April 2002 posts
Once More with Feeling --
Magus777, 16:43:02 04/02/02 Tue
...And there's not a one who can say
This ended well
All those secrets
You've been concealing
Say you're happy now,
Once more with feeling
-Sweet
I believe that Joss maybe have been giving more secerts then what we hears in Once more with
feeling, the thing is, I don't know! Im asking everyone to give their Insight on these lines. Every
word of song from their mouths is something that comes from deep in their hearts.
In I've got a theory, is their more to what their singing then what we think?
I've rated the songs by question mark symbolizing how puzzling it is, one to five.
________________________________________________
"I've got a theory
That it's a demon
A dancing demon
No, something isn't right there."
-Giles
??
"I’ve got a theory
Some kid is dreaming
And we're all stuck inside
His wacky Broadway nightmare"
-Willow
______________________________
This line just makes me mad, is there something more to this then her funny fear or rhyming with
Giles?
_____________________________
?????
"It could be witches
Some evil witches,
Which is ridiculous
Cause witches,
They were persecuted
Wicca good
And love the earth
And women power,
And I’ll be over here"
????
-Xander
__________________________
Could Xander be expressing his fear of Magic users in this line? Or say specifically, Willow?
___________________________
"maybe midgets?"
-Anya
????? Add ?????
___________________________
What does Anya got against Midgets? That makes me more curious about our ex-demon friend.
(LOL)
AFTER I'VE GOT A THEORY
_____________________________
I lived my life in shadow
Never the sun on my face
It didn't seem so sad, though
I figured that was my place
Now I’m bathed in light
SOMETHING JUST ISN'T RIGHT
-Tara
???
__________________________________
I'm focussing on the last line.
___________________________________
"When things get rough
He just hides behind his Buffy
Now look, he's getting huffy
'Cause he knows that I know"
-Anya
??
_________________________________
Could this tell us that Anya is or was very uncomfortable with Xanders' and Buffy's
relationship?
__________________________________
Am I crazy?
Am I dreamin'?
Am I marrying
A demon?
We could
Really raise the beam
In makin' marriage a hell
-Xander
NOT EVEN A MARK
______________________________
We see the warning that Xander gave manifest in Hell's Bells.
_________________________________
And you can't tell the ones you love
You know they couldn't deal
-Spike
?????
___________________________
Is this a spolier telling us that the Scoobies won't be able to deal with Spikes and Buffys
relationship?
____________________________
You know,
You got a willing slave
-Spike
??
______________________--
Is this telling us that its true that Spike will do anything for Buffy?
_______________________
There's a traitor here beneath my breast
And it hurts me more than you've ever guessed
-Spike
?????
_________________________
Any Magic Users in town? Spike might want to become Human for Buffy somewhere along the story
line using Magic. Willow? No, Willow knows better. So does Tara. But what about Amy, she would do
anything to get a Magic friend back. Lets go to even higher heights, Catherine. She could be released
from the trophy any day, just lying in the ruins of Sunnydale High. And even larger, Rack.
__________________________________
"I bought Nero his very first fiddle."
-Sweet
?????
_____________________
In Buffy-verse, could a Broadway Christain Persecution of happened?
_______________________
I'm under your spell
God, how can this be?
Playing with my memory
You know I've been through hell
Willow, don't you see?
There'll be nothing left of me
You made me believe
-Tara
??
______________________________
It seems Tara was more disppointed with Willow then we think.
_______________________________
where do we
Go from here?
-Entire Scooby Gang
?????
__________
Have they really found out where there going?
[>
Re: Once More with Feeling -- Rob, 17:10:27 04/02/02 Tue
"'I’ve got a theory
Some kid is dreaming
And we're all stuck inside
His wacky Broadway nightmare"
-Willow
______________________________
This line just makes me mad, is there something more to this then her funny fear or rhyming with
Giles?"
That shouldn't make you mad, Magus. It's actually neither of your suggestions. It's a reference to the
first season episode, "Nightmares," where a young boy in a coma literally brings all of Sunnydale
into his dreams, making manifest all of the characters' own worst nightmares. The idea that a kid
could be dreaming this is from that episode, and is an in-joke for rabid "Buffy" continuity buffs, like
myself.
Rob
[> [>
Re: Once More with Feeling -- agent156, 19:38:48 04/02/02 Tue
And it's interesting that in a way "Nightmares" makes a reference to OMWF as well.
Xander: Uh, our dreams are coming true?
Giles: Dreams? That would be a musical comedy version of this. Nightmares, our, our nightmares
are coming true.
SMG mentioned in an interview that Joss had been planning to do a musical episode for quite some
time. Perhaps he had planned it since even the first season.
[> [>
Or... -- Darby, 20:47:42 04/02/02 Tue
...as has been suggested by someone here more perceptive than I, it could be referring to Joss himself
- pretty much all of Willow's few lines are somewhat "outside the box" commentary on the
episode.
[>
Re: Once More with Feeling -- ravenhair, 17:42:48 04/02/02 Tue
"I've got a theory
That it's a demon
A dancing demon
No, something isn't right there."
-Giles
Hmmm...well he was sort of right. The demon was tap dancing all over TheBronze. But that wasn't
the whole picture, was it? And again, Giles as Watcher makes a decision on behalf of the Scooby
Gang of what's "right". The image doesn't fit his idea of what the demon should be. Very
foreshadowy stuff.
"I’ve got a theory
Some kid is dreaming
And we're all stuck inside
His wacky Broadway nightmare"
-Willow
I thought this kinda foreshadowed Normal Again.
"maybe midgets?"
-Anya
LOL!! I have no idea...
[> [>
Re: Once More with Feeling -- MaeveRigan, 05:00:18 04/03/02 Wed
"maybe midgets?"
-Anya
Well, wasn't bunnies, either! :) Anya knows a lot about demons, but apparently she's in a panic at
this point and just not thinking clearly.
If some very small demons turn up in eps. 18-22, I'll revise my thinking on this, of course.
[> [>
"maybe midgets?" -- verdantheart, 08:16:22 04/03/02 Wed
Sometimes a cheeseman is just a cheeseman ...
... of course, there were the demon's ventriloquist-dummy-like henchmen ...
The Music of Buffy (as orchestrated by
Christopher Beck) -- Goji3, 17:47:13 04/02/02 Tue
This is VERY random. But, i was listening to some of Christopher Beck's Buffy score and I was
thinking about how Music of a show/movie can convey so much about the intent of that
film/show/movie. Especially a good soundtrack.
So, I listened carefully to the music and came up with one overwhelming theme: Tragedy.
Above all the action sequences and 'love', lies a huge tragedy. Who would dissagree with me about
that?
But...Frankly, I like the Ominous, action oriented marches of the King of Monsters over the gut-
wrenthingly tragic balads of Buffy.
[>
small quibble -- Vickie, 18:24:09 04/02/02 Tue
I believe the composer's name is Christophe?
[>
Speaking of music.... -- mundusmundi, 19:17:51 04/02/02 Tue
of which I won't because I know nothing about it...But for anyone interested, back in late May, Nina
wrote a phenomenal
analysis of the music for season 5 all the way through "The Gift." Lengthy but very well worth
it.
[> [>
Re: Speaking of music.... -- DickBD, 12:11:20 04/03/02 Wed
To me, the almost uncanny use of great music for the proper scenes has been a good part of the
strength of the show. (I'm a classical music fan myself--but not a musician.)
AtS and Forever Knight (spoilers Forever
Knight) -- parakeet, 21:35:04 04/02/02 Tue
I'm relatively new to this board, so forgive me if this subject has been broached before, but I've been
watching the Sci-Fi Channel's reruns of Forever Knight recently. I remember when Forever Knight
first aired, but I'm a little hazy on the specifics. I know that the original pilot (with Rick Springfield
in the starring role) aired sometime in the late eighties and that the series itself aired in the early
nineties (at least, I think that that's the proper timeline).
Of course, this early series bears quite a few superficial similarities with AtS. Both concern a
vampire detective trying to redeem himself, and both these vampires wear black coats and drive
convertibles. Also, both shows begin with a snatch of violin, and feature intercut (right word?)
scenes with a time-lapsed sun blazing across the sky. I'm not suggesting that AtS deliberately
copied Forever Knight, because the specifics of AtS make sense from where it took off from
Buffy.
Also, the tones of the two shows are very different. Forever Knight is much darker, in a very Gothic
Romance sort of way. This isn't to say that AtS hasn't been dark, just that it hasn't been nearly as
extreme. I mean the episode where we learn that LaCroix was turned into a vampire by his
daughter and then had to kill her because of her incestuous instincts is very noir. Nicolas' potential
saviour Natalie begs him to turn her when they think that Armeggedon is near. Then, of course,
there's how the series ended which I won't go into here even with a spoiler alert. The idea of
forbidden romance is central to Forever Knight in a way that it hasn't been with Angel since BtVS
Season 3 (and then only in the plot that deals with Buffy and Angel).
Now, about temptation and evil. (BTW, I love Angel; please don't read the following comments
otherwise.) Forever Knight's take on temptation and vampirism is much more interesting than that
explored in AtS. Angel is either evil (no soul) or good (with soul). Yes, he went through a slightly
ambivalent phase after Darla came back. However, Nick willingly chose vampirism. He went
through centuries both accepting it and (occasionally) trying to fight it. Then he came to terms with
his conscience, and decided that he wants to be mortal again. He struggles with addiction and
temptation, as well as with the paradox of using supernatural abilities to atone for his inhumanity.
He's an imperfect being who wants to try to be good, but knows that he can (and sometimes does)
fail.
Angel is better written, mostly. The effects are better, and the range is greater. However, I almost
prefer Forever Knight, because it's more complex, for all it's many limitations, and more true
emotionally, for all it's limitations in terms of writing skill. Forever Knight is about a man who is
moral but not righteous, and I find that intriguing.
[>
Re: AtS and Forever Knight (spoilers Forever Knight) -- Corwin of Amber, 22:18:05
04/02/02 Tue
The SciFi channel is a lot of fun because they run a lot of old
genre shows, which lets you think about what you were doing
many moons ago.
I saw the pilot when it first aired. I don't think they
intended it to ever become a series, since, if i remember
correctly, Nick killed LaCroix in the end. Overall i wasn't
too impressed, but the idea of a relic that could restore a
vampire to humanity was fairly original at the time. But the
image of Nick setting up a camera on the roof of his loft,
so he could watch the sun rise and set made an impression.
And i'm a sucker for the violin.
I wouldn't say that Angel copies Forever Knight, I would say
that they both have similiar source material. You don't see
the archetype of the Vampire Seeking Redemption until Anne Rice
published Interview With a Vampire in 1976. After that, you get
all these conflicted French vampires in movies and TV. :)
[> [>
Re: AtS and Forever Knight (spoilers Forever Knight) -- mucifer, 04:36:57 04/03/02
Wed
Actually if you want to include unintentionally campy vampires and the worst writing and acting in
TV history, Barnabus Collins in "Dark Shadows" was a vampire seeking redemption in a 1960s soap
opera.
[> [>
Isn't Angel's theme on a cello? -- Not-musical-enough-to-know-Darby, 09:08:23 04/03/02
Wed
[> [> [>
It ain't a violin! -- verdantheart, 11:19:41 04/03/02 Wed
Don't know about Forever Knight, never watched it. I think the point is, they're both strings.
[> [> [> [>
Re: It ain't a violin! -- parakeet, 00:40:05 04/04/02 Thu
Yes, my grade school music teacher would be very disappointed in me. Angel's theme would seem to
be done with cello. It was the "string" theme that struck me. I do want to reiterate that I wasn't
implying that AtS copied Forever Knight, just that there are superficial similarities, which make the
points of departure interesting.
[> [>
Re: Whooee! So glad someone brought FK up -- Valhalla, 10:51:37 04/03/02 Wed
I was a big fan of FK from its original run. When I started watching BtVS, I couldn't help making
some comparisons, at least in terms of the mythology and some of the central moral dilemmas.
Btw, FK is showing weekdays at 11am on Sci-fi, preceded by 2 half-hours of Dark Shadows, if anyone
is interested in jumping in, or refreshing their acquaintance with it.
Now, with all the BtVS and Angel under my belt, watching FK is even more interesting.
FK does suffer from a lack of self-irony that BtVS and Angel do not. No meta-narration in FK,
although there are some moments of levity.
The moral problems are fewer, and, I think, more blatant; LaCroix and Janette (sp?) are sometimes
a little too one-note when it comes to pushing the vampires are natural predators and thus above
human morality theme.
Nick's path to redemption is more interesting than Angel's. Nick still has a conscience -- in the FK
world, some vampires retain lingering consciences after they've been turned, but the implication (I
think) is that they don't usually last all that long. But Nick has, and has dedicated himself to doing
good despite the fact that he still has strong predatory feelings. Like Angel, Nick had a long history
of killing (although he does not seem to ever have had Angel's relish for torture), which he is trying
to put behind him.
