [> The Vision Thing and Distinctions in Criticism -- mundusmundi, 15:19:09 09/11/02 Wed

First off the bat...heavens no, Darby. No, I didn't see you attacking ME's vision; no, you weren't whining; and no, you never annoy me. Indeed, what this thread has raised is a flurry of good posts, and an important distinction between types of criticism that too often gets overlooked.

Now, sure, there are those who nitpick everything from Buffy's hair-do to whom she's boinking or not boinking at any given moment. But then there are more discerning viewers who are raising valid objections and concerns about the show's quality and the direction in which it's going. (Scriptwriting certainly counts as a valid target, IME, for either brickbats or praise.) When the latter type of critics do this, however, as some of us reluctantly did at the start of last season -- lo', the hell that rains down! We're being too hasty, so we were told. What we think are plotholes only seem like such, only we're too dim to notice. Moreover, our criticisms are invalid because the season's not over yet; and when the season ends and we appear justified, we're really not because there's still another season! You see, Buffy is like a novel -- no, it's Star Wars -- no, it's Der Ring des Nibelungen -- and if we didn't like last year, then how come we're still watching anyway?

Sorry for the crankiness, but I want to underscore the frustration these kinds of reactions generate. It's not like we want to see flaws in the very thing we're in love with, after all. And if others don't see them as such and like the storyline as it stands, then by all means, enjoy. I'm a defender of S4, but I don't get bothered by those who didn't like it. And I never said to them, "So how come you're still watching?" when S5 came around. (Noting that nobody here in this thread has, to my knowledge, ever said anything along these lines, but I have seen it before.)

I wasn't pleased with S6. But I'm unduly fond of Buffy and Joss and the whole gang, and I'm stoked for S7. I'm also fond of Carl Sagan, and it merits paraphrasing him again: Real fans ask questions. Whether Buffy succeeds or fails, I always enjoy the questions it raises, especially after reading and chewing over the differing viewpoints it creates here.

-mm

[> [> [> [> [> Huh? What Cliche is everyone talking about? -- Scroll, 07:31:10 09/12/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Huh? What Cliche is everyone talking about? -- Darby, 08:42:27 09/12/02 Thu

This is simply answering a question - don't throw things, folks!

It's the a) lesbians have sex; b) lesbian "instigator" is killed, with the death thematically linked to the sex (which itself is another old horror cliche); c) surviving lesbian goes nuts and either commits suicide or exacts revenge - we got both, pretty much. It started "way back when," the assumptions go, to bury cautionary tales about perversion (in early examples the lesbianism is just implied): this is bad and bad things will happen to people that do it. Some people, myself included, feel that the "hidden message" can still resonate, but that may be thinking too little of the modern public.

You probably know what I mean from just that, but I'll add, because it's pertinent to this thread, that I've discussed the cliche here also in terms of "bad writing," as in ME could have played out their desired plot (Dark Willow) without falling quite as much into lockstep with the classic cliche. To my apparently weird mind, good writing either a) avoids cliches (as I think ME did with almost every other aspect of W/T, and as they usually do) or b) takes the cliche head on and twist a new and subversive message out of it, as they often do (See the cute little blond trapped in an alley by monsters! See the cute little blonde kicking the monsters' butts!) and could have done. Notice I said "good writing" and not "good writers," because good writers can do some bad writing, defined by me as making classic mistakes. I'm a good fencer, but I can do some god-awful bad fencing following the same definition pattern.

- Darby, fervently begging people to leave this dead (you know what I mean) - or start another thread on it that can't be blamed on me.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks, I got it now. =) -- Scroll, 13:32:51 09/13/02 Fri

[> [> [> [> trust the Story not the storyteller -- Dochawk, 11:18:44 09/11/02 Wed

