April 2003
posts
"Lies My Parents Told Me" Revisited --
Darby, 09:01:35 04/01/03 Tue
Time for another look, now, innit?
Okay, I was wrong - the trash can wasn't part of the plan, I
didn't hear clearly. Never mind.
Folks have said that Robin should have realized Spike's
change of heart from the times Spike saved him, but the
first scene in the alley seems to be saying that having the
monster who killed his mother save him (he grips the stake
hard enough to draw blood and require bandaging) is making
things worse.
The Giles library rant scene is another logic-for-punchline
trade-off, with him rushing into a Buffy's meeting to be an
idiot - and this someone who worked in a school! Must be
something about being back in the school setting that makes
the writers forget how to make the setting work, which is
true even if it makes no sense. On top of that, the couple
of times we've been shown the new library, the set dressing
was racks of books, not monitors. Guess Giles in his new
buffoon role is prone to wild exaggeration.
Okay, I've got to say it: the trigger is a red
herring!!! It has never triggered behavior in
Spike; what it triggers is the release of his demon! This
vampire-with-a-soul comes with a curse of his own - the
soul's influence (which is nowhere as powerful as Angel's,
anyway) disappears when he vamps, and the old Spike is back,
controllable only by Buffy's presence, and even then not
reliably. The evidence has been accumulating throughout the
season, including: the scene in the bar with Anya, his
silent scene where we first learn he's killing (silent so we
wouldn't realize he was regular Spike up to the attack), the
attack on Andrew, the retrieval of the Exchange Demon, and
here in the basement. What we have also been shown,
especially in this episode in the final scene with Robin, is
that the demon is not beyond his control when it is
released, but it is only Buffy and Buffycentric thought, (or
in that final scene the certainty that he could control
himself) that gives him that control (another aspect of the
old Spike).
Anatomical quibble - the optic nerve does NOT run across our
foreheads! The optic nerve, done properly, would have been
pretty dull unless they were going to do a Spike POV shot
(but wouldn't that be interesting, especially if they
decided that what a vamp sees is not quite what a human
sees?). When will writers learn that less detail is better
when they have no idea what they're talking about? Done
now.
We get another clue that Halfrek is not Cecily, since Cecily
is described as the eldest daughter of a family known to
William's mum. Previous clues have Halfrek active prior to
William's lifetime, but Cecily could have been one of her
"pop-in" roles. That explanation becomes much more
difficult if they've known Cecily for years, though.
Is the reference to "Doctor Gull" just a way to insert a
historical figure, or some sort of purposeful but oblique
Jack the Ripper connection?
It was kinda neat that the make-up folks hid Marsters'
eyebrow scar for William. They don't always go for those
little details - Buffy's bite marks are only there when
someone needs to notice them, for instance.
Spike's look at Buffy - accusatorial - may explain why, when
the trigger vamped him, he was willing to go after her. But
this new triggered vamping tends to start very
animalistically - when Spike does it himself, we get Old
Spike.
Is it significant that Rona now refers to Casa Summers as
"our house"?
Still think that, once it's obvious that the trigger could
still be active and just after a demo of what triggered
Spike can do, having Buffy unchain him is to drive the plot
at the expense of the characters.
I know it violates the mythology, but doesn't it seem like a
vamp ought to be able to enter their own house? Not from a
magic standpoint, but more from a storyline one? I'm
assuming that one of the live-in servants let Spike and Dru
in, unaware that he had died. His mother didn't know, she
just wondered where he had been.
Spike and Dru are obviously hot-n-heavy at first, but the
Fanged Four dynamic later seems to have Spike more as the
squire. At what point did Spike become the beta male,
watching Angelus with both Darla and Dru, and how big an
adjustment was that? Filed under Stories I'd Like to See
Told...
This also confirms that Juliet Landau was purposely
misplaying Dru when the First imitated her. It's hard to be
sure with performances. Plus, the addition of Mummy gave JL
a new twist to examine, which she did quite well.
Althought the focus has been the later incestuous pass made
at William, isn't there something very much the same
in his siring Mum? She even invokes the image in her own
"seduction," but if anyone has discussed this, I missed it
(and I haven't read everything).
I have a different take on the Giles-Buffy "training"
session. I see it as purposely transparent on Giles' part -
if Buffy doesn't quickly suss out what's going on, he can
tell himself, it's because some part of her sees the
necessity of what's being done.
Buffy: Believe me, I know how to make hard
decisions!
Giles: Well, that's what we're here to find out.
[Vamp's hand emerges from grave] While we work on the
basics.
I'm not saying that's right, but Giles really doesn't try to
hide that he's just delaying her while telling her what
needs to be done while that very thing is being done. It's
deceptive (but not overly so), it's pre-emptive, but it does
fit their dynamic more than many people seem to think it
does. And the cut lines about Giles and Ben, although I
haven't read them, seem like they needed to be there,
however briefly, to totally explain Giles' position.
Interesting that when William first sees risen Mum that she
is a) playing the song, b) "glowing," and c) quite the
Goldilocks. Is Buffy the abusive blonde who might
come to love him, or just an image that he needs to move
past?
Spike's Mum still loves him, I'm certain, but has a
very new perspective on her role in her life. In this new
dynamic, he can no longer grow up and away from her, but
will be trapped in codependence forever. She, deep inside,
doesn't really want that, but what she says, what she does,
is all for him. It's not quite Darla's sacrifice, but it's
in that neighborhood. She isn't lying, but it's not exactly
her true feelings, either.
Giles: Faced with the same choice now, you'd let [Dawn]
die.
Buffy: If I had to. To save the world. Yes.
There isn't much thought behind the response. On
reflection, would Buffy really find she means it?
Could the Buffy we know mean it?
When William stakes his vamped Mum, the look she gives him
confirms, as much as anything ever has, that for whatever
reason, William as a vampire is still William, and she still
loved him. At least, that's what I see.
Spike now sees Buffy as removed from those around her,
fighting alone, very different from the Slayer he described
in Fool for Love. Is that because, like Mum, she
hasn't "let him in," joined him in his life or really let
him join hers? She's reminding Wood and Spike of
their mothers, and each arrives at a reinforcement of that
impression. Through this all, Spike has been convinced that
Buffy really loves him - is that the catalyst to the
realization about his own mother? The realization about his
mother will certainly play back into what he believes about
Buffy's feelings.
Spike at some point realizes that, to really hurt Robin
back, he has to "hit" him in his only vulnerable area - his
image of his mother. The question is, does Spike believe
that Nikki didn't love Robin, or just does he just say it to
inflict the most damage? Ah, William is surely his mother's
son...
Interesting that Buffy's assertion to Wood that Spike is
the strongest warrior we have reflects Lurky's
calling him a legendary dark warrior.
And the moral of this story is that doting mothers can harm
their children, and mothers with important careers can harm
their children, that love is not enough, and the kids carry
the repercussions well beyond childhood? Talk about not
seeing the Big Picture!
I'm developing a real fear that a show whose mission
statement was all about subtext is not examining its own
closely enough. Thank you, Rahael, for making me take a
deeper look myself.
[>
Do I need to warn that there will be spoilers for the
episode? There are. -- Darby, 09:03:37 04/01/03
Tue
[>
Re: "Lies My Parents Told Me" Revisited -
- lunasea, 09:39:09 04/01/03 Tue
And the moral of this story is that doting mothers can
harm their children, and mothers with important careers can
harm their children, that love is not enough, and the kids
carry the repercussions well beyond childhood? Talk about
not seeing the Big Picture!
Not what I got at all. how about childish views of our
parents can harm an adult-child? I have a feeling it isn't
over yet.
In the words of Joss "Oh grow up." S7 seems to be that more
than S6.
[>
Re: "Lies My Parents Told Me" Revisited -
- CW, 09:49:10 04/01/03 Tue
Spike's Mum still loves him,... It's not quite
Darla's sacrifice, but it's in that neighborhood. She isn't
lying, but it's not exactly her true feelings, either.
I have to disagree with this. I think her motivation is
quite different as a vamp.
We've talked many times here about the simliarites between
the pre-vamp person and the vampire, but sometimes I think
we've forgot the obvious differences. Before Dru was vamped
she was a terrified little girl in a young woman's body. She
was scared to death of any sort of moral darkness even
fearing her own precognition. As a vamp she swims joyously
in her visions and their darkest connotations. Spike was
the proper son for a doting mother, perfect to the point of
being prissy. He doesn't really change when he's sired, but
once his mother rejects him he becomes the model for a
rebellious teen, he rejects everything about the gentility
of his former life including his accent. "Sod off" and
similar crudities become a replacement for the poetry he
once wanted to be his voice. Liam if anything was passive,
letting his father's attitude ruin his life. Angelus became
the most dominant of vampires, caring little what anyone
thought of him. The same is true of Spike's mother. Before
becoming a vampire there is little sign she is running
William's life, instead she was passively allowing him to
cling to her with an unhealthy determination. Once she's
been sired, she becomes the dominant one. The fact that she
choses to reject her son is more important for her son than
for her. It's this rejection that finally causes the break
between the human William and the vampire Spike would
become. William/Spike has two mothers and two sires as
well.
I think William's mother as a vampire did, in fact, loathe
the emotionally needy William and everything he stood for,
and it was her desire to hurt him, not a mother's love that
set him on his future.
[> [>
Re: "Lies My Parents Told Me" Revisited -
- Darby, 10:13:26 04/01/03 Tue
You certainly could be right - the scene is ambiguous enough
to be interpreted a number of ways - but let me add a couple
of points which themselves could probably be as well:
Spike's mum as a vamp has been fit into the New! and
Improved! Buffyverse vamp, introduced briefly in
Lessons but really trotted out as Holden Webster - in
this new aspect to the mythology, the vampire rises as a
fairly accurate image of the person it was (plus the
bloodlust), and they sort of come to a realization of their
new situation. The "I hate to be cruel - oh, no I don't!"
or whatever is an example. Webs' feelings about people
hadn't changed, but his attitude about how to treat them
had. Mum just let some of her long-repressed resentments
out - loathing of an aspect of the relationship that she had
had with William, but not of William himself. And it was
all to a particular end.
One thing that has always been part of the vamp mythology is
that the demon part of the vamp has a strong sense of
survival, and any of the actors who have given it any
thought (Marsters and Jeff Kober were the best) have shown
that vamps recognize and fear the power of the stake. Why
did Mum basically taunt William to stake her? And why CGI
the reaction shot to it? I think it clearly shows a
sacrifice for her son's well-being.
Well, maybe not clearly...
[> [> [>
Re: "Lies My Parents Told Me" Revisited -
- CW, 10:36:46 04/01/03 Tue
Why'd she goad him into staking her? My guess is that she
knew she was different, but didn't realise her son was
different as as well. Vampires seem to be generally
susceptible to intimidation. The Master managed to keep
even Angel somewhat in line through threats. But, Spike has
always thumbed his nose at threats, even when it was
dangerous, only backing down, for instance, when his chip
made it impossible for him to fight back against Riley or
Buffy. I think William's mother instantly recognized her
dominance and ability to be cruel, but never thought William-
turned-vamp could hurt someone he once loved as well. We've
seen this kind of thinking by other vampires - Jesse toward
Xander, and Angelus toward Buffy, even Holtz's daughter
toward Holtz. It seems to be a common weakness in vamp
thinking.
[>
When does subtext become text? -- Sophist,
09:59:18 04/01/03 Tue
And the moral of this story is that doting mothers can
harm their children, and mothers with important careers can
harm their children, that love is not enough, and the kids
carry the repercussions well beyond childhood? Talk about
not seeing the Big Picture!
I'm developing a real fear that a show whose mission
statement was all about subtext is not examining its own
closely enough. Thank you, Rahael, for making me take a
deeper look myself.
I don't think this is a new issue. There has been discussion
before about the message of Surprise/Innocence -- did JW
intend to scare teenage girls away from sex, or did he have
a different purpose? The whole "lesbian stereotype" debate
in S6 raised similar questions.
Because the show relies on metaphor, many of the epsisodes
might be seen as providing mixed messages. Just to pick a
random example, we could say of IRYJ that it provided a
Luddite's view of the internet. And is it really ok to blow
up your high school?
I don't see any reason now, after 139 episodes, to start
questioning the show on this basis. Great art, almost by
definition, permits multiple interpretations. It's the very
existence of those multiple interpretations that allows it
to appeal to a broad spectrum of viewers. If we narrowly
focus on the worst possible message, we're defeating the
whole purpose of watching.
[> [>
Maybe it's the awareness, or lack of it. -- Darby,
10:49:59 04/01/03 Tue
When the show based plots on Buffy's first sexual experience
(as well as representing other metaphorical issues), from
things Joss has said, they really thought through the layers
and messages, and tried to twist the plot away from easy
connections. From the whole Seeing Red fiasco, it
seems to no longer be the case. Maybe they've given up -
folks will see what they will see, no matter what, they may
have decided, so tell the story and ride the wave. It's an
understandable response, but I'm not sure entirely ethical.
And I suppose I should stress this - I brought it up, and
I'm not entirely sure where their responsibility lies here.
Just figured I'd mention it.
[> [> [>
Who was it... -- KdS, 12:30:46 04/01/03 Tue
Someone a few weeks back suggested that ME are so self-
confident in their liberalism, or so sheltered from opinion
in more unreconstructed parts of society, that the genuinely
feel that sexism, racism and homophobia have been "dealt
with" and they don't need to worry about subtext. Who was
it, because I think that they were on the right track?
[> [> [> [>
That was me. -- Shiraz, 13:27:45 04/01/03
Tue
[> [>
Very much agree -- s'kat, 10:53:13 04/01/03
Tue
Great art, almost by definition, permits multiple
interpretations. It's the very existence of those multiple
interpretations that allows it to appeal to a broad spectrum
of viewers. If we narrowly focus on the worst possible
message, we're defeating the whole purpose of
watching.