Nick and Angel both have a vampire 'family', the members of which are constantly trying to pull
them back to the dark. However, Angel's soul seems to make it much easier for him to resist his
nature than Nick. And Angel has the active support of several people in his path to redemption,
whereas Nick only has one. And Nick's detractors are much more constantly in his face about giving
up his quest than Angel's.
One thing, though, that I just realized after watching some of the FK marathon in light of BtVs and
Angel is that while Nick joined the police to redeem himself and help himself regain mortality, for
most of FK, he is more oriented toward using science to try to redeem himself than Angel. he works
with his medical examiner girlfriend, Natalie, on finding a biological cure for his vampirism. Natalie
does research into the biological differences between mortals and vampires, and sets out a
combination of behavior therapy and medical solutions for Nick. Nick is a little reluctant to go along
with Natalie, but it is an area of hope for him, despite the fact that he seems to have better results,
redemption-wise when he concentrates on working through the moral problems of vampirism than
just popping the garlic pills prescribed for him by Natalie. Todays episode was a good example;
when Nick finally was able to understand and accept the meaning of religious faith, he was able to
hold a cross without the burning overwhelming him. (that's another big difference between
BtVS/Angel and FK - FK deals more often with God, Christianity, and religion than in the
Buffyverse).
Oooo - so many interesting comparisons. In FK, humans and vampires are much more segregated.
In FK there is a group of vampires called the Enforcers that kill any humans who learn about
vampires, whereas in B/A mortals who have occasion to learn about the existence of vampires are
more likely to just deny their knowledge (outside the Scoobies and Wolfram & Hart). The vamps in
B/A don't really seem to spend much energy worrying about being found out.
Ok, time to stop effusing and do my taxes. Looking forward to more posts, though ...
[> [> [>
Re: Angel's vampire family? -- Robert, 14:50:21 04/03/02 Wed
>> "Nick and Angel both have a vampire 'family', the members of which are constantly trying to pull
them back to the dark. "
Can you expand upon this point? Who is Angel's vampire family?
[> [> [> [>
Re: Angel's vampire family? -- Valhalla, 16:33:02 04/03/02 Wed
Darla, Spike and Dru. I meant vamps who are connected to each other by siring (I think that's how
it's been referred to on the show). On FK, LaCroix made Nick, and I think he also made
Janette.
[> [> [> [>
Angel's family was composed of Spike, Dru, and most especially Darla... -- Forsaken,
16:37:03 04/03/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
This was Angelus' family, not Angel's -- Masq, 18:20:57 04/03/02 Wed
They didn't have much of an influence on him as Angel after 1900.
True, Angel has had an on-going relationship with Darla, but it is much more complex than Darla
trying to tempt him to evil. She doesn't succeed well. It's more Angel trying to redeem Darla.
And Darla has played out many classic human archetypes with Angel. The bitter ex-wife,
the woman scorned, the woman knocked up and abandoned. She plays these human roles to his
human self because she knows it gets under his skin more than Darla the Vampire.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: a bit of a quibble -- Valhalla, 21:14:43 04/03/02 Wed
I think they are still Angel's family, as I defined it. Even if you essentially renounce your family (or
your family renounces you), it's still acceptable to refer to them in terms of family, at least in
shorthand (eg, 'I no longer speak to my family' 'I'm estranged from my mother' make sense). Darla's
still Angel's sire, and Angel's still Dru's sire. Or at least Angel still thinks so, or he wouldn't feel so
horribly about having tortured Dru into madness before he vamped her.
Actually, I agree with what you said entirely about Dru, Spike, Darla not having had much influence
on Angel; the point I was trying to make (and I just reread my post and I'm not sure I was clear) is
that in some ways Nick's dilemma about his inherent nature as a vamp is more interesting than
Angel's. Angelus didn't choose to have a soul; Angelus in fact would not have welcomed the idea at
all. Once he got a soul he became fundamentally different from Darla and gang, and resisting their
influence was, if not easy, then at least in line with his new nature. When Angelus became Angel, he
lost his bloodthirst (figuratively if not literally) and his joy in torture. Nick in FK is in a more
ambivalent position; after he's vamped, he still has the tug of his mortal conscience but he also has
tremendously strong predatory (vamp) drives and a great thirst for human blood, even in relatively
ordinary situations. Nick is much more similar to his sire in his nature and his desire than Angel,
which makes his fight to become mortal more interesting (to me, anyway).
I'm not saying that Nick is more interesting than Angel overall. In fact, I have high hopes for the
rest of this season -- I think Angel is going to get a whole lot more interesting with the current
storyline. Plus as much as I love FK, Angel is better written. But on this one point, I think Nick has
the greater challenge.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Darla -- Robert, 22:40:08 04/04/02 Thu
>> "Angel has had an on-going relationship with Darla"
How on-going can it be, now that Darla is dust?
[>
Re: AtS and Forever Knight (spoilers Forever Knight) -- MaeveRigan, 04:54:40 04/03/02
Wed
I watched 3 of the Forever Knight eps, as I'd never seen the series before (though I'd heard of it). One
was an alternate reality scenario in which vampires didn't exist--reminded me of "Normal Again" or
"I Will Remember You"--another the traumatic "LaCroix must kill his evil incestuous vampire
daughter" ep; and the third a more run-of-the-mill (I guess) vamp murder tale.
I like Geraint Wyn Davies as Nick; never saw Rick Springfield in the role, of course. But mostly my
reaction was, "Where's the irony? Where's the wit?" LaCroix supplied some, in a dark way, but
generally, the show seemed to take itself sooo seriously.
Guess I prefer my vampires with a pinch of salt (that doesn't kill them, does it?). How long till the
next new AtS ep? ;)
[>
Comparing a poem to a novel -- fresne, 07:31:27 04/03/02 Wed
I was actually, thinking about that on Monday, when well, no Angel, but Forever Knight marathon
on Sci Fi.
Allow me to be among one of the few who will agree with you. Oh, not that I don't enjoy Angel, it's
just that Forever Knight was a lyric poem. So, on one hand very similar in content. In tonal quality,
like comparing a poem to a novel.
The way the sun, was not just something that the writers tried move around, but a physical entity in
every single episode. Those beautiful shots of the sun crossing the sky. The repetition within the
series of vampires, who die by choosing to go into the sun. The absolute rarity of daylight within the
series. The use of spot lights across buildings, which both illuminated and concealed in shadow. The
sweet tranquility of Skanke's last episode as he washed Nick's car in a sunlit park, because he has
finally come to a realization and some sort of acceptance of Nick's nature. And of course, that final
episode, that final rising of the sun.
I think you hit it right on the head, that Nick is in a much ambivalent position, redemption wise,
than Angel. Which isn't to put down Angel's journey, it's just that I very rarely get a sense of, well,
the choice of the thing from Angel. Beyond the initial seduction, Liam, then Angelus falls gleeful into
evil. Then with a curse and soul, this Angel has been set to brood. I get flashes of the struggle, but
ultimately he is the center of prophesy. A champion.
While Nick is literally a knight errant, who chooses every failure and every success. And okay, I'm a
sucker for redemption stories about people who have lost their faith. Nick was a medieval Catholic
Christian who went on the 4th Crusade and because of what he saw, lost his way. Lost his faith in
God, in the Church, and in humanity. What a ripe moment for temptation. Really, this is what both
the flashbacks and Nick's action within the series show, Nick is searching for something to believe
in.
Again we can compare, but not really, Angel's quest for Shansu with Nick's desire to be human.
Angel sought for a time to rack up points by defeating fearsome demonic foe and then falls into a
realization of the necessity of little good deeds. Contrast this to Nick, who is constantly looking for
"the cure." Again searching for something to believe in. Some bit of science or magic that will cleanse
his soul and make him feel okay again. The benefit of FK is that we know how it ends. That final
tragic coda, which is about letting go of self.
I guess it's that, after six years of show on Buffy and Angel, I don't feel that I know Angel. He broods.
He suffers. He acts goofy. Who is he really? What is he about? I could gnaw on Nick's struggles like
an earlier version of Spike, but Angel I can't seem to make myself want to understand.
Now Wesley, that's another story.
[> [>
Re: Comparing a poem to a novel -- Darby, 09:13:08 04/03/02 Wed
I almost didn't read this thread because I know zip about Forever Knight. Others may have passed
it by as well.
But Fresne, what you've said about Angel deserves a dedicated thread. Do people feel they really
know him?
[> [> [>
Angel the uncharacter -- matching mole, 10:07:32 04/03/02 Wed
I think Fresne is really on to something. I've only seen portions of a few episodes of Forever Knight
years ago so I'm going to veer off topic and talk about Angel the character. What Fresne had to say
really rung true for me. Angel has never seemed like a real character to me. Certainly not on BtVS
where he was 'idealized tragic boyfriend' and not much else and not really on AtS either. Perhaps
perversely I think this really works well in the context of AtS. I see Angel as playing a role in AtS
similar to that of Aragorn in Lord of the Rings. As a character, Aragorn isn't much to speak of, his
role is defined by his being the heir of Isildur's Kingdom and thus military champion of the forces of
good against Sauron. We don't really get a sense of how he feels about this and if there is something
else he would rather be doing like fly fishing in the Misty Mountains or painting landscapes in
Rivendell.
But what Aragorn does do is occupy the traditional hero role in the book while not attracting too
much attention to himself, because he's not really that interesting. The other, more interesting,
characters get to fit themselves in around Aragorn's traditional hero role but aren't overshadowed by
it.
Back to AtS. I quite often forget that Angel is supposed to be this champion for good in some
imminent clash between food and evil unless they specifically bring it up. Frankly that isn't a very
interesting part of the show for me. What I am interested in are Cordelia, Wesley, Lorne, Gunn, and
Fred and what happens to them. One of the great things about the central arc of season 2 was how
Angel's actions affected both the others at AI and Wolfram and Hart (and Kate and Darla). Angel's
journey wasn't the main interest for me, although I did love the epiphany speech, by how his journey
affected the others.
[> [> [> [>
Angel the character -- Masq, 10:46:14 04/03/02 Wed
Angel is my favorite character and always has been. I guess it's because I can personally relate to
him, especially as he has been depicted on AtS. In my post below, "Apples and Oranges" I think I
figured out why.
Angel has one part of his unlife that he is very confident about--Angel the Champion. He tracks
down the demons, the sorcerers, the alternate dimensions, takes charge, gets the job done.
But there is another part of him that is very insecure. Goofy Angel. I don't see this as comic relief.
Angel is trying to live as a man in the human world, and he's not very good at it. I can relate to this
because I have parts of my life where I'm very confident--my writing and philosophy, but in the real
world, I'm inept. I'm constantly struggling to take care of myself and relate to other people. Angel is
similar.
When he goes through his struggle in Season 2, the struggle is as much about Angel the man as it is
Angel the Champion. He has chosen to live in the human world and he needs to find his place in it. It
is compelling to me that he downplays his status as Champion. He starts to see his work, the stuff he
does every day, in human terms, "small acts of kindness", rather than destiny-prophecied-PTB-called
larger-than-life grandeur.
His struggle this season in bringing him even more into the ordinary world--fatherhood. What could
be more ordinary than that?
Of course, things are always a little larger-than-life for him and the other characters as well, but
that's life in the Buffyverse.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Angel the character -- ponygirl, 11:26:04 04/03/02 Wed
Great points on Angel, Masq! A role like "the Champion" is by necessity an empty one, it is what
people pour all of their expectations into -- the champion becomes more of an avatar. Buffy escaped
that trap from the start, her champion persona is something she seems to put on a certain moments.
When Angel takes on the role he seems to be weighted down, as though it brings him in contact with
all the dark parts of himself. Conversely Angelus seemed to be much lighter - totally evil of course,
but playful. It seems to me that Angel is trying to integrate his personality, to access the lighter
parts of himself that he had buried in angst.
While I'm not a fan of Groo, it seems that he provides a example of what happens when one lives
entirely as a champion. He did what he was supposed to, he saved his world, and when it was over
he couldn't live there anymore.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Angel fans UNITE! *throws up a revolutionary fist* -- AngelVSAngelus, 12:18:39
04/03/02 Wed
much like the Masqness herself, Angel's always been my fav, for the very same reasons. Call it self
involved to project yourself I guess, but I see so much I can relate to in the guy that he's always
prominently appealed to me.
The truly odd thing is his reactions to things seem to almost ALWAYS parralel my own in reality.
When he becomes TOO determined to the point of obsession, I do as well. When things get
frustrating and he tries to shirk his idealism to not care, so too do I attempt to do so, and like him
my attempt is to no avail. When he lightens I lighten, when he broods, I brood. Its all rather creepy
to me, actually.