I think what you two are discussing are apples and oranges. I think we have learned that even after a story is completed Joss sometimes doesn't see what he has put into the viewers mind. Although I tend to see Spike the way Marti and Joss say they intend him there are way too many viewers who see an alternate Spike and for them their interpetation is correct (as an aside, although this board is remarkably free of flames, we (and I know I am guilty of this) far too often assume that our view is the only correct one, which of course is Balderdash, the artist puts something on the screen, we all have the responsibility to view it with our own lens)). I think Darby is telling us that if Joss was trying to tell us that Spike wanted a soul all along, ME did a lousy job of it even in the retrospectoscope (I know at least Rufus would argue quite effectively that it is there, not that I see it though). I do think it we trust the story, not the storyteller and believe that Lurky saw into Spike's heart and decided what he came for was really a soul (now there's a common ME theme, "be careful what you wish for". This of course differs from what JW said at the Emmy questfest, but seems much more reasonable to me. Leslie, in a different vein, seems to be arguing that the story as written was consistent to the mythos, had an appropriate message and was enjoyable. Don't think those two things are mutually exclusive at all.

[> [> [> [> Re: completely and utterly disagree - with what? -- meritaten, 21:32:47 09/11/02 Wed

I think the resouling of Spike is far more interesting then removal of the chip. I was surprised and shocked when he was resouled, but excited about where he would go from there. My feelings on that are totally separate from the fact that I feel the writing was poor on this event. I've had to watch the scene over and over again and listen to the srguments here in order to realize that Spike was after a soul. That shouldn't be necesary. I lke the plot - I just think it was written clearly enough.

[> [> [> [> [> Oops! -- meritaten, 22:19:44 09/11/02 Wed

Make that ...

"I just DON'T think it was written clearly enough"

[> [> [> Power to retrieve souls -- MaeveRigan, 10:36:40 09/11/02 Wed

The best reason not to go to Willow, or even Wesley, for a soul-retrieval spell is that the gypsy curse that governs Angel's soul has that nasty catch to it--one moment of perfect happiness and yada yada yada. So actually, it would not have been smarter to try to duplicate the Angel ensouling spell, which was originally intended as a form of vengeance, a punishment, not a reward.

Since Mr. Glowy Greeneyes says "We return to you your soul" (or WTTE, emphasis added), isn't the best guess that he gets his power from (where else?) the Powers-That-Be? That would explain why even if he is on Most-Wanted-Dead lists, he survives; instead (as the concerned villager warns Spike) most petitioners die instead.

[> [> [> [> Both of those are completely plausible. -- Darby, 10:59:05 09/11/02 Wed

[> [> Great post! -- Freki, 11:36:59 09/11/02 Wed

That was exactly my take on why Spike was so angry during the finale.

As far as what ME's intentions were with the misdirection, I suspect that they wanted it to be ambiguous as to whether Spike wanted the chip out or to get a soul, since Joss evidently instructed JM to play it like he wanted the chip out. Ambiguity was kind of a theme this year, like the end of Normal Again. I do hope they clarify it in the text of the show, though.

[> [> Re: completely and utterly disagree -- meritaten, 13:09:29 09/11/02 Wed

I agree with you to a point. My problem is that the writers were too misleading. As I've said before, I'm all for plot twists. However, it shouldn't take all of this review and discussion to finally see what we were supposed to get when Spike got souled. I would have argued myself blue in the face that Spike wanted the chip out - until someone here directed me to an interview with Joss Whedon where he said that Spike was actually after a soul. Your post has made me see this as more believable, but .... plot twists lose their effectiveness when it takes months to "get" the twist.

[> [> [> Re: completely and utterly disagree -- leslie, 14:01:20 09/11/02 Wed

See, this is the thing: Last night, watching the scene again, I was actually hitting myself on the forehead saying "Well, duh!" Prior to that, I could have sworn that in Spike's first conversation with Lurky, he specifically asked for the chip out. He didn't. They discussed what the chip had done to him, but Lurky, as quoted above, said from the very beginning "You want to be restored to what you were" (and I think that "a souled being" is a reasonable calque on that phrase and doesn't need to get into the whole "He's never *been* a souled vampire before" argument) and Spike says yes. Again, in the ongoing theme of sneaky prophecies and being careful what you wish for, that should have been a dead give-away--there's tricky linguistic stuff going on here, be prepared. I also honestly think that if I hadn't been reading so much of the "Spike must get the chip out in order to deserve Buffy/No he doesn't, he needs a soul/No he doesn't, he needs to stay evil forever" discussion here, I wouldn't have assumed that he did want to get the chip out in order to wreak some kind of havoc. I would have been much more uncertain. How much of our expectations are due to what's on the screen and how much is due to our thrashing these things out here?

