December 2003 Archives

December 2003 posts

Previous December 2003
More December 2003

What would a psychiatrist make of Faith? -- phoenix, 04:05:25 12/12/03 Fri

I was doing some research last night for a story I'm planning to write, if I ever get time, and I started wondering what diagnosis the prison psychiatrist would have come up with when s/he encountered Faith.

There have been interesting and compassionate discussions on the board about Willow and post traumatic stress disorder, or Buffy's clinical depression during S6,(having suffered from severe depression I could empathise to a painful degree) but I don't recall reading anything about Faith except "she's psychotic." I may have just missed the thread of course, and there have been plenty of insightful and sympathetic discussions of our favourite rogue Slayer, but not of a diagnostic kind.

After doing some reading about Borderline Personality Disorder I stopped and thought, "you know, that sounds a hell of a lot like Faith," and, as a scary aside, my father! Symptoms include rapid extreem unpredictable mood swings, including intense bouts of anger, depression and anxiety. Impulsive agression, self-injury, substance abuse. Distortions in cognition and sense of self. Sufferers often view themselves as bad or unworthy, and may feel unfairly misunderstood, mistreated, bored, empty and have little idea of who they are.

They may form sudden intense but stormy attatchments to people,in which they idealize the other person, but when a slight separation or conflict occurs, they switch to the other extreem, devaluing the person and angrily accusing them of not caring for them at all.

Fears of abandonment may relate to difficulties feeling emotionally connected with another person when they are physically absent, leaving the individual with BPD feeling lost and worthless.

Tendency to indulge in high risk activities like binge drinking or lots of casual sex.

Impulsivity, mood instability, agression, anger etc. may result from impared regulation of the neural circuits that regulate negative emotion.

Many individuals with BPD have a history of abuse, neglect or separation as young children, and it is most prevalent amongst adolescent women.

Of course in the case of Faith you would have to add Slayer strength and homicidal tendencies, always a bad combination.

I may be barking up completely the wrong tree here so I would love to hear what other people think...

Replies:

[> The problem with diagnosing Faith -- Lunasea, 06:01:22 12/12/03 Fri

What was Faith like in prison and what did she tell her therapist? We know she was in anger management classes, which are standard. Was she raped as a child or experience some other trauma? If she said something along these lines, she would probably get a diagnosis of PTSD. If she tried to relate what she saw as Slayer, but without the supernatural, she would probably get some sort of Anxiety disorder.

BPD is going through a name change to ERD, which stands for Emotion-Impulse Regulation Disorder and has a physiological cause in the limbic system. It is easy to label someone as having something if a Criterion from DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, now at version IV-TR) is met. Thing is, five of the nine criteria have to be present.

Criterion 1: Individuals with Borderline Personality Disorder make frantic efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment I don't see how this would manifest in a way for the therapist to pick up. It tends to appear in therapy with an attachment to the therapist and feelings about a session ending.

Criterion 2: Individuals with Borderline Personality Disorder have a pattern of unstable and intense relationships Her history of boyfriends fits this, but the degree of it is really shown with the Mayor, Buffy and Angel. Is she going to talk about any of these?

Criterion 3: There may be an identity disturbance characterized by markedly and persistently unstable self-image or sense of self In jail she is pretty stable, so how would this manifest itself? We've seen it, but would the therapist.

Criterion 4: Individuals with this disorder display impulsivity in at least two areas that are potentially self-damaging Is definitely met, but would it manifest in jail?

Criterion 5: Individuals with Borderline Personality Disorder display recurrent suicidal behavior, gestures, or threats, or self-mutilating behavior Again definitely met, but would the therapist know that she wanted Angel to kill her?

Criterion 6: Individuals with Borderline Personality Disorder may display affective instability that is due to a marked reactivity of mood (e.g., intense episodic dysphoria, irritability, or anxiety usually lasting a few hours and only rarely more than a few days) Again, is it going to manifest in jail?

Criterion 7: Easily bored, they may constantly seek something to do. How would it manifest itself?

Criterion 8: Individuals with Borderline Personality Disorder frequently express inappropriate, intense anger or have difficulty controlling their anger I can see this one being met, even without violence. Faith has quite a mouth on her.

Criterion 9:During periods of extreme stress, transient paranoid ideation or dissociative symptoms (e.g., depersonalization) may occurWould she be under extreme stress so this could manifest itself?

You may have made an accurate diagnosis, based on what we have seen of her. The question becomes what would the therapist see. That is the hardest part of any diagnosis, detecting if a criterion is met. I'd probably give her an Antisocial Personality Disorder diagnosis, especially because the onset was so young.