I discussed this with a friend recently who gave me some
very good advice, advice I actually knew before: "People
will read whatever they want into something. Don't let their
readings disrupt your enjoyment of the show." How true.
I wrote a story once about my brother living in San Fran, it
was quirky character sketch, told entirely in his pov.
And ambiguous in some ways. People who read it came up with
plot interpretations as various as:1. quirky character study
about an art student, 2. someone dying of cancer, 3.the last
survivor of the apocalypse. These comments during my writers
workshop blew me away. And they all had more to do with the
reader than with me, the writer. Let's face it - art tends
to be an interactive experience.
Same thing happened with Lies. We all view it
differently.
Some people came away from the episode despising Spike.
Some despising Giles. Some Wood. Some came away
fascinated.
Some offended. I personally was fascinated, it was amongst
my all time favorite Btvs episodes ever. The ambiguity.
The revelations. The character development? Priceless.
I think we won't have a clear idea of what the writers
wanted to express until we see episode 7.22. Because Lies is
merely a chapter in a story, it can't stand off by itself
well. The other thing? We project our own experience on to
it. This episode was so brutal in places - that it touched
buttons. It was meant to.
I don't think we'll know who was right or wrong until it
plays out. But to judge the episode now...before seeing the
others? May be giving it short shrift. Which is why I depise
these long waits between episodes. Gives us way too much
time to ponder them without the next chapter clearing things
up.
Also, the more I think about it...I think the next five
episodes may change how we view this episode and the ones
before it. I'm unspoiled. But my gut tells me...how we all
viewed Lies may change soon enough.
SK
[> [> [>
Our characters aren't finished "becoming" who
they're meant to be -- cjl, 11:17:49 04/01/03 Tue
"I think we won't have a clear idea of what the writers
wanted to express until we see episode 7.22. Because Lies is
merely a chapter in a story, it can't stand off by itself
well. The other thing? We project our own experience on to
it. This episode was so brutal in places - that it touched
buttons. It was meant to. I don't think we'll know who was
right or wrong until it plays out."
Exactly. I think what's tricky about Lies My Parents Told
Me is that it's shown as a "breakthrough" episode, an
episode where Buffy and Spike supposedly conquer some old
demons and cleanse themselves of the toxic side of a beloved
parent (or substitute parent). But the "breakthrough" isn't
as clear-cut as either Buffy or Spike think it is--at the
end, I think they're imbued with something resembling a
false sense of confidence about their independence.
Despite slamming the door in Giles' face, Buffy has clearly
internalized the utilitarian side of Giles' personality; by
proclaiming to Wood how My Mom Loved Me Best, Spike shows
how badly he still needs that absolute devotion. And Robin-
-well, as the spawn of Crowley, he's still as screwed up as
ever. Do any of these characters even realize how much
they've absorbed the lessons of the toxic parent?
We've got five episodes to go. At this point, I think all
the Scoobies are aware of how their pasts inform the
present, and the way their lives have been shaped by outside
forces and their own personal weaknesses. But what none of
them have figured out yet is how to approach the future in a
NEW way. They're stuck in old paradigms because they're
afraid of screwing up and they can't see the guideposts
waiting for them, out there in the dark...
[> [> [> [>
Regarding Crowley-- -- HonorH, 11:43:14 04/01/03
Tue
We may be jumping the gun on him. What we know about him is
that he 1) is a Watcher, 2) took Robin in after Nikki's
death instead of turning him over to child welfare
authorities, and 3) trained him to be a demon fighter.
We've got no real evidence that he was a "toxic" parent--
only that Robin's Nikki issues remained unresolved, which
isn't that remarkable, as the memories of her he has (and no
doubt clings to) are likely to be dim and even
distorted.
Also, regarding Crowley's name: I was informed by a friend
of mine that Crowley was also the name of the benevolent
boss in the British series "The Professionals", which Joss
has praised in the past. So it's not necessarily a
reference to Aleister Crowley the occultist.
[>
Spike and the Trigger -- Dariel, 11:04:21
04/01/03 Tue
Okay, I've got to say it: the trigger is a red herring!!!
It has never triggered behavior in Spike; what it triggers
is the release of his demon! This vampire-with-a-soul comes
with a curse of his own - the soul's influence (which is
nowhere as powerful as Angel's, anyway) disappears when he
vamps, and the old Spike is back, controllable only by
Buffy's presence, and even then not reliably. The evidence
has been accumulating throughout the season, including: the
scene in the bar with Anya, his silent scene where we first
learn he's killing (silent so we wouldn't realize he was
regular Spike up to the attack), the attack on Andrew, the
retrieval of the Exchange Demon, and here in the
basement.
Don't agree--there are many examples of this not being the
case. The most obvious one is, in fact, the attack on Andrew
in NLM. Here, remember, the FE-as-Spike sings his little
ditty while Buffy is out of the room-she hears it. When she
returns, Spike, in human face, calmly tells her nothing is
going on, asks for blood, and then vamps. In Sleeper, Spike
walks through crowds of people and is triggered by the
harmonica player. He remains in human face and walks very
boldly up to a young woman. Buffy, in fact observing this,
refers to his behavior as "hunting."
As for silent Spike, think back to the scene in Sleeper when
he begins to realize something is off. A memory is triggered
by the pack of cigarettes he brings out of his pocket--of
his blond victim from CWDP. The memory comes from one of his
silent scenes, when she approaches him and places the pack
on the bar.
[> [>
Agree -- more evidence -- s'kat, 11:29:22
04/01/03 Tue
Dariel is right here, Darb.
Spike goes into Demon face in First Date and is in complete
control and not all that bloody strong either - Buffy
defeats the demon. He goes into demon face at the end of
Lies and shows complete control. Even in the Bronze scene in
Beneath You, he was in control - that wasn't triggered
Spike, that was insane, multiple personality Spike.
When Spike is triggered, the demon is very different. It's
silent. It says nothing. Since when is demon Spike
quiet??
And they go out of their way to show how the trigger
works.
It was never meant as a red-herring. What is meant is one of
numerous devices showing how characters move past
obstacles.
The trigger arc is over now. That does NOT mean however that
the First doesn't have other plans for Spike. IT just means
that we don't have the trigger. Or the chip.
So Spike now has probably the most free will he's had in
over five seasons - no chip holding him back, no trigger
forcing him forward. But he still has some serious
psychological issues just like our other characters that can
be used against him.
I think the trigger revealed just one of them. One that I
remain unconvinced has been resolved as neatly as Spike
thinks. The trigger has been resolved. But the issue
hasn't.
[> [> [>
Re: Agree -- more evidence -- Darby, 12:30:51
04/01/03 Tue
I did make the point that triggered Spike was different than
voluntary-vamped Spike. I just think that voluntary-vamped
Spike is significantly different from regular Spike, and
that's where the true danger lies. And, like any
modification of complex behavior, it's not always exactly
the same. There is a pattern, though.
Dariel has some points about the timing - now I've got to go
looking for a releaser, some critical aspect of the trigger
that actually brings about the change. Hey, I'm a
scientist, when conflicting evidence arises we don't change
our minds (we don't actually recognize the famous "null
hypothesis"), we just fine-tune our assertions and
restructure the data...
Speculation "Cordy's Baby" (Spoiler AtS
S5) -- Vegeta, 11:02:59 04/01/03 Tue
I was rewatching the episodes Of Angel with Faith and a
creepy, icky thought occured to me. That Cordy's baby is
not spawned from Conner, but spawned from the Beast. It
just seemd odd and disturbing that she kissed it and she
used the line "give mama some sugar".
IMHO she only slept with Conner as a ruse for the gang and
to use him for protection and info while she carried out her
"evil" plans.
Ofcourse, I could be completely wrong. It's just kissing
the Beast really struck me as odd for it's "master" to be
doing.
Twelve Steps To Redemption: Spike (General Series
Spoilers; no spec.) -- Dannyblue, 12:15:35 04/01/03
Tue
There seems to be a big debate over what Spike's attitude in
LMPTM means. Is he wise to not want to dwell in the past, to
move on and not brood over things he cannot change? Does
this, in fact, show that--in some ways--he has gone farther
than Angel in a shorter period of time?
Or has Spike demonstrated that he still has a long way to go
to reach redemption?
Well, in the Jossverse, being evil seems to be something a
person has to "recover" from, almost like an addict. So I've
created these "Twelve Steps To Redemption" based on actual
twelve step programs. They've been revised to fit the
shows.
#1. I accept that I possess a darkness that can sometimes
get out of my control and cause harm to others.
#2. I accept that I sometimes need help to stay on the
right path.
#3. I accept that there are things I cannot change or
completely make amends for. I have committed acts for which
I may never--and shouldn't expect to--be forgiven.
#4. I have made a fearless moral inventory of my past
deeds, and have not tried to make excuses for them.
#5. I have admitted to another person/being the exact
nature of my wrongs, without making excuses for
them.
#6. I am ready to lose the defects of character that lead
me to commit those wrongs.
#7. I would be willing to lose the powers that allowed me
to hurt others in the past.
#8. I admit that I need to make amends to everyone I have
hurt, directly or indirectly.
#9. I have tried to make direct amends to those I've
hurt, directly or indirectly, whenever possible.
#10. I can realize and promptly admit when I am
wrong.
#11. I consciously seek to understand how I can improve
myself, and keep from doing wrong again.
#12. I make an effort to help others escape the darkness
I've managed to pull myself out of...even if that person has
caused me pain directly or indirectly.
So, if you were using these steps to measure Spike's
progress down the road to redemption, how would he do?
[>
Re: Twelve Steps To Redemption: Spike (General Series
Spoilers; no spec.) -- KdS, 12:44:21 04/01/03 Tue
#1. I accept that I possess a darkness that can sometimes
get out of my control and cause harm to others.
Yep.
#2. I accept that I sometimes need help to stay on the
right path.
Yep. Worked it out more quickly than Angel at times.
#3. I accept that there are things I cannot change or
completely make amends for. I have committed acts for which
I may never--and shouldn't expect to--be forgiven.
Yep.
#4. I have made a fearless moral inventory of my past
deeds, and have not tried to make excuses for them.
Yep.
#5. I have admitted to another person/being the exact
nature of my wrongs, without making excuses for
them.
Yep. (NLM)
#6. I am ready to lose the defects of character that lead
me to commit those wrongs.
To be honest, I don't think he's yet managed to work out
what they are.
#7. I would be willing to lose the powers that allowed me
to hurt others in the past.
Yep (again, more so than Angel). Until Buffy convinced him
she still needed them.
#8. I admit that I need to make amends to everyone I have
hurt, directly or indirectly.
I think Spike's problem here is working out how to. I mean,
given the magnitude of what he did to people over the years,
how can he even bring himself back into the survivors' lives
without causing them more pain?
#9. I have tried to make direct amends to those I've
hurt, directly or indirectly, whenever possible.
I'm on the fence here. Again the question, beyond
expressing contrition, how is he supposed to?
#10. I can realize and promptly admit when I am
wrong.
On the reports of LMPTM, no way.
#11. I consciously seek to understand how I can improve
myself, and keep from doing wrong again.
Yep.
#12. I make an effort to help others escape the darkness
I've managed to pull myself out of...even if that person has
caused me pain directly or indirectly.
On the reports of LMPTM that I've heard, no
&£%!ing way!
Oh, most of these are also the same for Angel at the moment,
although he still has problems with 2, 6 & 10
(although I think those are the hardest for anyone,
regardless of past life). Given how he's dealt with Faith,
Connor and (eventually) Wes, just to cover the highest-
profile examples, he's a lot farther on with 12.
[> [>
PS -- KdS, 12:55:57 04/01/03 Tue
And as someone who was disturbed by the apparent
implications of LMPTM, I think one of the beliefs
that he needs to examine and give up is the self-
aggrandising and downright sinister one that killing someone
gives you an insight into their deep psyche.
[>
Comparintg the Big 3 to the test... -- Majin
Gojira, 13:22:04 04/01/03 Tue
Let's look at our 3 redeemers. Angel, Spike and Faith.
#1. I accept that I possess a darkness that can sometimes
get out of my control and cause harm to others.
Spike: Yes. (1)
Faith: Yes. (1)
Angel: Yes. (1)
#2. I accept that I sometimes need help to stay on the right
path.
Spike: Yes, but recently Buffy recinded this 'right path'
and told him to be brutal again...and now he is. (1)
Faith: Yes. First it was Jail. later it was Angel. (1)
Angel: Not so much that I can remember. (1)
#3. I accept that there are things I cannot change or
completely make amends for. I have committed acts for which
I may never--and shouldn't expect to--be forgiven.
Spike: barely. He only feels bad for Buffy. I haven't heard
him say he was sorry for anything else. (.2)
Faith: Definitely (1)
Angel: Say Hi Mister Saddness. (1)
#4. I have made a fearless moral inventory of my past deeds,
and have not tried to make excuses for them.
Spike: Nope. Not done. Only for Buffy. (.1)
Faith: Yes. (1)
Angel: Yes. (1)
#5. I have admitted to another person/being the exact nature
of my wrongs, without making excuses for them.
Spike: Only to Buffy about Buffy. (notice the theme yet?)
(.1)
Faith: Mainly to Angel, but other's are known. (.5)
Angel: All the frelling time. (1)
#6. I am ready to lose the defects of character that lead me
to commit those wrongs.
Spike: Yes, he is...or he was untl Buffy told him too
enhance them (1)
Faith: That's why she turned herself in. (1)
Angel: It's why he left Buffy. (1)
#7. I would be willing to lose the powers that allowed me to
hurt others in the past.
