April 2002 Archives

April 2002 posts

Previous April 2002
More April 2002

What do you think,...5.3? -- jbb, 17:03:51 04/20/02 Sat

We had a baby earthquake up here in the northease USA today (very uncommom for these parts). So what was my first thought? (See subject). Methinks I'm spending too much time thinking about BtVS/AtS...

[> Too much thinking about BtVS/AtS, what's that? -- Deeva, 19:15:18 04/20/02 Sat

So did a Hellmouth pop up at the local high school library?

[> [> Is it even possible to think too much about BtVS/AtS? -- VampRiley, 06:30:56 04/21/02 Sun

[> Re: What do you think,...5.3? -- Isabel, 12:00:36 04/21/02 Sun

I am amazed at your presence of mind. I was already awake when the house started shaking and what passed through my mind was, "Sh*t, I'm in a 50 year old house in NY not built to California earthquake code!" As I ran from my bed to the doorway w/o my glasses.

I definitely did not think about the Master. Shame on me...
;)

[> [> Re: What do you think,...5.3? -- jbb, 17:59:39 04/21/02 Sun

Shame is not required nor accepted in this case :)
The epicenter was in your part of town, not way down here in MA. I first though it was an imbalanced washing machine!

I'm about ready to storm the ME offices...or UPN...and demand they air the rest of the eps NOW!!! -- Rob, 17:56:50 04/20/02 Sat

Can't wait any longer...

Who's with me?

Rob :o)

[> Grabs a cool Angel's-always-weilding-it-medeival axe and follows him -- AngelVSAngelus, 18:18:40 04/20/02 Sat

Lets do it.

[> [> What eps? Where? Huh? -- Apophis, 19:35:38 04/20/02 Sat

What are you guys talking about?

[> [> [> The last five "Buffy" eps of this season that haven't aired yet. -- Rob, 19:40:08 04/20/02 Sat

[> [> [> [> as long as we're storming, let's demand that Joss be more involved in season 7. -- Rochefort, 19:55:12 04/20/02 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> Oh yeah, and Rob! -- AngelVSAngelus, 20:09:04 04/20/02 Sat

I checked out your Six Feet Under site, and it's awesome! I know its not done yet, but your layout and the info you've already got on there is extremely well done.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks! -- Rob, 20:56:23 04/20/02 Sat

I'm glad you like the site. It is so much work, it's scary sometimes! lol

It's coming along...I hope to have it completely done by the middle of the summer. Then I'll have more time to catch up with everything.

But I'm glad you like it so far...Thanks. :o)

Rob

[> [> [> [> Re: The last five "Buffy" eps of this season that haven't aired yet. -- Apophis, 22:18:11 04/20/02 Sat

It'd be nice if they went and aired them now. I may not be in a position to watch them by the time they get around to it.

[> LOL! About to join you...and could we demand season 7 start in Aug? -- shadowkat, 20:34:45 04/20/02 Sat

[> [> August? Why not June?!? -- Rob, 20:59:29 04/20/02 Sat

[> [> [> Why even stop?!? Never end it! Mwahahaha! -- Deeva, 21:17:44 04/20/02 Sat

[> You're on your own! -- Robert, 23:38:19 04/20/02 Sat

Sorry Rob, can't join you here! We might get in trouble and thrown in jail. Then, I wouldn't be able to watch BtVS any more ... just can't take the risk.

[> [> They got TVs in prison. -- VampRiley, 06:28:40 04/21/02 Sun

Well, most prisons have 'em at least. But we'd probably be held in one where there was a TV. We could set our VCRs to record before any storming.

VR

[> [> [> Re: They got TVs in prison. -- Rob, 08:05:37 04/21/02 Sun

Good idea, VR!

That's the great thing about you, VR...Always thinkin' on your toes!

Rob

[> [> [> [> They've also got scary people in prisons who probably don't wanna watch what you watch. -- Deeva, 10:04:21 04/21/02 Sun

And besides I don't really like the orange jumpsuits, not very flattering.

[> [> [> [> [> I understand that in maximum security, "Gilmore Girls" is VERY popular -- d'Herblay, 11:29:10 04/21/02 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> [> Gulp! -- Rob, 12:23:57 04/21/02 Sun

[> [> [> [> I've had a lot of practice. -- VampRiley, 12:01:05 04/21/02 Sun

I could never keep my mind on the lectures during class in grade school. I was so bored. Especially when I didn't understand any of it. My mind was always wondering. I was too hyper growing up. When I was a youngin', I was physically hyper. I was given drugs which calmed me down. But all that energy actually went to my mind. It helped a little with my intelligence, but I was always thinking about other things during class which took time away from school.

VR

[> Good things come to those who wait !! -- ravenhair, 19:30:30 04/21/02 Sun

But I know how you feel. When I heard the next new episode was postponed from the 23rd to the 30th, I was all GrrrArrggh!!!

My question is how am I going to survive the summer? :(

[> [> With the support group provided by the ATPoBtVS Discussion Board. -- VampRiley, 07:11:20 04/22/02 Mon

I'm not sure if we have a name yet. If we do, then I've forgotten it. I know we got one for Buffyholics - - Buffyholics Anonymous, I think. But I keep falling off the wagon. I'm such a hopeless cause. We have come up with a few ways to survive and we're currently in discussions for other things to do during the summer break. But if you have an idea you wanna share...by all means...throw it out there. For there are even times when we are stuck.

:-P

VR

What the hell reason does Spike have to be good, and where does he go from here? possibe spoilers -- JMC, 19:02:47 04/20/02 Sat

Angel had everything a soul, Buffy's love, friends willing to back him up, TPTB, etc. Spike basically has nothing, a chip that just keeps him from killing humans by attacking them. It wouldn't stop Spike from burning someone he hates like, Xanders house to the ground. And it didn't make Spike save Xander in OAFA.

Buffy treats him like and calls him an evil thing. In Smashed she hurts him so badly that he decides that he is just a monster like she says. He goes to show himself that he is the monster she says by trying to kill again. Before she verbally ripped into him he was just acting kind and considerate. If anything Buffy has been dragging Spike more toward evil as the season has worn on.

Spike said in the Gift that you treat me like a man, well guess what she doesn't. In fact she has treated him worse this season then last, and beat him up worse then anytime since season 2. The only difference is she uses him for sex and tells him as much over and over again. "Your just convent."

I can't understand why Buffy doesn't try to improve Spike. If she cares at all for him and doesn't want him to become a killer again, so that she won't have to sake him, why doesn't she tell Spike that he is capable of change, and he can do good. Why doesn't she try to help him be accepted and to be a better person.

Buffy would have to be insane or blind not to think that Spike is capable of change. He is not the same person he was in School Hard or even Out of My Mind last season. He has changed radically for her, and she shuns just about everything positive he tries to do.

In fact she seems to reward his bad behavior, when he attacks her in Smashed she has wild sex with him. Even though when he was trying to be good she put him down and called him a thing. This has seemed at least to me to be a pattern in season 6.

The demon eggs in AYW seem to me like someone paid Spike to keep the eggs in his crypt. Spike was defiantly pretty much inept when it came to the eggs. I very much doubt he would have let Buffy sleep there with him if he knew that they might hatch and kill them both at any moment. Besides I don't understand why anyone thinks that it is somehow evil to sell weapons. If it is evil than the US government and many US companies are pure evil. The United States is the chief supplier of weapons of mass destruction around the world. Personally, the only difference I can see between a two bit arms dealer and the CEO of Lockheed Martin is that the weapons sold by the CEO of LM will can kill hundreds of thousands more people then the weapons of the two bit arms dealer. And also the CEO of LM is a well-respected and highly regarded American.

Anyway to get back on topic, Buffy has also seemed to have isolated Spike from the Scooby gang and Dawn. Over the summer that Buffy was dead it seemed like he spent allot of time with them. Now, Buffy doesn't want him around her friends or Dawn, she just wanted him to wait around in the shadows so she can use him when she wants. The fact is he was good to Dawn over the summer and I think Dawn resents that he isn't around anymore.

Now that Buffy is no longer using Spike for sex what the hell should he do? Buffy doesn’t want to at least be friends with him because she hates him, or at least she say she does. She doesn’t want him around her friends or Dawn so where the hell should Spike go from here?

Personally, if I were Spike I would get the hell out of Sunnydale.

[> Spike's reform -- Apophis, 19:34:03 04/20/02 Sat

Spike has done abominable things in his 122 years as an undead monster. Changing (if, indeed, that's what he's trying to do) shouldn't be easy. Of course the people he's spent a good deal of his time trying to kill aren't going to welcome him with open arms. He has to suffer for his sins before he can be redeemed.

[> [> Spoilers ************ for instant redemption.. -- JMC, 19:42:43 04/20/02 Sat

It says in the UPN press release that spike will fight an nearly invincable demon to win his soul in the finale.

So now that he has a soul I will be very pissed off if the scoobies can accept him and Buffy can love him. And they treat him like one of them.

I would have liked Buffy to have helped Spike on the road to redemtion instead of using him and pushing away from the scoobys. I want spike to fight for redemtion with the help of the scoobies, Spike with a soul is not Spike anymore then Angel is Angelus.

[> [> [> To be fair, Spike's never explicitly stated that he wants redemption. -- Apophis, 22:11:49 04/20/02 Sat

All the good things he's done have been for Buffy's sake. He's never given any indication that he wants to be a better person/vampire.

[> Spike is a rapist animal that deserves every bit of punishment he recieves. -- Fireflyone, 20:25:51 04/20/02 Sat

So does Anya. I wouldn't mind if Xander beat her to death with a baseball bat anymore than I would mind Buffy dusting Spike.

[> [> Yikes! You dissed two of my three fave characters (Tara, Anya, Spike) in one post! Grr aargh! -- Rob, 20:50:23 04/20/02 Sat

And to clarify...Where the heck did you get the "Spike is a rapist" idea? That is really pushing it. He's only a rapist, if one considers the act of being a vampire symbolic of rape. But all vampires have that aspect to them.

And I don't see how anyone who truly cares about the characters of the show, especially Xander, would actually not mind if he beat the woman he loves to death. Or that it would be fine for Buffy to dust someone who has saved her on so many occassions, and has been so loyal to her.

And don't try to throw any "Spike-beating-Buffy" garbage back at me, because she beat him right back up, and far more harshly. Likewise, I love Xander, but Anya has every right to go all veagency on him at the moment. Perhaps your problem with the show is that the characters have changed since the first and second seasons. I say, Xander loves Anya now, not Buffy. Deal. And Spike loves Buffy, and is good now. Deal.

And...Ha!

Rob

[> [> [> Re: Yikes! You dissed two of my three fave characters (Tara, Anya, Spike) in one post! Grr aargh! -- ramses 2, 21:06:22 04/20/02 Sat

Just say your right, Spike and Anya are evil, no chance for redemtion. How can beating anything to death with a baseball bat be any kind of good? Wouldn't this act of violence stain your soul? Making you pretty evil? Xander sleeps with a woman(Accepts her as a woman), works with her to overcome evil, dumps her at the alter and then gets to beat her to death?

[> [> [> [> And also the chance that he may beat her to death is the reason he didn't go thru w/ the wedding. -- Rob, 22:22:27 04/20/02 Sat

[> [> [> [> Anya is not a woman she is a soulless creature just like Spike. -- Fireflyone, 06:27:08 04/21/02 Sun

And they both deserve any evil that is done to them by their partners.

[> [> [> [> No it wouldn't because they are not human, it would be no different then beating an animal to death. -- Fireflyone, 06:34:01 04/21/02 Sun

.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: No it wouldn't because they are not human, it would be no different then beating an animal ... -- Arethusa, 07:20:46 04/21/02 Sun

Even if it were okay to beat Spike and Anya to death (or an animal, for that matter), anyone who did so would be sacrificing any claims to humanity. It's evil to beat any living creature to death. For any reason. Period.

[> [> [> [> [> [> But it is ok to hunt and kill animals for food or sport??? -- Fireflyone, 07:40:49 04/21/02 Sun

??

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: But it is ok to hunt and kill animals for food or sport??? -- Arethusa, 07:58:41 04/21/02 Sun

And killing for sport is wrong because it's killing for enjoyment or for vanity.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Fireflyone, you have got to be kidding me... -- Rob, 08:44:35 04/21/02 Sun

For starters, Anya is not a soulless creature...She became a human again, if you will recall, oh, like FOUR seasons ago, in the FIRST episode she was ever on! She became a full-time human again, soul and all. Anyone who has seen her in "Hell's Bells" or "The Body" would be acting very childish and close-minded to completely ignore Anya's genuineness.

And for seconds, Spike is only a soulless creature by classification. He loves Buffy, and has a chip in his head, so, soul or no soul, it really doesn't make that much of a difference. And if you're going to argue that that's not right, because he can hurt Buffy now, remember, she can also hurt him.

Third...Are you actually implying that a spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend, has the right to physically harm or kill a significant other who hurt them? Because that is, quite frankly, disgusting.

Fourth, I think we would all here appreciate a more carefully worded and thought-out argument, and response to others. Your bold, rash, loud subject lines are backed up by very little actual writing or substance in the body of the post. I remain absolutely convinced that, not only do you not have a clue what you're talking about, but you're making the majority of your statements just to annoy others. And that is really not cool here.

And don't even start me on that equating Spike and Anya to animals thing. You certainly didn't back your statement up very well. You're in the habit of posting these annoying things--

"No it wouldn't because they are not human, it would be no different then beating an animal to death."

--and then having nothing in the body of the e-mail.

Arethusa tried to legitimately respond to your post...

"Even if it were okay to beat Spike and Anya to death (or an animal, for that matter), anyone who did so would be sacrificing any claims to humanity. It's evil to beat any living creature to death. For any reason. Period."

And you responded with--

"But it is ok to hunt and kill animals for food or sport???"

The weakness of that argument was only reinforced by your putting nothing to back up your statement but "???" in the body of the message.

If your intention is not to annoy others, look over the other posts at this board, and learn a little tact and board etiquette. If it is, this is the last time I will be responding to one of your posts.

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> how about this. *Spoilers* -- Fireflyone, 08:51:03 04/21/02 Sun

Buffy is the slayer by definition she slays vampires. Spike is a soulless vampire. It doesn't get any clear then that. Infact it would bother me more if she accidentially killed a animal like a dog then killed a vampire on purpose, and I put Spike in the catagory of all other vampires.

And Anya went back to being a demon in Hells Bells so you are wrong.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: how about this. *Spoilers* -- Rob, 09:46:05 04/21/02 Sun

From the end of "Hell's Bells," we only know that she had the option to become a demon...Her face was completely impassive. Even if she does become one again, it does not mean that she did not have a soul in between demon-izings.

And there is no possible way you could put Spike in the same category as other vampires. He has always been different than others...and now is even more different due to his chip. He has always had the soul of a poet, and always had a propensity to fall in love more than other vamps. Obviously Buffy doesn't think it is right to kill a vamp that is, for all purposes, neutered. He can't harm humans on a daily bases, and to kill him in that state would not be heroic...It would be pathetic. Add to that the fact that Spike is in love with her, so his death would be more to put Buffy's mind at ease than anything else. And worse, her guilt would be incredible.

More on the chip...He is the only vamp in this situation. We haven't seen others. But who's to say that the chip really isn't the cure for vampires' soullessness? Spike started to do good deeds, first, as a result of having to put his evil to some use (now harming demons) and slowly started to like it, against his will. No matter how much you go on about Spike being a vampire and thus has no soul, that is a very dated argument. To quote Buffy, it's "carbon-dated." To quote her again, "Live in the now."

Rob

You're thinking in first and second season terms. Even Joss has a different definition of a soul than when the show began. Mythologies grow and change, as do characters. That organic, fluid quality of the show is what keeps me hooked.

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> This previous post here is messed up...Read one of the other two below. -- Rob, 09:57:20 04/21/02 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: how about this. *Spoilers* -- AngelVSAngelus, 10:09:25 04/21/02 Sun

Man. Everyone knows I'm a Spike fan against his redemption, but I'll NEVER have the audacity to claim that that gives Buffy the right to beat he or anyone to death, nor Xander Anya.
Admittedly, I myself do think halfway in Season 2 terms, and also admittedly I find it somehow much easier for me to accept that protective demon on Angel converting to Buddhism and goodness than Spike. That's contradictory, I know, I'm just being honest.
I don't know why that is, but I do know why my acceptance of Anya has always been much greater, as a good person, despite their similiar situations and circumstances of being. The fact that she has a soul now, as far I'm concerned, gives her a much greater capacity for empathy for humanity than a chip does for Spike. In a way, that makes her lack of guilt or recognition of her past wrong doings somewhat more profoundly reprehensible than Spike's. But she has a larger leeway to rectify that than Spike.
Again, admittedly, until Spike acknowledges his past wrong doings, at least saying SOMETHING about how they were somewhat on the evil side, I'll never view him as one of the good guys, despite fighting alongside them. But I seriously doubt Spike will ever come to a point of even thinking for a minute that any of it was wrong. Being forced into the corner of good action does not make one good. Or, in the crude words of Tyler Durden, "Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken" :)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I think perhaps... -- LeeAnn, 19:59:11 04/21/02 Sun

I think perhaps we accept Anya at face value because we've been allowed to. The writers do not continually identify Anya as evil so we judge her by her actions not her past.
It's different with Spike.
He used to continually point out he was evil and if he didn't someone else did. Buffy often tells him (and us) he's an evil, dead, soulless thing. EVIL EVIL EVIL. SPIKE IS EVIL. So they keep on telling us. Pounding it into our brains. So we never get to judge him by his actions because the writers keep on telling us he is evil even when his actions are good.
PR. Spin. We seem more convinced by words than deeds.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: how about this. *Spoilers* -- Rob, 09:46:28 04/21/02 Sun

From the end of "Hell's Bells," we only know that she had the option to become a demon...Her face was completely impassive. Even if she does become one again, it does not mean that she did not have a soul in between demon-izings.

And there is no possible way you could put Spike in the same category as other vampires. He has always been different than others...and now is even more different due to his chip. He has always had the soul of a poet, and always had a propensity to fall in love more than other vamps. Obviously Buffy doesn't think it is right to kill a vamp that is, for all purposes, neutered. He can't harm humans on a daily bases, and to kill him in that state would not be heroic...It would be pathetic. Add to that the fact that Spike is in love with her, so his death would be more to put Buffy's mind at ease than anything else. And worse, her guilt would be incredible.

More on the chip...He is the only vamp in this situation. We haven't seen others. But who's to say that the chip really isn't the cure for vampires' soullessness? Spike started to do good deeds, first, as a result of having to put his evil to some use (now harming demons) and slowly started to like it, against his will. No matter how much you go on about Spike being a vampire and thus has no soul, that is a very dated argument. To quote Buffy, it's "carbon-dated." To quote her again, "Live in the now."

You're thinking in first and second season terms. Even Joss has a different definition of a soul than when the show began. Mythologies grow and change, as do characters. That organic, fluid quality of the show is what keeps me hooked.

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: how about this. *Spoilers* -- Rob, 09:46:52 04/21/02 Sun

From the end of "Hell's Bells," we only know that she had the option to become a demon...Her face was completely impassive. Even if she does become one again, it does not mean that she did not have a soul in between demon-izings.

And there is no possible way you could put Spike in the same category as other vampires. He has always been different than others...and now is even more different due to his chip. He has always had the soul of a poet, and always had a propensity to fall in love more than other vamps. Obviously Buffy doesn't think it is right to kill a vamp that is, for all purposes, neutered. He can't harm humans on a daily bases, and to kill him in that state would not be heroic...It would be pathetic. Add to that the fact that Spike is in love with her, so his death would be more to put Buffy's mind at ease than anything else. And worse, her guilt would be incredible.

More on the chip...He is the only vamp in this situation. We haven't seen others. But who's to say that the chip really isn't the cure for vampires' soullessness? Spike started to do good deeds, first, as a result of having to put his evil to some use (now harming demons) and slowly started to like it, against his will. No matter how much you go on about Spike being a vampire and thus has no soul, that is a very dated argument. To quote Buffy, it's "carbon-dated." To quote her again, "Live in the now."

You're thinking in first and second season terms. Even Joss has a different definition of a soul than when the show began. Mythologies grow and change, as do characters. That organic, fluid quality of the show is what keeps me hooked.