[> [> [> [> Re: completely and utterly disagree -- meritaten, 18:07:20 09/11/02 Wed

I didn't even know about this sight until June, so the discussion here truly did not impact my expectations.

I can see now that Spike was seeking a soul. However, as I've said before, plot twists should culminate in a response of "Oooh!" not "Ooops!". I said "Ooops!" until I found this sight and people here convinced me that Spike wanted a soul.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: completely and utterly disagree -- Slain, 14:02:09 09/12/02 Thu

As with 'Restless', I think 'Grave' was an episode which was meant to give us something to think about before Season 7 starts. Like 'Restless', I think the episode will be explained later, and make more sense in retrospect. I kind of like it that way, but then I like David Lynch. ;-)

[> Re: Assaulting Deceased Equines (Villains spoilers) -- alcibiades, 09:34:43 09/11/02 Wed

SPIKE'S SPIKY FRIEND: And you want to return. To your
former self...You were a legendary dark warrior - and you let yourself be castrated. Now you have the audacity to crawl in here and demand restoration? (Psyche)

Three points:

To my ears, "restoration" does imply soul rather than chip removal. Souls are restored, chips are removed.

Spike's reply is that he is still a warrior, let me prove it, etc. He at no time repeats the claim of being a DARK warrior.

Lurky seems to be saying:

you were a dark warrior and you failed at that. You're a failure. Why should I restore anything for you at this point!? Now if you were a success story, it wouldn't be a waste.

as opposed to:

you were a dark warrior and you failed at that. You're a failure. Why should I restore you to your former status as a legendary dark warrior.

So, the point is, the tests are for the purpose of proving that Spike is still a warrior, not that he is a dark warrior. Once his still "legendary" status is ascertained, he can demand restoration ... of his soul.

So I think it is there in the text, just not apparent at a first read. And I think JM was told to act like he wanted the chip out to add to the ambiguity about what Spike is up to. ME likes him that way, without clear pure motives shining through.

[> [> Re: Assaulting Deceased Equines (Villains spoilers) -- Dochawk, 11:38:23 09/11/02 Wed

See this is exactly what I was talking about above. I don't get your reading of this at all.

SPIKE'S SPIKY FRIEND: And you want to return. To your
former self...You were a legendary dark warrior - and you let yourself be castrated. Now you have the audacity to crawl in here and demand restoration? (Psyche)

I think rstoration refers directly to the castration or chipping. I have no problem with dechipping = restoring to previous vampire self. Spike had never been a vampire with a soul, so its hard to say (at least from my point of view) that this could be construed that way at all.

[> [> [> Re: Assaulting Deceased Equines (Villains spoilers) -- Miss Edith, 13:13:19 09/13/02 Fri

That quote to me just doesn't make sense. The demon mocks Spike for having failed at being a legendary dark warrior, and then says why should I restore you. That is not misdirection as in it can be read either way. To me that just logically means why should he restore Spike as a legendary dark warrior. Otherwise wouldn't he have said "you couldn't succeed at being evil, now you want me to make you a good boy" or something like that. Not you weren't evil enough mocking, whilst discussing a soul restoration.
Spike never once clarified his request, how was he to know he and the demon were even on the same page? For all he knew the demon was going to trick him, and twist his request. Seems to me Spike would have mentioned wanting a soul at least once, rather than talking of being what he was which can be interpreted in many different ways (human, souled vamp, chipless etc).
I'm not sure how well I'm expressing myself but my confusion makes sense to me anyway.