If she did say anything about Slaying, chances are she'd get a diagnosis of Schizophrenia with her violence being attributed to a manic phase. The problem with Faith is in jail she is a model prisoner. Much of the diagnosis would come from the police reports and the difference between that and what was showing now. As a writer, you can make her diagnosis anything you want. If you really want to go at it from a psychological level, get DSM and show how the criteria are met or hidden. A wrong diagnosis can make a story.

I'd say chances are because of her extreme violent history, she would get antisocial. Her repentance would be considered a ploy and dismissed by a therapist who has seen people have a change in heart in order to get off, not because they have genuinely changed. You can do whatever you want though. That is the fun of fan fiction. She could have a really good therapist that does pick up ERD. The backstory does support this diagnosis.

[> [> Re: The problem with diagnosing Faith -- phoenix, 10:32:07 12/12/03 Fri

Many thanks, that was all very helpful.You are right, I can't really imagine a character like Faith telling a psychiatrist very much, she's not exactly terribly forthcoming with personal information. On the other hand, after that whole breakdown at the end of Five By Five she might have felt the need to get some things out in the open. She was certainly different when she got out of jail, well at least she wasn't killing people.

One more question--in Sanctuary she was experiencing violent flashbacks, would you attribute that to PTSD, or something else? In fact, would PTSD account for most of her behavior after waking up from that coma?

I really must get this story written, it's got to the stage where it's starting to bug me (-:

[> [> [> I am very reluctant to give anyone a diagnosis of PTSD -- lunasea, 08:09:25 12/16/03 Tue

It's become like ADD, everyone has it. Just pop a few pills and you'll be fine again. To see Paxil advertised on TV with a Tribble turned my stomach. People should not be diagnosing themselves or taking a short quiz to determine if they have it. (see Paxil's website) If they have a debilitating condition such as PTSD, they should be in therapy.

I would attribute her flashbacks to guilt. That isn't the same thing as reliving the trauma associated with PTSD that would be akin to the visions that Doyle and Cordy got.

Put the link to your story when you get it done. If you need a beta reader, let me know.

[> [> [> [> Re: I am very reluctant to give anyone a diagnosis of PTSD -- phoenix, 13:10:56 12/16/03 Tue

I agree about the problem of diagnosing PTSD. In Faith's case I wasn't just considering the flashbacks but her state in general,(I probably didn't make that clear enough) after all it would have been strange if she wasn't extreemly traumatised by the things she had experienced.

Anyway, thanks for the feedback, it has all been very informative and helpful. As I said mental health is not my field, I have only my personal experience and the things I've read to go on, so it's a big learning curve for me, but I couldn't seem to get the fic idea out of my head, so I gave in and started doing research.

In fact I never had any intention of writing any Buffy fic at all, I was simply enjoying reading it, well, the good ones anyway, then a month ago I sat down at my computer and started writing and a few hours later I was still there. Ooops (-:

I am actually embroiled in a post Chosen story just now,it's almost finished, I hope, and this one will be my next project. I will need a beta reader, so thank you for the offer. When I finish the story I will certainly post a link.

[> Re: What would a psychiatrist make of Faith? -- Gyrus, 07:57:58 12/12/03 Fri

IMO, there are no people like Faith in the real world.

Faith's behavior back in S3 could best be described as sociopathic (or antisocial, as they call it these days), but that's not something you recover from, even with therapy and/or medication. (All personality disorders, including borderline, are very resistant to treatment.) So I don't think Faith is a realistic model of any particular psychopathology.

[> [> Fanwanking on this -- lakrids, 08:41:17 12/12/03 Fri

A fanwank on this, could be that Faith was in coma, that was probably resulted from a brain damage. The regenerate brain cell, that resulted in Faith waking from the coma, have then created personality change Faith psyche.

[> [> Re: What would a psychiatrist make of Faith? -- phoenix, 10:50:32 12/12/03 Fri

Of course there are no people like exactly Faith in the real world, she's a fictional Vampire Slayer, but I've certainly encountered people who manifest many aspects of her character. One of the things which strikes me now I've started doing the research for this story is how consistantly she does seem to meet the criteria for a condition like BPD (or ERD as I've just learned it's now called), I know it's very unlikely the writers deliberately set out to do that, but it's how it reads to me. Anyway, I have to try and diagnose her, otherwise I have no story(-: As for these things being resistant to treatment, well the new improved Faith that broke out of jail clearly still had all those old issues bubbling away just underneath the surface, that's why I continue to find her such an interesting character, and why I hope that spin-off happens eventually.

By the way,I may be having a memory lapse but did you write a fic called Inside? If it was you I'd like to take the opportunity to tell you I thoroughly enjoyed it. Thanks.