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Fireflyone, you have got to be kidding me... -- Rob, 08:48:13 04/21/02 Sun

For starters, Anya is not a soulless creature...She became a human again, if you will recall, oh, like FOUR seasons ago, in the FIRST episode she was ever on! She became a full-time human again, soul and all. Anyone who has seen her in "Hell's Bells" or "The Body" would be acting very childish and close-minded to completely ignore Anya's genuineness.

And for seconds, Spike is only a soulless creature by classification. He loves Buffy, and has a chip in his head, so, soul or no soul, it really doesn't make that much of a difference. And if you're going to argue that that's not right, because he can hurt Buffy now, remember, she can also hurt him.

Third...Are you actually implying that a spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend, has the right to physically harm or kill a significant other who hurt them? Because that is, quite frankly, disgusting.

Fourth, I think we would all here appreciate a more carefully worded and thought-out argument, and response to others. Your bold, rash, loud subject lines are backed up by very little actual writing or substance in the body of the post. I remain absolutely convinced that, not only do you not have a clue what you're talking about, but you're making the majority of your statements just to annoy others. And that is really not cool here.

And don't even start me on that equating Spike and Anya to animals thing. You certainly didn't back your statement up very well. You're in the habit of posting these annoying things--

"No it wouldn't because they are not human, it would be no different then beating an animal to death."

--and then having nothing in the body of the e-mail.

Arethusa tried to legitimately respond to your post...

"Even if it were okay to beat Spike and Anya to death (or an animal, for that matter), anyone who did so would be sacrificing any claims to humanity. It's evil to beat any living creature to death. For any reason. Period."

And you responded with--

"But it is ok to hunt and kill animals for food or sport???"

The weakness of that argument was only reinforced by your putting nothing to back up your statement but "???" in the body of the message.

If your intention is not to annoy others, look over the other posts at this board, and learn a little tact and board etiquette. If it is, this is the last time I will be responding to one of your posts.

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Dontcha just love trolls? Well, no. -- Slain, 18:45:37 04/21/02 Sun

Fireflyzone, you are really beginning to annoy me. Well, okay, it's long past the beginning stage.

Here's some facts for you. I'll write them in bold.

1. Anya is a human being with a soul. She is not a demon. Repeat after me. She. Is. Not. A. Demon.

2. Spike loves Buffy and, according to Giles-logic, therefore has the capacity for redemption. He has shown several times that he has the capacity for good. He is not an animal, and understands human morals.

3. A lot of people like these characters, so you should show some respect and not bash Spike, Anya, Tara or any other character, regardless of how much you hate them.

[> [> [> [> [> FYI, beating animals to death is considered sociopathic behavior. -- Dyna, 08:38:31 04/22/02 Mon

Many serial killers exhibit their first signs of sociopathy in childhood abuse and killing of animals. A person who exhibited such behavior would be considered a candidate for psychiatric evaluation. All of which I mention just in case you were under the impression that it's "okay" to beat an animal to death.

[> [> [> Rob - have i ever told you that you are my hero? -- shadowkat, 22:23:50 04/20/02 Sat

I've loved all your posts Rob and agree with you about
Season 6 - fellow lint lover and Fisher King fan right here!

And Thank you! I agree. Please people stop bashing characters.
Unless you can back it up with thoughtful analysis.
They are fictional and some us, crazy as it may seem
love them the same way we love classic ones like
Heathcliff, Hamlet, Macbeth, and Frodo...etc.

Spike is one of my favorite characters...he is complex,
he is convoluted and he makes me think. And JM nails him.
I also adore Anya - she is very interesting and has added so much to the show and is played wonderfully by EC.
I also like Xander. Do you have to bash one to promote the other???
Also the reason B/X won't get together has nothing to
do with Spike or Anya. They weren't getting together in
Season 4...wayyy before Spike and Anya really appeared
on the scene. Deal with it. Xander has. It's a writing
decision, that's all.

[> [> [> [> Wow, I've never been the wind beneath somebody's wings before! lol -- Rob, 23:19:51 04/20/02 Sat

Why, thank you...and I find myself agreeing with you all of the time as well! (love your essays, btw)

Never been somebody's hero before...Oh, the pressure! :o)

We should definitely organize a Anti-Defamation League for Buffy characters. I'm so sick of character-bashing. Every character from Spike to Anya to (Joss forbid) even Buffy have been bashed...and I say it's time for it to end! Now, people are allowed to have opinions, but stuff like this over the top "Spike is a racist" crap belittles true rape victims and, also, cannot be backed up by anything on the show. If each character may do something wrong or annoying from time to time, it is only because they are human. Well-written, three-dimensional characters are apt to mess up from time to time.

And about season 6, from the spoilers I've read (don't worry, I won't reveal any here) I think a lot of people will view this season differently next time they say it. If the spoilers are correct, this season, I believe, will be proven to be just as brilliantly plotted as the others, with recurring themes and story arcs coming full circle by the end. Just about everything in "Buffy" ends up happening for a reason. And if my theory is correct (which I will post "officially" here once the season is over), even some of the lighter episodes, like "Doublemeat Palace," I will believe, will be proven to have greater merit. (Btw, I don't know why everyone hated that one. Funny, I didn't even realize until I went on this board that the episode was bad! I thought it was a throughly entertaining hour of television. I felt the same way about "Gone." And "Life Serial" I thought was not only one of the best comedies in the show's history, but one of the best constructed episodes, with its very interesting 4 act vignette-type structure reminiscent of "The Body.")

But I'm rambling...

To sum up...Anya rules, Xander rules, Buffy rules, Willow rules, Tara rules, Dawn rules, Spike rules, Season Six rules, Fisher King rules...Shadowkat rules...

and that's that!

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> Hey, Rob... -- AngelVSAngelus, 10:18:16 04/21/02 Sun

Shadowcat and yourself are right about character bashing. I really hope I've never come off that way to anyone, because I happen to love ALL of the characters. Everyone seems to think that if you have a beef with Spike-redemption or "Spuffy" you dislike the characters involved. That's not the case with me, as my case is one of fear of inconsistency. That's it.
Sometimes I rashly and reflexively spring into a character bash mode in defense of a character I see another bash. Its wrong, and if any of you read my posts somewhere below about Spike in defense of someone making an Angel comparison, you'll see that I acknowledged that and rectified it. I certainly hope it isn't pervasively perceived that I'm always like that.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hey, Rob... -- Rob, 12:04:28 04/21/02 Sun

I don't think you come off as being character-bashy. I don't think there's anything wrong with disapproving of something a character does at times, and sometimes we do tend to take sides with one character over another. What I really don't like are posts like, "Buffy is a cold, heartless bitch" or "Spike and Anya are animals." Or things like that. Just because Buffy may have treated Spike unfairly doesn't make her entire personality be defined as "bitch." Just because Anya and Spike are (or used to be) demons doesn't mean they should be beaten to death. You know what I mean?

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> Total agreement again ;-) LOL! -- shadowkat, 10:31:35 04/21/02 Sun

Yep - we agree on Season 6. I just rewatched Doublemeat
and I entirely agree with you. That episode made me
laugh really hard the second round, just as Life Serial
did. Both were also excellent depictions of Buffy's pov.
Every episode this season has interesting levels of metaphor
and my gut tells me that what they are about to try and
pull off is something quite brillant. So please reserve
judgment until you see it all play out...;-)

So we are together in the Anti-Defamation of Buffy
characters and Buffy show league!!

[> [> [> [> Wow, I've never been the wind beneath somebody's wings before! lol -- Rob, 23:22:26 04/20/02 Sat

Why, thank you...and I find myself agreeing with you all of the time as well! (love your essays, btw)

Never been somebody's hero before...Oh, the pressure! :o)

We should definitely organize a Anti-Defamation League for Buffy characters. I'm so sick of character-bashing. Every character from Spike to Anya to (Joss forbid) even Buffy have been bashed...and I say it's time for it to end! Now, people are allowed to have opinions, but stuff like this over the top "Spike is a racist" crap belittles true rape victims and, also, cannot be backed up by anything on the show. If each character may do something wrong or annoying from time to time, it is only because they are human. Well-written, three-dimensional characters are apt to mess up from time to time.

And about season 6, from the spoilers I've read (don't worry, I won't reveal any here) I think a lot of people will view this season differently next time they say it. If the spoilers are correct, this season, I believe, will be proven to be just as brilliantly plotted as the others, with recurring themes and story arcs coming full circle by the end. Just about everything in "Buffy" ends up happening for a reason. And if my theory is correct (which I will post "officially" here once the season is over), even some of the lighter episodes, like "Doublemeat Palace," I will believe, will be proven to have greater merit. (Btw, I don't know why everyone hated that one. Funny, I didn't even realize until I went on this board that the episode was bad! I thought it was a throughly entertaining hour of television. I felt the same way about "Gone." And "Life Serial" I thought was not only one of the best comedies in the show's history, but one of the best constructed episodes, with its very interesting 4 act vignette-type structure reminiscent of "The Body.")

But I'm rambling...

To sum up...Anya rules, Xander rules, Buffy rules, Willow rules, Tara rules, Dawn rules, Spike rules, Season Six rules, Fisher King rules...Shadowkat rules...

and that's that!

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> I'm in the anti-character-bashing league ! I always find those bashing posts chilling -- Ete, 06:02:47 04/21/02 Sun

[> [> [> Spike is just a violent animal that would take Buffy by force given half a chance. -- Fireflyone, 05:09:08 04/21/02 Sun

He deserves nothing sort of death for his sins, the same is true for Anya.

[> [> [> [> I hope you realize that your statement just doesn't make sense -- aurelia, 13:07:34 04/21/02 Sun

I can only assume that you want to piss off everyone on the board and I have to say that you're succeeding.

Spike has had more than half a chance to take Buffy by force . They were sleeping together for a couple of months he had plenty of chances to kill her, chain her up, rape her, whatever you want to accuse him of, but he hasn't.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike is just a violent animal that would take Buffy by force given half a chance. -- Slain, 18:52:32 04/21/02 Sun

Yeah. Right, Firelyzone. Anya is really going beat Xander down and ravish him. I can see that one.

Furthermore, Spike loves Buffy. He might still be evil as far as most humans are concerned, but he would never do anything to hurt her.

[> [> [> [> The supporting argument... -- Littlebit, 21:54:47 04/21/02 Sun

...seems a bit slim. You do realize, do you not, that repeating the same formula over and over, is turning you rapidly into the tree that fell in the forest when no one was around to hear it?

If you wish to be taken seriously perhaps you should take the time to support your statements with references from the show that have been thought out and presented coherently.

Otherwise, may I simply sum up for you? Spike should die. Anya should die. You would prefer that this be accomplished in a violent, drawn-out manner at the hand of the one each cares for. Got it. You really don't need to repeat it again.

[> [> [> [> [> ROFLMAO, LittleBit!!! :oD :oD -- Rob, 06:44:19 04/22/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> Well, we're quick here. ;-) N/T -- LittleBit, 07:50:19 04/22/02 Mon

[> [> So, what......you`re not one for "forgive and forget" then? :P -- Phoenix, 22:01:48 04/20/02 Sat

[> [> WHOA!!! -- Apophis, 22:13:06 04/20/02 Sat

Whatever Anya may have done in the past, she's (for the moment) a human being, and is thus subject to due process.

[> [> Re: Spike is a rapist animal that deserves every bit of punishment he recieves. -- spi, 10:57:41 04/22/02 Mon

I am definately not for the killing and maiming of either Anya or Spike- But why does Anya recieve so much respect from the scoobies? She has no remorse for what she has done- She is even proud. Yet they shun Spike and call him evil. What is the defintion of Evilness? And how does Anya not fall under this category?

[> [> [> Re: Anya versus Spike -- dream of the consortium, 13:38:58 04/22/02 Mon

They didn't love her at first. Willow in particular couldn't imagine why Xander wanted to be with her. But they came around for a few reasons:
1) She wasn't living in a crypt, she was another high school student.
2) She had a soul.
3) She was out of the vengeance business (Spike is still a vampire, if a neutered one).
4) She had only been a threat to them for a short period of time, unlike Spike's multi-season evil- doings
5) When she was a demon, she did other's bidding, thereby spreading the guilt around; Spike was a free agent.
6) She obviously loved Xander. And Xander loved her. Spike obviously loves Buffy, but Buffy won't let herself love him, or just doesn't love him, or whatever - in any case, her friends don't know about her involvement with him, so the love angle isn't much of a factor in their treatment of him. (Though there has been some softening, particularly with Willow, and Tara is very accepting - and I would have to say his love for Buffy is at the heart of that.)

I am not saying these reasons are logical, just that I think they are at work, with the characters and the audience.

On another topic, has there ever been a psychological study of trolls? Like why the heck would anyone waste their time going onto websites for the sole purpose of being inflammatory? Are trolls terribly, terribly bored? Do they pull fire alarms in their spare time? Are they as unpleasant in person, or does Internet anonymity provide them with an outlet for otherwise unexpressed arrogance and rudeness? What's the deal?

[> [> [> [> I dunno where Trolls come from. I think we should call fireflyzone "Olaf" from now on. -- Forsaken, 14:26:44 04/22/02 Mon

[> [> [> Anya as comedic character. -- Anne, 14:12:58 04/22/02 Mon

I frankly think that another reason for the relative tolerance of Anya is that, for a long time at least, she was played as an almost purely comic character. As we all know BtVS does a lot of flipping around from drama to sophisticated comedy to broad comedy to tragedy, but when it's in broad comedy mode it just really doesn't invite strict moral judgments either from the audience or from the characters.

Even in Season 4, when his character was largely comedic, I think Spike was played as a more real, 3-dimensional character. We take him seriously and therefore are more likely to make serious judgments about his moral status. Even with him, though, I think we tend to let him off pretty lightly for scenes like the aborted attempt to vamp Willow because they are played as such broad farce. The reality note just isn't being hit.

I suspect all that is about to change with Anya, by the way. After confronting her with one of the actual results of her career as a demon, ME is fairly obviously not going to treat it as all that funny any more, and I don't think the audience or the characters will either.

[> Re:What the hell reason does Spike have to be good, & where does he go from here? possibe spoilers -- Deeva, 20:47:44 04/20/02 Sat

Spike is a peculiar vamp. The vamps that we are allowed to know (Angel, Darla, Drusilla, Spike and so on) are all slightly different from one another yet similar. Although having just written the last sentence, I just realized I’m referring to a whole line of vamps from one sire, Aurelius. Perhaps, for some reason in the grand scheme of things, this line is/was destined to do "great", whether it be good or evil, things. Bring on apocalypses, become a scourge to a time and place, bring forth a miracle child or to overcome one’s demon.

If I were in Spike’s place and possessing his exact personality and such, I would stay. I’m a pretty stubborn person and tend to hold my ground, so I see why he hangs about the way he does. His convictions hold him there. Even though Buffy has put Spike through the emotional wringer that is Denial! Buffy more times than I want to count, he is convinced that she must feel something for him, even if it is not love. And to some degree he is right. The passion of her denials to him make you wonder about the root of it all. I know it sounds very cliché and all but sometimes, opposites do attract. Now don’t just roll your eyes and mutter "Oh geez, it’s another one of those Spuffy shippers." Yes, I like Spike. Yes, I like Buffy. I think that what the writers have with Spike and Buffy is great, meaning it interests me and I tune in every week to see what happens next. BUT, and I do mean really big but, I’m not pulling for Spuffy just for the Spuffiness of it all. Although the Nekkid! Spike action is a bonus, but I digress. I want what is best for both characters but I don’t know what that is. Maybe the good of it is supposed to be Spike persevering till Buffy finally gets it. Maybe he should leave and then Buffy gets it. I don’t know.

As for Spike’s statement from The Gift about her treating him like a man, he said that before they started up with the Sexcapades. It was before she died and came back. She was, in her mind, in heaven. Where she felt complete, whole, finished. She’s back in this existence now feeling hollow, less Buffy, something is missing. She compensates for her lack of being herself by not being herself, at least her ideal self which is "normal".

She rewards Spike for being bad because she feels that she is also bad. I really think that for most of this Season, Buffy has been projecting and identifying herself with Spike. Sure it starts with her feeling as if he might be the only one who could relate to her but that’s changed. Why punish the bad guy when you think that the bad guy just might be you? She doesn’t try to make Spike be a better vamp because she doesn’t think that’s possible. Regardless of the shades of grey that have popped up into her periphery, her view is still primarily black and white. Good/Bad, Human/Demon. Why should Buffy tell Spike that he can be good, if she doesn’t believe it? Buffy does see some of the change and some of the good that he has done. Others have told her of it. Even though we don’t see it, I feel that Willow may have said something of Spike’s help over the summer. We see later in Dead Things that Tara does say that Spike has done some good. But in Buffy’s mind it’s a trick. Some big bad plan to trick her into his one good day. That’s unfortunate for Spike. She’s afraid of trusting him because maybe it isn’t all that it seems. But what if it iswhat it is? I don’t know what Spike could possibly do to convince Buffy otherwise. I do know that what keeps Spike around is that he believes there is something there worth the wait, worth his pain.

Maybe Buffy feels she is not worthy of him? To know that you have the complete love of someone, someone who would do just about anything for you, someone who would forgive you of your worst even before you asked for that forgiveness. That’s a scary and humbling thought.

[> Spike must be redeemed for the sake of redemption, not for the love of a girl. -- Erica24, 22:43:22 04/20/02 Sat

First, I think Buffy has treated Spike badly because she is desperate to believe that Spike doesn't really love her. If a soulless creature is capable of love, then maybe her judge/jury/executioner style of slaying wasn't as good and just as she's believed. If a souless vampire can love her and want to be good for her, then she has to question whether Angel really loved her at all, if he couldn't love her without his soul. Ouch. That's gotta hurt.

Second, I think that Spike is well on his way to redemption. IMO, morality is taught through love. Spike loves Buffy and has taken his cues on what to do from her for a while now. I think that he's very methodically been learning what it is to be moral. He's also been trying to understand WHY morality and goodness are preferrable over evildoings. In particular, I think he showed this in AYW when he argued to Buffy that killing Katrina wasn't her fault because it was an accident. He further demonstrated his [grudging] desire to understand the human conscience when Buffy was yelling at him that he couldn't understand and he asked her point blank "Then why don't you explain it."

Generally, when parents are teaching their children how to be good people, they reward their children's good deeds with love and praise. That is missing here. In fact, Buffy seems to reward Spike's badness and berate him when he's being genuinely good. However, Spike isn't an infant or a child, and he has residual knowledge of what it takes to be good from his days as a human, even if they were 122 years ago.

I think that in order for Spike to be truly redeemed, he must make the leap from wanting to be good for the love of a woman to desiring it for its own sake.

While it hasn't been fun to watch Buffy berate, mock, and beat Spike up, it may be necessary. If he did good ONLY for her, then it wouldn't really be goodness. It would be necessity. I think we'll see Spike decide to be "good" on his own, with no other motivation than his own conscience and free will.

Erica

P.S. I think this is my first post, here. I post at the Stake & Cross Spoilerboard pretty frequently. :)

[> [> See, I was trying to say what you just said. -- Deeva, 09:54:16 04/21/02 Sun

Unfortunately my posts are my initial thoughts so they end up a little disjointed and rambling. I agree with all that you have just said, especially the first paragraph. It also kind of backs up my thought that maybe deep down inside of Buffy, she's afraid that she is not worthy.

I think that Spike has a very long way to go to even get close to redeeming his ways but he seems to be on that path. I agree with some of the posters who say that his path shuld be difficult because of the fact that he has been bad for so long. But I also think that there really is no way to make up for things that are done in the past. All that he can do is try to do good, or as good as Spike can get, from here on out. Doesn't mean he should become a saint, just means that he should realize that he has a choice in things. And I think that he does know this. Instead of always falling back to the "Hello? Evil here." excuse, he clearly makes choices. Sometimes though they're not as well thought out as they should be, like with the demon eggs in AYW. No, he wasn't using his grey matter there.

And as an aside Erica, since you say yoo post at the BC&S board frequently, can I assume that you are on Team Love's Bitches? Or are you making an ass out of me? (I think that's what Dawn was saying, mangling the phrase) ;o)

[> [> [> Re: See, I was trying to say what you just said. -- Ramses 2, 10:30:48 04/21/02 Sun

But Deeva he did save Xander at the birthday party without thinking. Maybe like a reflex to do good?