Spike: Not shown, as far as I can tell. (0)
Faith: Likely (.5)
Angel: More-or-less. Considering he uses his Vampire powers
for good (IWRY)(.5)
#8. I admit that I need to make amends to everyone I have
hurt, directly or indirectly.
Spike: Again, Only Buffy. (.1)
Faith: The theme of 5x5 and Sanctuary (.8)
Angel: All the frelling time. (1)
#9. I have tried to make direct amends to those I've hurt,
directly or indirectly, whenever possible.
Spike: Only Buffy. (.1)
Faith: If only she knew what to do...but I suspect we will
see this more when we next see her. (.1)
Angel: Yep. (1)
#10. I can realize and promptly admit when I am wrong.
Spike: Yes. (1)
Faith: Yes (1)
Angel: Yes...most of the time (.9)
#11. I consciously seek to understand how I can improve
myself, and keep from doing wrong again.
Spike: Yes. (1)
Faith: Yes. (1)
Angel: Yes. (1)
#12. I make an effort to help others escape the darkness
I've managed to pull myself out of...even if that person has
caused me pain directly or indirectly.
Spike: Not yet (0)
Faith: Not yet (0)
Angel: Faith. (1)
Final Score:
Spike: 5.6
Faith: 8.9
Angel: 11.4
Looks like no one is quite there yet. Spike's gotta get his
world view out of Buffy-centric mode.
notice how his life always revolved around women? His
mother, Dru, Buffy (in between Dru and Buffy he was sullen
and/or Suicidal...that chip didn't help...)
Spike's moral stance hasn't improved with the combination of
Buffy's influence and Soul. early this season he would have
scored a little higher...now...
[>
Re: Twelve Steps To Redemption: Spike (General Series
Spoilers; no spec.) -- Dannyblue, 13:29:37 04/01/03
Tue
#3. I accept that there are things I cannot change or
completely make amends for. I have committed acts for which
I may never--and shouldn't expect to--be forgiven.
Yep.
I don't think he's accepted anything. He truly felt bad for
what he did. But I think that, instead of dealing with it,
he's cut himself off from the pain, and the heinousness of
those acts. He's almost in denial about them. At least,
that's what I got from LMPTM.
#4. I have made a fearless moral inventory of my past
deeds, and have not tried to make excuses for them.
Yep.
Spike has made an excuse for his past misdeeds. As he said
to Wood re: Nikki's death, "I'm a vampire. She was a
Slayer." To him, end of story. Nothing about the fact that a
young woman died, or the pain her loved ones, her child,
felt at her loss.
Is that the way he looks at all those he killed? "I was a
vampire without a soul when I did that, so..."
#7. I would be willing to lose the powers that allowed me
to hurt others in the past.
Yep (again, more so than Angel). Until Buffy convinced him
she still needed them.
Angel would to keep Angelus from returning. Spike would to
keep from hurting Buffy, and maybe the others now. However,
I actually think Spike doesn't hate his vampire nature the
way Angel does. Becomming a vampire made him feel strong and
vital in a way he didn't when he was still mortal. Giving
that up would be harder for him.
#8. I admit that I need to make amends to everyone I have
hurt, directly or indirectly.
I think Spike's problem here is working out how to. I mean,
given the magnitude of what he did to people over the years,
how can he even bring himself back into the survivors' lives
without causing them more pain?
But it's not about whether someone you hurt would accept an
apology, whether it would make up for anything, but that you
understand you owe them one. Angel didn't believe
apologizing to Holtz could make up for the man's loss, but
he felt he had to do it because it's the least he owed the
man.
#9. I have tried to make direct amends to those I've
hurt, directly or indirectly, whenever possible.
I'm on the fence here. Again the question, beyond expressing
contrition, how is he supposed to?
From what we've seen, Spike has only met one living, non-
evil victim of his acts. And apologizing was the last thing
on his mind. I don't know if ME meant to make a point of
this, but by having Spike say he was sorry, then explain
that he wasn't apologizing to Wood, they certainly did make
his seeming lack of remorse stand out.
#11. I consciously seek to understand how I can improve
myself, and keep from doing wrong again.
Yep.
This one is tricky. Like I said, I think examining past acts
is hard for him. So, he deals with it by cutting himself off
from that pain, writing his past misdeeds off as the acts of
the soulless vampire he no longer is. And, instead of
finding the strength within himself to be a better man, he
almost seems to be taking Buffy's word for it that he can.
She has faith in him. She believes in him. She knows he can
be good. Therefore, he'll try to be all of those things for
her.
[>
Re: Twelve Steps To Redemption: Spike (General Series
Spoilers; no spec.) -- Sophist, 13:42:21 04/01/03
Tue
Of course, those of us who believe that the vampire and the
souled vampire are separate and distinct moral entities also
believe there is no need to redeem acts performed as a
vampire.
[> [>
Re: Twelve Steps To Redemption: Spike (General Series
Spoilers; no spec.) -- Dannyblue, 13:54:28 04/01/03
Tue
But isn't this like a person who does something they
normally wouldn't under the influence of alcohol or
drugs.
There are people who, when sober, can be as sweet and kind
as William's mortal mother. But, when drunk or high, they
can be as vicious and cruel as Vamp!Anne. Some might say
they had no control over those acts. Yet they feel
responsible for the things they did under the
influence...even when they don't remember them. (Something
Spike can't claim.)
[> [> [>
The soul canon -- Sophist, 14:19:07 04/01/03
Tue
We've debated this endlessly here, but very briefly my view
is that the presence or absence of the soul defines 2
separate and distinct moral entities. I believe that was
what we were told throughout S1-2, and I'm stickin' with it.
On this Board, I'd guess mine is a minority view.
Psychologically, I'm not surprised that Angel and Spike
feel responsible. After all, they have the memories
and emotions that accompanied the crimes they committed. We,
as outsiders, can still reach a different conclusion.
[> [> [> [>
agree and -- lakrids, 15:10:59 04/01/03 Tue
I donÌt know if I am part of a minority. But I agree with
that a person with a soul is different entity than one
whiteout. But the problem is that there is some baseline
behaviours and memories, for the personality that goes again
in both vampire and in the pre vampire person (human). And
that makes it hard for people or even the vampire, to
separate a vampire, with and without soul, from each
other.
I donÌt feel that a souled vampire is any way responsible
for itÌs before it got a soul. But it has to at least the
minimum of empathy, with the non souled vampire former
victims. To try to understand that the victims, can have a
very hard time, to separate those two different entities
emotionally. Angel understood that he could never build
anything resembling a warm relationship with Giles and
Holtz, he knew that he at most, could work for, that they
didnÌt want him dead, when they saw him. Because of the
deeds of angelus.
But I think it also goes the other way, if the vampire or
human loses his/her soul, does it mean that the vampire
former friends. DoesnÌt owe it anything morally, than to
destroy before it tarnishes the memory, of the persons that
there were before.
The problem with Spike is that I canÌt see, that great
difference between on non soulded Spike and souled Spike.
Not counting in his insane periode.
What good does it make, if Spike got the girl and a soul. If
it didnÌt made him grow as a person?.
S.A.M.E
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: agree and -- Sophist, 16:40:24 04/01/03
Tue
But I think it also goes the other way, if the vampire or
human loses his/her soul, does it mean that the vampire
former friends. DoesnÌt owe it anything morally, than to
destroy before it tarnishes the memory, of the persons that
there were before.
I think Buffy struggled with this issue after Innocence. I
don't think she'd have the same hesitation now. Of course,
we all continue to wonder why Willow doesn't just re-soul
them all......
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Now there's a question - -- Darby, 17:03:38
04/01/03 Tue
How did those gypsies write that spell? Does the invoker
just fill in a name, or was it specific to Angelus?
If Joss' Angel comics mini-series is reliable, the
spell was actually written for another vampire.
The new spin-off could be a Sunnyverse Law and Order
- Faith catches them, Willow rehabilitates them.
Are Orbs of Thessala reusable?
[>
Re: Twelve Steps To Redemption: Spike (General Series
Spoilers; no spec.) -- lunasea, 14:21:50 04/01/03
Tue
this is great. I wrote a similar essay about Angel's path
before I came here. Angel is modeled after an recovering
alcoholic, so it makes sense that his path is AA's
bible.
However, does Spike have to be a mini-Angel?
Would the same 12 Steps apply to say Faith? Lindsey?
[>
Spike is still in denial -- lunasea, 14:30:29
04/01/03 Tue
He doesn't think that he is a threat, sans trigger. He tells
Buffy that there is no way he would add to the body count.
That is why the First can control him. An addict takes it
one day at a time. Not Spike's thing.
Spike thinks he is in control. He hasn't even hit step one,
yet. Look how he reacts when he finds out what the trigger
is. Denial-man is his name.
The steps have to be done in order. You can't skip to 12 or
any other number. I have a feeling Spike will take a
different path.
[>
I can't think of anyone in the Buffy/Angelverse...
-- dms, 17:58:15 04/01/03 Tue
who's done evil who consistently follows these 12 steps.
Esp. #10. Being an ME character means never having to say
you're sorry. ;)
Plus, I've always thought the alcoholism/addict metaphor is
Angel's, not Spike's (e.g., Angel vamps out at the
sight/smell of blood; before being triggered Spike had total
control over when he changed from human to vamp face). I'm
not sure a 12-step program of any kind can be applied to
anyone but Angel.
I think in the Jossverse, there isn't only one way for
people to redeem themselves. For example, Faith and Angel
feel they will always need to pay for their past sins.
Others, like Spike and Willow, admit they've been evil, go
through a period of cataloging their sins and then focus on
doing good deeds; they deal with the now. And then there
are some, like Anya, who just seem to move on without ever
contemplating their past actions. This makes sense to me.
I think how a character "redeems" himself/herself really
depends on the individual and the circumstances.
And to be honest, I'm not sure the concept of redemption
should be applied to Spike (or Willow or Anya). The
redemption story is, imo, Angel's (and to a certain degree,
Faith's). Does it have to be applied to Spike just because
he's another souled vampire? I think Spike's story has been
about growing up and becoming his own man, reconciling the
man/monster dichotomy that has bothered him so much since he
was chipped, and developing a true sense of identity, a true
sense of self. If one has to apply concepts of redemption
to Spike, I think they should be tailored to this story, not
one of an evil addict who might fall off the wagon at any
given moment.
[> [>
with my above post in mind -- dms, 18:55:07
04/01/03 Tue
I'm speculating that Spike might become human at the end of
the season. Once he reconciles man/monster and demonstrates
that he can love selflessly (which is what I think his story
is moving towards) he'll no longer be a vampire. IMO, his
"redemption" is tied into embracing his humanity (thus
reconnecting with the good man he used to be) and
controlling his demon (and thus accepting his past).
Angel's redemption, on the other hand, is ongoing. He's a
champion; he can't yet move on from being a souled vampire
and atoning for the evil he's done. Perhaps he'll never be
able to.
I am NOT saying that one deserves to become human more than
the other. What I am saying is that I think this spec. fits
in with what I see as two completely different stories of
moving beyond evil and embracing good.
[> [> [>
I agree -- Indri, 22:07:23 04/01/03 Tue
[>
Re: Twelve Steps To Redemption: Spike (General Series
Spoilers; no spec.) -- Dannyblue, 20:12:17 04/01/03
Tue
I think these steps to redemption apply to anyone. Angel,
Faith, Spike, Willow, Anya, Wesley...
Also, in real 12 step programs, you're allowed to skip steps
you're not ready for and come back later. At least that's
what I've been told. I might be wrong, or it might just be
that particular program. Besides, this being fictional, we
can take liberties.
Anyhow, when you look at it, the 12 steps are as much about
letting go of denial and accepting responsibility for your
actions as anything.
Take Angel. By accepting the things he did as Angelus,
accepting that there's darkness in his soul, and accepting
that redemption isn't about completing some magical number
of tasks (if I save 10,000 people, that's 2 or 3 a day for
the next 10 years, I will be redeemed) but a continuing
journey, he actually was able to grow out of the need to
brood 24/7. He accepts that, while he can never make up for
Angelus's acts, he can try. That's all he can do.
Accepting responsibility doesn't mean beating yourself up
over every bad thing you've ever done every minute of every
day. By accepting, you move on. It's people who live in
denial, who bottle it up and try to ignore it, who don't
really move on.
Also, whether you think Spike with a soul is responsible for
the acts he committed without one is almost besides the
point. As human beings, we are able to feel compassion for
the pain of others. We don't have to have caused it,
directly or indirectly, to feel sympathetic. We don't have
to have been there when tragedy struck.
I can understand Spike, without a soul, not getting this.
But for him to show no compassion for the fact that he's
standing there wearing the coat of a man whose mother's neck
was snapped by his very hands? Then again, I'm willing to
concede that almost being killed didn't really put him in
the mood to show compassion for Wood's loss.
[> [>
Different, not better (Spoilers through BtVS LMTPM and
AtS Players -- dms, 21:19:06 04/01/03 Tue
Let me start by saying that I love both Angel and Spike, and
I really appreciate the way ME is contrasting its two souled
vamps. I firmly believe in Shadowkat's "Angel doesn't negate
Spike, and Spike doesn't negate Angel" argument. Joss
promised at the beginning of the year that Spike wouldn't be
Angel 2.0, and so far he hasn't been. I couldn't be happier
about that.
[quote]Take Angel. By accepting the things he did as
Angelus, accepting that there's darkness in his soul, and
accepting that redemption isn't about completing some
magical number of tasks (if I save 10,000 people, that's 2
or 3 a day for the next 10 years, I will be redeemed) but a
continuing journey, he actually was able to grow out of the
need to brood 24/7. He accepts that, while he can never make
up for Angelus's acts, he can try. That's all he can
do.[/quote]
I don't think Angel has totally accepted the things he's
done because he continues to blame his misdeeds on Angelus;
he continues to deny that Angel and Angelus are the same.