Of the same accord, I think there's something about everyone but Buffy and Gunn that I can relate
to. Xander's goofyness and virtue (some would say self righteousness, I know), Willow's insecurity
and desire to please others, Spike's impulsively obsessive nature and Romantic extremities (my
friends often yell at me for my masochistic devotion to my now ex-girlfrien. *shrug* what can I say? I
too am love's bitch), Wesley's father issues (*growl*), Angel's guilt and self loathing (though,
incidentally, I don't recall ever having committed any sort of misdeed that needs redeeming), Anya's
naivety and discomfort with fragility/mortality.Despite that, I love their characters. I don't need
them to resemble me personally or anything to be interested.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Angel fans UNITE! *throws up a revolutionary fist* -- yabyumpan, 15:25:37
04/03/02 Wed
Angel is definetly my favorite character, and like others, I think it's because I too can relate to him.
Not quite sure what my demon is or what i'm trying to atone for but i do try to fight the good fight
and have times when it's just too much (like now:-( ). I also think he's the most fasinating character.
He's lived as human, vampire and now vampire with soul. One of the reasons that I find him so
interesting is that Angel wouldn't be Angel without Angelus, he needs his demon IMO, to actually do
the work that he does. Part of that is the motivation to act but also with his demon abilities he is
stronger, has hightened senses, heals quickly and because of all he's seen and done, can more easily
get into the minds of his enemies. Without Angelus, Liam would have just stayed a looser, would
have had no thought to help the hopeless. It is because of Angelus that TPTB have a champion. I
love observing his journey and I think it was DB who said at the start of this season that they're only
just begining to scratch the surface of who he is. For me, Angel is one of the most intreaging and
complex characters ever created.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Angel the character -- Slain, 15:25:23 04/03/02 Wed
I never watched Forever Night, as I don't think it was ever on TV here! ;) But it does seem like an
interesting show. I think if we're going to look for the origins of AtS, though, then surely it's in
Batman - something they've played with a bit in the series.
Personally I like the character of Angel - he mostly seemed aloof in BtVS, but in AtS he's come into
his own with all his funny insecurities and vanities. It seems to me that for the first time in
hundreds of years, Angel is really getting in touch with his humanity. I think of him as Batman and
Bruce Wayne in one, like an update of two-sided comic book hero.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Angel the character ...tiny bit speculative -- Rufus, 01:23:41 04/04/02 Thu
Angel has one part of his unlife that he is very confident about--Angel the Champion. He tracks
down the demons, the sorcerers, the alternate dimensions, takes charge, gets the job done.
But there is another part of him that is very insecure. Goofy Angel. I don't see this as comic relief.
Angel is trying to live as a man in the human world, and he's not very good at it. I can relate to this
because I have parts of my life where I'm very confident--my writing and philosophy, but in the real
world, I'm inept. I'm constantly struggling to take care of myself and relate to other people. Angel is
similar.
Ironic that Angel shares one thing with Buffy, both have powers rooted in darkness but are both
stymied by everyday living this season.
I have to disagree that Angel is a true Champion, yet. I feel this way because of the nature of his
ongoing problem with everyday life. As Liam, his main problem was his self-involvment that lead to
parental misunderstanding and eventual torment for many people. The fact that Angel got a soul
restored to him in the way he did I do enjoy. He didn't earn a soul, he didn't want a soul...hated the
idea of feeling human feelings enough to torture those types of feelings out of many of his victims,
noteably Drusilla. But a soul he got, not because he deserved one, but out of vengeance. Another
irony I can't resist...that vengeance can actually have unintended favorable results. Took some time
before Angel was able to start to appreciate the world, call it the world's longest detox..;) It was the
moment when he first saw Buffy, this young girl, a born to be champion, start her life as a slayer.
That brought him into the good fight...like it or not.
Angel's biggest problem has been with loving relationships and that has been worked out first in
Buffy and carried onto Angel, the Series. I say that Angel isn't a champion..yet, because he has a
way to go before he integrates the human with the demon, creating a whole being. That healthy
being will no longer let the presence of demons trouble him. The things that happened with Darla,
up to the baby are the biggest tests of his life...it's how he has learned to love, even the unloveable.
It's how he found a love seperated from carnality.
Goofy Angel has been a sore spot for many this season but I feel he is a necessary step for the
Champion to be. Angel said it best in the resturant with the gang..."I'm very old"..he is very old, but
at the same time a child when it comes to interacting, sober, with others. Buffy was a start, he has
been progressing through many trials all involving love and loss. Angel had an Epiphany that will be
put to the test when he is faced with what Wesley did. Can he forgive? For a man/demon out for
redemption I feel the first step is forgiveness of others before you attain your goal. Goofy Angel is a
reminder of how adolecent Angel still can be when dealing with real people. But that will all change
when he finally become comfortable with who and what he is. If he can't forgive someone who has
wronged him, then how far can he progress? He made a great step when he was able to let Cordy go
off with the Comic book hero type, Groo. Angel is no Comic book type, he is more like us....with all
the foibles we can relate to so well. This is why Angel the Series keeps me coming back...not just
Angel, but Angels test of living in a world he feels he has no right to belong to. But he is still trying,
still overcoming his insecurities to slowly become the Champion he was meant to be.
[> [> [> [>
"Clash between food and evil"?! ROFL. -- Sophist, 10:54:37 04/03/02
Wed
That's a great line mole.
[> [> [> [>
Quote (typo?) of the week: "imminent clash between food and evil" !!! -- The
Second Evil, 15:38:24 04/03/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
food=good, no food=evil -- matching mole, 09:02:11 04/04/02 Thu
I just wish all my typos were so entertaining!
[> [> [> [> [> [>
On a show about vampires, the irony is sublime. JW would be envious. -- Sophist,
09:23:35 04/04/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [>
In my life, it is the clash between good and food. -- Ian, 12:26:56 04/04/02 Thu
[> [> [> [>
Re: Angel the uncharacter -- fresne, 07:34:15 04/04/02 Thu
Okay, I go with Angel the Aragorn like hero. I'm actually quite gratified that anyone feels the same
way.
(Uniting Angel fans not withstanding and quite frankly I really wish I could connect to him in that
same way) Normally, I chalk this sort of thing up to different people like or disliking different
characters, but it's not that I dislike Angel, I just don't get him.
I can imagine that, for example, when Giles isn't on the show, that he's playing guitar or reading a
book or listening to his vast music collection, which he takes seriously. It's the juxtapositions
between Giles the bibliophile and Giles the 70s electric coolade Ripper which give the character
depth for me. There is an inner life there beyond the emotion of the moment to which I can
connect.
When Angel is not on screen, I don't know what he's doing. Reading poetry or doing Tai Chi, I
suppose. Perhaps reading poetry while doing Tai Chi. When he is on screen, I don't know what he's
thinking beyond the surface content.
What's funny is I get Angelus. When he was not on screen, he still existed off somewhere messing
around with Drucilla, messing with Spike's head, watching tv, killing people, you know stuff.
Angelus did things and I could see the inner motivation. Ah, here are the shifts in his face and body
language as he realizes what has happened to him. Ah, here is the point that his love for Buffy
begins to drive him mad. Fascinating.
And what I find particularly frustrating is the flashes I get of a character that I could get. For
example, the season 2 opener. But then that Angel disappears again and I get jolt from the
disconnection.
To the extent that at least once or twice a season, I just get so frustrated with the tonal changes and
my lack of connection to the main character that I stop watching the show. Then, you know how it is,
people keep talking about it, and I start again. Actually, this season has been the first season that I
haven't done that. Mainly because the shifts from dark to goof have been less abrupt (and this is just
my take. No offense intended for those who love, love, love…) and I'm finding Fred, Gunn and
Wesley (okay last season on Wesley and Gunn as well) increasingly fascinating characters, which
takes the weight off of Angel.
[> [> [> [> [>
agreed -- ponygirl, 08:46:01 04/04/02 Thu
The inconsistencies in tone keep driving me away from the series, but I come back when there's been
a lot of discussion about an episode. I'm not sure if anyone knows what to make of Angel, including
the writers. Having more secondary characters has certainly helped, but for my biggest complaint
about AtS (and I'm opening up a can of worms here) is that none of the characters in the past seemed
to have an emotional arc for the entire season. That being said the last batch of episodes have been
excellent, but in some ways I feel that's because the perspective has shifted to Wesley, a character
who really seems to be on a journey.
[> [> [> [> [>
After thinking more about this -- matching mole, 09:00:21 04/04/02 Thu
and reading some of the other posts I've decided that there are two different things going on in terms
of my appreciation of Angel (the character). One is just a persoanl bias on my part against the
(much) larger than life, figure out prophecy aspect to Angel. No big deal or reason for further
discussion. The other is what fresne is discussing. The absence of an integrated personality as a
part of Angel's character. Not that there's anything wrong with that necessarily. Charles Dickens is
one of my favourite authors but I would never claim that most his characters are realistic portrayals
of human beings. They are magnificent creations but their value lies in symbolism rather than
realism.
I view BtVS and AtS as opposite sides of a coin. BtVS is an increasingly internal show. AtS is an
external show. In contrast to BtVS it is set in a big city, has a workplace focus, and has a group of
people who were originally brought together by shared external concerns rather than personal
relationships. The 'big bads' of Angel are not the individual villains of BtVS but impersonal
organizations woven into the fabric of society.
So what? Well I think that Angel as he stands now serves the show well. His personality swings
provide a dynamic to move the show along. I agree with fresne that they often aren't very convincing
in and of themselves. Angel seems to me to consist of at least three different characters: goofy (i.e.
happy) Angel, noir (i.e. obsessed) Angel, and brooding (i.e. sad and regretful) Angel. These don't
seem like moods, they seem like completely different characters. However the movement of Angel
between these different personalities does seem to propel the show in very interesting directions.
Angel is this central figure that affects everything around him. That's what makes him interesting,
at least to me.
[>
Apples and oranges -- Masquerade, 09:09:50 04/03/02 Wed
I am a big fan of both "Angel" and "Forever Knight". Despite the superficial similarties between the
two (which kind of bugged me at first, too), I don't think you can compare the two shows. They are
apples and oranges.
"Forever Knight" is show about being a vampire. "Angel" is a show about being a champion, with a
main character who happens to be a vampire. His vampire strength makes him a larger-than-
life champion like his counter-part on BtVS, Buffy, the Slayer.
"Forever Knight" is supposed to take place in what is essentially the real world. "Angel", on the other
hand, inherits the grand scope of the Buffyverse, with all its mythological creatures, demons, magic,
prophecies and dimensions. The problems Nick deals with as a cop are problems of modern society--
murder, drugs, sex crimes, etc. I don't think you can discount the fact that Nicky Knight and Angel
walk in very different worlds.
They also serve very diffent metaphorical roles within their worlds. In "Forever Knight", Nick is a
metaphor for the internal struggle of good and evil. Both pull at him constantly, and he straddles the
gap between the human world and the vampire world. Angel doesn't live in the vampire world at all.
He kills his "own kind" without a thought and considers himself better than them.
"Angel" as a show is a metaphor for adulthood. The struggle to make a living, to find the meaning of
one's existence, of parenthood, of responsibility. We see Angel, Cordy, Gunn, etc., trying to figure out
where their place is. Actress or Vision-girl? Street defender or A.I. detective? Champion for the
Powers that Be or earth-bound hero practicing "small acts of kindness"?
Being a champion keeps Angel at a distance from the everyday mundane realities of adulthood,
trying to be a man in the human world draws him back into the realities of adulthood. Angel has
confidence in his abilities as a Champion, but is very insecure about being a man in the human
world. He can be jealous, defensive, and goofy as he trips over human interaction. But he is learning,
just as we all learn to cope as adults as well.
[> [>
<self-pity mode>No one wants to read my humble little post *sob*</self-pity
mode> -- Masq, 16:20:11 04/03/02 Wed
[> [>
Waves at Masq - Responding here!!!! -- yabyumpan, 17:05:02 04/03/02 Wed
I don't feel I can comment on FK as I've never seen it, living in the UK an' all. I am re-watching a sci-
fi program called Prey at the momment though and the Character of Tom in that reminds me of
Angel. the program is about a newly evolved species of human, stronger, higher inteligence etc, who
are trying to wipe out humans. Tom is a member of the new species but he has discovered he feels
emotions and is helping the humans defeat the new species.
On to the rest of your post, I can also see Angel as a metaphor for the internal struggle between good
and evil. He is constantly struggling with his own inner demon, even though he has a soul, the blood
lust can still be activated (shroud of rahmon, disharmony,loyalty, sleep tight). While the show may
be a metaphor for adulthood I see the character of Angel as the battle we all have with our internal
demon. I wrote more about this in the post above and I also wrote a fairly long essey about it which I
posted on this board and got totally ignored. Maybe it was just badly written. Writting's not my forte.
The basic premise was that for Angel to shanshu, as well as all the battles etc, he also needs to fully
accept and be at peace with his demon. One of the things I've found interesting this season is that
Angel talks about his time as Angelus much more freely and refers to him as I, so maybe the process
is starting. It's a shame there's not a ATP just for AtS as Angel posts tend to get lost/ignored here
and I don't visit as often as I used to as BtVS has sort of lost me this year even though I'm still
watching, I just can't seem to care.