[> [> [> [> Yeah, that might have been a reflex. Which is a good thing. -- Deeva, 20:35:19 04/21/02 Sun

I wonder if Spike's realized what he'd done. And also if Xander gave it any thought.

[> "You know what I am!" [spoilers up to AYW] -- Slain, 00:05:52 04/21/02 Sun

First, I want to point out that Spike has not changed outside of his relationship with Buffy - he was perfectly aware that his actions as the doctor were evil, hence his "You know what I am!" line. Similarly his behaviour after he thought his chip was inactive clearly shows he still has the desire and capacity for murder.

However, this aside, because Spike is not immunue to love he can change, and be redeemed. As has been said, Buffy has stopped treating him like a man, probably because she feels the need to make reasons for drawing herself away from him. In Season 5, Spike was at his 'least evil', and commited no strictly evil acts - during which time he was gradually being accepted by Buffy. Now she's trying to demonize him again, and he's responding in kind.

It's clear Spike's morals are based around his loves - with Dru he was evil and sadistic, and with Buffy he was briefly close to good. Spike thought that in order for Buffy to love him he'd have to become good - but in fact Buffy does not seem to love him, and her lust is not connected with his morality. That's not to say Buffy is to blame for Spike's lack of redemption - I think in the Buffyverse the desire fro redemption has to come from within, as with Faith, not from without.

In leaving Spike, however, Buffy seems to be restoring the status quo - she tells Spike she cannot love him because of what he is, so will he try to change? And will this change be a lasting one? I really don't know.

[> [> Re: "You know what I am!" [spoilers up to AYW] -- leslie, 18:55:56 04/21/02 Sun

"First, I want to point out that Spike has not changed outside of his relationship with Buffy - he was perfectly aware that his actions as the doctor were evil, hence his "You know what I am!" line."

But does she know what he is? Is he assuming that she knows what he is because he knows what he's done and why, and thinks it's completely transparent, not realizing that she is misinterpreting his actions? Spike is the one who is really good at intuiting other people's motivations and actions, not Buffy; one of the things that people tend to do when they become close to another person is assume that the other person knows everything that they know ("hey, I'm not such a genius; if it's self-evident to me, then it must be self-evident to this person I love and admire, too.") Vampires and superheroes aside, this is one of the major sources of relationships going awry in the real world. Until we know exactly what was up with those eggs, where they came from, who the Doctor really is, and what Spike's explanation for it all is, I'm withholding judgment. I can see it going in any number of ways.

[> [> [> Not too many ways it can go. -- Earl Allison, 02:23:47 04/22/02 Mon

At risk of offense, it amazes me how many people try to excuse Spike holding onto the demon eggs.

No matter how you slice it, he KNOWS this is wrong -- trafficking in demon eggs, even if they hatch into cuddly Tribbles, is wrong.

To imply that Spike didn't know WHAT KIND of demon eggs they were doesn't mitigate the circumstances any, nor does it make Spike any more heroic.

Spike took them, Spike held them, and Spike neither told Buffy what he had, nor was he in the process of destroying them -- it doesn't leave a lot of interpretation, does it?

Maybe the writers can totally retcon this, or simply change the entire premise (not that they haven't already with other items this season), but I can't see a single way this could have been a good or just act for Spike.

Take it and run.

[> [> [> [> How about he was just stupid and was paid to house something dangerous he knew noting about. -- JMC, 04:13:55 04/22/02 Mon

He definatly didn't know the danger of the eggs otherwise he would have refrigerated them and wouldn't have let Buffy say over at the crypt with him.

[> [> [> [> [> Stupidity is immaterial here ... -- Earl Allison, 04:55:35 04/22/02 Mon

I'm not saying Spike definitely knew what type of demon eggs they were, what I AM saying is, no matter how you interpret it, barring a massive rewrite or out-of-the-blue retcon, Spike was holding demon eggs.

That, in and of itself, is a Bad Thing.

I don't care if he thought they were Tribbles, if someone is asking a vampire to hold onto some odd- looking eggs, one can be pretty sure they aren't legitimate items, else why have a vampire watch them?

My point is, there is no discernable mitigating factor here as the situation has been presented -- any claims to the contrary are, at this time, totally unwarranted.

And stupidity is never an excuse :)

Take it and run.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Massive retcon -- ramses 2, 07:44:32 04/22/02 Mon

For some of us the massive retcon was Spike holding demon eggs in his bedroom and suddenly calling himself the doctor. Yeh, Spike is going to call himself the same name as the man who was responsible for almost killing Dawn and forcing Buffy to die. This makes sense. Or not. Yeh, he's going to hold demon eggs in the 7/11 of crypts. Because no one ever shows up there. This episode has to be symbolic of something because straight on it was ridiculous.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike and stupidity -- Liam, 08:43:30 04/22/02 Mon

I disliked Spike's portrayal in 'As You Were' regarding the eggs, because he was badly written as stupid. While I feel that he is evil, I _never_ believed that he was stupid; in fact, his intelligence makes him an interesting villain.

It was said by an earlier poster (Slain), that Spike 'committed no _strictly_ evil acts' in the fifth season. This is incorrect, as I distincly remember him drinking blood from a person killed by Drusilla. How could that drinking not be an evil act?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike and stupidity -- Deeva, 09:11:55 04/22/02 Mon

It was said by an earlier poster (Slain), that Spike 'committed no _strictly_ evil acts' in the fifth season. This is incorrect, as I distincly remember him drinking blood from a person killed by Drusilla. How could that drinking not be an evil act?

Spike drank from Drusilla's victim because he was weak. Spike is all big gestures and, ocassionally, actions but he has a tendency to be weak around the object(s) of his affections/obsession. No excuse, I know but we all have our weaknesses. He was a bad puppy for drinking from a human but I don't know if that made him an evil one.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Redemptionistas of the Buffyverse Unite! -- Malandanza, 10:29:19 04/22/02 Mon

"I disliked Spike's portrayal in 'As You Were' regarding the eggs, because he was badly written as stupid. While I feel that he is evil, I _never_ believed that he was stupid; in fact, his intelligence makes him an interesting villain."

While Spike is intelligent, I found his portrayal in AYW to be believable. What Spike lacks is not IQ, but common sense. He has a Romantic and impulsive nature that makes it difficult for him to focus on practicalities. Time and again, he has ruined his own plans due to impatience. Like Marianne, in Jane Austen's Sense and Sensibility, he allows himself to indulge to heavily in his passions. His crime is not that he thinks too little, but that he feels too much.

Keeping the eggs was not an evil act when you consider why Spike did it. For money? Of course -- but not for himself -- for Buffy. She is ultimately responsible for his behavior -- she took the degrading job at DMP and he saw it was killing her. Earning the money was simply one of his grand gestures. No one blames Giles for giving money to Buffy -- there is a double standard for Spike. Furthermore, Spike's intentions are entirely altruistic -- Giles was motivated partly by guilt. He knew he was going to abandon his charge; the money helped ease his conscience. Giles received more than a year's worth of back pay because Buffy stood up to the WC for him -- he ought to have given her money. He was her watcher -- he was supposed to take care of her, yet he left for England. By contrast, Spike had only the purest motives.

It's also clear that whoever Spike was working for deliberately lied to him about the danger of the eggs. If Spike had known how dangerous they were, he would never have accepted the job.

By now, you've probably realized that I have recently joined the Redemptionista camp. I only wondered that I had resisted so long -- the arguments are so cogent and compelling!

"It was said by an earlier poster (Slain), that Spike 'committed no _strictly_ evil acts' in the fifth season. This is incorrect, as I distinctly remember him drinking blood from a person killed by Drusilla. How could that drinking not be an evil act?"

This point has already been addressed, so I won't say anything else on it other than to echo the sentiments by saying feeding on a dead person isn't evil. In fact, for a vampire, it's rather good.

But there are other points in Season Five that the anti-Spike faction may deliberately misinterpret as evil, and I wish to refute some of them ahead of time to avoid later controversy:

Early in the season, Spike betrays his sometime girlfriend, Harmony, to Buffy. While it would be easy to say that he gave Buffy the information she needed because Harmony had taken Dawn and Spike wished to save his little friend, this incident predates the Dawn and Spike companionship and Spike did not know that Harmony had taken Dawn. However, I think it is clear that Spike (who was, by now, good in spite of the Scoobies and Buffy having mistreated him in Season Four) wanted to help Buffy -- he only resisted out of pride because she hit him first, then asked questions. Even then, he quickly chose to assist her, humbly submitting to her, placing his desire to do good above his own ego.

Riley and the Doctor -- Buffy pays Spike to help her find Riley and instead he kidnaps the doctor to have the chip removed. Looks bad at first glance -- after all, Riley nearly died. But consider what the chip did to Spike -- it made him feel impotent, robbed him of his identity. In Season Six, he calls his ability to hit Buffy back a "Bloody Revelation" and he "got his rocks back." Removal of the chip is essential to Spike -- and to the anti-Redemptionistas to prove that Spike really is a changed man. Furthermore, he didn't realize how serious Riley's condition was -- Buffy is always in a hurry, she makes every little thing seem like the end of the world. If she had been more forthcoming with Spike, Spike would have had the doctor help Riley first, then kidnapped him. And, really, Riley deserves most of the blame -- he got himself into that mess. His feelings of insecurity led him to flee -- in what amounted to a suicide attempt.

And speaking of Riley, there's the Riley-Buffy breakup. Spike has always been remarkably observant. He knew, long before anyone else did, that Riley was not the man for Buffy. Riley was miserable and as long as the "relationship" continued he would continue to be so. The relationship had ended long before -- back in Season Four; inertia kept Buffy and Riley together, not love. Spike may have acted as a catalyst, but he did not end the relationship -- it was dead before he entered the scene. Even then, Spike felt guilty about his part, however tangential, as we saw in Triangle where he tries to apologize to Buffy only to be ignored.

Then there's Crush. Yes, Spike chained Buffy and Dru up and threatened alternately to kill them both -- but he didn't. Nor do I believe that he ever really considered killing either of his eternal loves. He was trying to get Buffy to admit her true feelings -- feelings that she's had since Something Blue. Had he succeeded, she'd have been much happier. Repression of her feelings is Buffy's biggest problem -- it eats away at her soul. It's clear that Buffy didn't consider the event to be evil -- otherwise she would have staked him. Instead, she just played games with him -- locking him out of her house and turning her friends against him.

There are other instances, as well, but I have to go to work. I sincerely hope this helps you to see Spike as he is, and not how you wish him to be.

Malandanza

Recovering Anti-Redemptionista

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I smell irony. -- Ete, 10:46:00 04/22/02 Mon

You know, you can be a Spike fan and a redemptionnista without willing to cover up for every time Spike screw up and does evil things.
Or you can keep up caricaturing us. Okay, that caricature was very close to acurate, but still... (grumbles grumbles)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Who are you, and what have you done with Malandanza? -- Traveler, 11:38:21 04/22/02 Mon

If you are simply being subtly sarcastic, then you invalidate your entire post, because there's no reason for us to take it seriously. You could even end up swaying people to the redemptionist camp, which would be truly ironic.

However, I intend to give you the benefit of the doubt, which means that I will take your post exactly as it was written. This means that I now have to argue the other side, which is much harder.

"Time and again, he has ruined his own plans due to impatience. Like Marianne, in Jane Austen's Sense and Sensibility, he allows himself to indulge to heavily in his passions."

This is obviously true, but having strong emotional responses doesn't excuse somebody for their actions.

"Keeping the eggs was not an evil act when you consider why Spike did it. For money? Of course - - but not for himself -- for Buffy."

If Spike didn't know what the eggs were, you make a good point here. However, if he did know that the eggs were weapons of mass destruction, it's really hard to claim that he was doing the right thing, even if it was to help Buffy out.

"However, I think it is clear that Spike (who was, by now, good in spite of the Scoobies and Buffy having mistreated him in Season Four) wanted to help Buffy -- he only resisted out of pride because she hit him first, then asked questions. Even then, he quickly chose to assist her, humbly submitting to her, placing his desire to do good above his own ego."

The impression I got was that Buffy bullied Spike into revealing Harmony's location. As I recall, Spike and Harmony had already split, and he never really liked her that much anyway, so when pushed he was willing to sell her out to Buffy.

"If she had been more forthcoming with Spike, Spike would have had the doctor help Riley first, then kidnapped him. And, really, Riley deserves most of the blame -- he got himself into that mess."

Spike hated Riley and would have loved to cause his death. Riley was a tool of the Initiative and Maggie Walsh, and had has own insecurities just as the rest of the gang does. Although he made a mistake, it was understandable that he would feel the way he did.

"Spike may have acted as a catalyst, but he did not end the relationship -- it was dead before he entered the scene."

What Spike did directly caused Riley and Buffy to break up. Yes they had their problems before, but until Spike spilled the beans about the Riley/vamp prostitute thing, there was still a chance that they could work things out. Yes, Spike felt guilty about breaking them up, but he was also nervous that Buffy would stake him as a result of his role in the affair.

"Then there's Crush. Yes, Spike chained Buffy and Dru up and threatened alternately to kill them both -- but he didn't. Nor do I believe that he ever really considered killing either of his eternal loves."

I think he intended to kill Dru if Buffy had responded the way he wanted, although I'm not sure he could have actually done it when push came to shove.

"He was trying to get Buffy to admit her true feelings -- feelings that she's had since Something Blue. Had he succeeded, she'd have been much happier."

Buffy may have been attracted to Spike at this point, but I didn't see any evidence that she had "feelings" for him. Buffy does have a huge problem with repression, but this isn't an example of it. The only reason she didn't stake Spike was because he let her go and he couldn't fight back because of the chip.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The end justifies the means? -- Vickie, 11:55:46 04/22/02 Mon

"Keeping the eggs was not an evil act when you consider why Spike did it. For money? Of course -- but not for himself -- for Buffy."

Factually, this is a stretch (IMO). But if I stipulate to your version of facts (for which I don't believe we have any evidence), we're still in trouble.

I don't believe that have a good intention for using the money justifies earning it in an evil way.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Who are you, and what have you done with Malandanza? -- Slain, 12:54:09 04/22/02 Mon

Personally, I'd classify myself as a pessimistic redemptionist. That is, I believe Spike has the capacity for redemption, but at the moment he's just too dang evil. I'm certain, however, that if Buffy told him she'd love him if he changed, then he probably would, despite his evil.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Y'all are going to pull a sarcasm muscle, there :) -- Earl Allison, 11:38:23 04/22/02 Mon

I understand your reasoning, but maybe a bit less sarcasm?

Someone is almost certainly going to perceive this as an
attack regardless of the humor/sarcasm inherent in the post.

Take it and run.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Y'all are going to pull a sarcasm muscle, there :) -- Malandanza, 10:25:23 04/23/02 Tue

"I understand your reasoning, but maybe a bit less sarcasm?

Someone is almost certainly going to perceive this as an
attack regardless of the humor/sarcasm inherent in the post."

If I were a first time poster with no history on this board, or if I had been responding to a first time poster who was unaware of the board's personalities, I would agree that my abuse of sarcasm was improper. However, the Spike-philes and I have sparred so frequently in the past that I doubt any were surprised or offended by my use of sarcasm -- and I think that the over-the-top mockery better served to undermine Slain's argument that Spike had "committed no strictly evil acts" than would a listing of his crimes.

Like Traveler, I enjoy debating Spike -- especially when there are no compelling philosophical questions about (after all, you can only debate the nature of the soul so many times...). Our arguments become more refined with each engagement, and I have gained a better understanding of the opposition's position once the arguments got past cheekbones and dusters. I have also learned which arguments to avoid -- like the Lovers' Walk "haven't had a woman" remark.

One of the problems with making mildly ironic posts is that people will sometimes take them literally. To avoid having people agree with me (and think that I had really become a Redemptionista) it was necessary to make the sarcasm obvious. Even then, some of my posts have been misinterpreted in the past (I once posted a "Warren's not evil!" post using the same justifications to defend Warren as the Redemptionistas used to defend Spike, intending to mock Spike, but ended up lectured by Rufus because she thought I was sincere :).

Also, anyone that would have been offended by the things I say about Spike (or the manner in which I say them) would have been offended long ago. And some of my "arguments" were not that different from those being expressed by the Redemtionistas -- certainly, the suggestion that Spike was hiding the eggs to selflessly raise money for Buffy is not a novel argument on this board -- it has been used, in earnest, as an excuse for Spike's behavior.

Finally I would point out (to borrow another Redemptionista argument) that I am not responsible for my own actions. My well-reasoned and coherent arguments proving that Spike isn't good, has never been good and never will be good are generally dismissed out of hand. Thus, when I try to behave civilly, I am punished. However, when I post ironically, I am rewarded for my antisocial behavior. Just look at Traveler's response -- have you ever seen so many concessions about Spike's moral character (or lack thereof) from a Redemptionista before? Traveler admits that:

Passion doesn't excuse bad behavior.
Spike sold out Harmony
Spike hated Riley and would have loved to be responsible for his death
Spike was directly responsible for the Riley/Buffy breakup
Spike was fully willing to kill Dru
Buffy's "feelings" for Spike are recent

Months of logical arguments could not have produced the results that a couple of hastily written sarcastic paragraphs produced. Is it any wonder that I am sarcastic when my friends and peers reward such behavior and punish me for doing good? Like Spike, I have no choice in the matter -- it is a Pavlovian response.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh, Malandanza, so glad you have joined us! -- LeeAnn, 12:36:28 04/22/02 Mon

Spike is a Prince. You finally understand!
You sure you haven't been taking estrogen? That always helps people to see the good in Spike.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Mal.....so what you're saying is that you've become insane......;) -- Rufus, 16:00:36 04/22/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yes! :) -- Malandanza, 23:36:06 04/22/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> <appreciative hearty chuckle> -- mundus, 18:17:12 04/22/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Massive retcon -- Akita, 13:32:33 04/22/02 Mon

"This episode has to be symbolic of something because straight on it was ridiculous."

Amen. If the point is that Spike is still evil, then give him an evil act that (a) he is capable of carrying out and (b) interested in carrying out. Even with his evil acts, Spike's a one-on-one kind of guy; he at least wants to be present to see the mayhem he has caused. Moreover, in this post-9/11 world we live in, I found even the hint of real-life international terrorism (see quote below) to be utterly tasteless.

SAM: We think the eggs will be sold on the black market. There's some foreign military powers that'd love to have their own Suvolte. Could never train it, but drop it on an urban population ...

What Buffy ep would you pick for a non Buffy lover? -- Eric, 19:59:31 04/20/02 Sat

I have friends that roll their eyes every time I mention Buffy. They're pretty reasonable people who enjoy other good TV shows like CSI, West Wing, Ally McBeal, Friends, etc. I would love to show them at least ONE Buffy ep that encapsulated everything I love about it. The problem is that Buffy is so soapish in its design, I can't think of a single good ep that wouldn't leave them confused. Recommendations?

[> Pangs maybe. Or The Body. -- Sophist, 20:02:42 04/20/02 Sat

Either one will require about 5 minutes of explanation for context and characters.

[> Hush, School Hard, Halloween, Living Conditions -- MayaPapaya9, 20:10:56 04/20/02 Sat

[> The Body, HUSH, OMWF, and Fool For Love -- shadowkat, 20:32:01 04/20/02 Sat

[> Hush. -- Deeva, 20:56:36 04/20/02 Sat

[> If your friend is a guy... -- Malandanza, 21:50:56 04/20/02 Sat

I'd suggest Innocence in spite of some brief plot summary you'd have to do -- lots of action. And the rocket launcher.

Also, Bad Girls -- less explaining, but still quite a lot of action.

Although the action-filled episodes may end up filling your friend with contempt since it is so obvious that it is not SMG in the fight scenes.

Season One would need the least background (obviously) and some of the episodes have their moments (not Teacher's Pet!) -- like The Puppet Show, that reverses all the expectations of silly Child's Play rip-off rather quickly in the episode (when Xander climbs on top of the table to avoid the missing doll). Never Kill a Boy on the First Date is pretty good at capturing Buffy's desire for a normal life vs. her duties as a slayer.

[> [> If your friend is a girl.... -- ponygirl, 08:09:40 04/21/02 Sun

My roommate was hooked by Out Of My Mind (though she also briefly became a big Riley fan - shudder). Another friend also started watching around that time, though I had to field her phone calls every commercial to explain the characters. Season 5 just seemed to be a good entry point since relationship angst appealed to my friends. Though Dawn took 5 minutes minimum to explain.