It's even gone so far that he's referring to Angelus in the
third person. In addition, I disagree that he's completely
selfless in his quest for redemption. IMO, in the back of
his mind he's thinking about the shanshu prophecy. And, I
also think that he enjoys being a "champion". Atoning and
brooding, which I think he continues to do, are part of his
personality. No matter how much he complains about having to
suffer, deep down he likes being the focus of TPTB; it gives
him purpose. Not to mention that it has helped him to build
a family and connect with humanity.
[quote]Also, whether you think Spike with a soul is
responsible for the acts he committed without one is almost
besides the point. As human beings, we are able to feel
compassion for the pain of others. We don't have to have
caused it, directly or indirectly, to feel sympathetic. We
don't have to have been there when tragedy
struck.[/quote]
I actually think that Spike is totally responsible for what
he did as an unsouled vampire. I do not see unsouled and
souled Spike as two completely different entities. And, imo,
neither does Spike. However, acknowledging that you've done
terrible things does not necessarily mean that you will feel
compassion, guilt or sympathy for *all* of your victims.
Spike showed guilt, etc. for his triggered actions and many
of his unsouled actions (as seen in BY, Sleeper, NLM).
However, he has limits, and Wood pushed them. Spike took
responsibility for Nikki's death; he told Buffy that he
didn't kill Wood because "I killed his mother". At the same
time, he didn't say her death made him feel guilty, nor did
he show compassion for Wood. Does that make him a deeply
flawed, complicated man who is developing his own code of
honour. IMO, yes. Does that mean he is not on the path of
"redemption". IMO, no.
The way I see it, Angel always feels guilt and compassion
for his victims, but does not consistently take
responsibility for their deaths. Instead, he often blames
his evil deeds on his 'alter ego', Angelus. On the other
hand, Spike does not consistently (or publicly) feel guilt
and display compassion, but he will probably always take
responsibility for his actions. Hence, Spike says "I've
killed lots of people's mothers" and "I used to kill people
when they annoyed me, now I don't do that" (not an exact
quote, but he did say something to the same effect in GiD),
while not showing anyone, except Buffy, that he feels
remorse. Compare this with Angel who said in the latest AtS
episode "I don't feel bad for what I've done, because it
wasn't me, it was Angelus," while at the same time he showed
Wesley compassion for Liliah's death (and snacking on her).
Again, I think these are two different, but perfectly valid,
ways for the two of them to redeem themselves.
[> [> [>
Agree...here's some food for thought on the soul --
s'kat, 23:36:22 04/01/03 Tue
It's late and I should go to bed but I felt like doing a
little research for you. I think you are dead on and I say
that because what you state jives with some posts Rufus has
made recently on Gaea and something WtP said last year.
First off: Haven't seen you before? Are you new to the
board? If so, welcome.
Discussing redeemption and Spike and Angel and souls in the
same post is I think dangerous. You are going to push
someone's buttons. (Not you specifically, I think you
actually did a good job of avoiding it.) Because people have
such strong feelings about this, they tend to read souls and
redemption in the Christian context as opposed to the
fantasy context and that is a huge mistake. I think the
problem can be summed up pretty easily - we have been
misreading the whole soul thing and the show and what
redemption means to these writers. I actually think you've
come closest to it -- because what you state jives with
Rufus' post on shipping on the trollop board - for a
nonspoilery link go to the archives under my authority
thread - she posted it there. Also Rufus' post on Gaea.
The writers tell us what the soul and the whole redemption
thing is about. We just aren't paying attention. They tell
us in Shanshu in La. In Restless. In Orpheus. In Beneath
You. In LMPTM. In Lessons. But we are distracted.
We aren't listening. We keep insisting on projecting our own
worldview, our own morality, our own belief system onto the
story. And therein lies our mistake.
GILES: (still looking at TV) Oh, I'm beginning to
understand this now. It's
all about the journey, isn't it? (RESTLESS)
Not about the end guys Ò but the path we are on and the
steps we take along it. The story has never been about
rewards or trophies. You don't get an end prize or reward in
Whedonverse - the rewards are what come along the way.
GILES: Well, it appears she's never heard the fable about
patience.
(Buffy pulls them through crowds of people. Carnival booths,
colorful lights.
OLIVIA: Which one is that?
GILES: The, the one about the fox, and the, uh, less patient
fox. (More Restless, aired at the same time as Shanshu
in LA)
Being on the path requires patience and endurance. Question
is who are the foxes? Faith and Buffy? Spike and Angel?
Spike and buffy? All the characters?
Surprise
Angel :It-it's a legend... (Giles looks at the box) way
before my
time... of a demon brought forth to rid the Earth of the
plague of
humanity... separate the righteous from the wicked...
and to burn the
righteous down. They call him the Judge.
The Judge steps out of his box. He has difficulty keeping
his balance.
He points at Drusilla and Spike.
Judge: You!
Spike: (rolls over to him in Dru's defense) Ho, ho, ho.
What's that,
mate?
Judge: You two stink of humanity. You share
affection and jealousy.
According Angel the Judge kills anything that has a spark of
humanity in it. ItÌs the agent against Gaea, against life.
It kills the righteous. So anything with a seed in them is
burnt. Spike and Dru obviously have a seed of it in
them.
Judge: This one... cannot be burnt. He is clean.
(removes his hand)
Spike: Clean? You mean, he's...
Judge: There's no humanity in him. (turns and
goes)
Angelus: (faces Spike) I couldn't have said it better
myself.
Angelus has no spark or crack of humanity in him.
Soulless, he is without the spark. Disconnected.
What does being human mean to ME? What makes us human? Our
good deeds? DonÌt make me laugh. What makes us part of life?
Saving people? Please.
Becoming part II
Spike: We like to talk big. (indicates himself) Vampires
do. 'I'm going
to destroy the world.' (looks at the officer) That's just
tough guy
talk. (steps over to the car) Strutting around with your
friends over a
pint of blood. (sits on the hood) The truth is, I like
this world.
(pulls the cigarette pack from the officer's shirt pocket)
You've got...
dog racing, Manchester United. (pulls one out and
drops the pack on the
officer) And you've got people. (exhales) Billions of
people walking
around like Happy Meals with legs. It's all right here.
(lights the
cigarette and takes a drag) But then someone comes along
with a vision.
With a real... (exhales) passion for destruction. (takes
another drag
and looks at Buffy) Angel could pull it off. Goodbye,
Picadilly.
Farewell, Leicester Bloody Square. You know what I'm
saying?
Shanshue in LA
Wesley: "Angel's cut off. Death doesn't bother him
because - there is nothing in life he wants! It's
our desires that make us human."
Cordy eating her doughnut: "Angel is kind of human. - He's
got a soul."
Cordy goes for another doughnut.
Wesley: "He's got a soul - but he's not a part of the
world. (Gets up) He-he can never be part of the
world."
Cordy: "Because he doesn't want stuff? - That's ridiculous.
(Wesley takes her doughnut away from her) Hey! I
want that!"
Wesley: "What connects us to life?"
Cordy: "Right now? I'm going with doughnuts."
Wesley: "What connects us to life is the simple truth
that we are part of it. - We live, we grow, we change. -
But Angel..."
Brief pause here, think about this impartially for a
moment.
Has Angel really changed much over the past few seasons?
How about Spike? How have they changed? Not how have they
been good. How have they grown and changed? Do they look and
act the same in each season? I think they both have changed.
But what is important here is how.
Cordy: "Can't do any of those things. - Well, what are
you saying, Wesley? - That Angel has nothing to look forward
to? That he's going to go on forever, the same, in the
world, but always cut off from it?"
Wesley: "Yes."
Cordy: "Well, that sucks! We've got to do something.
We've got to help him."
Wesley: "I'm not sure we can."
Cordy: "What is your deal? You go around boring everyone
with your musty scrolls and then you say there is nothing we
can do?"
Wesley: "He is what he is."
Cordy: "He's Angel. He's good. And he helps the helpless
and now - he's one of them. - Well, he's gonna have to
start wanting things from life, whether he wants to or not!"
Angel comes up the elevator and Cordy and Wesley go into his
office to greet him.
Angel: "Morning."
Cordy: "Morning. - Want some coffee?"
Angel: "No, thanks."
Cordy: "How about a doughnut? Chocolate..."
Angel looking through a book: "No."
Cordy: "Creamy fillings?"
Angel laughs a little as he looks at her: "No. I don't
want anything.
The only time Angel is shown wanting these types of things
is when he is turned human in IWARY. No other time. Yes he
wants his son to be with him and he wants to be redeemed and
he wants love. But it's not the same. He wants to be in
sunlight. But not the same. Think about his dream in
Awakenings. He wants to be the hero. Everything Angel wants
he can have as a vampire, except sunlight - which wasn't
really part of his happy dream. It's about what connects
us.
It's hard to see...if you look at it from a right vs. wrong
or selfish vs. nonselfish perspective. That's not it.
Now compare this scene to the following from Btvs. I could
grab more but I got tired. The on-going joke on Btvs
regarding Spike has been how he likes to eat, drink, play
poker, and do all these human like activities. Spike wants
coffee. He steals XanderÌs money to buy a beer. He not only
likes these things, heÌs picky about them. In Hush, we even
catch him eating carrots and peanut butter at Giles
apartment. In Where the Wild Things Are Ò heÌs grooving to
the frat party, sipping beer. He canÌt eat a soul. Just
likes the interaction.
Hush
Spike: "No.We're out of Weetabix."
Giles: "We are out of Weetabix because you ate it all -
again."
Spike: "Get some more."
Giles: "I thought vampires were supposed to eat blood."
Spike: "Yep. Well sometimes I like to
crumble up the Weetabix in the blood -
give it a little texture."
Pangs
Buffy : About half a stick and a quarter cup of brandy. (To
Giles.) You do have brandy, don't you?
Giles : What? Oh, yes. Um, on the bookcase.
Spike : I wouldn't say no to a brandy.
Fool For Love
SPIKE
You know, there quite a few American beers that are highly
underrated. This unfortunately is not one of them.
SPIKE
What did you want, eh? A quick demo? A blow-for-blow
description you can map out and memorize? It's not about the
moves, love. And since I agreed to your little proposition,
we can do this my way. Wings.
BUFFY
What?
SPIKE
Spicy buffalo wings. Order me up a plate. I'm feelin'
peckish.
Up until now, I thought they were just being inconsistent
makeing Spike have human wants and Angel apparently having
none. Angel seems more vampirish with his blood cravings and
super-strength and photographic memory and superhearing and
senses. Spike seems just super-human. Why? I thought it was
bad writing. Now I'm wondering if I just missed something
that was there all along.
Spike is the most human vampire weÌve ever seen. He wants to
be part of the world. He wants to be connected.
Look at his speech in Beneath You and ask yourself why he
wanted that soul again. Was it just because of Buffy?
ÏI went to get the spark. So I would fit.Ó He tells her itÌs
because of her, but I wonder if thatÌs completely true. I
think he wanted to fit.
Compare this to WillowÌs statement to Giles in Lessons about
it all being connected to Gaea, the earth. How itÌs all
rooted and the energy flows through all of us.
In Orpheus Ò Angel is avoiding human connection in the past,
he feels disconnected as does Faith. Willow provides the
reconnect for both of them Ò giving Angel back his soul and
the hug, bringing Faith back to Sunnydale. Both needed a pep
talk though, Faith had resigned herself to death and Angelus
did not want the soul.
The soul is not about ÏconscienceÓ, itÌs about being
connected to life, to humanity. SpikeÌs journey has been
from vampire with a ghost of humanity, to vampire who tries
to get re-connected to humanity. ItÌs the journey of the
adolescent who feels isolated and disconnected to the man
who is reconnecting with the world. Look back through the
episodes. I think youÌll see itÌs about growing up.
Just my two cents. Take it or leave it.
Again good posts dms.
SK
[> [> [> [>
Oh spoilers through Orpheus Ats and Beneath You
Btvs -- s'kat, 23:39:32 04/01/03 Tue
And all quotes from Psyche Transcripts.
Breaking News! ... Buffy Series Cancelled ... --
LittleChicken, 13:26:16 04/01/03 Tue
Pentagon concerned Iraq plans will be compromised if Buffy
FE war plan televised.
[>
Re: Breaking News! ... Buffy Series Cancelled ... -
- leslie,
14:32:04 04/01/03 Tue
I didn't realize Geraldo Rivera was guest starring--a
completely Un-Known Casting Spoiler?
[>
Re: Breaking News! ... Buffy Series Cancelled ... -
- pr10n, 15:20:21 04/01/03 Tue
This just in: Final Buffy episodes may appear on BBC2.
[> [>
UPN fires Joss Whedon for intimating some Iraqis may
have souls. -- Rochefort, 15:55:25 04/01/03 Tue
[>
You aren't seriously suggesting... -- LittleBit,
17:43:47 04/01/03 Tue
...that there's a strategy based on Biological Warfare and
the "Buffy Paradigm"!?!?
[>
Update...Giles to be new "talking head" on
CNN -- cougar, 18:48:42 04/01/03 Tue
[> [>
Rumsfeld recruits Buffy to give troops those
"inspiring" speeches of hers to "boost
morale"! -- Rob, 20:17:09 04/01/03 Tue
S5: Buffy vs. Dracula question -- DL, 14:38:40
04/01/03 Tue
Hey all! I just caught Buffy vs. Dracula in syndication the
other day, and I was wondering if anyone could fill me in on
Dracula lore that they might have.
Especially the bug eating. I got a little confused about
the bug eating.