[> [> [>
An Angel board?? -- Masq, 18:15:59 04/03/02 Wed
Agree with you somewhat on BtVS this year--my episode analyses aren't as fun and satisfying now
as they were in Seasons past for BtVS or for Angel this season and seasons past.
Having a separate board for Angel is an interesting idea. It would prevent the "swamped post"
phenomena we get here of Angel threads getting knocked into the archives by
yet.another.Spike.thread. How many threads do they need to talk about the exact same thing over
and over?
I hesitate to make an Angel board just because I'm worried it might divide up the posting community
here, but I'm tempted. What does anyone else think?
[> [> [> [>
Naw, make a Spike board for those who can't get enough of him. ;-) -- Solitude1056,
18:59:46 04/03/02 Wed
Sequester them, not us folks who like Angel, Buffy, and the rest of the sidekicks equally! Oh, wait,
aren't there like 3 or 4 or 700 of those already? ;-)
[> [> [> [> [>
The problem with that is... -- Masq, 20:25:06 04/03/02 Wed
How do we keep them off the "main" board, then? Have a "no threads start with Spike" rule? I forsee
a horrendous situation in which Spike posts run rough-shod over the Spike board and the main
board.
I have night mares about these things.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
We're having such success keeping spoilers off of this board since the Trollop Board went
up! -- d'Herblay, 20:48:43 04/03/02 Wed
Snerk.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: The problem with that is... -- yabyumpan, 03:18:18 04/04/02 Thu
The thing with Spike is that whether he gets too much post time or not, he is still a part of BtVS,
Angel isn't and hasn't been for three years. Ats is a seperate show, seperate networks etc. While
there are nods back to BtVS (Hearthrob, end of Carpe Noctem,begining of Fredless), it exists in a
different universe in many ways. I think a seperate board would allow for more in depth discussion
of all the characters and the show in general. There are also many people who don't watch/have
never seen BtVS who watch and love Ats, those people probably never come here but may well visit a
seperate board.
I must admit to feeling a bit guilty about rooting for this as my computer skills consist of turning on
and tuning in! so I'm aware that I'm asking someone (Masq?) to put in a lot of work and poss
expence, my only contribution would be boring eveyone with off the wall posts, but hey, someones got
to do it!!!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
In that case, no more ATPoBtVS. -- Solitude1056, 07:58:53 04/04/02 Thu
Yeah, it'd now be ATPitJ... All Things Philosophical in the Jossverse!
Which it might as well be anyway, since Angel and Fray both exist in the "buffyverse" as opposed to
the "realverse" which many of us also call the "jossverse" for short already. So I don't see ATPoBtVS
as being really specific to BtVS except by virtue of the title - in practical application, it's really 99%
about the buffyverse, and only 1% spam about silly band names. ;-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
the problem with that is... -- Masq, 08:37:47 04/04/02 Thu
I fear it scares Angel fans away. They don''t even think to come here because they think it's a BtVS-
only site. I wanted to change the name. There was a thread on that some time last month. I was
flabbergasted by the number of people who said don't change the name. A bit who-cares-about-Angel
contingent out there.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: the problem with that is... -- JM, 10:34:32 04/04/02 Thu
A bit of that may be the PWHC (People Who Hate Change), which includes me. I love, love Angel
and am always sad when the Monday posts get crushed by Tuesday views, but my fingers don't want
to learn a new address. I'm still mad that MBTV is now TWoP, even though their new server works
much, much better.
When you made the suggestion initially, I was afraid that there would actually be even less
discussion because all the BtVS posters would stay here, but maybe that won't happen. Maybe, if it's
not too much work you could set up a trial Angel discussion board. If after the first month it doesn't
seem to be working, it could be folded back into the mother board. Just a suggestion.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
why not just... -- Solitude1056, 12:11:46 04/04/02 Thu
Call it "ATPoBV" instead? or clarify that Buffyverse includes Angel, Buffy, and Fray? Or leave the
initials the same, but specify that it's not just "buffy the vampire slayer" anymore? After all, you've
already got the domain registered and we're all used to the initials - perhaps newcomers just need to
have it clarified that "buffy" encompasses three shows/stories now, instead of just one.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: why not just... -- Masq, 15:30:19 04/04/02 Thu
I already mention both BtVS and Angel right under the title of the site on the main page. And of
course there are Angel episode analyses, and my new announcement at the top of the forum that
mentions both BtVS and Angel.
It's not about letting new comers to my site know that Angel is here. Angel is here and has been here
for years. It's letting people who would click or not click on a link to my site know they'll get Angel if
they click. People can't tell that from the name.
I have to the word out to sites that link to me to mention that ATPo's got Angel, too. Changing the
name would help with that.
I added banners with the Angel cast on them. Liq is making me a graphic with characters from both
shows to put on my main page. I plan to actually email as many sites as I know of with the
information. And I plan to cross-reference my site link on Yahoo: Angel.
As you can tell, this is very important to me.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
No Angel hate here! -- Vickie, 15:04:33 04/05/02 Fri
I was one who didn't want to change the name. I was only concerned for the loss of name
recognition.
It's your board (and site), Masq. Do with it as you like. I'll still come by, read, and bore people
anyway! ;-)
[> [>
Re: Apples and oranges -- Lilac, 17:38:37 04/03/02 Wed
I too was a big fan of FK in it's heyday. When Angel first debuted, some of the superficial similarities
really bothered me. I was soon won over by the clearly superior writing on Angel. I went from
thinking that the Angel spin off would never work to thinking it works really very well.
I agree with your assesment of the nature of the conflicts in both shows. Nick is forever batteling
against his own nature. Angel, when Angelus is not in the house, is more outwardly directed, trying
to find his place in the world. Nick is willing to risk everything to regain his humanity. Angel
rejected the chance to regain his mortality, and his life with Buffy, because it would have meant that
he would no longer have had the resources he depends on to fight the good fight. I always thought
that Nick, while he could still certainly have been a cop if he did become human again, would only
have lasted about a half hour into his first mortal shift on the job, depending as he did on his
enhanced abilities to do his job. He never learned how to duck.
I also always felt that La Croix was an excellent evil vampire. You got the feeling with La Croix that
he really had been many places and seen many things, he had the gravitas of age. I have to say I
never get that feeling from the Buffyvere's perpetually adolescent vampires (except maybe the
Master, who didn't last long).
[> [> [>
Vampires, souls, adolescence, Buffverse, FK, Anne Rice -- Masq, 18:26:13 04/03/02
Wed
You're right that Buffyverse vampires are stuck in perpetual adolescence. Forever Knight vampires
were more like Anne Rice vampires, some of them were quite old and wise and experienced.
I think the difference between the Buffyverse vampires and FK/Anne Rice vampires is the later can
have souls, often from the moment they are made into vampires, they walk around brooding.
Buffyverse vampires, on the other hand, are a metaphor for the Freudian Id, that part of us that
"never grows up".
[> [> [> [>
Masq... nail, hammer, BANG. ..........very well put, oh great moderatoress! ;-) --
Solitude1056, 18:57:14 04/03/02 Wed
[> [> [> [>
Question......who says we don't read your posts? -- Rufus, 21:51:41 04/03/02 Wed
That brings me to the question of what would happen if Angelus were able to surface again. Would
the loss of the soul again trigger the exact same response as it did in Season two Buffy. I ask that as
Angel has grown considerably since his stay in Sunnydale, so even if he were again soulless, would
he simply regress back to Angelus or would his experiences and growth and as Angel in LA be
translated out in different behaviors than before?
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Question......who says we don't read your posts? -- yabyumpan, 03:00:46 04/04/02
Thu
I would say that Angelus's response would be the same, poss more so. As Masq said in the post
above, Buffyverse Vamps are stuck in Adolecence,His gripes against Buffy were that she made him
feel human, made him feel love; I think the fang gang has done that and then some. I think the
difference would come from the people around him. The scoobies were unprepared, weren't expecting
him etc, and also didn't really know him. He didn't form a bond with anyone but Buffy. The gang in
L.A. think of him as a friend,family even, feel love for him. Plus they are all aware and in some way
prepared for Angelus to return. I would imagine their initial response would be to try to capture and
re-soul him, but also, because they love him, they would also all be prepared to stake him if
necassary. Angel has made it clear to all of them at some point, that if he ever became Angelus
again, that they should kill him. I think that if push came to shove, they would stake Angelus to
honour the promises they gave to Angel.
[> [> [> [> [>
What happens when Angel becomes Angelus? -- Lilac, 05:29:53 04/04/02 Thu
I know, the soul goes and the evil comes in. But what I have never, never understood is why Spike
can operate with a modicum of control no matter how big bad he thinks he is, and Angelus is totally
out of control. Why is Angelus so very evil? Isn't Angel's brain still in there somewhere, why can't his
rational mind exert some influence on his soulnessness? This has never been satisfactorily explained
to me.
In response to Rufus's question, one would think, rationally, that the experiences that Angel has had
should change the way Angelus is manifested. But I am thinking that, based on the fact that a 100
years of clean living didn't give Angel any control over himself, the last couple of years wouldn't help
much either.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: What happens when Angel becomes Angelus? -- AngelVSAngelus, 13:50:04 04/04/02
Thu
Its always been odd to me that Angelus is always painted as being THAT much more inhuman
than Spike as far as the days when both were killing mates is concerned. Yes, Spike revelled in
human culture as much as he did a good fight. I know, with his leather trench and punk rock, Sid
Vicious influences, his tv watching. However, I think the way that we saw the character of Spike was
significantly altered by Fool For Love, when we see the origins of William, and people have forgotten
what existed before.
The most humanesque characteristics I can really remember being shown of Spike when he was
the centralized villain was his love for Dru and his propensity bleached hair and painted nails. We
didn't know about Passions viewings or such personal activities back then, because we weren't
shown Spike at all hours of the day, as we are shown much more of his personal activities now, and
their humanesque nature is accented by the fact that Spike is sort of driven to mostly human-like
activity now with the chip preventing any schemings or nightly hunting.
So couldn't the same be possible with Angelus? Viscious killer? Yes. Artist of Agony? Yes. But I
think the thought of him ALWAYS plotting or torturing of killing, despite the extremity of when he
is shown as doing so, is unlikely. I could just as well see Angelus having his own human culture
associations, despite hating some of the human feelings that people made him experience. Those
leather pants he's so fond of could also carry with them an interest in fetishist subcultures, or Goth
subculture. Yeah, Angel(us)' never been one to keep a finger on the pulse of current trends, as Spike
seemingly has, but I could see him observing something.
Its been illustrated previously that vamps are informed by the mortal that preceeded their
creation. That has to mean that Angelus can't be THAT different from the Angel we know in any of
his various moods, be that broody, "goofy", or creepy/obsessive. I think maybe something that makes
the difference seem so much larger with Liam than with Spike is the limited nature of what we can
be shown of a villain from Season 2, and perhaps David Boreanez's playing the two more differently
than appropriate.
Sorry that was so long. I'm certain that was no where near as coherent as I thought it was when I
was thinking about all of this.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: What happens when Angel becomes Angelus? -- yabyumpan, 06:36:39 04/05/02
Fri
I think we have been shown, probably more subtly than with Spike, that Angelus did/does have
cultural reference points. we've been shown that he went to the ballet, Angel has been shown reading
classic litrature and listening to classical music. I get the impression that Angelus was some what of
a culture snob in a way. Him and Darla liked the finest things in life, dressed in the finest clothes,
mixed with artists (She)etc, knows many languages. Angelus also seems to view torture and killing
as a form of artistry. As has been said, we've been shown very little of Angelus when he isn't in
psycho mode but for me the hints point towards someone who considered themself to be
cultured.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: What happens when Angel becomes Angelus? -- yabyumpan, 06:46:04 04/05/02
Fri
"But what I have never, never understood is why Spike can operate with a modicum of control no
matter how big bad he thinks he is, and Angelus is totally out of control."
I see it quite the opposite way, it's seems to me that Spike is the one that is out of control(when not
chipped)and Angelus is very controled. If you think back to S2, Spike just wanted to kill the Slayer,
Angelus wanted to torture her,make her suffer. He went about it in a very planned and controled
way. He was able to control his rage and hate to forfill his plans. When we've seen Spike make plans
(in the dark), he just gets bored and reverts back to violence.
[> [>
Absolutely agree! -- shadowkat, 20:05:11 04/03/02 Wed
They are apples and oranges. The only thing they
have in common is that both main characters want
to obtain forgiveness for past crimes and work to obtain that. Just like apples and oranges are both
fruit and grow on trees. But this is a general theme which is explored in numerous tv shows and
books, several of which involved vampires. You've done an excellent job of showing the differences.
Thank you for echoing my thoughts so well.