One friend who had mocked me when I talked (endlessly)about the show liked Gone so I sent her a tape of the first half of this season. Now she's upset because of the lack of new episodes! As Billie Holiday says "god damn the pusher!"

[> Hush -- Rob, 22:58:34 04/20/02 Sat

[> Re: What Buffy ep would you pick for a non Buffy lover? -- Slain, 00:39:30 04/21/02 Sun

There's an unwritten law that whenever someone says "Oh, I only saw one episode of Buffy and I hated it" the one episode they saw will always be your least favourite.

I'd say the episode I'd choose would depend on the person - I know some people I'd start off with 'Innocence' or 'The Body' and some I'd start off with 'Hush'. I think we're all agreed that starting with 'Restless' probably wouldn't be a good idea.

[> Becoming Part 2. It had everything. -- JCC, 06:49:11 04/21/02 Sun

[> Re: What Buffy ep would you pick for a non Buffy lover? -- skpe, 07:03:13 04/21/02 Sun

I would start with the first one, 'welcome to the hellmouth'
sense it is the ep that sets up the series. The later season shows are to dependent on the previous ones

[> [> I agree... -- OnM, 08:28:50 04/21/02 Sun

... in that the opening act (WttH / The Harvest) has all the essentials in it. I saw it after seeing (and generally liking) the movie, and my expectations were very low, since I thought it wasn't a concept that would work as a series.

After it was over, I was already hooked-- it was just so much more than I ever expected, and I eagerly tuned in the next week, and the week after, and now here I am, still addicted 5 years later.

Be aware that some people have already made their decision in advance (i.e., 'it can't really be any good') and no matter what they view, they won't seek further involvement. Also, if you only show them the very best of the very best (Hush, Becoming Pt II, OMwF, etc) they will be disappointed that all the other eps don't reach this level of excellence.

Also, as we had discussed a few months ago, some individuals are apparently born 'metaphor-blind', and so they won't see the different levels, no matter how many eps they watch. These types will, at best, find the show 'marginally entertaining', but will never get what all the fuss is about.

Now if, any only if, you have a good response to WttH/The Harvest, then my next suggestion for a followup ep would be Prophecy Girl.

By then the person will either be hooked, or not, and you can pretty much pick any decent episode from any season.

[> [> [> 'Metaphor Blindness' -- Cygnus, 12:28:28 04/21/02 Sun

...Also, as we had discussed a few months ago, some individuals are apparently born 'metaphor- blind', and so they won't see the different levels, no matter how many eps they watch. These types will, at best, find the show 'marginally entertaining', but will never get what all the fuss is about...

Now I will admit to being 'Metaphor Blind.' The show's many intricate levels are not the first thing I look for and I don't really care too much about them even when pointed out to me. However I resent the implication in the above comment that I somehow am incapable of enjoying or valuing the show as much as someone who does see the metaphors.

I sorry I have nothing to add to the discussion but that remark just demanded a reply

[> [> [> [> Re: 'Metaphor Blindness' -- OnM, 15:59:11 04/21/02 Sun

*** Now I will admit to being 'Metaphor Blind.' The show's many intricate levels are not the first thing I look for and I don't really care too much about them even when pointed out to me. ***

First, my apologies if I offended you Cygnus, or anyone else for that matter.

However, your statement contradicts itself, or else you misunderstand what I am trying to say. By 'metaphor blindness', I mean exactly that-- one doesn't see them at all, even if they're pointed out. Saying that the 'levels' of the show are not really important to you from a purely enjoyment perspective is very different than not being aware that they are there, or as many people who don't watch (or even actively deride) the show believe, that they aren't there at all , we're just making it all up. And yes, there are people who fit that category.

The comment also wasn't intended negatively, other than that, unfortunately, these folks will never know what they are missing, because it's inherently beyond their perceptions.

So, does that explain my intent a little better, or have I just dug a deeper hole to stand in?

:-)

[> [> [> [> Re: 'Metaphor Blindness' -- shadowkat, 10:17:59 04/22/02 Mon

Thank you for that comment. I agree with you. There
are many fans who don't think metaphorically and love
the show. I've spoken to quite a few of them, including
my brother. They just watch it differently and for different reasons. Some are even quite obsessed.

I, however, think metaphorically, so I love and watch the show very differently. (It is one of the few tv shows that
uses metaphor well. Most tv plots - I can predict with no problem, because there is no metaphor and it is plot driven not character or theme driven. I don't enjoy those shows
as much as Buffy and find myself watching little besides
Buffy and Angel for those reasons. The fact I think metaphorically is also why I am obsessed with the show - I keep seeing layers.)

Because the show operates on a thematic level and utilizes
metaphors to the extent that it does - I find it difficult to understand how someone who does not think metaphorically
can truly appreciate it. The analyses I read from posts
who clearly don't see metaphors do bug me at times - ie: the whole vampires are just evil creatures and don't represent anything else threads boggle my mind. But that's only because I think differently than those posters do. I guess we all need to be more tolerant of different ways of thinking. Myself included. Who knows we might actually learn something from another point of view?

It is a hallmark of a truly great show - that appeals to more than one mindset. If it only appealed to those of us
who think metaphorically - it wouldn't still be on the air.
;-)

[> [> [> Re: My choices for a new fan -- Liam, 08:18:58 04/22/02 Mon

I agree with OnM regarding 'Welcome to the Hellmouth' and 'The Harvest' as episodes with the essentials in them. After that, I'd go on to show the person 'Angel', as it sets up what is still the defining relationship in the series, and was when things began to get interesting. You can go right on to show 'Prophecy Girl', an episode that began to show how good the series really is. If you wanted to show an interesting though non-essential first season episode, I would recommend 'The Puppet Show', as it has a lovely twist in it and introduces us to Principal Snyder. (If the person is a 'Star Trek: Deep Space 9' fan, and particularly a fan of Quark, the episode is a must.)

[> I think a good tactic would be using the episode that hooked you... -- Isabel, 12:29:40 04/21/02 Sun

My (ex)boyfriend showed me Killed by Death on tape and I was not appreciative. I couldn't tell the difference between Angel and Xander and I sat there making rude comments the whole time. So I definitely don't recommend that episode.

A week later he showed me Lover's Walk and I was hooked. (He hadn't labeled his video tapes and he was looking for The Wish, which he never found.) It has everything, romantic triangles, heartbreak, kidnapping, spell casting, humor, betrayal, and cocoa.

I think part of what hooked me was Willow telling Xander: "I either fail to do the spell he wants and he kills us, or I do the spell that he wants and he kills us. Or, he's so drunk, he forgets about us and we starve to death. That's kinda the best one."

Are you trying to hook all of your friends at once? Do you know WHY they like all of those shows? Is it the group dynamics, the humor, the witticisms, the whimsy (Ally), the hot sex or is it because they're The "best shows on TV?" Then tailor the shows you choose to match their tastes.

[> Thanks for the help! -- Eric, 19:21:02 04/21/02 Sun

Now I just gotta prep the VCR!

[> Re: What Buffy ep would you pick for a non Buffy lover? -- ravenhair, 20:20:01 04/21/02 Sun

Hush, one of the best MotW episodes.

Fool For Love, because Spike is THE vampire on Buffy now and it gives his whole backstory.

From the current season? Tabula Rasa, because it cleverly reintroduces the characters in a humorous alternative universe setting.

[> No Place Like Home -- Ete, 09:41:09 04/22/02 Mon

I think it's pretty much self-explicatory and a good way to introduce someone to the fifth season. (and from there they should be pretty hooked)

Are Jossverse wishes always regretted later? -- abt, 06:36:30 04/21/02 Sun

I'm up to 6.14, OaFA, which is the episode that made me think of this topic.

Now granted, no-one would actually wish to be locked in a house forever, but it does seem that no- one ever seems to make a wish that would really make them happy.

The Wish, Cordelia:-"I wish Buffy Summers had never come to
Sunnydale."

NPLH, Buffy:- "You just have no idea how much
I wish I were an only child these days."

Fool for Love, William:- "I wish to be alone."

[> Re: Are Jossverse wishes always regretted later? -- Rob, 08:20:01 04/21/02 Sun

This is a recurring theme in mythology and fairy tales. Most wishes that go awry do so because of (a) poor wording or (b) rashness of thought, due to temporary anger.

An example of the former would be someone wishing to live forever, but not stipulating a "happy" life in the exact wording, and so, soon after, being sent to jail for life.

An example of the latter would be in the fairy tale, "The Three Wishes," where the husband and wife argue over how to use the three wishes. The first wish is used on something simple and not very exciting, like a loaf of bread. The two start to argue, and the husband wishes that his wife's nose would turn into a cucumber. Then, the last wish has to be wasted on returning her nose to normal.

In most cases, I believe it is the uncareful syntax that messes things up: Dawn specified that she wanted people to stop going away; she did not specify that being stuck with them in a house, forever, was not what she had in mind. Cordelia specified that she wished Buffy never came to Sunnydale, which could be seen as a mixture of both types of wishes. The wording was wrong, because she should have said something like, "I wish Buffy had never come to Sunnydale, and I would be happy." Even better, she should have added something in there about vampires not being in Sunnydale as well. That's a result of her rashness. If she'd thought it out, she'd remember that, like, duh, if Buffy hadn't come to Sunnydale, the Master would have risen and turned Sunnydale into a vamp playground.

Rob

[> [> Great points Rob -- Rahael, 10:08:50 04/21/02 Sun

This also ties in with the tricksiness of Prophecies, where humans jump to conclusions about the wording. This comes out again and again in both BtVS and AtS.

Like Macbeth (no son of woman born, when Birnum wood come to Dunsinane, etc).

That's because there's no such thing as a free lunch. If you are picked out to be the witness of prophecy/being able to wish, you'd better watch out! Many fairy tales often show how the poor and powerless become the malicious playthings of those more powerful, whether in terms of earthly or supernatural power.

[> [> [> Re: Great points Rob -- gds, 20:18:04 04/21/02 Sun

This also ties in with the trickiness of Prophecies, where humans jump to conclusions about the wording.

So, so true. In trying to avoid them you can cause them to come true. Buffy freed the Master by trying to prevent the prophecy of his freedom. In a similar fashion I suspect that in trying to prevent Connor from killing him, Sahjhan has actually set that prophecy in motion. Now Connor has a reason to kill him. I don't for a minute think Connor is doomed to remain in Quortoth forever (though it may seem like it to Connor and Angel). Sahjhan has been captured, but we don't know yet how he can be killed. Even though he is now somewhat substantial, he is clearly still partly insubstantial, sort of genie-like.

[> [> Re: Are Jossverse wishes always regretted later? -- Humanitas, 11:32:36 04/21/02 Sun

I think it goes deeper than mere syntax.

"Pain is mandatory. Suffering is optional." -- Anonymous

A lot of times, when people wish for things, they are unhappy for one reason or another. They think that they want something specific, but what they really want is Not To Be Unhappy. Trouble is, unhappiness (the Buddhist Nirvanna notwithstanding) is a natural and necessary part of life. Most people either don't understand this, or cannot accept it. So they attribute their pain to a specific source, and (given the chance) try to wish it away. Alas, the problem is usually not the cause, but the effect that the person doing the wishing allows the cause to have on them. So wishing the cause away doesn't solve anything, and in fact often makes things worse.

Remember Joss' Law: Ain't Nothin' Ever Easy. That's not just a good way to hold on to viewers, it's a major lesson of myth.

[> Re: Are Jossverse wishes always regretted later? -- Rob, 08:41:24 04/21/02 Sun

This is a recurring theme in mythology and fairy tales. Most wishes that go awry do so because of (a) poor wording or (b) rashness of thought, due to temporary anger.

An example of the former would be someone wishing to live forever, but not stipulating a "happy" life in the exact wording, and so, soon after, being sent to jail for life.

An example of the latter would be in the fairy tale, "The Three Wishes," where the husband and wife argue over how to use the three wishes. The first wish is used on something simple and not very exciting, like a loaf of bread. The two start to argue, and the husband wishes that his wife's nose would turn into a cucumber. Then, the last wish has to be wasted on returning her nose to normal.

In most cases, I believe it is the uncareful syntax that messes things up: Dawn specified that she wanted people to stop going away; she did not specify that being stuck with them in a house, forever, was not what she had in mind. Cordelia specified that she wished Buffy never came to Sunnydale, which could be seen as a mixture of both types of wishes. The wording was wrong, because she should have said something like, "I wish Buffy had never come to Sunnydale, and I would be happy." Even better, she should have added something in there about vampires not being in Sunnydale as well. That's a result of her rashness. If she'd thought it out, she'd remember that, like, duh, if Buffy hadn't come to Sunnydale, the Master would have risen and turned Sunnydale into a vamp playground.

Rob

[> [> Re: Are Jossverse wishes always regretted later?-An alternate TV show viewing suggestion -- Calluna, 19:04:37 04/21/02 Sun

If you want to see this topic (wishes gone awry) taken to its logical conclusion, hunt down and watch "The X Files" episode, "Je Souhite" (French for 'I wish', I know I didn't spell it right). It involves a Geni and Mulder trying to use three wishes. It's one of my top 10 favorite TV episodes.

[> Re: Are Jossverse wishes always regretted later? -- Ahira, 21:09:44 04/21/02 Sun

I think it is merely the nature of wishes that they be regretted later. Consider that by wishing, the person is earning or coming to something without any work or growth (assuming the wish is an attempt to get something and not an accident or statement of passion) They can't really know how to ask for what they want and get it right. I play a game like that sometimes. If I could have a wish, what would I wish for. Then, afterwards, I start to break it down and find all the reasons it would not make me happy the way I expect, but, have to admit that the reasons for my regret would not come to mind. I can't really know them. Wishes have been a great tool in storytelling, mythology, etc for teaching a lesson to the characters. And then, there is the wonderful curse: Be careful what you wish for, it just might come true.....

[> [> Oh yeah, almost forgot -- Ahira, 05:55:02 04/22/02 Mon

The other thing that makes the syntax of the wish so important is the wish granter. How often has the wish granter ever been portrayed as an active participant in the happiness of the person recieving the wish? Most often you see them as neutral, carrying out some duty that was put on them; or, they are evil and have something to gain from the person making the wish.

[> [> Re: Are Jossverse wishes always regretted later? -- verdantheart, 08:04:16 04/22/02 Mon

Variation on "Be careful what you wish for ..."

I recently came across a quote to the effect that when the gods truly want to punish someone, they grant that person's fondest wish. Don't remember the source though ... I might have even come across it on this board somewhere ...

[> [> Are Can I be Anne's wishes always regretted later? -- Can I be Anne?, 15:02:10 04/22/02 Mon

I've also played that game with myself and I've come to a conclusion: You can't go wrong wishing that everyone in the world experience peace. Now I'm ready for my genie!

P.S. I'm curious if anyone here can break my wish down and tell me how it might go wrong. Also, other infallible wishes?

[> [> [> Re: Are Can I be Anne's wishes always regretted later? -- Ete, 15:06:50 04/22/02 Mon

Everyone dies, everyone rest in peace, it's the end of the world (well of human life anyway) :)

[> A whole bunch of Buffyverse wishes.... (not very serious) -- dream of the consortium, 13:11:42 04/22/02 Mon

From the Buffy database...

Buffy: I'm fine. Gee, I wish people wouldn't leave open graves laying around like this.
ANGEL: So. Another vampire has risen tonight.
BUFFY: I don't think so. Look at those tracks. Whoever was buried here didn't rise from this grave. ( finds a girl's shoe.) She was dragged from it. (Hmm..foreshadowy)

Buffy: I wish we could be regular kids.

Master: A dream is a wish your heart makes.

Prof Lillian: I'm glad you like poetry, Buffy.
BUFFY: I wish I had time for it. But, I, just don't right now...
Prof Lillian: Well, maybe short poems.
BUFFY: Yeah! Like those Japanese ones that um sound like a sneeze.
Prof Lillian: Haiku?
BUFFY: Right. Maybe those. And, hopefully, I'll be back next semester. When I'm more myself again. (Oooh, ironic foreshadowy)

DAWN: I wanna do a spell. I wanna bring Mom back.
TARA: of course you want to bring your mother back, and I wish we could, but it's not possible.

XANDER: Maybe bowling might be too much to handle. Man! (strokes her hair) I wish I wasn't so attracted to you. I wish we could make it all stop.
WILLOW: Any suggestions?

SPIKE: Look, I just need a few supplies, and then I'll take you to... (stops and grabs his head) Oh, God.
BUFFY: What's wrong? Not that I care.
SPIKE: Oh... My head. I think I'm sobering up. It's horrible. Oh, God. I wish I was dead.
BUFFY: Well, if you close your eyes and wish real hard...

BUFFY: Mom, I know that sometimes you wish I were different.
JOYCE: Buffy, no.
BUFFY: I wish I could be a lot of things for you. A great student, a star athlete, remotely normal. I'm not. But there is something I do that I can do better than anybody else in the world. I'm gonna fight this thing, but I can't do it and worry about you.

BUFFY: I sacrificed Angel to save the world. I loved him *so* much... but I *knew*. What was right. I don't have that any more. I *don't* understand. I don't know how to live in this world, if these are the choices, if everything just gets stripped away. I don't see the point. I just wish... I just wish my mom was here.

BEN: Look, I... I wish there was another way.
DAWN: And I wish you'd fall on your head and drown in your own barf, so I guess we're both disappointed.

BUFFY: Anya when you were a demon, you granted wishes right?
ANYA: Vengeance wishes on ex boyfriends. I'd wish he was a dog or ugly or in love with president McKinley or something.
BUFFY: But someone could wish the whole world to be different right? That's possible?

BUFFY: We need a little more firepower than none. We should head back to the library.
FAITH: Well, I guess Jacuzzi Boy isn't going anywhere. (looks around) I just... wish we had...(sees Meyer's Sport and Tackle shop) Ah. That is too good.

CORDELIA: Darn, I have cheerleader practice tonight. Boy, I wish I knew we were gonna be digging up dead people sooner. I would've canceled.

Marcie: Your face. That's what this is all about, isn't it? Your beautiful face. That's what makes you shine just a little bit brighter than the rest of us. We all want what you have. To be noticed, remembered. To be seen.
CORDELIA: What are you doing?
Marcie: Well, I'm fulfilling your fondest wish.
(She pulls off the cloth covering the tray, revealing several surgical instruments.)
Marcie: I'm gonna give you a face no one will ever forget.

JOYCE: Ampata, don't you look wonderful! Oh, I wish you could talk my daughter into going with you.
Ampata: I tried, but she is very stubborn.

BUFFY: He thinks ... I let him go.
SAM: Do you wish you hadn't?
BUFFY: I wish things were different. I-I'm not trying to ... I don't ... uh, you know.

ANYA: (a little too loudly) I wish that Joyce didn't die...
Everyone looks at her.
ANYA: (more quietly) ...because she was nice. And now we all hurt.

Just a thought after watching Hell's Bells - not really spoilery -- John Burwood, 12:54:00 04/21/02 Sun

Finally got to see Hell's Bells here in the U.K. - got to say what an acting tour-de-force from Emma Caulfield, both powerful & funny.
It has occurred to me that Anya was originally planned to be a single ep plot device - almost monster of the week. If she had been killed at the end of the Wish, instead of disempowered, or whatever, what would we have missed?
Thinking on, what other one or two ep characters have been & gone with actors who could have done great over longer runs?
Sunday is the first name that springs to my mind - Gwen Post another - any other suggestions?

[> Toth. I thought he was great. -- JCC, 13:09:57 04/21/02 Sun

[> Recurring characters -- Apophis, 17:25:14 04/21/02 Sun

Kralik was cool. He was mad as a hatter, yet, unlike Drucilla, he could acknowledge that fact and carry on a conversation without being distracted by talking stars or visions of the future.
Absolom would've been interesting, if only to provide some insight into how the Order of Aurelius worked.
On Angel, I thought Vocah would've made a good recurring villain, though mainly because he wacked the Oracles and I'd like a chance to thank him.

[> I don't remember her name, but... -- vampire hunter D, 18:07:23 04/21/02 Sun

That girl who Buffy was forced to work with settting up the the school event with in "School Hard". I don't remember her name, but she would have been cool. Too bad Spike and Dru had to get the munchies.