[> [> [> [> Ooops I hit enter to early. Can the above post please be deleted. -- Miss Edith, 13:16:43 09/13/02 Fri

[> [> [> Re: Assaulting Deceased Equines (Villains spoilers) -- Miss Edith, 13:14:33 09/13/02 Fri

That quote to me just doesn't make sense. The demon mocks Spike for having failed at being a legendary dark warrior, and then says why should I restore you. That is not misdirection as in it can be read either way. To me that just logically means why should he restore Spike as a legendary dark warrior. Otherwise wouldn't he have said "you couldn't succeed at being evil, now you want me to make you a good boy" or something like that. Not you weren't evil enough mocking, whilst discussing a soul restoration. Wouldn't the mocking be along the lines of "you can't be good Buffy told you how evil and worthless you are. You think a soul will change that etc"?
Spike never once clarified his request, how was he to know he and the demon were even on the same page? For all he knew the demon was going to trick him, and twist his request. Seems to me Spike would have mentioned wanting a soul at least once, rather than talking of being what he was which can be interpreted in many different ways (human, souled vamp, chipless etc).
I'm not sure how well I'm expressing myself but my confusion makes sense to me anyway.

[> [> [> [> Re: Assaulting Deceased Equines (Villains spoilers) -- Miss Edith, 13:29:35 09/13/02 Fri

To clarify slightly, basically what I meant was Spike went to a demon who looked down upon him and had a superiority complex. Hence the mocking and the "why should I help a worthless thing like you, prove yourself". But if the demon wanted to put down someone who had come to him wanting to become good and have a soul, why mock him by saying "you couldn't be evil enough". I just don't get that. Isn't the point that Spike wanted to be good, so a good bit of mocking would have been to say Spike was a vampire and incapable of goodness or true change? Not "oh you couldn't be evil in the past". Spike had already moved on from wnating to prove himself to other vampires like Angelous anyway. He now wanted to prove to Buffy that he could be good. So the mocking was just weird to me.

[> [> [> [> [> Spike and Villains - Grave -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:10:19 09/13/02 Fri

I, apparently, am one of the few people who always thought Spike intentionally went to get a soul from the moment Grave ended. My reasons run thus:

1) Spike wouldn't have to mention wanting a soul; the demon could read his mind. His last words in Villains, right before the trials begin, is "give me what I came here for". The demon, by reading Spike's thoughts, knew he had come for a soul and gave him just that.

2) Given how Spike couldn't be trusted or accepted because he was soulless, it makes perfect sense from a character standpoint for him to get a soul to win Buffy's heart.

3) Having Spike get a soul by accident would be a lame plot twist. I have more respect for ME than to think they'd do that.

4) I don't think it was a suconscious desire, because convincing himself to get a soul would take a LOT of self persusasion. You don't subconsciously desire such a drastic change; it's something you can only want after a lot of arguments within yourself.

5) Also, the theory that Spike said he wanted the chip out, but deep down really wanted a soul comes down to a piece of canon that is heavily debated: that soulless vampires are evil at the core. I am one who accepts this as part of the way the show works, and therefore I cannot believe that it was a deeply buried desire of Spike's to get a soul. Deep down, there is just a bloodthirsty demon, and it is only on the the higher levels of his mind that he is capable of love or self sacrafice, therefore it was on these levels of the conscious mind that Spike desired a soul. Now, from a redemptionist standpoint, this point becomes moot, though.

[> On rewatch, I agree more than ever. -- Dyna, 09:53:48 09/11/02 Wed

Usually, on rewatching an episode, I see subtleties that I didn't notice the first time. On rewatching "Villians," I was struck in the opposite way--knowing now what they were planning, the execution here feels even more ham-handed. A good mislead points you in one direction, but after you've found out the outcome, when you go back you can see that the indications where there that it could go the other way. In effect, you realize you tricked yourself, letting your expectations color your interpretation of the scene.

For me, that's not the case with these scenes. I think in their zeal to mislead, the writer(s) went too far, shoving us in the direction of the "wrong" interpretation instead of subtly leading us there. Subsequently, instead of the "Aha--how clever!" moment we usually get when we find we've been fooled, we instead feel like somebody changed the rules halfway through the play. It feels like a cheat. Or, to put it in less metaphorical terms, it feels like bad writing.

[> [> Me, too. -- dream of the consortium, 10:51:01 09/11/02 Wed

I couldn't put it any better, Dyna.