Yes - great fan of both as well. ;-)
"I've got a bad feeling about
this" - Doomed Spuffy? -- Kitt, 10:52:12 04/03/02 Wed
I was reading scripts on Psyche’s site the other day when I saw this scene from “Out of My Mind”,
and it struck me: Spike may be the slayer of Slayers, but, knowing what we know now, this at least
reads like a slayer’s presentent dream. (Edited for emphasis and length, comments in ** **)
Spike's crypt. Spike is sleeping in his chair. Banging noises. Spike opens his eyes and gets up as the
door flies open and Buffy walks in. **and she still doesn’t knock, does she?**
SPIKE: Should have known it's you. Been nearly 6 hours.
BUFFY: Well, it would've been less if I wasn't busy cleaning up your mess. **The Judge,
Alcatha?**
SPIKE: *My* mess... The mess is yours, Slayer.
She takes a stake from her back pocket and walks toward Spike. He looks surprised.
BUFFY: Spike, you're a killer. And I shoulda done this *years* ago.
Spike looks her in the eye.
SPIKE: You know what? Do it. Bloody just do it.
BUFFY: What?
SPIKE: End ... my ... torment. Seeing you, every day, everywhere I go, every time I turn around.
Take me ... out of a world ... that has you in it! (Yanks off his shirt and throws it aside) Just kill
me!
Buffy stares at him, then raises her stake and lunges. Spike winces, but she stops at the last minute.
They stare into each other's eyes. Suddenly Spike grabs Buffy by the upper arms and kisses her
passionately. She returns the kiss. It goes on for a moment and then Buffy pulls back with a little
noise of dismay, **see Wrecked** bringing her hand to her mouth. She stares at Spike and he stares
back, both panting…. Slowly Buffy drops her hand from her mouth and walks back to Spike, *and
she came to him in Gone** putting both her hands to the back of his head and pulling him down
toward her. They kiss again, very passionate. Spike brings his hands up to clutch her back, kissing
her cheek and the side of her neck.
BUFFY: Spike ... I want you. **remember As You Were? Buffy wanting, Spike loving and willing to
take “Whatever I can get”**
SPIKE: Buffy, I love you.
He pulls back. Closeup of Buffy staring at him.
SPIKE: (OS) God, I love you so much.
Cut to Spike sitting up in bed with a gasp.
Shot of Spike sitting up in the bed, looking horrified
SPIKE: Oh, god, no. Please, no.
It just strikes me as too obvious, in retrospect, the parallels between the dream and what has
happened since. They fight, become physically involved, and it means more to him than it does to
her. Which is kind of depressing, ‘cause I’m quite the Spuffy shipper myself, and this does not bode
well for their future relationship. Of course, I think he should have stuck to his guns after Gone,
and not ‘slept’ with her again until she returned his feelings. They would both be better off; it
wouldn’t have hurt nearly as much as the breakup in As You Were. Silly, optimistic me, I hope they
can work it out,… but I’m beginning to wonder if it will happen or not.
Anyway, thanks for entertaining my ramblings: this is my first significant post, but I want to say
that this is the best “place” I’ve ever been for intellectual conversation on the web!
[>
Re: "I've got a bad feeling about this" - Doomed Spuffy? -- DickBD, 12:23:59
04/03/02 Wed
Yeah, I agree. This is a great board, with a lot of really smart people posting. I've become addicted
to lurking in spite of myself.
In regard to Spike, I'm reconciled to the idea that he can't be a permanent partner with Buffy. She
can't have one or it becomes boring. Well, the Angel thing worked because there was always the
barrier to consumation. But it could only be stretched so far. Give them credit for ending it maybe a
little too soon, rather than too late.
I'd settle for their just keeping Spike in the show as a sort of "good" vamp--even if he takes pride in
being evil. The thing about him is that I think most of us agree that he is a candidate for the most
interesting supporting character on the show.
[> [>
What instinct tells me (spoilers only if I'm right) -- darrenK, 14:18:47 04/03/02 Wed
Instinct tells me that we have not seen the end of "Spuffy."
Don't forget that the key word in all the writer interviews is "evil," as in "Buffy can never be with
Spike because Spike is evil."
dK
[> [> [>
I think you're on to something there. -- Dariel, 19:04:19 04/03/02 Wed
They've got plans for Spike, although they also plan to torture him (and us) as long as possible!
I'd love to see him become human. I know the demon-to-human has been done with Anya, but it
could still be interesting. Either playing him as still Spikey and thoroughly horrified at being
human, or sort of owlish and intellectual like William. JM could pull off either one.
[> [> [> [>
Agree with all of the above -- shadowkat, 13:10:41 04/04/02 Thu
This is the best board for intellectual discussion - discovered it quite by accident when I posted
Dawn's Other
Half on C&S and Yoda asked me to come here. Glad I did.
Best reponses here.
I agree with your analysis of Spike. I've become resigned
to the end of the spuffy for this year. But I can't imagine
anyone with a brain forfeiting all of that onscreen chemistry - also you have two actors who love to
work together and work off of each other very well - people who make money off of tv series don't
forfeit that. PArticularly when over 60% of the audience is tuning in for it. B/A lost their chemistry
early on.
Regards Spike - I think he's on a journey, possibly into
the heart of darkness to find light - it reminds me a lot
of Apocalyspe Now Redux which I recently saw this summer - amazing flick. The main character, a
killer/hit man for the
military - goes into the jungle to kill a colonel. In the process he visits stages of darkness, each one
worse than the last. Until he hits the very heart of it. And comes face to face with the monster that
he could become. He kills the monster and returns a changed man. This movie is referenced in
Xander's restless dream. And it is the movie they are watching at the
beginning of Restless. In Xander's dream - Giles says in regards to the movie: "Oh I get it, it's all
about the journey." I think that is what we are watching - but it's not an external journey so much as
an internal one for each character. Some need to come to grips with their own internal monster,
some with the geek, and some with the man.
Spike is externally a monster - it's the man he's struggling with. The man who hates what he's
become and hates what's happening in his relationship with Buffy. The man who wants more. Who
knows she can never love a monster and wants to be treated like a man. We've seen glimspes of the
man, William, this season, in Bargaining, ATW, OMWF, TR, Wrecked, Smashed, Gone, AYW...but
they are subtle and if you don't watch closely you'll miss them. But they are there - which leads me
to believe that old adage that April quotes in IWMTY is true here:"It is always darkest before the
dawn". Keep that in mind as you watch the end of this
season and read spoilers...I think it helps.
;-)
[> [> [> [> [>
Darkest before the Dawn... -- La Duquessa, 19:05:17 04/04/02 Thu
which of course would kill our beloved bloody awful poet quite dead, for once and for all.
(But I know that you really meant, Shadowkat, and I quite agree...)
: >
S/T parallels-Codependency? Feminine
Role? Regaining self-respect (very long/spoilerish) -- shadowkat, 12:57:47 04/03/02
Wed
S/T parallels – Codependency? The Feminine Role? Regaining Self-Respect?
First my thanks to the Board for allowing these long posts. Sorry to take up board space. Also my
thanks to the people who keep encouraging me to write them.
*WARNING – SPOILERS UP TO NORMAL AGAIN*
After reading numerous posts last night on how Spike needed to regain his self-respect, I was
reminded of my legal internship with the Domestic Violence Coalition of Western Missouri,
depressing work by the way. In Domestic Violence situations – it is not the violence itself that’s the
problem, although it is a major one and does cost lives, it is the victim’s eventual loss of self. They
have given themselves to the abuser. They’ve so completely accepted their supporting role in the
relationship that they find themselves at the mercy of the person in the dominant role. The
relationship is completely out of balance. This is not good for either individual. Think about how
much power you’d have if someone loved you unconditionally. You can do anything to them and they
will always come back to you. What a heady sensation! The temptation to take advantage must be
overwhelming, particularly if you, the one in power, are suffering from low self-esteem. That’s right –
it is often the abuser who has no self-esteem in the relationship, not the victim. The victim can have
quite a bit of self-esteem going into the relationship, only to have it shredded by the abuser. The
abuser cannot understand why the victim loves him or her. So they punish them for it, repeatedly.
The victim, acting out of love, takes the abuse out of the misguided belief that they are helping,
when they are actually making it worse. As a result, the abuser ends up robbing the victim of all
their self-esteem, bringing the victim down to the abuser’s level. To the bystander, it appears that
the victim is the worthless party – the wimp – the one with no self-respect. When it is actually the
reverse. In this society, we often blame the victim. If the victim would just get out of the relationship,
stop taking the abuse all would be well. Get some self-respect!
We also think that women are the only ones abused in a relationship, but this is not always the case.
Women do not always accept the “traditional feminine role” in relationships; sometimes the man is
the “stay at home mom” or the nurturer. Sometimes the man is the one who provides the “maternal
support” while the woman is the breadwinner and protector. Masculine and feminine roles are not
gender specific, they never have been. In an abusive situation, we have less respect and/or tolerance
for the abused man than we do a woman. We consider the man – a wimp or sissy – for taking the
abuse. Hen-pecked. Emasculated. We do not understand why he is taking it. Come on! Be a Man! A
female victim tends to get more sympathy.
So what does this have to do with Spike and Tara? The writers of BvTs have done something
interesting; they’ve flipped the stereotype. Instead of the man being the abuser or dominant partner,
the woman is, in not one but two relationship threads. But they didn’t stop there, the evil writers
took it a step further - they’ve made the abuser the hero(Buffy) and the victim (the vampire). The
two threads are Willow’s relationship with Tara and Buffy’s with Spike (Yes – I know both Willow
and Tara are women, but bear with me). In both relationships – Tara and Spike are the
nurturing/supportive parties. They are also the victims.
Tara and Spike have a great deal in common. Both have taken on maternal, nurturing, somewhat
protective roles towards Dawn. Both have entered relationships, which are out of balance – at least
in the beginning. They have both taken supporting “feminine” roles.
Let’s first look at the roles they’ve taken towards Dawn. I believe this demonstrates how both have
adopted the “supporting nurturing role” in their relationships. In two brief scenes from Bargaining
Part I and Wrecked we can see maternal roles Spike and Tara have adopted towards Dawn:
In both of Tara’s scenes – she is making pancakes.
Bargaining Part I: TARA: Oh, um, here's some juice, and... (gives Dawn a glass of orange juice)
pancakes are on the way. Funny shapes or rounds?
DAWN: Rounds are fine. Uh, what's up with the mega-witches?
Wrecked: TARA: Pancakes? (Dawn enters, walks toward the fridge. )
DAWN: Uh, sure. (goes to the fridge, takes out a carton of orange juice)
In Spike’s two scenes, he is either watching over Dawn and reassuring her about school or looking
over her wounds.
Bargaining Part I: DAWN: So my homeroom teacher, Ms. Lefcort, was like, "Your sister's an example
to us all." Hmm! She wanted to make it National Buffy Day. (She puts the glass on the coffee-table
and sits on the sofa next to Spike. There's a pizza box on the coffee-table, and a plate with a half-
eaten slice of pizza. )
SPIKE: Makes sense.
DAWN: It does?
SPIKE: Yeah, she responded to BuffyBot because a robot is predictable. Boring. Perfect teacher's pet.
That's all schools are, you know. Just factories, spewing out mindless little automatons. (He sees
Dawn's raised eyebrows.)Who go on to be ... very ... valuable and productive members of society, and
you should go. (quieter) Because Buffy would want you to.
Now let’s jump to Wrecked, where Spike and Buffy have just discovered an injured Dawn. Spike goes
immediately to Dawn to check out her injuries and see if she’s okay, while Buffy fights the demon.
Later after Willow and Buffy kill the demon, Spike is shown helping Dawn to her feet and even
suggests that Buffy take care of Willow who caused the whole mess, while he takes care of Dawn.
Isn’t it interesting how both Spike and Tara have taken over the nurturing role with Dawn?
Also notice how feminine Spike has become in the last year and a half. I think he was always a little
feminine to begin with, sort of adds to his appeal. But let’s look at Season 6 – who’s playing the
traditional female role here? Who wants to discuss the relationship? Who is doing the housekeeping
and decorating their pad? Who is keeping and nursing eggs in a cavernous womblike home? Who has
to be protected and is told to go home when things get rough? Spike. In Tabula Rasa – he follows
Buffy like a puppy dog, wanting to discuss their relationship, very human, feminine response to the
hot and heavy kiss they’d shared the night before. She puts him off then unexpectedly protects him
from a bunch of lowlifes, pushing him repeatedly out of harm’s way. In Wrecked, after they’ve had
sex, he’s still lying on the floor, naked and vulnerable, begging to spend more time with her, while
she’s heading out, refusing to talk to him. In AYW – he’s seen nursing demon eggs and cries when
she won’t listen to his explanation. We repeatedly see him carrying groceries. And then in Normal
Again, he mentions putting ice on the back of her neck. He’s clearly taken the traditional, supportive,
“feminine” role in this relationship. He does, occasionally, try to take control, but it is short lived.
Buffy is the dominant party here. The breadwinner. The protector. And finally, the abuser.