[> How can we possibly forget Doc?? -- vandalia, 22:04:55 04/21/02 Sun

I still hold out hope that he'll be back; he was way too important (and Joel Grey way too good an actor) to waste as merely Glory's minion. (If I'm right or wrong, don't disabuse me, I hate spoilers like I hate intolerance ;) )

Restless: Leaving Childhood Behind - Part IV: Giles Dream -- shadowkat, 15:05:45 04/21/02 Sun

Restless: Leaving Childhood Behind-Part III: Giles’ Dream

(All Btvs quotes taken from Psyche Transcripts.)

Part III - Giles Dream: Lack of Intellect

Before I start my analysis of Giles’ Restless Dream, let’s flashback a few episodes to Yoko Factor. Before Spike comes into Giles’ apartment in Yoko Factor to the Initiative’s discs, Giles is singing “Freebird”:

Giles: Would you still remember me?/ Well I must be traveling on now/ There's too many places I've got to see/ And if I stay here with you girl/ Things just couldn't be the same/'Cause I'm as free as bird now—

All season long Giles’ has felt aimless, wondering why he’s still in Sunnydale, yet reluctant to leave his charges. His girlfriend Olivia visits from England, but he at no point really includes her in his duties as a Watcher or in his charges’ lives. When she learns what he does, she more or less flees back to England. (see HUSH, Season 4 Btvs.) He has no job. The council is no longer paying him a salary. And although he cares deeply for Willow, Xander, and Buffy, he knows he is neither their father nor any longer their librarian/watcher. His library has been blown to smithereens. He feels stuck in their lives, aimless, and wants to travel on, yet at the same time is afraid to leave. Spike picks up on these insecurities when he encounters Giles and milks them for all they’re worth.

Spike:…This deal's with the Slayer.
Giles: I'll tell her.
Spike: Oh, you'll tell her! Great comfort that. What makes you think she'll listen to you?
Giles: Because . . . (trails off, unsure)
Spike: Very convincing.
Giles: I'm her Watcher.
Spike: I think you're neglecting the past-tense there, Rupert. Besides, she barely listened to you when you were in charge. I've seen the way she treats you.
Giles: Oh, yes? And how's that?
Spike: Very much like a retired librarian.

These are the thoughts that have been roiling around in Giles brain all season long. They are also the thoughts that are still buried inside him when he has his dream in Restless.
Giles is on the metaphorical riverboat journey with Buffy, Willow, and Xander heading into the Heart of Darkness. But Giles is the old steamboat skipper, seasoned and somewhat reluctant to go much further. He has seen the darkness, he has experienced the pain, he would like to retire and go elsewhere. Yet, he is tied to the boat at the moment by his responsibility to his charges and to his sworn duty as a ‘watcher”, a duty as he professed way back in NEVER KILL A BOY ON THE FIRST DATE, (Season 1, Btvs) that was not his first choice. He wanted to be in a rock band or be a fighter pilot, instead his father forced him to be a Watcher.

Giles: I was ten years old when my father told me I was destined to be a Watcher. He was one, and his, uh, mother before him, and I was to be next.
Buffy: Were you thrilled beyond all measure?
Giles: No, I had very definite plans about my future. I was going to be a fighter pilot. Or possibly a grocer. Well, uh... My father gave me a very tiresome speech about, uh, responsibility and sacrifice.

Like the skipper and Willard in Apocalypse Now, Giles and Buffy were drafted. They did not choose their calling. Willow and Xander on the other hand did. This may explain the difference in the dreams and why both Giles and Buffy are aware of the first slayer in Restless, while Willow and Xander never truly are. Willow and Xander came along for the ride in somewhat the same way as the eager surfer boy, the rookie, and the intellectual did in Apocalypse Now.

In Restless, Giles’ dream opens with him attempting to hypnotize a childlike Buffy. She is in pigtails and giggling at him in the scene. They are in his house, on the floor, with no furniture except one chair, which Buffy is sitting on. He is dangling a pocket watch in front of her and telling her : “You have to stop thinking. Let it wash over you.” Odd thing for a watcher to tell his slayer – to stop thinking. To go with her gut. Is he telling her this or is he telling himself? Or is it simpler than that – is it that he wants to be the mind and if she starts thinking, he’s not needed? He has no purpose?

BUFFY: Don't you think it's a little old-fashioned?
GILES: This is the way women and men have behaved since the beginning......before time. Now look into the light.

Men and women? Does this mean that she should let men do the thinking? Let me plan it out for you, I’m the Watcher. Otherwise I have no purpose here? And is he right, has it really always been so?

Later in Buffy vs. Dracula, (Season 5)- Giles tells Willow: “Well, it's become quite obvious that Buffy doesn't need me. I-I don't say that in a self-pitying way, I'm, I'm quite proud, actually.”

He may be proud but he still wants to be needed. Could this be what is going on here – a mental struggle inside Giles? Later on in the dream – towards the end, he says to the first slayer: “I know who you are. And I can defeat you ... with my intellect. I ... can cripple you with my thoughts. Of course, you underestimate me. You couldn't know. You never had a Watcher.” And that’s the point really, she didn’t. She could think perfectly well without him. Perhaps all he’s done is hold Buffy back. Perhaps that’s what he is doing now?

The next portion of the dream takes place at a carnival where there are cardboard vampires. Buffy is a little girl in a jump-suite and Olivia is pushing along a baby stroller. Giles like Xander in his dream, seems to be viewing Buffy as the child, yet as one poster pointed out – perhaps it is the reverse? Perhaps Giles is truly the child, left behind? And maybe that’s what Giles’ fears? Another interesting point about this scene – is Giles’ advice to Buffy, it is similar to the advice he gives her in Intervention, OMWF and several other episodes: “Buffy, you have a sacred birthright to protect mankind. (Buffy turns to look at him, pouting) Don't stick out your elbow.” He doesn’t tell her how to think or strategize. Or how to find her inner balance. He resorts to material or physical criticism like a dance instructor: Don’t stick out your elbow. It’s an ironic comment coming from someone who represents the “mind”. Is he really using his?

Before this comment, Giles attempts to reference a parable, but he can’t quite remember it. It is about patience and a fox.

OLIVIA: Does she always want to train this badly?
GILES: Well, it appears she's never heard the fable about patience.
OLIVIA: Which one is that?
GILES: The, the one about the fox, and the, uh, less patient fox.

Foxes often are used to describe someone who is clever, quick-witted, or highly intelligent. “Clever as a fox.” Is Giles referring to himself and Buffy = one patient fox and one less patient? Or is Giles referring to both sides of himself: Giles and Ripper?

Then when Buffy hits the cardboard vampire and he falls down, she turns to Giles expectantly, hoping for some sort of treat. Giles says there aren’t any treats. Olivia chides him for this, but he insists that “it is my business. Blood of the lamb and all that.” But I get the sense he’s beginning to doubt this. What does blood of the lamb mean? In Christianity – it stands for Christ’s blood or sacrifice of innocence for the mutual good. Could this refer to the great sacrifices Giles believes he’s made all his life for his calling? After all he lost Jenny, he had to relocate to Sunnydale, give up his wants and desires, even kill for the cause. He also has to hurt Buffy, whom he loves, in Helpless (Season 3, Btvs.). Does he see Buffy as the lamb? Possibly – since the next image is Buffy with mud on her face, looking a lot like the first slayer, the primitive essence of the warrior, an image that is later echoed in Buffy’s dream. I wonder if the first slayer is trying to tell Giles’ something?

But before he can figure it out – Spike interrupts. Fitting that Spike shows up in Giles’ dream instead of Riley. Of the two characters, Giles identifies with Spike. Spike may even represent the reckless adolescent that still resides inside Giles. Giles leaves Olivia and Buffy to follow Spike into the cavern, (representative of Giles’ subconscious) where Spike proceeds to pose in front of photographers.

The poses make fun of the Vampires that Giles has spent his life hunting. Just like the cardboard vampire in the carnival, Spike is reinforcing the message that vampires aren’t the true enemy anymore, they may never have been. That the world isn’t painted in black and whites as it once was in childhood. And the slayer is about much more than killing a few vampires, she always has been.

Before conversing with Spike, Giles passes Olivia who is weeping and he tells her not to distract him, he has a lot to do. She is weeping next to a coffin, which is beside an overturned baby carriage. Is this foreshadowing Giles’ departure? Or is it talking about how Giles has put aside children and family and a personal life, to be a Watcher and may resent it?

Now we come to Spike. I’m not sure if the scene with Spike is so much about Spike as it is about Giles. It is Giles’ dream. Perhaps we should look at it from both angles.

Spike is doing lots of poses, the first three are vampire ones reminiscent of black and white vamp flicks, more campy than frightening. Almost as if Spike is posing as the Big Bad, but isn’t, not really. Never has been. He’s just pretending to be a villain, doing it for showbiz. All the poses and shots of Spike are in Black and White, no color. As if it isn’t real, Spike isn’t real, just a sideshow attraction, barely worth watching. Giles comments that he’s become a sideshow freak – and in a way he has. Chipped. Harmless. Purposeless. Why is he still here? But hasn’t Giles also become a sideshow freak? Purposeless. Harmless. Why is Giles still here? Sometimes black and white images can be viewed as a reflection or shadow of ourselves in dreams. Perhaps Spike is Giles’ reflection? If you think back to Xander’s dream – Spike is also shown in close proximity to Giles – again a reflection? This is who Giles’ might have become, if he hadn’t been a watcher? This is what Spike might have become if he hadn’t become a vampire?

GILES: (very confused) What am I supposed to do with all of this?
SPIKE: (offscreen) You gotta make up your mind, Rupes. What are you wasting your time for? (Pose, flashbulbs)(Color: Giles turning to look at Spike again.)(B&W shot of Spike.) Haven't you figured it all out yet, with your enormous squishy frontal lobes? (Another pose, more oohs, flashbulbs)(Color: Giles walking across the crypt.)
GILES: I still think Buffy should have killed you. (B&W: Spike looks annoyed. He strikes a Jesus-on- the-cross pose. Very loud oohs, cameras flashing.)

Spike in this section makes me think of Ripper or Giles’ own mind speaking to him. ‘You gotta make up your mind Giles – staying or going? Staying here in limbo is helping no one, we both know it. Haven’t you figured out what’s going on? Aren’t you using your brain?’ (Sort of like the scarecrow in Wizard of OZ – if I could only use my brain– everything would be so clear…) But the answer of course is obvious, Giles just doesn’t want to see it – so he tells his conscience or the annoying voice to drop dead. Spike obliges with a nice crucifixion pose.

This is when the cheese/bald man appears. It’s been suggested that the cheese man means nothing, I beg to differ. In this scene the cheese man says: “I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.” Which is a very Giles like statement – he can do magic but it does not define him. He can date whomever he likes, it does not define him. He defines himself. Willow must make a place in her life for her cheese or magic and/or sexuality. Xander wants to protect himself with the jobs he does and the girl he dates (cheese), setting them up as protective barriers against what lies upstairs, against who he might be deep inside. (The cheese won’t protect you.) And Giles? He states clearly he can wear the cheese, take it off, it does not rule him or control him. It’s an odd scene to occur right after Spike’s. Almost as if Giles is reaffirming his mission in life after Spike has questioned it. “My mission does not define me, I choose to follow it, but it is not solely who I am. I am not a freakshow like you suggest, doing old parlor tricks. A retired librarian with no job, hanging on the coattails of the slayer.”

Giles is now at the Bronze – a place he has never felt comfortable in. Willow and Xander are on his couch, both looking somewhat wounded. Xander is bleeding. And they are once again conducting research. Willow tells Giles that it is his fault. When I first watched this, I believed she was referring to the spell they cast in Primeval. But now – I think she is giving voice to Giles’ own feelings of guilt and uncertainty, which crop up later in Bargaining Part I (Season 6, Btvs):

GILES: I just can't help but wonder if ... she would have been better off without me. Buffy.
BUFFYBOT: I don't think that's true. You were very helpful to her.
GILES: (laughs) Right. Yes, I was a perfect Watcher. I did what any good Watcher would do. Got my Slayer killed in the line of duty.
BUFFYBOT: Oh, that wasn't your fault.
GILES: Of course not. That's how all Slayer/Watcher relationships end, isn't it?

I think he was feeling this way all along. Questioning himself, wondering if Buffy and the others would have been better off without him. If his true business isn’t sacrificing them for the good of the council, the good of a war that he no longer believes in – hence the black and white vampire poses and the cardboard vampires. Is Buffy’s life worth it? Are theirs?

Flashing back to Anya’s joke that occurs during this. Anya is on the stage alone telling jokes, as a preview to Giles’ big performance. (Yes – I know this in some ways foreshadows the events of Hells Bells, when Xander skips out on Anya and Buffy entertains the audience – but again, remember whose dream this is. Giles’.) The joke is: “Okay. A man ... walks into the office of a doctor. He's wearing on his head, um... Wait, there's, there's a, there's a duck. Is that right? And ... then the duck tells the doctor that there's a man, that's attached to my ass.”(edited for length and emphasis from Psyche’s Transcript of Restless (Btvs Season 4)) Giles is probably feeling a lot like the man attached to the duck or vice versa. A worthless appendage that can’t do much more than quack. His former charges sit in front of him wounded and he knows he’s next, but his duty is to warn Buffy, but first he wants to do his gig. Remember he wanted to be a rock star, not a watcher. He was forced into being the Watcher, a job he’s never felt all that suited for.

Willow tells him that he has to focus, has to figure out what is after them. And he knows what is after them, but questions the knowledge. How many times has Giles guessed the right answer then pushed it aside? In OMWF he sings that it must be a dancing demon – then immediately casts the thought aside as impossible. He no longer trusts his intellect. Just as Xander has stopped trusting his heart. And Willow has stopped trusting her spirit. This is why Spike could break them apart in Yoko Factor and it’s why the characters have made the mistakes they’ve made in Season 6. Xander fails Anya because he lacks the heart to go through with it. Willow gives into black magic due to a lack of spirit to control and balance it. Giles leaves because he no longer trusts his ability to guide them, he believes he led Buffy to her death. Just as he believes he failed them all in his dream. The irony is that by leaving, he puts them in more danger than if he stayed. By not guiding them, by not trusting his ability to act as a guide and losing focus – they drift into danger. As Willow states: “Rupert. (Giles turns to look at her) You've gotta focus. You must have some kind of explanation. If we don't know what we're fighting, I don't think we stand a chance.” We need your guidance. And Giles responds by immediately setting them to work, taking charge and doing his gig all that the same time. Off course the overload results in feedback and he has to literally crawl through the wardrobe to untangle the wires.

Two wardrobe references in Giles’ dream: “chronicles” – does this refer to the Chronicles of Narnia? Or just a coincidence? The fact that he tells Willow to look through the “Chronicles” makes me wonder; it seems to be a reference back to the end of Willow’s dream. First we had Willow climb through the curtains, then Xander, now Giles is crawling through curtains, only to run into the first slayer. Unlike Willow and Xander, he immediately knows who she is. He believes he can fight her, forgetting that she is more than he is. She has to be. She can’t just rely on her mind or her heart or her spirit, she has to rely on all three. Just as Willard in the Heart of Darkness had to in order to complete his journey intact. Or if you prefer, Dorothy in the Wizard of OZ has to in order to defeat the Wicked Witch and return home.

Perhaps Giles’ realization of this at the tail end of his dream, explains why he gathers up the courage to try and leave in Buffy vs. Dracula, only to be dissuaded by Buffy’s uncertainty about her slayer powers. And finally does leave in Season 6, first after Buffy dies and a second time after Buffy returns from the dead. Giles may believe that he is standing in the way of Buffy becoming as powerful as the first slayer. But, as his dream suggests, he is forgetting something. Willow and Xander sitting on his couch wounded. The two disciples he initiated into his and Buffy’s world and like the skipper in Apocalypse Now has some responsibility for, they are under his command, not Buffy’s. By leaving them – is he placing them in jeopardy? Is he responsible for what happens to Xander and Willow – like they suggest in his dream? Giles realizes this in his dream and attempts to help them. But what happens? The first slayer slices out his intellect. Is she reclaiming it for herself? Or is she echoing Giles’ fears? That if he stays he will have no intellect and if he goes Xander and Willow may pay the price? His dream suggests they’ll pay it regardless. They are adults after all – should he be held responsible for them all their lives? They do have parents who can do that. He is just their teacher and his staying merely holds them back.

Sometimes the best way to guide someone is simply to leave. The mother bird has to kick her babies out of the nest so they can learn how to fly. The first slayer had no watcher and apparently did very well – as is suggested in Giles’ dream. In Apocalypse Now, Willard must complete his journey and fight Kurtz on his own. And in the Wizard of Oz, the Wizard must leave before Dorothy can find her way home. The same can be said of Buffy and Giles. But first Giles has to make up his mind and follow what it says, which he does more or less in Season 6 with mixed results.

End Part III. (Next Part IV: Buffy’s Dream– Using your hands)

Thanks for reading. Hope it made sense and adds to the discussion. Looking forward to comments as always.

(PS: Willows Dream and Xander's dream are now up at my
web site - see links for the link. You just click on the
scooby photos. Giles won't be there until it's off this board and I haven't started Buffy's yet...I have a life
you know;-))

;-) shadowkat

[> You have a life? I'm *so* jealous! -- OnM, 19:56:11 04/21/02 Sun

Like your site, BTW. When I get a chance I want to collect and print up all your essays and give them a good read through-- time hasn't permitted me to more than a quick scan of them so far, but as always, they're very intriguing.

Keep 'em coming!

:-)

[> Part III: Giles (Future Spoilery comment right at the end. But it is clearly warned and spaced) -- Rahael, 05:24:10 04/22/02 Mon

Thank you as always, Shadowkat. Lots of inspirational and thought provoking stuff here. I came to slightly different conclusions about Giles' dream; though I didn't realise it until I read your essay!

Young Giles’ reluctance to assume his burden could be equated with younger Buffy’s reluctance. Aren’t they meant to parallel in some way? This kind of strengthens the bond between the two of them. But I argue that Giles has accepted his necessary burden now – witness his little speech to Ben ‘I have sworn to protect this sorry world’.

I found your earlier essay on Giles’ reluctance to assume his burden very powerful. But I am still inclined to accept Giles’ song to Buffy in OMWF at face value. I found it very moving indeed. It had such a depth of passion in it. So yes, the writers were working overtime to encompass ASH’s departure. I think they found the least not-convincing way to do it, and I am prepared to accept it. Of course, there are inherent tensions. That’s why I like BtVS, because it allows for complexity within characters.

Birth/Death/Beginnings, Endings

I interpreted portions of Giles’ dream with a slightly different emphasis to yours.

“BUFFY: Don't you think it's a little old-fashioned?
GILES: This is the way women and men have behaved since the beginning......before time. Now look into the light.”

I don’t think this is so much Giles as imposing his patriarchal authority on Buffy so much as a kind of reference to the Eden myth metaphor that ran throughout Season 4. The previous ep title, ‘Primeval’, the references to the creation of the world, the childhood/paradise that the Scoobies are forced to leave behind in the shape of Sunnydale High School (to enter the place of knowledge, University, linked by Willow to sex - spurting knowledge- and thus back to Adam, Eve, and guilty knowledge) all resonate here, in Giles’ statement that this was the way men and women ‘had always been’. It ties into the First Slayer’s blunt statements about ‘how slayers should be’. All through Restless, we are told, ‘This is the way things are, the way they always have been’. But at the same time, we are warned that we don’t know what’s to come, that everything is going to change. This change comes about through Dawn, a reference to new beginnings, new life. And just the creation story in Genesis is propelled by ‘Let there be light’, in Restless, Joss is saying ‘Let Dawn break!”

Giles' conflict over his real role in Buffy’s life, (right hand man or benign patriarch, father or rakish uncle) is also brought out here. He proposes the dichotomy of Woman/Man for himself and Buffy. Yet at the same time, we see Buffy as a little child. The tensions in this dichotomy, Buffy woman, or child, will tear Giles apart emotionally. We see Olivia cry, expressing the pain that Giles will feel in OMWF at the loss of his ‘child’ Buffy. The Pram becomes empty.

Giles telling Buffy to think with her instincts forshadows the crystal/meditation scene early in Season 5, where he tries to teach her new skills. And it forshadows her instinctive moral decision making in the Gift. When Buffy disobeys Giles in the Gift, she is really following the lessons he has taught her. It’s a turning point. Buffy shows that Giles is no longer a paramount authority in her life, that she's the person who makes the decisions, but also that she has internalised his wisdom. Giles has accomplished his purpose well. Yet again, the man/woman/instinctive conversation is expressly contrasted with the ‘don’t stick your elbow out/Child Buffy. It’s because they are two different aspects to the Giles/Buffy relationship. One aspect has become redundant. Giles sings in OMWF, ‘that time has past’.