[>
Re: S5: Buffy vs. Dracula question -- gds,
15:24:13 04/01/03 Tue
See http://www.geocities.com/chefdrac/renfield.htm for an
entertaining explanation
[> [>
Awesome! Thank you! -- DL, 15:34:40 04/01/03
Tue
[> [>
The website is based on a film not the novel --
Indri, 16:54:26 04/01/03 Tue
The website appears to be describing the plot of the 1931
Lugosi version of Dracula rather than Bram Stoker's
novel. IIRC, two characters in the novel, Jonathan Harker
and Renfield, are combined in the film in order to simplify
the story a bit.
There's a chapter-by-chapter review of the novel here,
http://www.bookrags.com/notes/dra/index.htm
I'm afraid I've been unable to find a more concise
description of the novel that gives a proper account of
Renfield. But I suppose, for your purposes, that's
unimportant---any character named Renfield in either film or
book is as daft as a bug and eats them too. And the movie
may be a more direct source of Xander's behaviour than the
book anyway.
Although, you know, I do recommend reading the original. I
think it's still a great read. Reading it for the first time
on a Halloween during my teens it still managed to scare
me.
[> [> [>
Twas longing for blood, but relegated to "less
exalted" prey than after he would be gifted.*S* --
Briar, 20:37:27 04/01/03 Tue
Demons or Daemons? -- Corwin of Amber, 19:02:16
04/01/03 Tue
Daemon
Demon \De"mon\, n. [F. d['e]mon, L. daemon a spirit, an evil
spirit, fr. Gr. ? a divinity; of uncertain origin.] 1. (Gr.
Antiq.) A spirit, or immaterial being, holding a middle
place between men and deities in pagan mythology.
The demon kind is of an intermediate nature between the
divine and the human. --Sydenham.
2. One's genius; a tutelary spirit or internal voice; as,
the demon of Socrates. [Often written d[ae]mon.]
3. An evil spirit; a devil.
Several things have bugged me about the depiction of
"demons" in the Buffyverse. Not all "demons" are creatures
of unmitigated evil Several - Lorne, Clem, Doyle, Whistler
- are outright good guys and others like Boone or Skip are
ambiguous in the good vs evil dichotomy.
In addition, it's bothered me that theres been no depictions
of angels - yes, I know how problematic a depiction of
angels would be for a program like this, but it still
bothered me that they hadn't depicted the polar opposite of
"demons" in any fashion.
The thing is, I was looking at the term "Demon" through a
Judeo-Christian lens, and what I was seeing wasn't matching
the definition. But other cultures have other definitions
of demons, and those seem to fit better. The Greek
definition, excerpted above, seems to fit more closely what
we see on the screen. Demons in the buffyverse aren't evil,
they're just closer to the more metaphysical or primal
aspects of reality than we are. As we've seen with Willow,
having such power brings the temptation to use it -
sometimes inapropriately - it's just easier for someone with
those powers to fall into darkness. So demons aren't
necessarily evil by nature...it's just easier for them to go
that way.
So I think 'demons" in the Buffyverse would better be
referred to as 'daemons', thereby removing the Judeo-
Christian prejudice attached to the term 'demon'.
This obnoxious drivel was spawn by someone with very
little sleep who'd had a few beers. Be gentle.
[>
That's why I prefer daemon. But since I have Dyslexic
Typin' Syndrome it always comes out deamons.*L -- Briar
Rose, 20:32:27 04/01/03 Tue
My bizarre theory about AtS (spoiler up to Players)
-- lunasea, 20:16:45 04/01/03 Tue
Shanshu: Angel does whatever he is supposed to and whammo,
he gets to be human. At this point, I think he wouldn't be
upset, just confused about what his purpose is.
But what is Angel supposed to do? What is Angel being
groomed for?
What if his big destiny is to kill Cordy's baby and maybe
Cordy and Connor? THe only reason he has to do this is the
PTB plucked him out of the gutter and set him on his path.
Without that, Connor never would have been made. Without
that, Cordy wouldn't be involved with mystical crap. She'd
be beloved actress Cordelia Chase. There would be no baby to
worry about.
The irony is just too delicious. Either the PTB don't have a
clue (which I can see an atheist saying) or we are here for
their amusement.
Also real quick, what if Cordy was "split" when she
ascended? What we have is something similar to "The
Replacement"? She isn't possessed or not herself. She is
like Angelus.
[>
Re: My bizarre theory about AtS (spoiler up to
Players) -- yabyumpan, 21:23:03 04/01/03 Tue
Without that, Cordy wouldn't be involved with mystical
crap. She'd be beloved actress Cordelia Chase.
Actually, I think she would have been a snack for Russell
Winters, unless the PTB are also responsable for her Father
not paying taxes for like, ever.
[>
Re: My bizarre theory about AtS (spoiler up to
Players) -- Angel, 02:17:39 04/02/03 Wed
Since I'm here, my two cents:
You're really toying with that age-old question of fate vs.
free will, here. Stumped philosophers for millennia. Was
everything that's happened so far set in motion like a Rube
Goldberg machine, or were there other factors at play? From
the beginning, the PtB were responsible for bringing Angel
to help Buffy, in the battle. Even before the
grandest Apocalyptic tidings were unleashed. (In Becoming 2,
even Whistler was confused about how things got so screwed
up so fast; apparently, the PtB -- or those in their employ
-- don't always have season tickets, either.)
But the choice to leave for LA was his, not hers or
theirs -- thus setting in motion everything that followed.
And that came from good old human weakness; the passion to
be with the girl that he loved. So technically, you could
say that everything that followed was rooted in lust? Ergh,
I'm not sure that sits too well with my "higher purpose"
theory. Anyway, rambling aside, they've been less than
forthcoming about which aspects of things are "written", and
which are just the way the dice have fallen. I mean, you've
had prophecy changed, time travel, ancient vengeance,
misconstrued battles, hallucinations.... maybe it's just me,
but I can't quite get my head around the thought that all of
those details are ALL just part of some higher plan.
Who's to say Cordelia wasn't destined for something higher
from the beginning? (I know, it's hard to believe.) Who's to
say.... my own personal theory echoes the one I hold true in
most cases: it's fate, all right, but the outcome of fate
depends on free will. The sex that made Connor might
have been preordained or not, but the utter despair and the
"Anti-epiphany" that both preceded and caused said encounter
probably was not.
Then again, who better than the PtB to practice the
mystical equivalent of reverse psychology -- I mean, when
aren't the times of "I quit the mission, it's hopeless"
without fail the times when one of them is then
thrust into a situation that forces them to not only NOT
give up, but become that much more deeply devoted to it?
Random thought. If we hadn't known that the prophecy which
led to Connor's being taken by Holtz was in fact fake,
I'd've harbored the fleeting thought that "The father will
kill the son".... might have referred to Connor,
instead.
Anyway. There are some people who are offering the theory
that it's Spike, not Angel, in place of the
shanshu prophecy now. (I don't believe that for a
second, personally.) You're right about the irony -- but
there are so many convoluted paths that have led to the
place where they are.... it's almost impossible to tell.
My personal theory: Angel isn't going to make it all the
way through the biggest battle. Or at least through the
aftermath. Human or not, redeemed or not, there isn't going
to be any "happy life", i.e., IWRY, in accordance with that
prophecy. I'm getting the feeling that he's supposed to do
something specific, all right; much like Buffy is
the leader and "general" to the SiTs, I believe that forces
will gather around Angel. But I think that when all
is said and done, before the big, irreversible end is
thwarted(if it is), his (human?)destiny will wind up as his
own death.
Perhaps that sacrifice is what he's "being groomed
for". Maybe it's something like Dawn, only less dramatic.
The good of the many outweighs the.... and the such. -shrug-
My 5:15 a.m. theories.
Long, tasteless, and completely off-base (Spoilers
TKIM, GID, Hush) -- Calamus, 21:08:10 04/01/03
Tue
Buffy:TVS Conspiracy Theories: Noxon, Willowgate, Kennedy,
and Character Assassination
IÌm bored. I think showing repeats AGAIN is part of MEÌs
conspiracy to bore me to tears.
I want to return to The Killer in Me. As one of the few
people in this universe and all its parallel dimensions that
really likes Kennedy, Iyari Limon, and Willeeneedy, er,
Willenedy, I feel a need to try and do this episode more
justice than it has so far garnered.
The Smashing PumpkinsÌ appropriately-named "Disarm" gives
us the title: ÏDisarm you with a smile, And leave you like
they left me here, To wither in denial, The bitterness of
one who's left alone, Ooh, the years burn, Ooh, the years
burn, burn, burn. ÷ The killer in me is the killer in you,
My love, I send this smile over to you.Ó The overall themes
here seem to apply, especially my personal favorite: Denial.
Good for all that ails you. Another round on me.
Perhaps the denial frosting over the sleeping princess is
not just about letting go of Tara. ThereÌs a lot going on
here. Something I havenÌt seen discussed in much detail
beyond the mere reference is the link of TKIM to ÏHush.Ó
Aside from more Xander-Spike subtext (my fave line: Xander:
"He's not roaming around. He stays with me, he's gonna get
tied up again."), Hush also has that whole complicated
denial-lack of communication-"LetÌs get it on" thing going
on.
Mere coincidence that Willow immediately heads back to the
coven she abandoned after Hush? Is it simply because her
subconscious knows that Tara is the key? Or is it also
because she got lucky the last time she hung with the
wannablessedbes and sucked in their light and love? Maybe
her subconscious had better things to do than solve all her
emotional problems, like get laid!
All those who fault Kennedy for having her thumb on the
pulse, her eyes on the prize, and the money on her mind are
forgetting the lesson Buffy unmistakably taught the SITs in
ÏPotentialÓ- being a Slayer is all about boffing the Big
Bads.
But I digress. Other episodes got mentioned in connection
with GIDÌs prophetic dream, but ÏHushÓ also has one that
resonates with both GID and TKIM. In the lead-in to the
dream, Professor Walsh says itÌs all about communication,
"÷It's about the thoughts and experiences that we don't have
a word for.Ó She orders Riley to help Buffy ÎseeÌ her point.
Riley says something like, "Don't worry. If I kiss you
it'll make the sun go down." They kiss ÷ and it gets
darker. His words literally come true, and then Buffy gets
the inside skinny on the Gentlemen. And Willow is the true
prophet here, "And the last twenty minutes was a revelation,
just laid out everything we need to know for the final. I'd
hate to have missed that." Think itÌll have any relevance
to the real finale?
But of course, ÏHushÓ seems most important for the Îcampus
WiccansÓ scene, because itÌs where Andrew got the idea for
his funnel cake in GID. (ÏYou know I do an empowering lemon
bundt.") And one member of the group is very perceptive
about WillowÌs effect on people in s. 7: "One person's
energy can suck the power from an entire circle. No
offense." And another really gets what truly matters in
life when apocalypse is on its way: "Ok, let's talk about
the theme for the bacchanal." As does Buffy: "I'm sorry it
was a bust. I know you were looking to go farther in that
department." (See, connect the dots. All Willow was
interested in was TaraÌs booty. ThatÌs why she succumbs so
easily to KennedyÌs alleged lack of charms. She gets it.)
Done.
Next, Willow takes a stand on a very tired lesbian-feminist
community debate: "I'd just like to float something bigger
than a pencil someday÷Ó (Explain why would she fall for a
very aggressive lesbian who has demonstrated proficiency
with expensive phallic toys like, um, hello, crossbows?)
ThereÌs another very important link of ÏHushÓ to ÏTKIMÓ with
the whole fairy tale angle. In Hush, Giles goes to grab a
book titled "Fairy Tales" in order to figure out whatÌs
going on. In TKIM, Kennedy figures out that itÌs just like
the fairy tales; i.e., the girl gets knocked around a lot,
told to shut up and go away, having to prove her loyalty,
patience, and endurance, while the guy gets to swap bodies
with the witch and be the center of attention; itÌs
supercreepy; and, if in doubt, kiss the girl. (Heck.
Worked for Xena 1001 times.)
One last connection between ÏHushÓ and ÏGIDÓ is parallel
imagery- smashing the magic box is the key & heads exploding
is gratuitous grand guignol. The parallel to ÏTKIMÓ is the
kissing- itÌs not gratuitous when Buffy does it, even to a
guy who half of fandom thinks is totally annoying and lacks
any chemistry with Buffy, so÷ why canÌt a lesbian get some
face time even if itÌs just with some random girl and just
for the heck of it? Is Kennedy really worse than Riley?
Shadowkat (sorry) said, so very perceptively, in February
2003,Ï÷In Killer In Me, S7, when Willow recreates Warren's
act with Kennedy - it is Warren's violence against Buffy
that she recreates not the stray bullet through the window.
It is the violence of Warren's anger at Buffy and through
Warren her own at both Buffy and herself for letting it
happen, for causing Tara's death.Ó However, this quote is
so perceptive, it leads us to miss the forest for the
trees!!!
People! Think about it. (The) Warren (Commission) reenacts
the shooting of B:TVSÌs great symbol of liberalism,
compassion, and hot illicit booty (who was also hated by
some for these traits, and all that she represented) on the
grassy knoll in the SummersÌ backyard!! TKIM reveals the
TRUE MEANING of KennedyÌs name!!! ItÌs totally an homage to
Oliver StoneÌs ÏJFK,Ó a simultaneous sly kick in the rubber
parts to the ÏLone Lesbian TheoryÓ (evil twin of the "Dead
Lesbian Theory")and an admonition to Buffy and her fans that
the Slayer did not, and should not, act alone!!! Zapruder,
Zap prud-es. ItÌs all connected! It eats you, starting with
your bottom! (Which is also a clever reference to the 1st
chakra, BTW.)
Still in doubt? Further evidence abounds, letÌs take it
step by step.