Now, let’s look at Tara. From the very beginning of the Willow/Tara relationship, Tara took the
weaker role. Willow, formerly in love with a man, was struggling with her sudden attraction to a
woman. She was also struggling with how her peers would relate to this new development. So she
kept Tara in the closet. Poor Tara lived in constant fear of losing Willow. Tara is also the first to
admit her love for Willow. Here’s the scene from Who Are You, in this scene, Willow has come to
Tara for comfort and to discuss the rogue slayer Faith who is out doing mischief. (edited for length
and emphasis):
Tara: Well, you should be safe. Nobody knows you're here. I mean. . . they don't even know I exist,
right? I know all about them, but I mean, I mean, th-that's totally cool. I mean, it-it's good. It's . . .
it's better.
Willow: Tara, it's not like I don't want my friends to know you. It's just . . . well, Buffy's like my best
friend, and she's really special. And . . there's this whole bunch of us, and-and we sort ofhave this
group thing that revolves around the slaying, and-and I-I
really want you to meet them. But I-I just kinda like having something that's just, you know . . .
mine. And I-I usually don't use so many words to say stuff that little, but do you get it at all?
Tara: I do.
Willow: I should check in with Giles, get a situation update.
Tara: I am, you know.
Willow: What? (Tara looks over her shoulder at her.)
Tara: (meaningfully) Yours.
What’s Willow saying here? She’s possessive. She wants Tara all to herself. She wants to keep the
power in the relationship. It is Willow’s insecurity that is present in the scene not Tara’s. Tara
knows how she feels. Tara loves Willow. Tara would like to be part of Willow’s life. She’d like to come
out of the closet. But she doesn’t want to lose Willow. She understands Willow’s dilemma almost
better than Willow does, she knows Willow is conflicted, struggling with who she is, and for that
reason Tara is willing to be patient. She is willing to give Willow her heart without really asking
much in return. This reminds me a lot of a scene in As You Were between Buffy and Spike. In AYW,
Buffy comes to Spike for comfort, her friends know he exists but they do not know she is visiting him.
He’s her secret lover. One she is clearly ashamed of. He has given himself to her time and again
without reservation, making it clear to her that he’s hers. If she’s in pain or needs to feel, she comes
to him. Here’s the scene (also edited for length and emphasis) Buffy has just told Spike that she
needs information on demon eggs and he plays along until she suddenly gets to the real purpose of
her visit:
BUFFY: (quietly) Tell me you love me.
SPIKE: (surprised) I love you. You know I do. (She takes a couple of steps closer.)
BUFFY: Tell me you want me.
SPIKE: (whispers) I always want you. In point of fact-
BUFFY: Shut up.
This scene is far darker than the Willow/Tara scene. Like Willow – Buffy goes to Spike, but under
false pretenses. She says she wants information. Just as Willow goes to Tara to supposedly do spells.
What they want is support; they want someone who is theirs. Isn’t that what we all want? To have
someone be there for us no matter what? Someone to tell us they love us, want us, that they are
ours??
ME is exploring two controversial relationships at once, and it is a bit like watching someone peel an
onion, each layer revealing another more interesting layer underneath. Let’s keep going.
Soon after Who Are You Season4– Willow comes out of the closet to Buffy and makes a clear
unwavering choice. She chooses Tara over OZ. This gives Tara a little more power in the
relationship, so as we enter Season 5, Tara and Willow are in balance. Spike at this point is just
beginning to realize his love for the slayer. It is not until Intervention and Tough Love, episodes that
appear almost back-to-back, that the power shifts completely to Buffy and Willow. Prior to the shift,
both Spike and Tara have had fallings out with Buffy and Willow. These scenes are fascinating
particularly when we compare them to scenes from Season 6.
Let’s do Spike first. Up until Intervention, Spike has been portrayed as almost creepy in his
attempts to obtain Buffy’s love. After being brutally rejected, he stopped following her and created
his very own buffy robot. In his relations with BuffyBot, he is tender, romantic, and very much in
control. She tells him how much she loves him and wants him. He echoes it. The Buffbot and Spike,
oddly enough, have equal power in the relationship. They fight together. Support each other. He
gives her pleasure and she returns it. Their relationship is more balanced and more mature than his
current relationship with the real thing. But this idyllic dream is disrupted by Glory. Glory kidnaps
Spike thinking he’s the key and tortures him. She tells him he’s impure and worthless, beneath her
notice. She beats him bloody. But he holds firm. Even throws some of her insults back at her. And
manages eventually to escape. Never once giving up Dawn. He protects Dawn and by extension Buffy
with his life. Here’s a portion of the scene, edited for emphasis and length:
GLORY: Shhh. What do you know, precious? What can I dig out of you? (Shot of Spike writhing in
pain. )Is that better? (Spike coughs) Do you think you can try to talk again now? (Spike nods) Good.
Because I'm tired of these games! (She smashes the glass against Spike's face. It breaks into pieces.
)"I need time, I need a drink," you're a very needy little bloodsucker, (sits on the sofa) and it's not
very attractive.
After Spike tells her the key is Bob Barker.
GLORY: The vampire ... is lying to me.
SPIKE: (giggles weakly) Yeah ... but it was fun. And guess what, bitch. (Shot of his hands still trying
to twist free) I'm not telling you jack. You're never gonna get your sodding key, 'cause you might be
strong, but in our world, you're an idiot.
When Buffy disguised as Buffbot asks him why he did it, he says: “Cause Buffy ... the other, not so
pleasant Buffy ... anything happened to Dawn, it'd destroy her. I couldn't live, her bein' in that much
pain. Let Glory kill me first. Nearly bloody did.”
Before I jump to Tara – let’s look at a scene from Smashed. In this scene, Spike is trying to talk to
Buffy. Trying to discuss their relationship.
SPIKE: A man can change. (She again stops walking and faces him.)
BUFFY: You're not a man. You're a thing. (She turns away again. Spike frowns, grabs her
shoulder.)
SPIKE: Stop walking away.
BUFFY: Don't touch me! (As Spike turns her around she punches him with her other hand. He pulls
back and backhands her. Buffy falls to the ground. Spike looks surprised, puts his hand tentatively
to his head with the beginning of a smile. Looks at Buffy, who is still getting to her feet and has her
back to him.)
SPIKE: Ahh, ahh, ohh! (grabs his head) (Buffy gets up, backhands Spike and he goes down. He gets
up to a kneeling position with his back to Buffy and stays there, looking at the ground. She speaks to
his back. )
BUFFY: You're a thing. An evil, disgusting, thing.
Spike tries to take back control of the relationship. He tries to discuss it. But she knocks him aside.
After they sleep together and he believes that they are making progress, he never hits her again,
even though he can. But she hits him repeatedly. I want to show you the scene from Dead Things. In
the scene, Spike tries to keep Buffy from prematurely turning herself into the police, he feels her
pain and self-disgust and offers himself as a punching bag.
Here’s the scene:
SPIKE: Come on, that's it, put it on me. Put it all on me. (She kicks him) That's my girl.
BUFFY: (yelling) I am not your girl! (She hits him hard. He falls back onto his butt. Buffy gets on top
of him and begins hitting him over and over. )You don't ... have a soul! There is nothing good or clean
in you. You are dead inside! You can't feel anything real! I could never ... be your girl! (She continues
hitting him throughout this. Now Spike goes back to human face. He's looking very bruised and
bloody, but he doesn't fight back, just takes it. Buffy hits him again and again, looking angry and
desperate. )
Does this remind you of anyone? It reminded me of Glory in Intervention. A Petite super strong
blond pummeling the heck out of a vampire, she considers worthless. Except Spike didn’t care what
Glory thought of him. He didn’t love Glory. He took her abuse to save Dawn and Buffy. But how long
can he continue to take abuse from the person he loves?
In Tough Love, the episode immediately following Intervention, Tara also sacrifices herself for
Dawn. She undergoes horrible torture for Dawn. And this occurs after Willow has rejected her. In
the previous scene Willow and Tara fought and Willow accused Tara of not taking her love seriously
(edited for length):
TARA: I trust you. I just I don't know where I'm gonna fit in ... in your life when...
WILLOW: When ... I change back? Yeah, this is a college thing, just a, a little experimentation before
I get over the thrill and head back to boys' town…..I'm really sorry that I didn't establish my lesbo
street cred before I got into this relationship. You're the only woman I've ever fallen in love with, so
... how on earth could you ever take me seriously?
Then Glory grabs Tara, believing she is the key. When she discovers this isn’t the case, she gives
Tara a choice, tell me where the key is or I brain-suck you. Here’s what Glory does: “Think about it.
You think your hand hurts? Imagine what you'd feel with my fingers wiggling in your brain. (Tara
looks very scared) It doesn't kill you. What it does ... is make you feel like you're in a noisy little dark
room ... (Glory frowns and fidgets uncomfortably) naked and ashamed ... and there are things in the
dark that need to hurt you because you're bad ... little pinching things that go in your ears ... (Tara
begins to cry) and crawl on the inside of your skull. And you know ... that if the noise and the
crawling would stop ... that you could remember how to get out. But you never, ever will. Who ... is ...
the key? (Tara forces herself to stop crying and look Glory in the eye, saying nothing. )
Now look at the scene from Tabula Rasa, where Tara accuses Willow of playing with her head.
TARA: Do you think I'm stupid? I know you used that spell on me.
WILLOW: Tara, I'm sorry, I-
TARA: Don't! Just ... don't. (shakes head) There's nothing you can say.
WILLOW: Tara, I didn't mean to-
TARA: To what? Violate my mind like that? How could you, Willow? How could you after what Glory
did to me?
Willow is abusing Tara the same way that Glory did. Messing with her head. Tara tries to get
through to Willow just as Spike tries to get through to Buffy. Both try to discuss their relationships,
try to end the abuse. But Willow can’t hear Tara and does another spell, which once again plays with
Tara’s memory. As a result of Willow’s spell, Tara forgets who she is and finds herself a stuttering
insecure girl. She gets lost, just like she was when Glory disrupted her mind. How ironic -Willow
and Buffy rescue Spike and Tara from Glory, bring them into the safe haven of the SG, then turn
around and torture them in a similar manner.
Intervention and Tough Love were turning points for Spike and Tara. They proved univocally that
they would do anything for the person they loved. They continue to prove this over and over again.
How many times has Spike put his life on the line after Intervention to save the Dawn and Buffy and
to some degree other members of the SG? How many times has Tara? (I could give you an episode
run-down but this is already quite long.) How many times have both these characters declared their
love or shown that love to Willow and Buffy? When you do this you give the other person a great deal
of power over you. They know how you feel; they know what you will do. But you have no idea what
they feel or where you stand with them. Willow and Buffy have a choice: They can accept this
unwavering love and return it, with all the scary risks involved, they can reject it out of hand, or
they can use it to build up their own self-esteem, to make themselves feel more powerful, more in
control.
Spike and Tara also have a choice. They can either continue to take the abuse or they can put an end
to it. Of the two parties, Spike and Tara have the tougher choice to make. What? Tougher? Yes – it is
very hard to leave someone you love, particularly someone you love completely. Tara has already
made it. She left the relationship. She stopped the cycle. Spike is struggling. He is after all a demon,
he senses something is off but doesn’t quite understand it. As Lady O’Neill put it in one of her posts
– as a demon, Spike enjoys pain. He gets off on it. He has told this to Buffy on more than one
occasion – “Hello. Vampire. I’m supposed to be treading on the dark side.” But he doesn’t expect it
from Buffy, “What’s your excuse? Is it because you came back wrong?”Spike is still taking his cues
from her. But I think he’s about to break – just as Tara finally did in Tabula Rasa. And if the
spoilers are true – he will decide to leave too, if just for a while. Sometimes, the only way to stop a
cycle of abuse is to get out of it. And in BvTs – it may be the only way Tara and Spike can regain
their sense of self. Tara certainly has. Since she left Willow, Tara has become more mature, more
capable, and more confident. And Willow has mellowed. We can only hope the same thing will
happen for Spike and Buffy, when and if Spike leaves.
Thanks for reading. Hope this adds something new to the discussion. Once again my thanks to Board
for allowing it. Look forward to your comments as always.
;-) Shadowkat
[>
Excellent. Minor future spoiler. -- Sophist, 13:42:30 04/03/02 Wed
[>
Having a real problem with your definitions and your conclusions -- Caroline, 14:25:38
04/03/02 Wed
I have a real problem with definitions of masculine=dominant and feminine=submissive. I also think
that neither the Buffy/Spike nor the Willow/Tara relationships necessarily fit into a domestic
violence scenario. I really think that the looking at these relationships through the prism of domestic
violence is not the right way to go and defining dominant/submissive categories for each character is
not the way to go, imho. It ignores the rather complex psychological processes underlying their
behaviour and ignores the dynamics of the process.
I would never categorize Spike and Tara in the 'submissive' role. Spike has a definite sense of his
own ego identity and I've never had a problem with his being quite in touch with his feminine side.