Therefore, I don’t see Giles’ role in BtVS as ending in failure. It is a success. He is excess to her life in his old role. But of course he feels sad, and regretful, and ultimately lonely. Yet again, the complexity.

I saw the Blood of the Lamb reference as referring not only to the Gift, but to Prophecy Girl. It touches upon the two arguments that Buffy has with Giles before each of these moral, and highly tragic dilemmas. Buffy is the ‘Lamb’ of the Master’s prophecy. She becomes the Lamb in the Gift. During PG, Giles in the end declares that he would take Buffy’s place – in the Gift, he tells her to kill Dawn. This is a profound point for Giles, since Dawn is very much an alter ego of Buffy.

I love your point about Wardrobes, and the Narnia connection. I think there is a way this also relates to Normal Again. In the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, Lucy’s siblings think she is mad for talking about this imaginary world. The Professor says ‘Is she someone prone to lying? If she isn’t, logic would determine that either she is insane, or she is deliberately lying.’ Interesting parallel there as to how to approach Normal Again as a viewer. Either Buffy routinely exhibits signs of insanity, she lies habitually, or she is telling the truth. I would argue that Buffy is gloriously sane. Sunnydale is the true world, or at least parallel. Wardrobes are places which can both represent repression ‘in the closet’ or it can represent gateways, thresholds into new worlds. Heaven perhaps. The Asylum, maybe. Into Sunnydale. In OMWF, Sweet opens a door to let a charred body fall. Representing the risks of too much imagination? Just like Asylum Buffy?

Spoilery comments
*

*

*

*

*

It's interesting, re Willow and Narnia, that it is the Wicked witch who demands blood for blood. Life for life. One life has been lost, another must pay. And the person who pays is a human male, a betrayer, a sinner.

Is Willow gay or bi? -- LeeAnn, 15:17:41 04/21/02 Sun

Is Willow gay or bi?
(Hope I haven't missed anything major.)

Certain elements of the religious right say that homosexuality is "learned," not innate, that people "choose" to be gay. The gay community has denied this and quoted many gay individuals who knew they were attracted to people of the same gender when they were very young children, who knew they were gay in Kindergarten , who knew they were gay even when they were dating or having a heterosexual relationship.
Does Willow fall into this category?

It seems to me she doesn't. She was in love with Xander most of her life. In As You Were she says "You know, when I was little, I used to spend hours imagining what my wedding to Xander would be like."

Xander was aware of Willow's love for him but he is attracted to women who are more dominant, who have higher status than Willow (at least in his mind), such as Buffy, Faith, & Cordelia. In The Pack Hyena!Xander tells Buffy "Do you know how long... I've waited... until you'd stop pretending that we aren't attracted...Until Willow... stops kidding herself... that I could settle with anyone but you." For Xander Willow is "settling."

Willow's friendship with Xander has been the bedrock of her life but her romantic attachment to him has been a source of pain. In Innocence after she catches Xander kissing Cordelia, for whom they both have professed a lifelong hatred, Xander tries to tell her it didn't mean anything "Willow, we were just kissing. It doesn't mean that much." but Willow realizes what it does mean, "No. It just means that you'd rather be with someone you hate than be with me."

Then Willow turns to Oz who is in no hurry because even he recognizes, "Well, to the casual observer, it would appear that you're trying to make your friend Xander jealous or even the score or something."

Soon both Willow and Xander are in relationships that might include non-stop smoochies but don't include sex. It's after skirting around this issue in Homecoming that Willow and Xander have their first kiss. Willow loves Xander but I wonder if Xander is motivated to continue the secret kissage with Willow because his teenage hormones are aroused by Cordelia but not satisfied.

After they are caught in Lover's Walk they pull away from each other. Eventually, in The Zeppo Xander finally nails (or is nailed by) a Slayer and looses his virginity, thinking it means something to Faith, that they have a connection. It doesn't and they don't. But in Consequences when Willow finds out it means something to her. She goes to the toilet and weeps. (The sound of sobbing is coming from inside the stall. Cut inside. Willow sits there crying her eyes out.)

Following that I believe that Willow accepts that she will never have Xander and becomes committed to her relationship to Oz. But in Wild at Heart Oz is drawn to the werewolf Veruca and sleeps with her while a werewolf.

Oz : I don't know what Veruca and I have done. When I change, it's like, it's like I'm gone and the wolf takes over.
Willow : But before this, when you were regular Oz, you had feelings for her, didn't you?
Oz : No. I could sense something, but...
Willow : But you wanted her... Like in an animal way? Like...More than you wanted me? (She runs off, tears streaming down her face.)

So Willow believes that, once again, another man she loved found a woman he hated more desirable than she was.

Did Willow allow herself to become open to a relationship to Tara to keep herself safe from that ever happening again? With Tara she is dominant, she is the one in control, in charge, even to the point of taking advantage of the relationship and Tara. But does being gay saves her from acknowledging that the men she has loved did not love her back, at least not as much as they loved or wanted other, worse women.

Even in Hell's Bells Willow tells Xander " It's a good thing I realized I was gay, otherwise, hey, you, me and formal wear... " Willow doesn't have to acknowledge that Xander prefers a thousand year old vengeance demon to her because she is "Gay now" and safe from the rejection of any man.

That is a stereotype of the worst kind but I think that is what the writers have left us with. I'm sure Willow loves Tara but I don't feel they have given us enough foundation to make Willow's gayness completely believable.

[> Re: Is Willow gay or bi? -- JCC, 15:29:22 04/21/02 Sun

I think that Willow would have loved Tara, whether Tara was male or female. This relationship was less about being gay and more about love.

[> Re: Is Willow gay or bi? -- Apophis, 16:43:58 04/21/02 Sun

I'm far from an expert on the subject, but the situation always struck me as two people in love, not a woman loving another woman. Willow fell in love with Tara, not the woman Tara. Being with Tara has perhaps expanded her horizons, allowing her to appreciate females as partners, though I don't believe that she's out and out (an odd expression for the subject, I'll admit) gay, in that she's not limited to only females from now on (should something happen to Tara, heaven forbid). She's always seemed to me as less easily defined. Bisexual is the word I'm looking for, I guess. She's loved Xander, Oz, and Tara for the people they were/are, not for their genders.

[> Re: Is Willow gay or bi? -- Ruth, 16:54:26 04/21/02 Sun

I would say Willow is bi and is attracted to people rather than gender. E.g she finds the robot sexy in IWMTLY but she also finds Dracula sexy in BuffyVsDracula.
But it is highly doubtful that Willow will date men again as it would be seen as a betrayal to the gay community.
Also I think Willow is being a little overassertive in constantly pipping up with "hello gay now". In Buffy drinking games one of the rules is to take a sip whenever she mentions her sexuality. Lol. Perhaps they should just have a gay love scene rather than have Willow constantly tell the audience she is gay as it gets tedious? Just a thought.

[> [> Gay community? -- Apophis, 17:18:33 04/21/02 Sun

"But it is highly doubtful that Willow will date men again as it would be seen as a betrayal to the gay
community."
Would ME really compromise the show's creative integrity for the sake of political correctness? I don't think Willow will move on from Tara any time soon, but if there's a good story to be made out of it, I say go for it. If there's a logical, compelling reason for her to date a male again, I don't believe that the show's writers would shy away from it to spare the feelings of the gay community.

[> [> [> Re: Gay community? -- Ruth, 17:47:57 04/21/02 Sun

Perhaps not but you know it would be seen as a huge cop-out. If Tara and Willow did break up and Willow suddenly started dating Xander or something I would imagine it would be a very controversial choice.

[> [> [> [> Re: Gay community? -- clg0107, 10:47:23 04/22/02 Mon

Ironic that Willow dating a boy sometime in the nebulous future is seen as controversial. I mean, they already made the controversial decision to bring Tara and Willow together -- and make it a viable, believable dating relationship. Why on earth would they shy away from a heterosexual relationship if the plausible opportunity presented itself??
~clg0107

[> [> [> Hello? Gay now! -- Slain, 18:08:26 04/21/02 Sun

Well, I am more of an expert on the topic, and I think it's clear that Willow now considers herself to be gay - and from a few comments made by Joss and others, I think that's what the writers have decided.

Having dated and loved someone of the opposite gender does not make someone bisexual, unless they consider themselves to be bisexual. I know plenty of people who've been in straight relationships for years before finally admitting to themselves that they're gay - Willow's story represents so well the experiences of many people. And because she's clearly represented herself as gay and not bi, I think then we can safely say that Willow considers herself to be gay.

I'm not ruling out, of course, that Willow might subsequently change her mind and decide she's bi, but I think from the point of view of continuity it's more likely that she'll stay gay. Having her decide after all that she will 'go back to boystown' and that she's lied to Tara wouldn't wash.

[> [> [> [> Re: Hello? Gay now! -- SiWangMu, 18:55:52 04/21/02 Sun

I agree completely with Slain. I also wanted to add that I am in the camp of those who feel that Willow's constant onscreen assertions of being gay now are more likely intended to hammer the point home to viewers or as a kind of running gag than as a sort of "methinks the lady doth protest too much" situation.
Lastly, I wanted to say that I'd love to just see more lesbian loving in place of the constant verbal reminders. So now that, maybe, there's freedom for the creators to do that, bring it on!*

*Once Willow and Tara get back together, of course. Shhh, don't disturb my naive optimism.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Bisexual -- Liam, 01:08:44 04/22/02 Mon

Personally, I'm getting fed up with the 'Gay now' assertions
of Willow, which I believe is a case of the character protesting too much. Ever since the fourth season, when she got involved with Tara, I have thought of Willow as bisexual.

She had a serious crush on Xander, her fantasies at the time being hetrosexual; and she later became seriously involved with Oz. Their breakup was quite traumatic for her; she obviously seriously loved him.

As far as the relationship with Tara goes, I felt that she loves her as much as she loved Oz. The problems arose with the way the relationship was portrayed by the writers in the early stages, and the fact that Willow ended up exploiting Tara.

[> [> [> [> [> [> "Why do they have to be so VOCAL?" -- "flaunting" sexuality. -- yuri, 00:07:28 04/23/02 Tue

To preface, I apoligise to all who have been through this argument too many times, I just am new to the debate and feel it necessary to mention briefly whenever it could be needed. Ruth and Liam may not have meant this in the way I am taking it -- sorry to you guys if that's true, I'd say be more careful of your words and the climate.

Ruth: I think Willow is being a little overassertive in constantly pipping up with "hello gay now".

Liam: I'm getting fed up with the 'Gay now' assertions of Willow, which I believe is a case of the character protesting too much.

I hope it is not a foriegn topic to any of us, the argument that gay people "flaunt" their sexuality and are continuously "overly" eager to talk about it and tell people that they are gay. As a bisexual person, I offer this perspective: when I am with a group of people (that's not in the gay/bisexual community) who do not know that I am bisexual, I feel uncomfortable. There is a barrier between me and those people automatically, and despite myself I feel like somehow I am not being honest. It's really distancing to know that most heterosexual people never have to feel that (about this issue). It is often better to take the offensive, and to let everyone know what you are before you are faced with an uncomfortable situation.

The default sexuality in this culture is heterosexuality. Unless a person has qualities that have been dubbed gay or bisexual, most people will not even contemplate another's sexuality. To be gay or bisexual is to constantly have to rerout other people's assumptions about you, to constantly correct them. And that's really hard, and it can make you feel sheepish, depressed, angry...

I'm suprised that people think willow talks too much about it. Well, I guess I'm not suprised, but I don't think she has. Especially for someone newly out and proud, it is an assertive and postitive thing to do. And we must keep in mind that she often does it when faced with a time when it she is being assumed to be something she is not (none of us like that!) -- "Hello, gay now!" the favorite phrase is obviously a correction of someone else's incorrect assumption.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: "Why do they have to be so VOCAL?" -- "flaunting" sexuality. -- verdantheart, 06:36:02 04/23/02 Tue

Thank you for speaking so frankly -- you've given me a broader perspective, I think. (BTW, I haven't personally found that Willow talks too much about it ...)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: "Why do they have to be so VOCAL?" -- "flaunting" sexuality. -- terrapin, 08:04:15 04/23/02 Tue

Nicely said!!!!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: "Why do they have to be so VOCAL?" -- "flaunting" sexuality. -- Ruth, 09:44:16 04/23/02 Tue

I knew this would come up. This is why I usually avoid these threads because it is so easy to be accused of prejedice or not being pc enough. My words were taken out of context. I was making the point that it gets annoying to have Willow constantly telling the audience she is gay because it just seems like a tame way of letting new viewers know. I would prefer that Willow and Tara were actually shown kissing in order to let the audience know they are in a relationship. It can be hard for new viewers to recognise that Willow and Tara are more than just good friends and Willow saying "gay now" just seems a gentle way of letting them know as it's not as in-your face as a kiss. I would prefer to see them kissing as an alternative because however realistic you may personally find it in my mind it does get dull and weird for Willow to be constantly telling her friends she is gay. All of her friends have no problem accepting this so why repeat it so much? It is for the benefit of the audience and I personally just find it tedious when repeated so much rather than just showing W/T in a relationship. So I guess show, not tell is my argument of how to make it more intersting.
I have no problem with people who enjoy having Willow constantly reminding her friends she is gay, I just happen to have a different opinion. I thought that is what this board is about? I do find it offensive to have it suggested that I am prejudiced just because you don't feel I worded my opinion clearly. Homophobia is a serious thing to accuse someone off and just because you feel I did not express myself clearly enough that does not make me a bigot. I am bisexual myself and have zero problems with Willow and tara. Their relationship is my favourite one on the show. The only reason I involved myself in this debate is because I disagree with the characterisation regarding Willow and feel it could have been handled better. I am not critising Willow's choice, I am critisicing the writers. I also feel that it is boring and unoriginal to have Willow saying she is gay as often as she does. I don't think anyone has been convinced Willow is not bi just because the writers say it a lot! If Willow is getting to know Amy again for instance it would come across as perfectly natural for Willow to say she is gay now in an amusing way. But it is not amusing to me personally for her to constantly be telling her friends what is old news frankly. Yes when she said "gay now" to Anya in Triangle she was making a point in a witty way and it fit. I just feel it's been overused this season and the writers need to come up with some new jokes. But frankly I am sorry I bothered involving myself in the discussion now.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> It's also a Willow thing... -- Lilac, 12:01:40 04/23/02 Tue

remember that, early on, she often felt obliged to remind her friends that she is Jewish (for example during discussions of Christmas plans, none of which she would have because...). Willow has always made a point of reminding her friends of her unique qualities when they have made assumptions that presumed her sameness to them. If that makes sense.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> on the way back -- yuri, 22:53:43 04/23/02 Tue

I /am/ sorry that I misinterpreted you -- I did suspect that that was the case, and tried to make that clear, however in the process I was too harsh in demanding "better wording." I wrote my post more with the intent to point out something that a lot of people still haven't heard, than correct anybody specifically. I'm sorry that I used your name and quoted you like that, your comment was just the catalyst for my thought, and I wanted to show where my post came from, but I realize I would not want myself quoted in that way, either. I think that there are many people who actually do think that gay people "speak up" too much and would take your post in that way, however you intended it, and that's
why I wanted to say something. Also, (now this is my personal opinion) I think that though her friends acccept her sexuality, it is still most definitely "other," and that
would give cause for her frequent "reminders." I personally think it's believable, and quite Willowy, which can be, on occasion, a little irksome (if you ask me).

Please don't withdraw from conversation because I was sloppy with my preface.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: "Why do they have to be so VOCAL?" -- "flaunting" sexuality. -- Yellowork, 15:58:24 04/24/02 Wed

Er, am I missing something here, or wasn't, 'Gay now!' a slight risposte to Anya's irrational jealousy of Xander? Of course, it does glance at the issue of Willow's sexual career, too, but let's not get things out of proportion. Personally, I found Willow reached a point with both Oz and Tara where the relationship was not contributing to the appeal of a character who has often provided the show with great interest, and mostly when she is taking faltering steps on her own, or is venturing into untried territory (as in the early stages of a romance).

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> An anecdote -- matching mole, 13:04:22 04/23/02 Tue

that can illustrate one consequence of not 'flaunting' your sexuality if you are a gay, the possible confusion of your friends and colleagues. A few years ago I worked intermittently with a gay woman. At first she was quite circumspect about her personal life, refering to her partner as her fiancee and possibly (I don't remember for sure) even referring to her as 'he'. Quite understandable when working with people you don't know well and in a conservative social climate (this was in Phoenix). Then after not seeing her for a couple of months she showed up one day with an infant child which she introduced as her son. The baby was her fiancee's.

Now call me dense perhaps but as yuri says the default assumption is that people are heterosexual. And she had provided several clues (the word fiancee and possibly the pronoun he) to reinforce my assumption. So her infrequent comments about her home life became completely baffling. It sounded like she was living in some sort of polyamorous relationship. As her nominal superior and someone who only saw her once a week or so I didn't really feel like I should pry so I tried to figure out what was going on from her offhand statements; which I did after a few more conversations. Around this time we began to work together more and by ourselves (with no other people around) and we became pretty good friends. She eventually did talk quite a bit about being gay. I never did tell her about my confusion, mostly because it would have been embarassing not because I thought she would be offended by it.

On a different but related topic there is a striking parallel between sexual orientation and race. In both cases groups are socially constructed that obscure both diversity within the groups but similarities between them. People label themselves straight, gay, or bisexual when, as several posters have noted, research indicates that sexuality is a continuum. Most straight people have probably felt some sort of sexual attraction to a person of the same sex at some point in their life. I would guess that the converse is probably true for gay people as well. Similarly we've seen that the term 'black' has different racial meanings in Britain and in North American. Even in the more restricted North American usage it can be used to describe people who have a mostly European genetic background as in Mark Twain's Pudd'n Head Wilson (excuse me if I'm spelling it wrong). And the indigenous population of Africa itself, the original home of humanity, is far more genetically diverse than non-African populations. So dividing people up into races or sexualities is a more or less arbitrary (from a biological perspective) process. It is a social exercise. And it is a process that is both damaging and useful. Useful because it provides, as yuri says, a clear message that the assumptions of the majority are just that, assumptions. And racial or sexual identification with a group can provide support, pride, etc. for those whose sexuality, skin color, culture and so on are outside of the 'norm'. But it is also damaging because it enables the labelling of persons with group attributes rather than their own individual attributes. Do I have a bright idea for a solution? If I did I'd have told you about it long before now.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> another way of looking at it -- T- rex, 14:53:57 04/24/02 Wed

As a not-so-straight person myself, I found Willow's "hello, gay now" assertions kind of disheartening. I am thrilled to have, what I perceive to be, an openly bisexual character on a TV show that I love. But when the character reverts to "either/or" terminology to describe herself, my balloon gets a little deflated.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: another way of looking at it -- Mr Gordo, 15:22:28 04/24/02 Wed

Bisexuality doesn't exist in the Buffyverse as it is never referenced. Like it has already been pointed out in this thread Willow labelled her evil self as gay just because she came on to women. Evil Willow liked Xander too. Amy assumed Willow was gay. No questioning into whether Willow is exclusively gay or bisexual. Has the word even been uttered on the show once. Nope. W/T would have been more revelutionary if Willow was bi as many shows have made chacters gay (ER, Friends etc). How many bisexuals on tv can you name? Willow being bi would have been the obvious choice for the writers to go with.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: "Why do they have to be so VOCAL?" -- a question -- clg0107, 15:33:12 04/24/02 Wed

I'm honestly curious here, and not trying to be confrontational.

You state:
>>As a bisexual person, I offer this perspective: when I am with a group of people (that's not in the gay/bisexual >>community) who do not know that I am bisexual, I feel uncomfortable. There is a barrier between me and those >>people automatically, and despite myself I feel like somehow I am not being honest.

How is you not mentioning your sexual preferences less honest than me failing to mention specifics about my (straight) sex life? I guess I don't quite get why you would assume an automatic (and defensive??) barrier, if/when the conversation is quite casual and has nothing to do with sexuality and/or relationships.