Nonetheless, I'll allow myself a little rant....
The funny thing is, I wanted and expected Spike to get a soul (his soul?). I did not want or expect him to get the chip out. But although I can believe that Spike would be a little angry and defiant in attitude on his way to the soul shop, the degree and the quality of his anger seemed entirely inappropriate. That's misleading, but not in a meaningful way (see Dyna's point about making the audience examine thier assumptions, above). I get quite frustrated with hearing how I am rejecting the episode as "bad writing" because I didn't like where the plot went. The plot went just where I would have sent it, thanks. It wasn't even the writing I had the most problem with - it was primarily the directing. They should have had more trust in James Marsters to convey something meaningful about his character's anger and confusion around his choice, rather than assuming what the audience wanted more than anything was a big "Oh my god" moment at the end. And what makes it even worse was the writers having to explain to us all off camera that this wasn't some sort of trick of the demon's, this was what Spike wanted all along. Bleah.

It's funny, I don't think I've ever felt so let down by the Buffy team. Spike's story has been marvelously complex and subtle, and such an important moment should have been at very least on par with the rest of story. It was, in my opinion, not even close.

[> [> [> is there any common ground here? -- Thomas the Skeptic, 09:12:32 09/13/02 Fri

The major bone of contention here seems to be that some of us think ME was guilty of bad writing at the end of season 6 and some of us adamantly insist this is not so. I don't see either side making any dramatic shifts in position so, can we at least settle on a more humble point of agreement and say that maybe they were a little too murky in pointing us where they wanted us to go? Even the "good writing" camp could cop to there being a tad too much indirection, yes? Or is it stupid for me to even ask?

[> less dustable, too... (spoilers for seasons 1, 4 and 6) -- Dead Soul, 10:10:19 09/11/02 Wed

The Master left behind quite a lot of non-dusty remains.

And since I'm making pointless comments about things that have nothing to do with this thread, did anyone else notice the magic disappearing and reappearing scarf last night on FX in Goodbye, Iowa?

And speaking of continuity errors - the biology professor's glasses in Teacher's Pet? In the poignant shot of the broken glasses at the end, the glasses they use (heavy black rims) don't actually even slightly resemble the ones he was wearing (gold rims).

Sorry, just in a pissy kind of mood - I blame it all on the fact that baseball is bumping the season premiere back from the 24th to midnight on the 26th (27th, to be completely anally accurate about it) where I live. Not to mention the fact that last night's reruns aren't going to be shown until Friday night here, either. Baseball will continue to screw with my Buffy schedule throughout the fall or whenever it is they quit playing the game.

But back on topic, I've purposefully not rewatched my tapes of the Season 6 eps - only watched the reruns, because I didn't want to get burned out on them, but as I recall, I really and truly, while I was watching it, before I came here so you all could do my thinking for me, thought he wanted the chip out so he could stop caring about her or anyone else. The ultimate numb-er (I typed "number" at first before realizing that that was actually a completely different word) for his broken heart. His own kind of "will it so" spell.

After Grave I pretty much saw his soul's return as yet another lesson on be careful what you wish for or at least in how you word it, although the "what you were" line still twists my knickers.

These were just my immediate impressions. Having examined all the arguments since; for my own peace of mind I came to the conclusion that Lurky truly was granting him his subconscious wish after it had been revealed by the ego-stripping trauma of the trials, but that this was made unclear by sloppy writing and bad direction.

I'd love to be proved wrong - to be mind-numbingly, jaw-droppingly shocked and surprised by ME and their brilliance. I'm so spoiler-free (and had better damn well remain that way!) that I won't even speculate to myself about what they might do, just in case, if by some miracle I was right and that made it less of a surprise. I won't read post-Grave fanfic (anymore - I have read some) in case one of you writers out there gets it right and makes it less of a surprise.

All in all it's going to be a long fifteen days and thirteen hours and 54 minutes. Basa-ball been bery bery bad to me.

Dead (but that hasn't shut my yap, has it?) Soul

[> [> I feel your pain -- Sophist, 10:51:47 09/11/02 Wed

Which is ironic or something, since I just finished reading your story. And I like it a lot. Hehe.