It begins with an admonition not to believe everything
youÌre told. (WillowÌs ÏIt's just tea.Ó) Takes an abrupt
turn into government conspiracies and coverups. Lingers a
little too long on what the wardrobe people appear to have
interpreted as Ïcool, dressy boots.Ó (You canÌt believe
everything youÌre told in shooting scripts, either.)
Then this key exchange:
Willow- This is a mission?
Kennedy- Oh, yeah.
Willow- And, I guess the little paper umbrellas in the
drinks are, what, a signal for... we're not on a mission,
are we?
Kennedy- Hey, trust me. I told you, I have a thing.
Willow- No, this is a fun thing, I've done this thing!
Kennedy- Well, yeah, in like l954.
See!! A coded reference to Brown vs. the Board of Education,
thus liberalism, thus÷ And the dialogue, like the theory
laid out in ÏJFK,Ó is thought by most people to be simply
unbelievable.
Kennedy continues with a clear subtextual reference to MEÌs
real subject matter, ÏHow long have you known?Ó And a quick
coverup, ÏThat you were gay?Ó Willow quickly reveals that
she is not one of the initiated with her answer, ÏWait,
wait, thatÌs easy? And, hey, you just assume that I'm...
that I'm gay? I mean, presume much?Ó
So ME mocks Willow, and all non-believers, with the next
exchange. Kennedy- ÏHow long have you enjoyed having sex
with women?Ó Willow- ÏHey! What do you think, you have some
kind of, like, special lesbi-dar or something?Ó Kennedy
ÏOkay, you know there's a better word for that, right? ÷You
really haven't been getting out there that much, have you?Ó
And the tipoff- ÏIt's like... it's like flirting in code.Ó
Followed by the obvious reference to HushÌs other subtext (a
Ïfairy taleÓ involving a team of killers, who get away with
murder because they can silence the whole town, until one
brave girl (Buffy/Oliver Stone) manages to scream bloody
murder). ÏIt's using body language and laughing at the
right jokes and.. and looking into her eyes and knowing
she's still whispering to you, even when she's not saying a
word.Ó Seemed like just some awkward, badly written
dialogue before, huh? But it just had to be said.
And Kennedy had to back off here, because we canÌt handle
the truth! ÏOr if she's really hot, you just get
her drunk, see if she comes on to you.Ó That might also be
a reference to Clintongate, I dunno.
Willow still just doesnÌt get it- ÏThree years ago. That's
when I knew. And it wasn't women. It was woman. Just
one.Ó
Kennedy sighs at WillowÌs cluelessness. ÏLucky woman.Ó
(Ignorance is bliss.)
Kennedy later makes another reference to the Lone Gunman
Theory, this time more guarded. ÏI'm not so into the magic
stuff. Seems like fairy tale crap to me. But it matters to
you. You care about it. So it's cool.Ó
And finally gives up, ÏYou know, in the spirit of air
clearing÷,Ó fully giving in to the pretense that she was
just trying to make out. From there on, she lets Willow
complete her own investigation. Some girls always have to
learn the hard way. They canÌt just, you know, see that a
lone *anything* theory stinks.
ME scatters other clues throughout the episode. AmyÌs spell
(Ï...her spirit true, its shell a lie, we draw upon your
very might... Give back the form the soul requires, see
that the balance is put right.Ó)
A clever reference to Kevin CostnerÌs other film, ÏThe
Bodyguard.Ó (Amy- ÏShe's strong, and she's dealt with a lot
worse, long before she ever went out and found herself a big
ol' Potential Slayer bodyguard, okay?Ó)
Giles usual overarching metatextual commentary anticipating
my very post, where I explain it all to you. (ÏI assume
there's a perfectly reasonable and not-at-all insane
explanation coming, yes?Ó)
To which Anya voices the objection you all are ready to hurl
at me. (ÏWe thought you might be non-corporeal evil.Ó)
BuffyÌs retort, ÏHa! Government conspiracy, I knew it!Ó
Remember who knows better than Giles these days÷
And of course, Amy lays out the heart of the ÏJFKÓ theory,
ÏThis isn't about hate. It's about power.Ó
ME, so-o-o-o tacky, even has Willow channel JFK, ÏYou think
you can just do that to me? That I'd let you get away with
it?Ó
Kennedy has a moment of hope- maybe Willow does get it.
ÏDo... get away with what?Ó
And sheÌs right, Willow just needs some prodding:
Willow- ÏYou were there, bitch, you saw it! I killed
her!Ó
Kennedy- ÏYou mean him.Ó
Willow shows that she finally sees through the trickery, and
Kennedy can finally embrace her without hesitation.
Willow- ÏWhat are you doing?Ó
Kennedy- ÏBringing you back to life.Ó
And one reminder not to believe everything youÌre told-
ÏYeah I'll make you some tea.Ó
4/1/2003- made the deadline...
Robin Wood vignette -- HonorH (the mad bard),
23:44:04 04/01/03 Tue
I blame this on you people. You got me thinking. This is
the result:
Le
ather
[>
beautiful. just beautiful -- Vickie, 23:10:47
04/02/03 Wed
Okay. Faith, Angelus, "Orpheus", Soul Vs.
Conscience, and Why Angelus Was Wrong. -- Angel, 01:53:47 04/02/03 Wed
Okay, I can't freaking help it. I'm a masochist.
But my personal preferences aside, the recent run of P---
excuse me, "Angel" episodes stared a train of thought that I
just can't seem to shake. I was a week behind and only saw
"Orpheus" on videotape the week after it was aired, and the
concept I find myself returning to over and over the last
couple days is the parallel that's always drawn between
Faith and Angelus. Everybody's done it -- even Angelus, in
those confrontational scenes, takes great pride in taunting
her with it. They're incredibly alike, right? Killing
without remorse, thriving on the power inherent in the
ability to take a life, hunters.... at first glance it seems
like a pretty solid analogy. But it ISN'T TRUE. That's what
gets me.
Faith isn't like Angelus -- she never was. Sure, she
was a killer. But Faith was always, at least
somewhere deep down, ultimately redeemable. She's
human, after all, and it wasn't that she didn't have a
conscience; she just chose to work above and beyond it. Or
outside of it, however you'd choose to phrase it. To compare
Faith's motivations with Angelus, or at least what separates
them from each other, you'd have to pose the question: Is
someone without a human soul, a literal conscience, even
remotely able to be redeemed? In any way?
Would it have been possible for Angelus, in his pre-ensouled
state, to evince any caring, any remorse, or any gesture
toward making amends, for lack of a better phrase, for what
he's done? That raises an interesting question that could be
explored through all sorts of avenues: including pathology.
(Also, the definition of soul-vs-conscience-vs....)
Faith is and was, however, very much like Angel --
THAT, in my opinion, would be a more accurate, if not
entirely perfect, comparison. Because -- as I've seen
debated here much -- Angelus IS, as he said in "Orpheus",
"Always HERE." The demon's urges don't go away simply
because the vampire's got soul. (And a sudden urge to sing
now overtakes me....) The bloodlust is always there; I think
that, for all its relatively lame sequences, "Orpheus"'
greatest point was trying to demonstrate that thoroughly.
Only ensouled, he cares.
I know this part of this discussion is old hat(and
as cliche as that phrase >.<), but my point is, he and
Faith are exactly alike in that way, and thus share
something that no other two people -- not even Buffy and
Angel, despite the Slayer/Demon similarity -- could ever
share.
Just like the irrepressible presence of the demon within --
in the case of Angelus, quite literally -- Faith's
rememberance of the power inherent in killing will never go
away, never leave her. Neither will her knowledge that she
IS stronger than most humans, and that she IS, one way or
another, a killer. They're both realizing -- or have
realized -- the enormity of responsibility and are trying to
come to terms with making the wrong things right. And how
hard it is.... "The more you live in this world, the more
you see how apart from it you really are."
(Anybody else notice that they made a point in
"Salvage" to demonstrate Faith's lack of extra-
unnecessary violence? She was strictly self-defense
girl. And reluctant, at that, whereas formerly.... she
thrived on it.)
So when Faith said "You're wrong, I've changed. I'm
not like you," She was wrong. She never was. Misguided and
skating toward the edge in a big way, but never a
monster.
(I'd be willing to take bets that Faith and Angel are more
alike, even than say Angel and Spike, at this point; even
without the concept of fighting the good fight. Any
takers?)
Hoping those thoughts are coherent. There are more, but my
brain circuits are locking up and there is a kitten
attacking me. Plus, it's 4:40 and almost bedtime. So I leave
it to you: What do you think?
(And I do have a follow-up question for this, a direct
outgrowth of this specific topic, but it's EXTREMELY
subjective; more like a poll, perhaps. Let me leave it at
that for now.)
[>
Re: Okay. Faith, Angelus, "Orpheus", Soul Vs.
Conscience, and Why Angelus Was Wrong. -- Scroll,
02:18:40 04/02/03 Wed
(Anybody else notice that they made a point in "Salvage"
to demonstrate Faith's lack of extra-unnecessary violence?
She was strictly self-defense girl. And reluctant, at that,
whereas formerly.... she thrived on it.)
I certainly noticed it in "Release" when Faith, who once was
the cut 'em up girl, became extremely uncomfortable and
indignant over Wesley's interrogation techniques.
And I think you're right that Faith is much more like Angel
than she'll ever be like Angelus. I'm of the opinion that a
soul is necessary for redemption -- at least for humans and
vampires (demons are another story, too complicated and ill-
defined). Now without bashing Spike, I'd like to say that I
don't think Spike, without a soul, could have ever truly
reached Angel or Faith's level of understanding and remorse
for the evil they've committed, or their profound decisions
to make amends by doing good and living to do good. Not
everybody agrees with this, I'm sure, but that's how I see
the metaphysics of the Buffyverse.
(I'd be willing to take bets that Faith and Angel are
more alike, even than say Angel and Spike, at this point;
even without the concept of fighting the good fight. Any
takers?)
Agree again. Faith is truly a product of Angel's guidance.
While I think she didn't need Angel's help to "redeem"
herself, he was the one who got her to stop self-destructing
long enough to give her some hope. As Faith herself says,
she's a Slayer being sponsored by a vampire. She takes his
view that you make up for your evil by doing good, but also
that the doing good is something you do for good's sake, not
for your own. I think Faith really understands this. She
doesn't do good because she has to; she does it because she
wants to.
OTOH, Spike isn't about making amends. That's not really the
point of his character, I think. Though to be fair, I have
no idea what his ethics are. For fear of accidentally
bashing him, I'm just going to not try to guess his
ethics.
Very insightful post, Angel. Glad you came back ;)
[> [>
Re: Faith, Angelus, "Orpheus", Soul Vs.
Conscience, and Why Angelus Was Wrong. (More
coherent....) -- Angel, 03:01:58 04/02/03 Wed
It really depends on what your definition of soul-vs-
conscience is. According to Joss, for the most part, they're
either the same thing entirely or rooted in the same place;
so to simplify: no soul, no conscience. No guilt, no
remorse. (Although one would think that this would
necessitate no powerful driving emotion as well, or at least
no overwhelming affection; Spike is an anomaly in many,
many ways. His drunken pining over Drusilla pre-chip
and pre-soul fits into no pre-established conventions.
Frustrating.) It's hard to make a clear picture of a demon-
inhabited body with all other emotions intact -- if warped -
- only lacking a conscience, through limited examples of the
people involved in limited sitations.
Darla, to use a fairly bad example, after she and Angelus
had been trapped in that barn by vampire hunters, was
affectionate and even, what's the word I'm looking for
here.... coquettish? You'd think, from all outside
appearances, that there was really something "between" them.
But in the end, Darla was just as happy to bash him over the
head and leave him to burn, while saving her own ahem, skin,
and taking off on horseback. (One could argue that she had
enough confidence in her childe's survival skills and battle
"prowess" to be reasonably sure that he'd escape intact; it
could also be argued that any distress on her part would
have been nothing more than annoyance at losing her prize
"childe" and hunter; but for now, keeping to the simplest
basics seems appropriate.)
I think that, for the vampires at leat, it's a hell of a lot
more complicated than they make it out to be at first
glance.... and I think, swooping dashingly and directly back
on-topic, that it's that way for Faith as well. In theory,
one has to regret having done evil in order to desire to
make up for that evil, and if you don't care about having
done it in the first place, then why bother with amends?
Faith didn't regret her actions because she never had to;
and I think personally, the reason Faith came so close to
snapping even more completely than she did was because she
had never been one to get in quick immediate touch
with her emotions -- good OR bad. Seems obvious, so I'm not
trying to re-say what they've already exemplified: it seemed
clearer in my head just a second ago....
....she had the wall between her and any "real" feeling, to
keep her sane and keep her alive. Slaying -- and killing,
later -- caught her because neither of them(according to her
philosophy of slaying) called for any strong emotion other
than "this feels good.) Want, take, have. See,
fight, kill. One more dead, you're still alive -- many
people, a lot of them emotionally repressed or even
sociopathic(and quite a few "normal" people) -- find that
they "only" feel "alive" when they're faced with a
challenge.... a danger.... a near-death experience. Faith
was someone who NEVER felt, and then realized she could
"feel" through slaying and killing and obviously,
eventually, got hooked on the feeling. She was dissociating
long before anyone had any reason to suspect or understand
why she was doing so.
If you wanted to, you could even say that she's different
from Angelus yet again in the opposite direction --
Liam was turned only through his own drunken "innocence" and
Darla's desire for him; quite against his will, he became a
monster. Faith started out as someone who was trying to do
the right thing maybe not out of selfless motives, but at
least on the right side -- and wound up making
herself "soulless" -- pushing away all conscience
and remorse to continue to enjoy the feeling of power -- and
avoid the feeling of pain. Now, like Angel, Faith's pain
stops not by hurting but by helping; unlike his alter ego,
she has the power to and did willingly reclaim her
sense of conscience -- her "soul". In my opinion,
Faith is the Anti-Angelus.