Now, I'm sure you don't introduce yourself "I'm so-and-so and I'm bisexual"...but I guess I just don't get why anyone would volunteer what strikes me as private and personal information in the interest of "honesty", unless the situation specifically calls for it.

I guess the upshot is that we're all different in about a gazillion ways -- why does this one difference make you so uncomfortable that you have to mention it. Especially when the introduction of such a topic may relieve your discomfort by transferring it to six other people -- not because they care with whom you sleep or pursue relationships, but just because it's "too much information".

Again, I'm assuming reasonably casual social situations here. Perhaps I'm missunderstanding the circumstances where you feel the need to open up so quickly about your lifestyle. If so, feel free to set me straight (ahem, so to speak...).

Thanks for your indulgence ~

clg0107

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: "Why do they have to be so VOCAL?" -- a question -- Ruth, 16:02:08 04/24/02 Wed

Well put. If I had a taste for s and m in the bedroom for instance I wouldn't feel dishonest if I choose to keep it private. Casual friends who I am not too close to know little about my sex life but I don't feel that makes me dishonest. Being gay/ bisexual isn't something to be ashamed off and there's no need to get hung up about it. I don't feel dishonest by not letting everyone at work know I'm bisexual. I'm not keeping it hidden, it's just I'm not particularly close to anyone at work and don't discuss my private life with them. But my friends outside of work have all found out at one time or another and it's never been a big deal because I don't make it a big deal. Just my perspective.

[> [> [> [> Re: Hello? Gay now! -- mucifer, 04:42:31 04/22/02 Mon

I agree also with Slain. Lets not forget that with her memory shot in Tabula Rasa, Willow called herself gay and went after Tara and shunned Xander's advances.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Hello? Gay now! -- Sebastian, 10:17:07 04/22/02 Mon

I find it interesting that the 'Willow = gay?' theme is still such a discussion topic.

I always focused (and I think this was the intent of the writers as well) on her *relationship* (both the positive and negative aspects) with Tara - not with the labels that we are discussing.

The fact that Willow is in a same-sex relationship is peripheral to issues that affect them as a couple and the show in general.

I always felt that W/T 'ship was such a lightning rod only because of the fact it is drawn from the 'real world' - but in truth, a number of different relationships on the show could be considered hot topics (human/vampire, witch/werewolf, human/demon, etc) if such beings existed in our reality.

There was a thread several months ago that addressed how the relationships on BtVS were subtextual for relationships that cross socio/economic/racial barriers - but I'm too ill to look for it. ;- P

I think the '...gay now!' assertion is a running gag as well.

To be honest, even though Willow defines herself as 'gay', I always saw her as neither gay, nor bi, nor hetero.

I think her line from 'Tough Love' outlines it best:

I think You know, I'm really sorry I didn't establish my lesbo street cred before I got into this relationship. But you're the only woman I've ever fallen in love with, so how on earth could you possibly take me seriously?

I think with that line was for us as viewers as well as for Tara. Yes - Willow fell in love with Tara, who happens to be a woman, but her gender was not really a factor.

My apologies if I'm rambling....

- S

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Hello? Gay now! -- clg0107, 10:58:56 04/22/02 Mon

Since Willow has had only two sexual relationships, one straight and one lesbian, I've pretty much felt that it was too soon to say what her orientation truly is. Points made above about her fantasy life, where she was involved with Xander, suggest that she could go either way, never mind how many times she asserts that she's "gay now".

BUT, TR has made me re-evaluate that to some degree. After all, part of the point in that episode was to show each of them being their "true" selves without the influence of all of their pre-conceived notions. So, Willow was reacting on a very basic level to the choice of Xander or Tara. But then, it could also be that Tara (as opposed to just females in general) ellicit those feelings in her.

I also found the episode most interesting from a Spike redemption standpoint. When he was reacting purely on his most basic level, it was with love for Buffy, and no desire to harm anyone. After all, once he realized he was a vamp, he still didn't know he had the chip. He reacted to his feelings, and presumed that he fought for the white hats.

Very interesting all the way around. Hmmm, howabout Anya and Giles???

:-)
~clg0107

[> Sexuality, attraction and young nerds -- dream of the consortium, 08:57:55 04/22/02 Mon

I find it interesting that so many people assume that Willow must have been bi to have loved Xander, then Tara. Although I assume almost everyone's sexuality to sit somewhere on a continuum between two empty poles of "pure heterosexuality" and "pure homosexuality", I don't think one can assume that Willow's place on that continuum is dead-center simply because she had feelings for men in the past. Here's the thing: I can't really imagine Willow, the nerdish, insecure girl we meet in the early seasons, spending a lot of time thinking about sexuality. Her mode of dress, her far- from-flirtatious mode of interaction indicate she is emotionally quite removed from Cordelia or even Buffy, who seem much more aware of their sexual selves. Is it Halloween in which she is deeply uncomfortable in a sexy outfit? And in another Halloween episode, she dresses in a form-covering Eskimo outfit, while the other girls choose sexually-flattering costumes. She has a long-term crush on someone who will most likely never respond to that interest. From what I remember of high- school, the long-term unrequited love situation is usually the refuge of those emotionally unready to deal with actual relationships, and the possibility of sexuality. I speak from my own experience, and from the stories told to me by other "late-bloomers". These crushes can be surprisingly non-sexual in content. It say a lot that Willow dreamed of marrying Xander, not of making love to him. Many little girls want to marry their best friend when they grow up - because marrying is what you do and it means that you get to hang out with your best friend all the time. Her fantasies are those of a child, not a sexually mature woman. (In comparison, do you think Buffy was dreaming about the color of the bridesmaid's dresses for her wedding with Angel, or were her thoughts a bit more carnal?)

Oz is rather more complicated. Unfortunately, I missed several of the Oz episodes, and don't feel entirely comfortable commenting on that relationship. However, I'll stick my neck out and say that, though I do belive they cared about each other a great deal, Oz was a safe guy, and their relationship seemed to be based on Willow's desire to get away from her long-term crush on Xander, along with her sense of being flattered to be noticed. Did she come to care for Oz deeply? Of course, and that love became sexual. But was this relationship portrayed as one in which she achieved sexual awareness and maturity? Not necessarily. From the beginning, when Oz is attracted to her in her far-from-sexual Eskimo costume, the relationship has a less-than-passionate tone. When Oz betrays her, her language is telling: "But you were attracted to her in an animal way?" she says (or words to that effect) with disgust. Now, of course, the writers are working with the werewolf theme, and the animal reference is meant to be the animal in the man. But it is interesting that Willow seems still tosee sexual attraction as something a little disgusting, a little bestial. I feel that , before Tara and identification of her desire as homosexual, Willow's relationships were primarily based on a young girl's notion of romance and lacked a recognition of her own sexual desire.

This is, I think, rather common for women in our society. I don't know about men, though I do know that most gay men I have known claim they knew they were gay from an early age, while I have know very few lesbians who were aware of their orientation until they were at least in high school, some in college or much later. I believe that our society is terribly uncomfortable with female sexual desire, so young women have a hard time accepting or recognizing their own desires. This takes many forms, not just regarding orientation, but also the sorts of relationships young women sometimes enter. Frequently, I hear comments made about how rarely one sees a man coupled with a less attractive woman, while women seems to be willing to date men who are much less attractive then themselves. Usually, this is pointed out to show how much less shallow women are, but I often wonder if the reason for the discrepancy is not simply that men assume their desire is essential to a relationship, while women do not. I am not calling for women to be more shallow, or for people to look only to surface appearances, just questioning conventional wisdom on that issue.

I've gotten a little afield of my most immediate point, which is that I don't believe Willow's past relationships with men negate her fundamental homosexuality. If the writers were to decide now that Buffy were gay, that I would find difficult to believe.

[> [> Very good points very well said, agreeing here ! -- Ete, 09:27:24 04/22/02 Mon

[> [> Re: Sexuality, attraction and young nerds -- Ruth, 11:23:07 04/22/02 Mon

Willow was sexual with Oz. In Graduation Day Willow lost her virginity to him and made it clear that the experience was a good one. In fact later in the episode she became turned on when he touched her hair when she was working on the computer and the two kept dashing off to make love again. Sounds pretty lustful to me. E.g when she was supposed to be watching Angel for Buffy she is shagging Oz and saying how happy she is. And she turns up late for Graduation because she and Oz got carried away in his van.
I always thought the writers cheated with the Willow relationship. There is the odd gay person on tv but very few bisexuals. I believe that is because bisexuals are associated with the Jerry Springer show and are seen as sexually randy? That is what I have read anyway. But I think we all naturally assumed Willow was bi. When Oz returned she makes it clear that their relationship still means a great deal to her and there is even a possibility of being reunited in the future.
It's not until Triangle that the writers suddenly choose to make Willow gay. I personally found that a cop-out and would have prefered to see Willow be accepted as bi rather than labelling her as gay or straight. It seems that none of the characters have even heard of an inbetween!
E.g Amy is human again and finds out Willow's dating a female. Therefore of course she assumes Willow is gay and in the Bronze uses magic on women believing Willow to be uninterested in guys. Despite of the fact that Willow had enjoyed a committed relationship with Oz. If you're female and interested in women on the show it is just assumed you should be categrised as gay.
And to the people arguing that the producers wouldn't worry about politics and would have Willow interested in gays as well as women if she and Tara broke up. I'm afraid it would create a huge fuss. The Kittens site for Willow and Tara is evidence of that. Hardly any of them want to see Willow even considering men as sexually appealing ever again becaue gosh darn it she's gay now.
I am bi and Willow just strikes me as being bisexual also. The argument people uses is that Willow says she is gay and people need to accept it. It's true that the writers do have Willow constantly saying "hello gay now" as a gentle way of letting the audience know Willow and Tara are lovers. But it doesn't fit the character I have seen represented so far which is why I find it difficult to accept. A lot of people act like you're prejudiced if you can't accept Willow as gay. But the only evidence we have is the character constantly stating it. The vampire Willow was bisexual and was in a relationship with Xander. Yet again Willow saw the evil version of herself and characterised her as "kinda gay" when that blatently was not the case. Just because Willow is dating a girl it doesn't mean she has to be gay!

[> [> [> That was supposed to be intersted in guys, not gays. -- Ruth, 11:25:10 04/22/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> Re: That was supposed to be intersted in guys, not gays. -- dream of the consortium, 11:51:41 04/22/02 Mon

Not denying that bisexuality is even more ignored in the media than homosexuality. And there may have been more complicated sexuality in her relationship with Oz than I believed - as I mentioned, I missed several of those episodes. However, I have no problem with assuming that Willow's primary attraction is to women. (Again, I assume almost no one is absolutely either hetero- or homo-sexual.) Willow is certainly gay-identified, and my argument is that her earlier attractions and even her earlier sexual relationship with Oz may have been more symptomatic of her lack of sexual self- identity than a specifically realized heterosexual identity, consciously chosen. I wouldn't have an issue with a future storyline that showed Willow with a man (though because she has clearly decided she is gay and not bisexual, I would like a little angst about it - some fear that her college female relationships might have been a"stage" and so on). I do think, however, that people who have an issue with Willow's development into a gay character because "she used to like Oz and she even slept with him so how can she be gay?" aren't looking very closely at the total character. ( Not to mention the completely unrealistic implication that no gay man or woman has ever had sex with a member of the opposite sex, particularly in adolescence.) Her avoidance of her sexuality in the past doesn't need to imply that she is exclusively attracted to women, but it did imply that she was not entirely sexually mature in those earlier relationships, and they therefore are not indicative of what she may choose as a adult woman, anymore than a man who had a few sexual encounters with a classmate in high school should be expected to identify himself as bisexual as an adult, if all of his adult relationships are with women. (Of course, that's a more extreme example than Willow, but I'm just making a point.) In Willow's case, we don't know what will happen in the future. The only thing that would bother me is if she decided that she "really wasn't attracted to women after all", that it was a stage, and so on. That would negate the mature relationship with Tara, not to mention painting a pretty flighty picture of Willow, which would not fit with earlier characterizations. But either a gay or a bisexual identity would fit in with character development thus far, in my opinion.

[> [> [> Willow is gay but Vamp!Willow was bisexual -- LeeAnn, 12:03:44 04/22/02 Mon

Willow is gay cause Willow says she is gay.

Now my question is "What does gay mean?" From reading this discussion and from other sources it seems that many people
who describe themselves as gay or who are described by others as gay have sexual relationships with both genders.

I have heard some people describe anyone who EVER had a same sex relationship as gay. Others would only include those
who prefer same sex relationships even if they sometimes have opposite sex relationship. Still others would only include those
who are only attracted to and willing to have a sexual relationship with someone of the same gender.

Which of those definitions would be the most accepted?

Wasn't Vamp!Willow Bi?

From The Wish

Willow: Bored now.
She slowly walks up to them. She is also dressed in black leather. The bodice of her outfit is trimmed in red lace.
Willow: This is the part that's less fun. When there isn't any screaming.
Cordelia: What's up with you two and the leather?
Willow: (to Xander) Play now?
Xander: It's not that I don't appreciate your appetite, Will, but I thought we agreed it was my turn.
Willow whines and brushes her hand against Xander's chest.
Cordelia: No. No! No way! I wish us into Bizarro Land, and you guys are still together?! I cannot win!
Xander: Probably not. (vamps out) But I'll give you a head start.
Cordelia: (gasps) No!
She drops her bag and begins to run.
Willow: I love this part.
They kiss passionately with lots of tongue. Then Xander turns his attention to the chase.
Xander: You love all the parts.

[> [> [> [> Re: Willow is gay but Vamp!Willow was bisexual -- Slain, 12:45:07 04/22/02 Mon

Having sex with and loving someone of the opposite sex does not make you bisexual. If that was the case, then there would be almost no gay people at all. Many gay people have had loving straight relationships, some even get married and have children. But that doesn't made them bisexual unless they themselves consider themselves to be bisexual. Sexuality is about SEX. You can have sex without enjoying it, in the same way that you can play golf without enjoying it. I've played golf, but that doesn't mean I'm a golfer. Saying you're gay means you only enjoy sex with people of the same gender, not that you've never had sex with someone of the opposite gender.

As has been stated, Willow's sexual experience with Oz was dramatically different than with Tara. Willow said being with Oz was 'nice'. Nice. Willow and Tara is, well, it's a lot more than nice, isn't it? Willow loved Oz, but not, as she has herself said, in the same way she loves Tara.

Vamp Willow was not bisexual. She showed no sexual desire towards any man, and her relationship with Xander was no different from that of non-vamp Willow and Xander. She was only sexual towards women - and if vampirism is linked to sexuality, then it's a further point that Vamp Willow only seems to bite girls. You'd be hard pressed to find Spike ever biting a man, or Dru ever biting a woman.

[> [> [> [> [> Tara, a more generous lover? -- LeeAnn, 13:19:27 04/22/02 Mon

I agree that Willow is shown enjoying sex with Tara more than sex with Oz. That means she's gay, right? But it may also mean Tara is a much better lover than Oz.

But in The Wish, quoted in my post above, Vamp!Willow is shown touching Vamp!Xander and kissing him with a lot of tongue. He tells her "You love all the parts." She is at least as "Hands!Hands!" with Vamp!Xander as she is with girls. Even in Doppelgangland Vamp!Willow feels up Xander ("Hands! Hands in new places!") as much as she does Willow.

Willow says she is gay so she is.
But Vamp!Willow seems to like it all.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Tara, a more generous lover? -- Slain, 13:30:14 04/22/02 Mon

Heh, the Willow/Oz shippers won't like that - Tara is better in bed that Oz. ;)

But I can't see that myself - Oz strikes me as an attentive person. I took the Oz/Veruca plot to be a representation of Oz's repressed sexual desire; Willow wasn't able to connect with him in that way, so he looked elsewhere, and in a way he couldn't be blamed for that. Otherwise, Oz just seems like a bastard.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Maybe she was too inexperienced with Oz? -- bookworm, 09:06:28 04/23/02 Tue

Oz was her first lover and he may have been quite inexperienced as well. She learned, became more uninhibited, and probably applied that to her relationship with Tara.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Willow is gay but Vamp!Willow was bisexual -- clg0107, 15:04:50 04/22/02 Mon

It's worth remembering here that until Seth Green decided that he wanted to go pursue other opportunities, they had no thought of making Willow gay or bi- or whatever.

So, to say that the nature of her relationship (both sexual and emotional) with Oz is some way indicative of her latent lesbian leanings makes no sense. You can argue that in retrospect, knowing what we know now. But what the writers wrote at the time was "truth", and it wasn't their intent then to convey any conflicted or ambivalent elements of Willow's sexuality. To point at their chemistry or dynamics or degree of passion now, and say that it somehow illustrates that she was really gay all along makes no sense.

~clg0107

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Willow is gay but Vamp!Willow was bisexual -- Slain, 15:45:55 04/22/02 Mon

Not so much. The writers saw an opportunity to contrast Willow's earlier lack of sexual feeling with her new lesbian relationship, and it made sense. Just because it wasn't planned, it doesn't mean it doesn't work - it works for the reason that no one plans their sexuality. If it had been planned, then it wouldn't have worked so well for me, personally. As Joss has said (from the 'Innocence' DVD commentary), often on Buffy they refer back and rework past events to tie disparate elements together - hence Willow's 'kinda gay' line in Tabula Rasa. Joss sees no problem with it, so I don't.

As for Seth Green, Joss has in fact subsequently said that Willow and Tara was planned before Seth Green left, but as Seth was leaving, they went the whole hog and made her gay.

To quote Joss:

"Well, the arc between Willow and Tara has a long and sort of tortured history. We had thought about the idea of someone exploring their sexuality, expanding it a little bit, in college because that's something that might happen in college. Since we tend to work inside metaphor, for most of the show, we talked about Willow and her being a witch because it's a very strong female community and it gives her a very physical relationship with someone that isn't necessarily sexual. And then when we decided to go that way, part of it was because Seth Green wanted to step out and do movies and we knew that he was going to be out of the picture and someone had to be with Willow and it seemed like a good time for her to be exploring this."

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Willow is gay but Vamp!Willow was bisexual -- clg0107, 16:05:27 04/22/02 Mon

I stand corrected on the order of things (Tara's introduction versus Oz's exit). I had read elsewhere a much shorter version of Joss' comments, which left the idea that Tara was only introduced because Oz was leaving. When it should have made clear that the relationship was only brought to fruition because of Seth Green's departure.

Thanks for the direct quote ~

~clg0107

[> [> [> [> [> Agreeing with LeeAnn -- Malandanza, 10:18:16 04/24/02 Wed

"Vamp Willow was not bisexual. She showed no sexual desire towards any man, and her relationship with Xander was no different from that of non-vamp Willow and Xander. She was only sexual towards women - and if vampirism is linked to sexuality, then it's a further point that Vamp Willow only seems to bite girls. You'd be hard pressed to find Spike ever biting a man, or Dru ever biting a woman."

I have to agree with LeeAnn about VampWillow. In The Wish she and Xander were definitely a couple plus her interaction with Angel was decidedly sexual. In Dopplegangland, she not only gropes Xander, but also Percy. Plus the comments like:

VAMPWILL: No... this is a dumb world. In my world there are people in chains and we can ride them like ponies.

I think that the reason that we don't see Spike biting guys (although, didn't he vamp Ford?) is that the feeding is often associated with sexuality, so to avoid offending sensitive viewers who would be uncomfortable seeing Angelus or Spike feeding on a handsome young man, they show male on female attacks. Viewers are less sensitive about lesbian subtext, so ME can get away with female on female violence.

Sometimes feeding is just feeding. We have seen instances where vampires feed without experiencing sexual pleasure. Harmony attacking Willow, Dru and Darla, most of the unnamed vampires that appear and vanish. VampWillow biting girls doesn't mean that she's a lesbian any more than Dru feeding on children means she's a pedophile.

I would say that for hungry vampires, feeding is non-sexual. But vampires looking for sex often incorporate feeding into their violent sex acts

[> [> [> Thank You -- vampire hunter D, 13:28:13 04/22/02 Mon

I've been arguing this point for months now, but every time I do, I'm always told "NO! She says she's gay, so therefore she's gay, not bi. It doesn't matter what you think". Nowthat you've made all those great point (actually, I'
ve made them all myself in defense of my position, but you made them sound better), maybe people will accept that Willow is not totally gay and that the writers just can't write.