Even after he is chipped he still relished a fight, first fighting with Adam and later with the
Scoobies. It's a part of how he defines himself. In all of the examples you gave of Spike's nurturing
and maternal behaviour towards Dawn, I was not convinced that he was therefore submissive - that
just showed me that he's in touch with his feminine side. And we already know he has a thing about
Summers women. As for Tara, all this expresses is her whole earth goddess energy (Tara is such a
suitable name for her) and doesn't suggest that she is in a supporting role.
I would agree to the domestic violence comparison if I saw that these relationships had developed
that sort of dynamic. But that has not happened. Tara did develop that particular type of
dependency on Willow when she fell in love with her. It was perfectly expressed in OMWF in I'm
under your spell - the first stages of love where one projects everything wonderful onto the loved one,
one feels joined and complete. However, that stage must inevitably end. What hopefully happens is
you realize you are idealizing the partner and withdraw the projections, realizing that they are
actually unexpressed parts of your own self and try to see the loved one for who they really are. In
Tara's case, Willow did something egregious, the projection was withdrawn (not the love), and Tara
managed to become a more fully integrated person. She was 'abused' (the forgetting spell) and when
she discovered it she did not take it and moved out. That's not someone caught in a domestic violence
dynamic, that's someone asserting their boundaries, something that victims of domestic abuse may
not necessarily have because the projection of the loved one remains present. I would argue the same
goes for Spike -he can go blow for blow with Buffy at the end of Dead Things, like he did in Smashed,
but he doesn't choose to. He is aware that Buffy is saying those things about herself just as much as
she is saying them to him. And he has several times asserted boundaries with Buffy - throwing her
out in Gone, calling her on her shit several times. He did allow her to use him and backslid several
times but what guy wouldn't do that for hot sex with the woman he loved?
We've long had a blurring of the gender roles in BtVS - Joss doesn't expect that penis=dominant hero
and vagina=supporting partner. He is subverting the socially constructed definitions of masculinity
and femininity and tossing aside their traditional connotations with biology. And, I think that he
goes even further by challenging the traditionally accepted view of masculine=dominant and
feminine=submissive. Tara, in her seeming 'submissiveness' has a great deal of 'dominance' - look at
what the effect of her breaking up with Willow was - Willow accepted that she had a problem with
magic and did something about it. And even if Willow hadn't, Tara, the 'supportive partner', was
going to stay strong and be the one to influence the course of the relationship. Spike can fight
alongside Buffy and yet still nurture both her and Dawn. I enjoy the fact that this show has
characters who are able to express parts of themselves that do not fit in with socially constructed
definitions of who they should be and how they should behave. And I really enjoy that we have such
rich psychological explorations that go beyond socially defined categories of behaviour and biology.
As a professor of mine was fond of quoting - power is complex and relational - and it certainly is in
BtVS.
[> [>
Re: Above posts Shadowkat & Caroline -- lachesis, 16:17:10 04/03/02 Wed
Just to say that I find lots to agree with in both these posts. Subversion is such a big part of the
appeal of BtVS. But, imho, one of the reasons it is so effective, especially in terms of questioning (and
I would say that the question is always more important than the answer)gender roles and
assumptions, is that the show makes a very subtle play upon the contrast between the socially
conditioned assumptions of the viewer, and their appreciation of the internal reality of the
Buffyverse. Isn't the very nature of subversion that it does not attempt to erase and replace one set
of assumptions with another, but instead to undermine the process of assumption in the first
place?
This is why I agree with both the posts. I didn't think the point of Shadowkat's post was to associate
masculine with dominance,and feminine with submissive, but to point out that the balance of the
relationship dynamic is more important than gender. Nor do these points (made about abuse) apply
only to relationships which have reached that extreme.
I would totally agree that BtVS is subversive of traditional gender patterns of dominance (and very
effective in doing so) but surely these very gender assumptions are its foil, which makes stating and
discussing them important rather than irrelevant.
Isn't it great to be played so well?
One of the lovely things too, is the way that more abstract issues of subversion (like
dominance/submission, feminine/masculine) interact with our established pictures of the
characters/personalities in order to drive their evolution. So I agree with Caroline that neither Spike
nor Tara are submissive or powerless. They both do have well developed senses of self, both excercise
dominance in other areas of life. Perhaps it is for these reasons that they can be shown as able and
willing to give themselves to their relationships rather unconditionally? How you are in life is not
always how you are in love though . . .
Comparing Spike to Tara, and I do think this is invited,deepens our appreciation of both, and
inevitably brings up the issue of maturity. 'Cause this isn't automatically a moral issue, is it? Self-
interest, as much as anything else, prefers a good relationship, particularly for the unconditional
lover. But self-interest isn't always enlightened.
I don't much care about defining Spike's moral status (ambiguity worshipper that I am) but I have
enjoyed watching him learn. Sex and horrible misery can be good teachers, but only if you pay
attention. IMHO Tara has learnt, Spike is (probably?) learning. Willow and Buffy? I can forgive
them for not having as much experience at fighting their internal demons. But in the Buffyverse,
neither innocence or ignorance have been good defenses so far. Sometimes I think that Joss regards
failure to pay attention & learn as the only mortal sin.
Anyway, I'm off topic now, so more than enough. Just wanted to say thanks to both of you for
inspiring me to finally post. Gonna be so sad to stay away when new episodes start arriving . . .
[> [> [>
Thank you Lachesis! That is exactly what I meant! -- shadowkat, 19:25:31 04/03/02
Wed
Thank you so much for that - after reading Caroline's
post - I was worried I wrote it wrong. I didn't mean
submissive. I don't really see them as being submissive
so much as supportive. I also was trying to point out
that we "traditionally" use "masculine/feminine" roles
to define genders when they often don't fit into clear
boxes. But you said it so well and much better than I do
above.
Thank you for reading my thoughts and meaning so well.
I attempted a tough thing - having relatively little background in sociology and psychology and more
in law, so I tend to see Domestic Violence from a legal perspective
and often metaphorical one. As such I believe it is far more
complex than we want to see it as being. It is not as simple
as I had no choice, I had to stay with them, so they beat
me. Abuse is abuse. And under the legal interpretation, which admittedly simplifies it - if
you boyfriend, girlfriend beats you or tortures you = domestic violence.
But I'm rambling...it's late, at least for me, so should
shove off. Just wanted to thank both for the comments!
And once again I agree with everything you said lachesis - hope you post more often.
[> [> [> [>
Sorry shadowkat - I can't seem to read you well! -- Caroline, 07:16:56 04/04/02 Thu
[> [>
What's dominant and what's submissive ? -- Sophist, 16:48:27 04/03/02 Wed
I like shadowkat's post and I like your response; both are forcing me to re-think some
assumptions.
Let me deal with Tara/Willow first. Without trying to define dominant/submissive for now (see
below), it sounds to me like you agree with shadowkat that for at least some period of time before
TR, Willow was the dominant partner in that relationship. I see it this way also.
Where I think you disagree, and I agree with you, is that even if Willow was "dominant", the
relationship did not fit the classic abuser pattern. Instead, what we saw was 2 instances of abuse,
followed by a clear demonstration of hidden strength in Tara. Her behavior -- quite the opposite of
the classic abused spouse -- ended the abuse and created the conditions from which a more equal
partnership could arise.
Spike/Buffy is much more complicated I think. Here I'm stumbling over how to define "dominant".
There is a thread below where we discussed whether Xander was "weak" in relation to the other
characters. I argued that he was, but while I feel that I'm right, I am having a hard time articulating
why because I'm not sure how to define the term. Here are some possiblities and I'd be interested in
how you and shadowkat react to them:
1. The terms "dominant" and "submissive" or "strong" and "weak" are misleading and we should not
use them. Instead, we can only say that characters have moments of strength (Xander in Prophecy
Girl) and weakness (Hells Bells). It is too subjective, and probably impossible, to tote up all the
instances to get an overall "result". I sense this is your position.
2. The terms have meaning in the context of the overall relationship between 2 characters. We need
to analyze the power dynamics between the 2 in order to decide which to apply. I believe this is what
shadowkat would say. It's what I did say in discussing Xander in the thread about male
characters.
3. The terms have a traditional meaning akin to "masculine" and "feminine". I don't think shadowkat
intended this definition, but maybe I'm wrong.
There may be some other possibility I haven't thought of.
Without knowing how to apply the terms more precisely, I can't say how I feel about Spike/Buffy
except to give my gut sense. By that measure, I see Buffy as the dominant figure. The problem is, a
lot of posters here, Malandanza in particular, have made very cogent arguments for the opposite. Do
you have a suggestion for a way out of this?
[> [> [>
Sophist - you and Lachesis have read me right -- shadowkat, 19:58:11 04/03/02
Wed
First - I never used the word "submissive" - that was Caroline's interpretation and was not meant by
me. I used
"supportive" very different. Supportive means to try and
support the other person, be someone for them to lean against. People may have thought I meant
submissive - because I used "victim" but I do not believe either party sees themselves as a victim nor
do they act in that way.
You are absolutely correct when you state that i meant it
in terms of the overall relationship. I did. It's why i tried to bring out the number of instances that
Spike was
feminine and he's support of Dawn. I do Not believe his
"feminine" (and by feminine - I mean "supportive, maternal,
nurturing",) role is necessarily bad. I think it is good.
It is the viewer or bystander, society if you will, that
views this as weak or submissive behavior. I don't and i don't believe BvTs' writers do.
Nor do I believe the masculine and by masculine - I mean assertive, leader, strong, bossy, role. By
the way both feminine and masculine can overlap - both are protectors.
Mothers after all are known to protect their cubs in nature, right? Sometimes i believe the
supportive/nurturer is more protective than the dominant or assertive leader.
(not sure of the right word for dominant - could be using
the wrong one here and if so I apologize) This is what I mean - in nature and traditionally the
masculine personality/testrone if you will - fights physically to win food, bring in sustenance, get
territory. They are the aggressive tough personality. You can be a woman but veer
more towards a "tough or masculine" trait - example might
be Janet Reno (US's ex attorney general).
In these relationships - Spike has taken on many feminine
traites - but none are in any way submissive. Again I didn't use the term on purpose. (Or at least I
hope I didn't - very embarrassing if I did.) He is however taking
a great deal of verbal, mental, emotional and physical
abuse from Buffy. (Some may argue that he is giving as good as he gets, but IMHO - I think his
attempts at controlling
the relationship or getting equal footing are short lived.)
He is not "submitting" to her so much as he is "allowing"
it because he is a) demon or metaphorically immature and
has no clue how to deal with a human relationship and b) so
desperate for a crumb he'll take whatever he can get.
Is this an abusive relationship? I can't speak sociologically or psychologically - not my background -
but legally? Yeah. The law simplifies things. One of the many reasons I got out of the profession.
Because here I agree with Lachesis and Caroline - it's not that simple.
No relationship is. Particularly when we view it from the
outside. The writer's have done an excellent job of pulling
us inside the characters - so that we are split down the center, half of his identifying with Spike and
half with
Buffy.
now onto Tara and Willow - again under legal terminology two instances equals abuse. These
instances would have continued if Tara had not jumped out. Tara knew this - it's why she left. Also
you are quite right when you point out
"classic case" - Willow/Tara aren't a classic case. Many of the cases I saw in Domestic Violence
weren't. In several
cases the party was getting out early - getting restraining
orders as opposed to orders of protection. Here the W/T case
differs as well - Tara did not require legal protection,
Willow did not follow her around and beat her. If Willow
had tried to do a spell to keep Tara with her - well it would have been different. Also - and this is
important
to note - Tara/Willow had a healthy relationship prior to
Glory. They even had one for a while after Glory, what derailed it was Willow's increased need to
control her life
through magic - this need was partly due to her fear of losing Tara and partly due to her own
insecurities which have nothing to do with Tara - two symptoms that can lead to
a cycle of abuse. The fact that Tara saw this in time may have to do with the fact that Tara herself
came from a dysfuntional family with a history of abuse (can't be sure, but there were definitely
signs of it.)
Hope this made sense. Thank you again Sophist for reading
me so well. I really enjoyed reading your comments.
[> [> [>
Re: What's dominant and what's submissive ? -- Valhalla, 20:52:31 04/03/02 Wed
Domestic violence is very complicated and shadowkat did a fabulous job of analyzing the major
issues in terms of Buffy/Spike and Tara/Willow. I don't have any resolutions to the questions of
whether these relationships are abusive, I just wanted to add an angle or two.
In many cases, the victim tries to leave (pretty herioc in light of the situation), and often goes to
great lengths to leave but is hindered or prevented by either the abuser or the lack of help and
support for the victim in the victim's situation. There's growing evidence that abusers (male or
female) become the most violent when the victim threatens to leave or right after the victim leaves;
many of the most violent episodes or deaths in abusive relationships actually occur right after a
victim tries to leave.
Not all domestic violence victims are so beaten down that they don't have the strength or capacity to
leave; abusers often threaten children or other family members or friends of the victim in addition to
the constant threat of abuse to the victim. Even the strongest, most whole people may hesitate to try
to leave, or return to an abuser when the price may be a loved one's health or life.