"Faith is truly a product of Angel's guidance."
That's a great phrase. I often puzzle about what it was that
made it click, really -- it wasn't just the fact
that the two of them do share that bond that nobody
else could ever break into. (Hence Buffy's "Sanctuary"
jealousy: "I'm sorry I can't be in your club, but I've never
murdered anybody." Ouch.) She had to trust him to let him
in, and I think a big part of it was a first-hand
demonstration of the power of forgiveness. People say you
have to forgive yourself before you can begin to forgive
anybody else; it's a foundation of the 12-step programs. But
personally, I think that's inside-out -- to forgive yourself
you have to learn how -- and by forgiving others you
learn that they -- and yourself -- are human. And
worthy of forgiveness. Faith tried to take his soul,
to kill his ex-girlfriend, to shoot him in the back -- and
he was willing, still, no matter what, to believe
that there was still good in her. Just like there's good in
anybody, if you're willing and patient. I think
nobody, fron her mother on up, had ever given that to Faih
before. And she was incredibly brave; she made the leap; she
trusted him.
And helping to "save" someone, particularly for the side of
good, is a deed in itself; how many people now will live
because Faith, on her own path to redemption, will be there
on that side to save them? How does that affect the
balance?
I hold an unpopular opinion that, in some AU, perhaps, the
two of them might have made a deeply dark, somewhat
disturbing, but immensely compelling force of nature as a
couple. (That was my related question.) There's a level of
trust there that goes beyond the norm.
Btw, I don't think Spike is about making amends, either; I'm
still fairly confused about what Spike's about, altogether.
(I'm not into bashing, but I don't particularly like what
he's become recently.) But he never DID fit the "norm" even
in Joss's universe -- he's kind of a free agent. The blank
card.
Oh, and just a side thought: talking about forgiveness,
Wesley has surprised me, by being an absolutely shining
example of such. Bittersweet irony that it was Wes carrying
Faith back fron her last physical encounter with Angelus;
things are beginning to come full circle, it seems.
I have got to stop here for tonight; it's almost six a.m.
But thanks, Scroll. -smile- Get me talking about Faith and
unorthodox redemption, I'll talk all day. Or until someone
shuts me up....
-- A
Whoo-hoo! Somewhat shallow "Players" review
(spoilers) -- Scroll, 01:59:04 04/02/03 Wed
Finally, finally saw "Players" tonight. Warning: I
wrote this review as an entry in my LJ (just cut-and-pasted
it here) and it's fairly shallow and not analytical at all.
But after waiting a whole extra week to see this episode,
I'm squeeing like a suckling pig and I'm not ashamed :)
* * *
My first reaction? Guh. Gunn was so fine in that
suit! With the kick-ass fight scenes! And the little
Japanese girl telling him off in perfect English how her
daddy was gonna kill him! Hee, she was such a doll. Reminded
me of a friend's little girl who, despite being a little
princess, is just so darn cute you want to give her a big
smooch on the cheek.
Loved that Angel accepted his actions as Angelus, but put it
behind him so he could focus on the situation at hand. IMO,
he only used "Angelus" in the beginning for his friends'
sakes. They needed the emotional distance of being able to
blame Angel's actions on Angelus.
Because I'm such a Wes-lover, I am so very pleased by his
quiet, reflective yet emotional scenes tonight. Angel's
apology for Lilah's death was classy and seemed to mend most
of the rift between Wesley and him. And somebody needs to
give AD an Emmy for Best Supporting Actor. This guy can say
so much, convey so many subtle and conflicting emotions,
just with his eyes alone.
(Doesn't hurt that his eyes are damn gorgeous. He is
the guy who, according to Dawn me, is, quote, the
hottest, deepest, smartest, funniest and having-of-the-
thickest-boy-eyelashes boy in school in the
Whedonverse. Unquote. Lucky Alyson...) ETA: Warned you.
Yes, I'm shallow. Sue me.
Loved the very necessary Wes-Fred conversation. I had the
instinct that ME wasn't going to go ahead with Wes/Fred, and
this conversation proved me right. Wesley really did care
for Lilah, perhaps even loved her. I know she loved him. But
Fred is still rather immature when it comes to the
complexities of real life, and can't seem to understand it
isn't as simple as Evil Person = Hate, Good Person = Love.
Lilah was evil. She was perfectly happy being evil. But she
still loved Wes with all her evil little heart. Wesley is
still morally ambiguous. He's quite happy being morally
ambiguous, IMO. But he loved Lilah too, despite her being
the enemy. (Wes/Lilah will always be my OTP. We need an AU
spin-off.)
Hopefully Fred will learn something from Wes/Lilah. Like,
say, emotional maturity. Of course, Jenny-O says it much more eloquently than I ever could.
ETA: the link is to Jenny-O's excellent Fred analysis, in
her LiveJournal.
Ha! Skanky Cordelia, you been played, girlfriend! Loved that
Angel figured it all out. Loved Lorne singing his spell;
that's just the kind of quirky detail Angel is so
good at throwing out. Poor Connor, I predict great angst in
your future. Magic 8 ball agrees with me.
Gunn, baby, you're back! And you have chemistry again! After
half a season of not liking you, I've regained the Gunn-
love. To be fair, my heart started softening as soon as you
(wisely) broke up with Fred, but this ep brought you home
for good. You're a quick thinker. A smart guy (see: broke up
with Fred). A good man who loves doing good. Not just
muscle, damnit. And James Bond has nothing on you, gorgeous,
especially in that suit!
I like Gunn/Gwen. (Gwunn?) They have chemistry, they work
well together, and Gwen actually notices and appreciates
Gunn's many excellent qualities. I've never felt Gwen
stepped over the line to being a full-fledged Mary Sue but
she came close in "Long Day's Journey". Fortunately, this ep
fleshed her out enough, gave her vulnerability that wasn't
implausible or nausea-inducing, made her sympathetic yet
realistic enough to keep her from ever achieving full Mary
Sue status. Also? HOT.
Found it interesting that her slut-bomb attire was really
her way of being defiant in the face of a truly sad plight -
- never being able to touch, always cut off from humanity.
No wonder she and Angel got along so well. But I think I
like her better with Gunn. The fact that she'd killed him
(temporarily) kinda makes it even more meaningful that Gunn
is her first. He quite bravely touches her, and it's almost
a forgiveness. Or a healing. Hmm, puts a whole new meaning
to "a laying on of hands" ;)
Gunn/Gwen won't ever be OTP material, IMHO. But they'll
likely end up good friends, and better people for having
known each other. That's always a plus.
On the whole? So good, so very, very good.
*sigh*
So very happy with Angel. But why can't Buffy
be this good? ETA: was going to cut this last line, but
decided not. I don't mean any real harm by it. JMHO.
* * *
Hmm. Told you it was shallow. But still giddy from a mighty
fine ep. Hopefully SPACE is showing "Inside Out" on
Thursday, I don't think I could stand another week's wait
for my next Angel fix.
~ Scroll
A Buffy Bumble joins÷(Angel Odyssey 4.1) --
Tchaikovsky, 01:59:41 04/02/03 Wed
My fairy godmother, (or Angelmother?) yabyumpan has been
kind enough not only to provide me with tapes of the
beginning of the fourth Season of Angel, but also, (and very
excitingly for me, as IÌve seen no new Buffy in six months),
of the final (sob) Season of Buffy. Following is a fairly
sedate ramble about different expectations and viewing and
writing experiences. Please feel free to cut to the
chase.
By the time of ÎTomorrowÌ, the combined might of the second
and third Seasons of Angel had impacted so much on me as to
make it impossible for me to say which one I loved more. Not
only that they were shows of the same writing and
directorial quality, (which for me is indisputable), but
that I was emotionally and viscerally as involved in Angel
as Buffy. For me, the trinity which have kept me going
through recent Buffy, whose characters really fascinate me,
are Dawn, Buffy and Giles. The centrepiece character, the
apparently innocent character, and the more mature
character. The characters and their actors intrigue me. By
the end of the third Season of Angel, there was a similar
trio: Angel the centre-piece, Wesley the apparent wisdom,
though sliding off in a surprising direction, and Fred, the
new adjustment to the fold. So I thought to myself; what
would be fun, in a shallow way, would be to compare these
Seasons, and now I am able to, which is lovely.
I therefore steal KdSÌ format, and will only review one
Angel episode at a time, pairing it with the corresponding
Buffy episode. The Angel episode will go first for three
reasons. I expect it to be a better read because the Buffy
reviews will be from watching on not only a spoiled basis,
but heavily influenced by other peopleÌs reactions, which I
read with interest last year. The Angel Odyssey starts from
the beginning and will one day be complete, whereas the
Bumble starts on just one Season, without the momentum of
the previous six. Finally, I personally am finding the
forward momentum of Angel more compelling than Buffy at the
moment, partly because I donÌt know whatÌs about to
happen.
4.1- ÎDeep DownÌ
This is a wonderful episode from Steven DeKnight. He
supplied two of my four favourite episodes from Season Six
of Buffy, (ÎDead ThingsÌ, and ÎSeeing RedÌ), but their
brooding painful style was obviously considered perfect for
Angel, so he took a promotion and immediately got to write a
Season premiere. It remains in the tradition of excellent
openers. I tend to think that Buffy openers, while sometimes
fine, are very rarely excellent, whereas Angel has the knack
of starting off wonderfully
The teaser is ingenious. We see the abundance of the food
round the table, (comparable to that elegant seen way back
in ÎParting GiftsÌ), and all the characters back together.
It becomes manifestly clear that unless this is to be an
episode in flashback, this opening cannot be real. ItÌs too
perfect, and the stories of at least Wesley, Cordelia, Angel
and Lorne, as well as the reactions of Connor, are too
obviously different from the events of ÎTomorrowÌ. Before
long we have realised that this is AngelÌs perfect
situation, and it soon sours. Not only are we seeing into
AngelÌs psyche, there is also a playfully exaggerated
romanticism about this scene and AngelÌs later dreams, as if
the writing staff are gently playing with the fans who
wanted a simple happy ending to the third Season.
The other dreams start to reveal a trend. We see the
ÎalternateÌ Angel/Cordelia scene, where they do meet at the
rocks, and declare their love. We also see a scene where
Angel and Connor sort out their differences. In each case,
the dream is desirable until something happens which appears
to be attributable to Angel- the food turns to blood or he
snaps ConnorÌs neck. He has an intense feeling of guilt,
(who would guess?) that everything that has gone wrong has
been his fault- that these paradisal places are only false
due to his inadequacy. Each time, he wakes up under water in
terror at the end of the dream. Yet the end of the dreams
are clearly not real either. Angel dreams of the best case
scenario, is petrified by the worst case scenario, and must
really deal with a world somewhere in between- the world of
the final scene, where his lines are as brilliant as
anything since ÎEpiphanyÌ.
Back to these later. Some other thoughts:
-Kartheiser has an uncanny knack of taking on AngelÌs facial
expressions. The way he had the youthgul glee over his vamp-
killing with Fred and Gunn reminded me very much of AngelÌs
goofier persona. His self-mutilation, in an attempt to show
that he had been hurt by the vampire and had no choice but
to kill her, was very similar to AngelÌs grim
determination.
-We have t a mini-family being set up between Fred, Gunn and
Connor. This setting, however, brings out unexpected traits
in each of the three of them. Gunn becomes the despairing
Father, unable to comprehend just why Connor acts like he
does. Fred, in one of the most affecting and shocking scenes
of the episode, plays the sweet mother before turning into
the betrayed comrade. I think that it is clear that Îdeep
downÌ, there is a lot of residual anger and passion in Fred
which, rather like an early Willow, she hides under the
surface. Whether this dimension of her character will be
explored in the ensuing melee of excitement is still to be
seen. As for Connor, he attempts to play the rebellious but
good child, but is actually something much darker- the
double agent. His feeling of disorientation, of always havig
to lie, of never being sure quite who his family is, is an
excellent metaphor for the trials of adolescence, and a
rather less obvious metaphor than ÎBlood TiesÌ for the
identity crisis that is adoption.
-Wesley briefly gets called Ahab. How fitting is this aside?
Clearly the obvious allusion is that he is on his boat, but
further we have this idea of monomaniacal searching of the
ocean for AngelÌs box. Quite what inspires WesleyÌs search
is open for discussion. It is not as clear as him wanting to
be forgiven. If that were the case, then he would have
stayed in the Hyperion after returning Angel to AI. His
mission seems to be as solitary as ever, and he once again
hurtfully excludes AI by not explaining his leads and his
plans. The question of whether the ends justify the means is
harder to fathom. While Fred and Gunn are floundering
hopelessly, with a mole in their midst, Wesley kidnaps the
double-dealing Justine and makes her talk. In doing so, he
rescues Angel from his captivity, trading one personÌs
freedom for another. Or so it might seem. In reality,
JustineÌs cage is an apt metaphor for Holtz, serving his
angry vendetta until the last, and even past his death.
Although Justine realised she had chosen the wrong man back
in ÎForgivingÌ, she still felt chained to doing what is
right. Despite Wesley forcibly keeping Justine as his slave,
(some might say fairly light vengeance for a cutthroat,
particularly comparing Wesley to Holtz), he still allows her
the opportunity of setting herself free. Whether this is
sensible or right is questionable. Whether keeping her in a
cage is right is also questionable, but looking just at
Justine, it becomes clear that she is always the pawn. She
needed to be rescued from sheer despair after her sisterÌs
death, and Hotlz allowed her to be; replacing it with a
vacuous respect for his authority which kept her as
imprisoned as WesleyÌs bard. By the time she is on the boat,
she is so conditioned to playing the drone that she can be
stopped from using the wrench even by an illogical threat
from Wesley. If Wesley were unconscious, JustineÌs bucket
would be irrelevant. But itÌs not about logic- itÌs about
power.