[> [> [> [> I happen to think Joss Whedon can write. -- Slain, 13:43:15 04/22/02 Mon

I find it personally offensive to dictate the sexuality of others. If someone says they're gay, then they're gay. It's not acceptable to go around telling people who they're supposed to be attracted to, fictional characters or not. You can't tell someone "you have to be bisexual, because you dated someone of the opposite or the same gender".

It's not that the writers can't write. It's that they don't write what you want them to. That is patently not the same thing.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: I happen to think Joss Whedon can write. -- Ruth, 16:29:08 04/22/02 Mon

People aren't saying Willow is bisexual just becasue they want to see Willow back with Oz. The point is Willow always appeared to be a bisexual as she was happy and sexually turned on with Oz. Everything pointed to her being attracted to others regardless of gender. Therefore Willow constantly teling everyone how gay she is is a discrepency in my eyes.
The show has a gay character in Tara and I believe all fans are happy to accept that. Well aside from homophobic people obviously. The point is Tara is clearly gay and no one is arguing that she could be bisexual. Therefore it would have been nice to mix it up a bit and make Willow bisexual as it seemed like the obvious choice. People who constantly argue that Willow says she's gay so she's gay are missing the point. I have a problem with that because I see it as poor writing which doesn't fit Willow's character and no matter how much she claims to have no interest in men I am still sceptical.
In reality if someone says they're gay I have no problem with that. But the character I have watched develop always came across as bisexual. Therefore people are complaining of poor writing and character development not fitting with what we have previously known. It's not about prejudice and wanting Willow to return to boys town.

[> [> [> [> [> [> So maybe Willow should be bi, but she's not -- Slain, 17:51:06 04/22/02 Mon

So maybe it's bad writing. That doesn't matter. The question here isn't "should Willow be gay or bi?", it's "is Willow gay or bi"? And Willow is gay. Joss has made this as clear as I think it needs to be, and I'll think you'll find the 'gay now!' assertions are directed at the fans, as much as they are at Anya or Tara. Joss is no idiot; he knows what 'lesbian' or 'gay' mean, so when he refers to Willow as a lesbian he means lesbian, not bisexual.

I happen to agree that it would have made much more sense to have Willow bisexual, but that just isn't the case. The reason I've gone back and commented on earlier episodes is to establish continuity; Joss isn't a great fan of linking back to past episodes, and often relies on the fans to make sense of his more surprising plots. To me, that Willow loved Oz but not sexually ties it up nicely.

You could argue almost anything with that 'bad writing' clause, by the way. I might use it myself. ;)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: So maybe Willow should be bi, but she's not -- Ruth, 18:08:38 04/22/02 Mon

That's fair enough and I do in a way accept Willow as gay if that's how she sees herself. TR did make it pretty clear that Willow was instictively drawn to women and was gay. I just wanted to express that when people are arguing that Willow shouldn't be gay but bisexual it may come across as prejudiced but I have always found people annoyed becasue of poor charaterisation and unfortunely it can come across badly when people insist Willow doesn't know her own mind and should be bisexual. I just believe it's a critisism to be directed at the writers rather than people's personal views in life. As in reality someone calls themselves gay and I'm cool with that. But it doesn't fit the character Willow IMHO. Sorry if I'm expressing myself poorly.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I don't think it's poor writing... -- Rob, 20:16:03 04/22/02 Mon

I have a friend who is a lesbian, who for many years, believed herself to be straight. She only went out with men, and yes, seemed to enjoy it, throughout high school. But she fell in love with a woman. Since then, they have broken up, but she is only attracted to women now. She said that she never realized her true nature until she met that first woman she fell in love with. So, yes some people are bi, but I have no problem buying that Willow could have been in love with Oz and then later discover she is gay. You don't even have to rationalize that she didn't like him sexually. At the time, perhaps she thought she did, but didn't truly realize what it really felt like until she met Tara.

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You express yourself just fine -- vampire hunter D, 12:27:20 04/23/02 Tue

Slain is just a total idiot who is either too stupid to understand you or is trying to start trouble

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Bad writing -- Liam, 01:32:43 04/24/02 Wed

I agree with the other posters who attribute Willow's frequent 'Gay now' remarks to bad writing. I don't understand how Slain can say that she loved Oz, but not sexually. The way I saw the episodes, their relationship looked sexual enough.

[> Re: Is Willow gay or bi? -- skeeve, 11:27:19 04/22/02 Mon

If Tara and Xander or Oz or Brad Pitt can turn her on, she is definitely bisexual.

In Triangle, when Willow assured Anya that she wouldn't take
Xander away because Willow is "gay now", it struck me as either poor thinking or a lack of honesty.

Also, I think that Xander might need to have Willow let Anya at least partly out of her promise not to hurt him. There is really not much reason to worry about Xander physically hurting Anya. Anya is the sort of person who would be able to defend herself, but not and keep the aforementioned promise

The "might" is because the last we heard from Xander on the subject, he was willing to marry Anya in spite of the risk to her. He might realize that his reason for not marrying her hasn't gone away.

[> [> Re: Is Willow gay or bi? -- yabyumpan, 12:30:35 04/22/02 Mon

There was an interesting programe on tv recently about lesbian sexuality. One of the things it looked at was the difference between men and women when watching porn. Men who considered themselves straight were turned on by hetro porn but not gay porn, the women, whether gay or straight, were turned on by both hetro and gay porn. (this was all measured by heartbeat, perspiration etc). The conclusion that came out of it was that womans sexuality is more fluid and person identified as opposed to gender.
I live for the day when sexuality can just be expressed freely, with who ever feels right and not labeled.

[> [> [> This kind of relates to a theory I have -- vampire hunter D, 13:47:33 04/22/02 Mon

That all females are to some degree either gay or bi.

Of course, my worldview is heavily influenced by porn.

[> [> [> [> Just females? -- dream of the consortium, 14:02:52 04/22/02 Mon

Are men really more resolutely heterosexual, or are they just more conditioned away from any consideration of homosexuality? After all, it is socially acceptable to girls to braid each other's hair, hold hands, etc., whereas boys would be ostracized for such behavior. Of course, that doesn't necessarily account for the difference in arousal levels, unless you argue (and you can) that social conditioning trumps basic physical arousal. And there's at least one study that flies in the face of that hypothesis. A study was done of arousal of straight men who had been asked questions about homosexuality. Men who were the most homophoic (that is to say, less judgmentally, those who expressed the greatest level of discomfort with or disapproval of homosexuality) also happened to display the highest level of arousal when exposed to gay pornography. So perhaps women are more bi-sexual, and conditioning does not affect arousal.... just the shame thereof.

[> [> [> [> [> Males, females and insults -- Anne, 14:39:49 04/22/02 Mon

I spent a number of years in an environment that was almost wholly male (though I am female as my name suggests), and one of the things that struck me most is that the men were constantly insulting each other (usually jokingly and sometimes not so jokingly) by calling each other gay or intimating that each other were gay.

I have never heard a women either seriously or in jest insulting another woman by calling her gay. It just doesn't seem to be such a big issue for women.

This suggests to me that men are way more obsessed with and threatened by issues of sexual preference than women are. I don't know why that's so, but given how defensive they seem to be about it, I consider it unlikely that men are somehow naturally more heterosexual than women. I don't think they'd be so worried about it in that case.

[> [> [> [> [> ha! words right out of my mouth! (in a good way!) -- yuri, 00:13:54 04/23/02 Tue

Are men really more resolutely heterosexual, or are they just more conditioned away from any consideration of homosexuality?

I was going to say the exact thing in almost the exact same way! And I was going to cite the study done that showed males more overtly homophobic are more aroused by gay porn.

I love it when that happens.

[> I've always thought it was obvious she is bisexual. -- bookworm, 08:53:50 04/23/02 Tue

In earlier episodes, she is definitely portrayed as being interested in boys. She is in love with Xander in various episodes and very attracted to him, to the point of not being able to stop herself from carrying on a clandestine "affair" with him behind Oz's and Cordelia's backs. She is in love with Oz throughout Season 3 and early in 4, happily sleeps with him, falls to pieces when he leaves her. She's also passionately in love with Tara and there is a very physical element to that relationship as well. That's bisexual, not gay. I do think people are born with a tendency to be attracted to the same sex, but it makes sense that sexual tendencies exist on a wide spectrum between completely heterosexual and completely homosexual and the fluid middle. Willow's probably not at a point now where she can acknowledge that her attractions are that fluid. I also find it interesting that neither Xander or Oz could be described as a super masculine character. Oz is physically short, thin, certainly not androgenous but not overpoweringly masculine either except in his werewolf guise. Xander's bigger and more conventionally handsome, but his goofiness and "one of the girls" qualities are not traditionally masculine either. They're both gentle, empathetic, quirky characters with the kind of offbeat humor Willow can appreciate. I can't see Willow attracted to a decidedly macho character like an Angel or a Riley. When Willow tried to provoke Buffy into anger by saying she'd had affairs with them, Buffy found it completely unbelievable, and probably not just because Willow is "gay now." They're not Willow's type. Buffy's Willow's best friend, but she's not Willow's sexual type either. She's too dominant, too angry, and probably too overtly feminine. Tara is a solid, busty girl, but she's not one who flaunts it the way Buffy would with revealing clothes. Willow's two great loves, Oz and Tara, are strikingly similar in personality in many ways, both empathetic, quiet, with quirky senses of humor. It's the person Willow goes for, not the gender, and I'd say she prefers her lovers not to be either too "masculine" or too "feminine."

[> [> Re: I've always thought it was obvious she is bisexual. -- dream of the consortium, 13:17:55 04/23/02 Tue

I am wondering (genuinely curious, not making assumptions) whether there is any correlation between the age of a fan and the likelihood that they will see the Oz/Willow and Xander/Willow relationships to be indicative of bisexuality, rather than early sexual exploration that has less to do with orientation than with social expectations and general sexual curiosity. Since high school/early college and the crushes and relationships of that time are quite a few years back for me, I tend to consider them part of my development, but not part of my identity. I have known many gay/lesbian friends who seem to have the same sort of attitude about opposite-sex relationships they had before they were involved with members of the same sex, and I have always assumed that these “starter” relationships were fairly common among lesbians in particular, though occasionally among gay men as well. But I am pretty sure that when I was in high school/college – well, I certainly didn’t believe I was sexually immature, let alone understand that simply sleeping with your boyfriend did not mean you had come to grips with your sexual identity – but then again, I was a peculiarly sheltered girl and hadn’t thought about sex much at all. I don’t want to offend anyone, or imply that someone younger is less likely to understand complexities - I am just wondering if there are assumptions that I bring to the table because of my age that someone younger (who perhaps identifies more with the characters, would not make. In my case, one assumption is that these characters are in the process of coming to understand themselves sexually, and that that process is not straightforward (pardon the expression), and that sexual identity is rarely completely formed by early college.

Buffy is unusual in that those sorts of issues are actually explored on television. It seems to me that Buffy herself is coming to grips (or rather, failing to come to grips) with some aspects of her sexual identity in her relationship with Spike – the use of bondage, the suggestion of a little S&M – very far removed from the soft-lit romance with Angel. I would say Buffy won’t be sexually mature until she incorporates her desires into her self-image. As for Willow, she seems to have done that with her relationship with Tara in a way she did not with Oz or Xander, she has declared herself to be gay, and therefore I tend to believe that her adult sexual self will be primarily, or exclusively, gay. But because I believe she is still in the process of growing sexually, it is quite possible she might eventually identify herself as bisexual.

[> [> [> I'm 30. I don't think age has much to do with it. -- bookworm, 17:54:00 04/23/02 Tue

I think it's as likely that Willow will fall in love next with another man as with another woman. Not being gay, I can't speak to your experience, but it does seem that gays come to terms later than heterosexuals with their sexual orientation. People I knew in high school who turned out to be gay were the ones who were everyone's buddy, no one's steady, as teenagers. They seemed to come out in college or later. My mother's cousin was married for eight years to a man and later divorced him and came out as a lesbian in her mid-twenties. From what my mother said about the husband, he was someone who was gone for months at a time, quite inexperienced, and unlikely to see anything wrong with his relationship with his wife. That's probably why they lasted so long. But Willow's relationships with Xander and Oz seemed to be far too intense and far too passionate to be merely experiences on her road to learning she was a lesbian. That's why I think she's bisexual.

[> [> [> [> Age and Go Willow! -- Ian, 18:48:49 04/23/02 Tue

I'm 25, but I've gone from believing myself straight, to gay, to bisexual, and now back to gay again. In my case at least, age has meant A LOT in my understanding of myself. As far as other people go, I think age and experience can have a lot to do with sexual identity. Or at least, identification with sexual identity.

I had finally come to terms with being gay a few years back, when I met this wonderful woman and really loved her. To say I was confused is a study in understatement. (Partly I still wanted to believe I was straight, so I can attest to the power of self deception.) I came to realize that while I did deeply love this girl, I was not IN love, and could not ever really be IN love. Big difference. Long story short, when I met her I was gay, then I thought I was bisexual, and then I realized, nope, gay. I can actually relate to the whole "Hello? Gay now."

I have no idea if Willow is gay or bi, or possibly even straight. However, simply having had a relationship with two men that involved passion does not automatically mean Willow is bisexual. Nor does it mean she is not. As Willow learns more about herself, her understanding of her own nature could change. Right now, she might be in truth "just" gay. Two years from now Willow might be "really" bisexual.

Although I make no claim as to Willow's "real" sexuality, I can say that her earlier relationship with Oz, and quasi-romantic relationship with Xander, do not make her bisexual. As far as sexual identity goes, I don't really think past relationships mean all that much, unless the person thinks they do. Willow, for now, appears to be certain of her gayness. Go Willow! Later, she might decide she is bisexual. In which case, Go Willow! It's even possible that Willow might eventually realize she is actually completely straight. In which case, Go Willow!

[> [> [> [> [> Sounds like sexual identity can be fairly fluid, doesn't it? -- bookworm, 19:17:33 04/23/02 Tue

Like I said, I can't speak with any authority on what it would be like to be gay. I'm just going on what I've observed, and I have observed that people come to the realization that they're gay fairly late. One of my friends just mentioned last week that his 28-year-old sister, a stripper, is now in a relationship with a woman after having been married twice to men. Apparently lesbian relationships are fairly common among strippers, according to him. I've now been educated. I have no idea if his sister identifies as lesbian or bisexual, but apparently she's been attracted to men as well. Right now the character of Willow is in an exclusive relationship with another woman, so she's gay NOW. I can accept that. But since she's also been passionate about men, and has made comments about the attractiveness of men (like the ones about finding Giles and Dracula attractive) after coming out as a lesbian, I find it more likely she will ultimately be bisexual. Will she be HETEROSEXUAL NOW if she's in love with a man next? Hard to say.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Age and Go Willow! -- Mr Gordo, 03:46:49 04/24/02 Wed

You say Go Willow if she eventually decides she's straight and you have no problem with what sexual identity she ultimately claims but I have a question. If Willow did decide she was straight after breaking up with Tara would people who invested in W/T be upset and feel the relatioship has been stripped of meaning? That is how W/O fans feel. It's not about being mad at Willow for being gay. Willow's relationshiop with Tara does make sense to me. I just wish that Oz hadn't beame the transitional guy there to help Willow descover her true preference. Why not make Willow bisexual? Ruth is right when she says the writers don't even seem to recognise it and you're either gay or straight. It makes sense for Tara to be gay and it would have been better I think to have Willow as bi.

[> [> [> [> [> [> What makes her happy is what counts, surely? -- Marie, 06:14:06 04/24/02 Wed

I'm not big on labels, myself. I think Willow should be allowed to go with whoever she wants to be with. Oz made her happy, Tara made her happy. Oz eventually made her very unhappy, but that didn't make her turn to another gender, in my opinion, it just made her unhappy.

If the spoilers are true, and I'm assuming at this point that they are, I hope that eventually Willow will find comfort and and happiness with someone else. I don't much care if that someone is male or female.

Marie

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Age and Go Willow! -- Ian, 08:53:20 04/24/02 Wed

Personally, I can't see how the W/T relationship in any way demeans the W/O relationship. Willow was obviously present and invested in Oz. What W/O had was real, at the time. Of course, the same thing applies to W/T. Willow is also clearly present and invested in Tara. What W/T had/have is real.

If Willow were dating a man now, would you also "be upset and feel the relationship (W/O) has been stripped of meaning?" Just because someone moves on, it doesn't send the magic eraser to wipe out their past relationships. Willow and Oz were great together, and then Oz left her and Willow found someone else. End of story.

As far as wishing "that Oz hadn't become the transitional guy" in Willow's journey, EVERY Ex is a "transitional" guy/gal. Unless Willow were to join a convent and foreswear all future sexual relationships, it is inevitable that Oz would become transition guy. In the same way, Angel and then Riley became "transition guy" for Buffy. Does the fact that Buffy dated someone else after Angel strip their relationship of all meaning? I can't see how.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Age and Go Willow! -- Mr Gordo, 14:12:34 04/24/02 Wed

Willow is saying she is not interested in guys sexually. That is why I'm upset becasue of what it says about her feelings for Oz. People move on and I accept the relationship is ended. I am just a bit annoyed that W/O have been insulted by suggesting Willow is not into men. The writers could just as easily have made Willow sexual. If they didn't becasue they are concerned about the porn star image bisexuals have they need to get over it.
And perhaps some of you should go educate the Kitten board as they have said if Willow and Tara break up permently and Willow considers a relationship with a man such as Xander they would not be happy. More than one poster has said they would prefer to see Willow dead than end up with a guy. Or going back to boys town as it is generally put. So Willow changing her sexual preference completely when a relationship ends is an issue to more people than jst me.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Age and Go Willow! -- celticross, 14:46:12 04/24/02 Wed

The problem a lot of W/T fans have with the possibility of Willow dating a guy again is the fear that it will look like W/T was just a "phase" for Willow, which is what many people choose to believe homosexuality is. W/T was one of the first lesbian relationships protrayed on television in a non- explotive or comic way, and that means a lot to its fans. THAT's why the Kittens are so up in arms. They don't want to see a relationship that's rather revolutionary be filed away as Willow experimenting. I don't see how Willow's relationship with Tara demeans her relationship with Oz. She loved him, he meant a great deal to her, he made her happy. Tara does the same. Because one is male and the other female is a bit immaterial, I think.

[> [> [> [> Not gay -- dream of the consortium, 06:47:09 04/24/02 Wed

Just to set the record straight (so to speak), I'm actually not gay. Not that that's important, but there might be handsome, philosophically-inclined, Buffy-watching gentlemen on this board, and I don't want to give the wrong impression. ;) Not to mention that I don't want to speak for a group I don't actually represent, which would be rather presumptious. Sexual identity is about more than orientation, however, and that's what I was talking about. I think this need to develop into a sexual identity is greater for women, who are socialized into ignoring their own desire, etc., than for men, who don't seem to need to grapple with sexual identity in a conscious way. Just my two cents.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Not gay -- Katie, 08:05:07 04/24/02 Wed

Hi, I just wanted to add my opinion on Willow. I hope the Oz fans/shippers don't think that W/O have been lessened in any way. I would argue that W/T and Willow's lesbianism does not in any way demean W/O. Most, if not all gay people I know including myself have had a hetero relationship. Most of these people enjoyed sex too. This is why the Willow storyline is so realistic. It's not like your life starts again when you come out (although it can feel like that sometimes).

I think Willow is a wonderful example of a lesbian who understands that she has loved men but that ultimately loves women. I could go into the emotional and physical ramifications of this but I don't think it's necessary, Willow herself shows this. S5 Willow was a joy to watch, literally giddy in love. I find it odd that people say that it wouldn't have mattered what gender Tara was, because her nature is intrinsically linked to her gender. I find Tara to be one of, if not the most feminine women on the show. She is gentle, warm, nuturing and protective. In my view Willow has completely given herself over to this woman and found herself and her orientation. Willow labels herself as gay and I respect that and thus only refer to her as gay. When I first told people I was gay, it was often met with "but you have dated men" or "are you sure you are not bi?", to be honest this made the coming out process harder, I was continually questioning myself, as if other people knew me better than myself. Once I accepted my past relationships/feelings for men and my current feelings for women I could happily label (are labels still a necessary evil?) myself without needing other peoples affirmation.

I hope I haven't offended anyone, I feel that a person's view on this debate totally depends on where they are coming from, hence the reason why this particular subject is seen as a dead topic on most boards.

Current board | More April 2002