Back to Buffy: the fact that neither Spike nor Tara are entirely submissive, or entirely secondary in
their relationships doesn't mean that the relationships themselves aren't abusive. (it doesn't mean
that they are, either, but I'm trying to limit myself a little here). But how Buffy and Willow react to
Spike and Tara's attempts to separate themselves is probably a good indicator of whether, in these
relationships, they are abusers versus being 'just' the dominant partner in a relationship.
When Tara left Willow, Willow was already trying to recover; once Tara left, she grabbed onto
recovery full force, and she is hopeful of getting Tara back eventually by proving she's given up the
magic once and for all. But even in recovery Willow hasn't addressed a central problem with her
behavior; she cast the forgetting spell on Tara. She was able to do it because of witchcraft, but that
wasn't why she did it. Spouse abusers don't hit their spouses because they're stronger than them;
they hit them to be in control. Willow was trying to control Tara, and until she deals with that in
addition to the magic addiction it's not likely she and Tara can have a non-abusive
relationship.
Also, after reading shadowkat's post, I was thinking that the above didn't really apply to Willow and
Tara because Willow let Tara go and has not tried to get her back through any kind of violence, or
threats or magic. But now I think it's too early to tell: Willow could very well be in the contrition
phase of abuse; after the abuse the abuser begs for forgiveness, does all sorts of kind, thoughtful,
seemingly loving things for the victim, and promises never to do it again. And usually the abuser is
genuinely sorry for the abuse, as Willow is for her addiction and the consequences, but that doesn't
prevent the abuse from continuing. I think there has not been enough time since Willow gave up
magic and Tara left to really make a call on whether they can have a healthy, non-abusive
relationship in the future. It would be interesting to see what Willow would do if her apologies and
recovery efforts were not enough to bring Tara back to her. Would she try to force the issue? Would
she relapse and use magic to help bring Tara back? Or would she mourn the relationship and move
one?
If Willow stays in recovery, and Tara and Willow address the control issue, they have a chance. But
if Tara returns to Willow without addressing the issue, or if Willow does something else (even
nonmagical) along the lines of the forgetting spell, then it's likely the whole cycle will just start over
again.
Sorry this is so long, but this is complex stuff! With Buffy and Spike, Buffy certainly enjoys being
the receiver rather than giver of affection, and being in control of the relationship. Their whole
relationship this season has been under her control; she's reacted very badly when Spike initiates
contact (of any kind, not just sexual), but she expects him to be there at any time when she wants or
needs him. She was mighty surprised when Spike tried to kick her out while she was invisible. But
I have a harder time defining their relationship as abusive since Buffy has not tried to dominate
Spike in any other aspect of his life. Also, she is trying to separate herself from Spike, and not so
much the other way around. She thinks she's using him (maybe she is and maybe she isn't -- but
right now she thinks she is) and she's the one trying to break away. That's not usual abuser
behavior.
[>
Re: S/T parallels-Codependency? Feminine Role? Regaining self-respect (very
long/spoilerish) -- JM, 18:59:08 04/03/02 Wed
I keep telling myself that I'm going to stop coming here and get on with fulfilling my life
responsiblities. And then shadowkat keeps with the postings. Two knock outs in a week. You do
realize that makes you a pusher right? When I'm in rehab, I'm naming names, if just to get a
reduced sentence.
I thought your discussion of self-esteem on the part of the abusers was very interesting. My sister,
who is getting a Lit masters with a focus on feminism, and I were discussing Wesley. I had brought
up the veiled history of abuse that has been revealed. She took that into a discussion of the
differences between Wes is Buffy S3 and Wes Ats S1 and S2. She said that until she understood the
abuse factor she'd had major difficulty reconciling the character, but then it crystalized. Male
abusers, she said, especially, view the world in a dichotomized fashion. Power versus weakness,
male versus female. Wes copied his father as the only model he knew. In a position of power
(basically only secure in Bad Girls), his attitude was very machismo oriented. In a position of
weakness, arguably the rest of S3 Buffy, and definitely S1 Angel, it's submissive and effeminate.
Although we've never seen him as an abuser, we know from Billy and the encounter with Lorne in
Loyalty that he has that capacity. This is bad self-esteem issues fueling violence.
I think you're right about the comparison between Tara and Spike. That was part of their constant
interaction in OaFA, a comparison in how they were handling a similar situation.
[>
Hmmm...Not so clear cut abuser and victim roles? -- Kerri, 23:31:11 04/03/02 Wed
That’s right – it is often the abuser who has no self-esteem in the relationship, not the victim. The
victim can have quite a bit of self-esteem going into the relationship, only to have it shredded by the
abuser. The abuser cannot understand why the victim loves him or her. So they punish them for it,
repeatedly. The victim, acting out of love, takes the abuse out of the misguided belief that they are
helping, when they are actually making it worse. As a result, the abuser ends up robbing the victim
of all their self-esteem, bringing the victim down to the abuser’s level.
Based on this I have a lot of trouble easily labeling both of these relationships with one party as
abuser and one as victim.
First W/T. Willow definatly abused Tara, but I wouldn't classify Tara as the "victim." Tara doesn't
stay in the relationship once she knows what Willow has done, and she doesn't lose her self respect-if
anything she gains it.
B/S is more difficult. IMO they are both the abuser and the victim. Yes, Buffy does abuse Spike-
takes out her insecurities on him-and he takes it because he loves her. But at the same time Spike is
the abuser and Buffy is the victim.
I think the best example of this is the bronze scene in DT. Spike takes out his own insecurities on
Buffy-he plays on her fears-and certainly robs her of her self-respect. Spike knows how lost,
confused, and depressed Buffy is-we see time and time again that he knows her better than anyone
else. Spike knows that Buffy needs her friends (he recognizes in FFL that they keep her connected
to life) but yet he tries to alienate her from them because of his own insecurites, and Buffy continues
to take it because she is so depressed and insecure about herself. This clearly is abuse.
Given that Season 6 has focused very much on the grays as opposed to black and white then it makes
a lot of sense that there is no clear cut abuser and victim in the B/S relationship b/c it only makes it
all the more confusing and ambiguous.
[> [>
Agreed - I was trying to say something similar above - you did it better! -- Caroline,
07:24:58 04/04/02 Thu
[> [>
Okay, time to be politically incorrect... -- Darby, 09:47:49 04/04/02 Thu
There's a black-and-white aspect to this abused/abuser dynamic that, although acknowledged by
several posters, is still the underlying assumption of many of the points.
The TV-drama abuse case is the macho, hair-trigger abuser and the mousy, shrinking abused, but in
the real world, the abused may often bring about the physical abuse by inflicting emotional abuse.
No one wants to blame the person who gets beaten up, so they tend to get absolved of any
responsibility beyond not scarpering off, but reality is rarely as neat as a compelling story. This
bizarre "balance" may hold some of these relationships together as often as fear does.
In this thread, I would put Buffy and Spike into the two-way abuse category - each is doing terribly
immoral things to the other, exerting power when they have it and submitting to power when they're
afraid.
For Tara and Willow, I think that the umbrella has been distorted a bit to pull them into its shadow
- what Willow did to Tara was abusive, and it happened twice, but I don't think that what we've seen
can be clearly made into any kind of trend.
[> [> [>
Re: Okay, time to be politically incorrect... -- Sophist, 10:52:01 04/04/02 Thu
I agree about W/T.
B/S is more complicated and I like the way you said it. I guess where I come down is this: I don't
think emotional abuse justifies physical abuse in return. Words may be "razors to my wounded
heart", but that can't justify violence in return.
[> [> [> [>
Physical violence in B/S -- Kerri, 11:49:30 04/04/02 Thu
It's hard to judge physical violence with two super-human-strengthed-individuals. In real life there
is a huge difference b/w emotional and physical violence, but it's hard to make that distinction with a
slayer and a vampire. In some ways I think the emotional abuse is worse since the physical violence
doesn't really hurt them. I'm not saying that we should think nothing of the violence in B/S
relationship-but only that we can't really take it as domestic abuse in real life.
[> [> [> [> [>
I agree -- Sophist, 12:51:40 04/04/02 Thu
I meant my comments to apply only to humans but the context made them ambiguous; my fault.
What is "violent" is affected by context, and we have to remember that with B/S we're dealing with
an unreal relationship involving superhumans. Just to avoid making the same mistake from the
opposite side, let me say that I am not saying that B/S doesn't involve violence, merely that I
haven't reached that issue.
[> [> [> [>
Buffy's not guiltless in the emotional abuse field either... -- KSJ, 12:31:03 04/04/02 Thu
If I'm reading this correctly, the claim being made is that Buffy's physical abuse is a causal reaction
to Spike's emotional abuse. But that's not necessarily true. Spike's "emotional" abuse was actually a
response to Buffy's physical abuse.
After Spike got the chip, he became unable to defend himself physically. They formerly HAD been
on equal footing--trying to kill each other--each capable of giving as good as he/she got. I wouldn't
call that abuse, because at that time neither had any power over the other to abuse; they were
simply playing out their roles as vampire and slayer. The one time Spike perhaps crossed that line
was in "The Harsh Light of Day" when he taunted Buffy on her relationship issues, striking a low
blow in a vulnerable spot in a way that Buffy had no means of reciprocating.
But once Spike got the chip, he could no longer exchange blows with Buffy physically--yet she didn't
stop beating on him. In "Real Me" she punches him in the nose repeatedly just for the pleasure of it.
She becomes a thug. His ONLY defense is to give back her abuse was verbally. She knows he can't
touch her physically, yet she obviously feels no sense of fair play that tells her she shouldn't hit
someone incapable of defending himself. He becomes her punching bag, someone for her to unleash
her emotional frustrations on.
At that time, she and Spike were on unequal footing physically, but still on equal footing
emotionally--they seemed to take a perverse sort of pleasure in the exchanging of insults. Call it
verbal S&M, maybe, but not abuse, because they are still capable of giving as good as they get. But
it wasn't a balanced dynamic, because Buffy was still capable of resorting to physical blows to end
the verbal sparring, whereas Spike couldn't.
But after Spike has his realization that he was in love with Buffy, however, he stopped with his
emotional/verbal blows--he had to struggle for it ("Out. For. A. Walk....Bitch") at first, and eventually
gave up altogether. That's when Buffy took on the role of emotional abuser AS WELL AS physical
abuser. Spike kept trying to make tentative overtures only to be rebuffed by "you're a pig/you digust
me/you're a thing, etc."
In Season 6, it's Buffy who starts the abuse. Spike's trying to be Mr. Supportive, as best as he can
be, for example, in "Life Serial", when she lashes out drunkenly at him. "You're lame; a neutered
vampire who cheats at kitten poker." And after they kiss, she starts running scared, and that's
really the first time in S6 that we see her behave hostilely toward Spike. In "Smashed", everything
just escalates. She tells him, "you're a thing; an evil, disgusting thing." Only THEN does Spike try
to turn some of that emotional abuse back on her, taking malicious pleasure in taunting her about
coming back "wrong" or not being completely human, possibly a demon. He never hits her unless she
hits him first, usually letting her get in two or three blows for each one of his, almost never trying to
block her blows or defend himself against them.
From there on out, almost every instance we see of Spike's "emotional abuse" toward Buffy is
committed as a reaction to HER abuse of him. She stings him, he stings her back, she stings him
back harder, and so forth. But nearly every physically or verbally abusive exchange starts with
Buffy.
KSJ
[> [> [> [> [>
I wasn't making making that point and I don't think Darby was either. -- Sophist,
13:06:48 04/04/02 Thu
You said: If I'm reading this correctly, the claim being made is that Buffy's physical abuse is a
causal reaction to Spike's emotional abuse.
I wasn't making that point and I don't think Darby was either. I think Darby was making a more
general point about the complex dynamics of abusive relationships. Neither one of us said that any
particular pattern was true of B/S, though perhaps that wasn't clear from the context.
[> [>
Okay...I'm agreeing with this.. -- shadowkat, 12:38:31 04/04/02 Thu
Beginning to see lots of flaws in my essay now. The biggest
was the whole use of victim and abuser. And I should never have used the word "dominant". Thank
you so much for your comments!
That said, I don't regret posting it, you
did an excellent job of supporting the initial
reason/point i was trying to make: that Spike and Tara although they may appear to be taking abuse
at different times, aren't lacking in self-esteem or are weak.
Spike is still as tough as he always was. After he got that chip - he discovered another way to hurt
people - a nonviolent one, see Yoko Factor. He is the king of mental/emotional manipulation possibly
because he's suffered so much of it and had some excellent teachers:Drusilla, Darla, and
Angelus.
That and I think BvTs vampires tend to be manipulative by nature - sort of goes with the whole
metaphor. Seduction. Remember Dracula in Buffy vs. Dracula?(As an aside:Spike also really reminds
me of Alex in