I'm going to miss the premiere of S7 because I have to go to VA and will be in an evening meeting. I probably won't see it until the 26th (at the earliest). And I have to avoid the Board until I do see it. Grr. Arrgh.

[> [> [> Thanks for the commiseration and -- Dead Soul, 12:44:14 09/11/02 Wed

Thanks for your kind words about the story. Want some more?

Dead (and unrepentant deviant) Soul

[> [> [> [> Absolutely. -- Sophist, breathing heavily, 12:55:16 09/11/02 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> Anticipation's the spice of having to wait until I get off work... -- Dead (but no slouch at the pre-show) Soul, 13:39:38 09/11/02 Wed

[> [> I -- Spike Lover, 10:53:31 09/11/02 Wed

Oh, I agree with you. I never thought he wanted his soul back. I think he wanted that chip out so that he could go on a killing spree without a migraine. Perhaps he could kill Buffy without brain surgery, but he might want to kill and maim what is most dear to her instead. (I don't blame him. I pretty much hated the season and most of the characters - and of course the writers that did it to me.) -I know y'all don't like the word 'hate', but it adequately describes the way I feel.

I caught a rerun the other day from Season 4, that made me think. Was there an episode this season called "Things fall apart"? Because in Season 4, they made reference to that line. It was the ep where Spike, recently chipped, was trying to stake himself and Buffy, X, W and he went down to the school to stop 3 demons from jumping into the hellmouth as a sacrifice (which would bring an apocolypse.) Spike realized he could fight demons in that ep and had a funny speech at the end: about wanting to go out and stomp out evil and dust vampires, and didn't W & X want to go along?

Anyway, Riley and Buffy were arguing as usual, about -I don't know what ( I tuned in in mid-episode.)
Riley says something like: "Things fall apart. And it is your friends that get you through." I can't remember why this was so enlightening for me, but it seemed really enlightening for Season 6 for some reason.

??

[> [> [> Things fall apart -- dream of the consortium, 10:56:58 09/11/02 Wed

Tara quote that (it's from Yeats) when she comes to Willow's room to reconcile.
I don't think there was an episode with that title, though.

[> [> [> [> Re: Things fall apart = Entropy -- alcibiades, 11:39:35 09/11/02 Wed

[> [> continuity errors? just listen! -- Vickie, 17:16:52 09/11/02 Wed

I too, feel your pain. Though basaball has not delayed my Buffy watching, I'm a very empathic soul. ;-)

In the vein of disappearing scarf, what's with the (what the heck is it anyway?) swag? bouquet? thingy on the Summers' house door?

Sometimes it's there. Sometimes it's not. Sometimes it's there when Dawn walks up to the door, but when we watch her come in (camera now inside the house), we can clearly see her through the middle window where the dried flower thingy should be hanging.

This nuttiness starts short after Joyce's death (though I haven't really checked before then). At first, I thought that the grieving family had just taken down Mom's holiday decor. Then it was back. Then it was a different shape.

I could understand if it just came and went. But I really do not believe that Buffy, Dawn, or any of the Scoobies was up to decorating in the Forever and just after timeframe.

[> [> [> Obviously, Vickie ... -- LadyStarlight, 18:15:31 09/11/02 Wed

it's an evil door decoration/swag/thingie and possesses the talent to materialize/dematerialize at will. If Buffy goes into an 8th season, maybe Dawn will realize what's going on and slay it.

[> [> [> [> Or maybe... -- Rob, 10:07:37 09/12/02 Thu

...the appearance of the door thingy is an evil anomaly that occurred when Dawn was created...like the M'Fashnik demon that was a result of Buffy's resurrection. In order to strike a balance in nature, the molding of the Key into human form created...the evil door-hanging thingy! Quiver in fear!!! Mwahahahahahahahaha!

Rob

[> Thanks for starting this thread, Darby... -- Rob, 09:21:05 09/12/02 Thu

It's been one of the most enjoyable ones that I've read in a long time...Very insightful and thought-provoking...and all thanks to you assaulting that poor deceased equine!

Rob