Lilah is an interesting comparison to Justine in this
episode. Initially, we see Lilah apparently controlling
Wesley, and Justine being controlled by him. But this is not
it at all. In the last three episodes of Season Three, the
seduction by the femme fatale was never quite right. We
didnÌt see Wesley entirely iunder LilahÌs snare- it always
seemed sizzlingly mutual. Here we see that the control that
we expected, Lilah slowly corrupting Wesley, is actually
switched- Wesley is keeping his most pertinent actions and
emotions from Lilah. But while Lilah is the puppet in this
section of their relationship, she is still fiercely certain
that she is slowly wearing him down towards evil, and his
removal of self-determination of Justine is perhaps
testament to this. And while Justine, reliant only on HoltzÌ
approval, now has a broken, empty life to start from again,
LilahÌs situation is much different. For while, a little
unbeknown to her, she has become as helpless as her mother
in controlling Wesley, the side which makes her think she is
her motherÌs opposite, and will never be the dithering
dependant fool that she sees in her MotherÌs eyes, is still
functioning well. In Wolfram and Hart, she has consistently
shown herself to be more stylishly evil than the scared
Linwood, and his death seemed as likely as it was graphic,
(reminding me a little of the Polanski version of ÎMacbethÌ
with that shot of the severed head rolling back onto the
screen).
-The apparently monomaniacal Wesley is in reality a much
more deeply complex character than the iconic Ahab ever was.
Instead of again denying Justine her freedom, he himself
seeks a little atonement for his sins, in letting Angel
drink form him. What he expects this to achieve is extremely
moot. As can be seen from his speedy leaving of the hotel,
it is not re-integration, at least yet. I personally cannot
believe that Wesley simply wants Angel to owe his life to
him, to see if that changes the balance of the scales. Can I
believe that it is a truly selfless act? Perhaps, in some
twisted way, Wesley sees his giving of blood to Angel as an
analogue to WesleyÌs initiation into AI- the action that
Angel took which allowed him to turn form a faux Rogue Demon
Hunter to a real one. Perhaps it will all be explained
later. The beauty of the density of the DeKnight script is
that all the actions in this episode are ambiguous and more
complicated than they first seem. The motivations seem
deeply twisted and complex.
-This leaves the beautiful final scene between Angel and
Connor. This is almost transcendant writing- really
wonderful- and one of those feats that Angel does so often-
intimidating Connor enough to make him believe Angel is a
threat- like he did to Bethany in ÎUntouched after being run
through with a metal stake. ItÌs one of those staring
contests, a force of will to see who really has the power.
Angel does. Connor still, shakily, sits down. He takes all
the explanation that his Father gives him. He answers
truthfully about Cordelia, and he finally leaves the hotel.
Fred and Gunn, our everymen, look in with awe at this story.
-Meanwhile, Cordelia has decided that being a shiny star is
Îso boringÌ. ItÌs a nice ME-ian touch to end an enthralling
show with such anti-climax, and it supports the whole theory
that CordeliaÌs choice to lose a part of her humanity was
wrong.
This episode is about what people deserve. Wesley claims Îwe
all get what we deserveÌ. Linwood, the not-quite-evil
enough, gets beheaded for being an inadequate boss. Angel
seems mostly unruffled by his MC Esher perspective. Justine
reaps her just desserts more obviously than the rest- mostly
because the act of revenge is enacted by the hypothesis
maker- Wesley. I do not believe we are expected to believe
what Wesley says is gospel, or that it doesnÌt have some
aspect of truth running through it. What I do know for
certain is that this was a stellar episode, even before that
final scene.
A Buffy Bumble- 7.1- ÎLessonsÌ
The style of this will be slightly different, as I am
spoiled, and so a long meditation on the purport of the
Istanbul scene would be silly. IÌll just pick out a few
salient points which I havenÌt seen discussed at quite the
same angle as I took them, and hopefully not bore or recycle
too much.
-Joss Whedon has the knack of coining supreme lines. He can
just do it. Here, we are given two crucial and oft-repeated
lines, the ÎItÌs All About PowerÌ line, (yes, as Buffy/First
says it, it is very Nietzschean), and WillowÌs ÎEverythingÌs
ConnectedÌ line. I think another line which fell behind
these two a little was the ÎItÌs always realÌ line, which
Buffy explains to Dawn in their graveyeard scene, and Dawn
says about the zombies later on. ItÌs a clue to the First
Evil- although it may be incorporeal, its effect is real.
Anyone who saw SpikeÌs scenes at the end as his
hallucination should have been extremely wary of this line-
the hints right there that this is not just newly-ensoulled
nuttiness.
-The episode is directed nicely, if not superlative-ly, by
David Grossman, in one of his more average efforts. I
completely changed my mind on the Whedon directed Westbury
scenes though. LetÌs clear one thing up. As I look out of my
bedroom window, as IÌm doing now, I can see Westbury, in
fair Wiltshire. This is darned exciting for me, as all the
action usually takes place in California, which for me may
as well be the moon. Now the scenery is dead-on, but the
thing I objected to from seeing some of the screen-caps for
the episode was the campiness of Giles riding up on a horse-
and the lack of any houses or anything industrial. This may
be rural England- but it ainÌt 1500. I now retract that
feeling. Because, as I really should know by now, WhedonÌs
show is all about doing ridiculous stuff with complete
unfaltering belief and no self-consciousness. And he pulls
it off- largely because of the really perfect interactions
between Willow and Giles. I love the tones of their voices-
so mellow and quiet- so incredibly different form the
WillowÌs bombastic end to last Season. The ÎI just want to
be WillowÌ line is perfect. And finally, the sense of
disorientation, of framing as we pull back through the door
violently in the second scene, is beautifully done.
-Michelle Trachtenberg plays Dawn with a little more self-
confidence than IÌd been expecting. Her speech to the class
about herself is lovely, (particularly the Britney Spears
lines), and the way that this then falls apart when Buffy
comes in and does Îembarassing MomÌ is wonderful. Dawn
appears to think a little quicker than Buffy in a similar
situation, coming up with the bee excuse.
-We go out through one opening (the door in England) at the
end of Act Two, and in through another, the hole in the
school in the next. EverythingÌs connected, and it seems to
come from deep down.
-ThereÌs a lot of circling going on in the direction for
this episode. The camera seems to be always spiralling one
way or another. It reminded me of the discussions about the
Gyre in Yeats. This Season seems to be spiralling in towards
its climax, a climax which certainly has links to its
beginnings, but also is new.
-This brings me to my take on the theme of this episode,
which is of initiation overseen. ItÌs obvious that we are
expected to see Dawn as the worried new schoolgirl, but this
comes at the whole High School experience in a completely
different way. Buffy oversees DawnÌs new start, as indeed
Wood helps Buffy into a new job. Simultaneously, we have the
overseeing of Willow by Giles, and the overseeing of Anya by
DÌHoffryn. Yet these arenÌt as clear cut as we might like to
believe them. Usually the figures set to help you are
portrayed on the screen as wise and undoubtable, like Alec
Guiness in ÎStar WarsÌ. Something much more interesting is
going on here. None of the mentors are portrayed as
reliable. Buffy spoils DawnÌs credibility just as she is
starting to build up a little rapport from the class. Giles
mumbles the highly suspicious line ÎWe are all the same deep
down, no matter how much we may appear to have changedÌ. I
donÌt accept that we are supposed to take this at face value-
although we cut in the next scene to Xander, who looks
Îunconscionably spiffyÌ, but actually looks a little nervous
as he walks into the SummersÌ residence. In this case, we
are expected to believe GilesÌ sentiment. Finally, we have
Anya, being told by DÌHoffryn to exact a more nasty
vengeance, and also that there is something evil a-brewing.
Clearly, although DÌHoffryn is right to identify AnyaÌs
weakness as a demon, we are clearly not meant to believe
that her intentions are right, because we know Anya is not a
demon deep down.
Ultimately we are told that discovering who we are is not
about being given answers in ÎLessonsÌ, or even being given
advice by mentors, but a process of self-identification and
confidence. Finally, of course, we are left with that
startling scene in the basement, and we see Spike, with no
help whatsoever in learning his lessons, being tortured.
Although Whedon has established that self-growth is the only
way to do it- when you are really on your own, thereÌs a
real difficulty in recovering. While teaching may be too
simplistic, support may be essential.
Above this, thereÌs a very clever setting of tone done. We
back out of the intriguing but sometimes alienating flavour
of Season Six. Season Seven appears to be very light- light
new High School- Buffy in white, the sun-bathed lighting in
England- but thereÌs a foreboding cutting underneath the new
perkiness, which comes over nicely, and is emphasised by
that Istanbul scene- possibly the most inexplicable start to
a Buffy Season ever.
DidnÌt enjoy this half as much as ÎDeep DownÌ, partly
because I already knew it like the back of my hand, but am
still looking forward to both Seasons.
Thanks for reading.
TCH
[>
Wow, great stuff TCH! -- Scroll, 02:51:28
04/02/03 Wed
Just wanted to comment on Wesley-Justine and Wesley-
Lilah.
By the time she is on the boat, she is so conditioned to
playing the drone that she can be stopped from using the
wrench even by an illogical threat from Wesley. If Wesley
were unconscious, JustineÌs bucket would be irrelevant. But
itÌs not about logic- itÌs about power.
At first I thought the same way: that Wesley had broken her.
But now I don't think he ever really did. She wasn't some
cowed hostage, so fearful of her captor's wrath that she
would do anything he said. Heck, she picked up the wrench.
She talked back, snarked at Wesley in the grand tradition of
the strong, b*tchy females on Angel (Cordy, Lilah,
Kate). I think she was only testing him. She wanted Wes to
take control. She wanted someone to tell her what to do.
When somebody is on the course of self-destruction, she'll
cling to any strong force (Holtz, then Wes) who has enough
authority and control to stay her course. I see Wesley's
treatment of Justine to be a darker reflection of Angel's
mentoring of Faith in "Consequences". (And can we take a
moment to marvel at anything being darker than Angel
and Faith?) Angel chains Faith up, pushes her to see
herself. The consequences of her actions. The destruction
that lies ahead if she doesn't change her path. This is why
Wesley's last words to Justine are so insightful. Justine
made herself into a slave. Now she's helped Wesley
partly undo the awful thing she did -- deceiving Connor and
helping him sink Angel into the ocean. Now she has the
chance to free herself for real.
And of course Justine acts as Wesley's demon. She's that
voice in the back of his mind telling him he's bad, that
he'll never be forgiven, that his friends won't take him
back, that Angel will turn on him again. If Wes has power
over Justine, she has power over him in return. That's why
he doesn't gag her on the boat. Wesley uses Justine as a
cage around his own emotions, his own existence. She's the
steel reinforcing the bars.
Here we see that the control that we expected, Lilah
slowly corrupting Wesley, is actually switched- Wesley is
keeping his most pertinent actions and emotions from Lilah.
But while Lilah is the puppet in this section of their
relationship, she is still fiercely certain that she is
slowly wearing him down towards evil, and his removal of
self-determination of Justine is perhaps testament to this.
You know what's funny though? Lilah doesn't seem all that
happy about Wesley's apparent coldness towards his former
friends. End of Season 3, she was positively gleeful that
she was "wearing him down towards evil". But the bedroom
scene and Lilah's quick defence of Wesley to Linwood both
seem to suggest that corrupting Wes isn't really her agenda
anymore. It's not something she's really working
towards.
The beauty of the density of the DeKnight script is that
all the actions in this episode are ambiguous and more
complicated than they first seem. The motivations seem
deeply twisted and complex.
Absolutely. DeKnight's style is perfect for Angel,
which is a darker, more adult show than Buffy.
This episode is about what people deserve. Wesley claims
Îwe all get what we deserveÌ. Linwood, the not-quite-evil
enough, gets beheaded for being an inadequate boss. Angel
seems mostly unruffled by his MC Esher perspective. Justine
reaps her just desserts more obviously than the rest- mostly
because the act of revenge is enacted by the hypothesis
maker- Wesley. I do not believe we are expected to
believe what Wesley says is gospel, or that it doesnÌt have
some aspect of truth running through it. What I do know for
certain is that this was a stellar episode, even before that
final scene.
My exact feelings when I saw this episode. One of the
reasons I love Angel just a little more than
Buffy is that nothing is ever simple. Everything has
layers and layers of meanings, and more layers on top of
that just for the hell of it. Because that's just how the
world works. Or at least, the Angelverse. ;)
[> [>
Good points -- Tchaikovsky, 23:47:33 04/02/03
Wed
I think she was only testing him. She wanted Wes to take
control. She wanted someone to tell her what to do.
That makes a lot of sense
And of course Justine acts as Wesley's demon. She's that
voice in the back of his mind telling him he's bad, that
he'll never be forgiven, that his friends won't take him
back, that Angel will turn on him again. If Wes has power
over Justine, she has power over him in return. That's why
he doesn't gag her on the boat. Wesley uses Justine as a
cage around his own emotions, his own existence. She's the
steel reinforcing the bars.
And I hadn't thought of that angle at all- but yes, the
relationship is symbiotic- that's why Justine is on the boat
at all, despite having given Welsey all the information he
needs.
One of the reasons I love Angel just a little more than
Buffy is that nothing is ever simple. Everything has layers
and layers of meanings, and more layers on top of that just
for the hell of it. Because that's just how the world works.
Or at least, the Angelverse.
Just for the moment- I'm with you.
TCH