[> [> [> Re: What would a psychiatrist make of Faith? -- Gyrus, 13:13:10 12/12/03 Fri

Of course there are no people like exactly Faith in the real world, she's a fictional Vampire Slayer, but I've certainly encountered people who manifest many aspects of her character.

I agree with that; I was really talking about her dramatic change from sociopath to moral person.

One of the things which strikes me now I've started doing the research for this story is how consistantly she does seem to meet the criteria for a condition like BPD (or ERD as I've just learned it's now called), I know it's very unlikely the writers deliberately set out to do that, but it's how it reads to me.

Faith's impulsivity and anger-management problems in S3 are consistent with both BPD and antisocial personality disorder. Her capacity for cold-blooded murder, however, seems to fit the latter diagnosis better.

Anyway, I have to try and diagnose her, otherwise I have no story(-:

Ohhh, it's a fanfic thing. Well, you may be able to explain a lot of Faith's actions in BPD terms. Her murder of Professor Wirth, for example, could be seen as one of what the diagnostic criteria for BPD describe as "frantic attempts to prevent abandonment, whether real or imagined." That is she might have killed Wirth out of a desperate need for the Mayor to continue liking her and not abandon her.

By the way,I may be having a memory lapse but did you write a fic called Inside?

Yep, that was me.

If it was you I'd like to take the opportunity to tell you I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Thanks! (glowing a cheerful orange)

[> [> [> [> Re: What would a psychiatrist make of Faith? -- phoenix, 15:36:00 12/12/03 Fri

Okay, I'm off to investigate antisocial personality disorder--sounds like a fun way to spend the evening. You may well be right about the diagnosis, as I was having trouble making her capacity for cold blooded murder fit ERD.

As for her change from sociopath to moral person, do you really think she has entirely changed? Her former impulses haven't really gone away, she's just learned to control them better, I think she even stated as much, or if it wasn't explicit in the story it was certainly implicit.Perhaps I'm looking on the bleak side but I could definitely imagine her having a relapse, or at least coming extreemly close to it, a la beige Angel, at some point in the not too distant future. She's been in a very controled environment for years, what effect could being back out in the world long term have on her, all those pressures and choices and temptations? Maybe it's just me, but I think she is going to have one hell of a struggle staying on the straight and narrow, even though she's clearly trying very hard. On a human level I would like to belive she would succeed, but in character terms it might be much more interesting to make her suffer, and JW certainly loves to torture his characters.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: What would a psychiatrist make of Faith? -- Gyrus, 16:37:41 12/12/03 Fri

As for her change from sociopath to moral person, do you really think she has entirely changed? Her former impulses haven't really gone away, she's just learned to control them better,

Which, in my mind, is why she's not a realistic sociopath, either. A sociopath wouldn't bother with control unless there was some concrete benefit she could derive from it.

An alternative just occurred to me, though: oppositional defiant disorder. Here's a description (from Oppositional Defiant Disorder - By Dr. Deane G. Baldwin, M.D.):

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association, fourth edition (DSM-IV) defines ODD as a pattern of negativistic, hostile and defiant behavior, lasting at least 6 months, during which four or more of the following symptoms are present:

1. Often loses temper
2. Often argues with adults
3. Often actively defies or refuses to comply with adult's requests or rules
4. Often deliberately annoys people
5. Often blames others for his or her mistakes or misbehaviors
6. Is often touchy or easily annoyed by others
7. Is often angry or resentful
8. Is often spiteful or vindictive

Does that help?

[> [> Re: What would a psychiatrist make of Faith? -- skeeve, 14:11:16 12/16/03 Tue

Perhaps there has been a truly major name change, but at one time being antisocial did not make one a sociopath.
Being antisocial meant that one, e.g. a stereotypical nerd, did not feel much like interacting with people.
Being a sociopath meant that one, e.g. Ted Bundy, would interact with people in pretty much any way one wanted that one could get away with.

[> [> [> Name changes -- Gyrus, 12:19:38 12/17/03 Wed

Perhaps there has been a truly major name change, but at one time being antisocial did not make one a sociopath.
Being antisocial meant that one, e.g. a stereotypical nerd, did not feel much like interacting with people.

Yes, there has been a major name change. Psychopathy became sociopathy, and then sociopathy became Antisocial Personality Disorder. Those who shun personal interaction with other people and who have a restricted emotional range are now considered to have Schizoid Personality Disorder.

[> [> [> [> And if it wasn't obvious -- KdS, 14:09:38 12/17/03 Wed

"Psychopath" was abandoned because of the extent to which this specific word had been popularly adopted to mean "drooling nut-job".

And just to top things off there is now argument over whether "schizoid personality disorder" is really a personality disorder or a mild version of autism.

[> [> [> [> Re: Name changes -- skeeve, 07:30:04 12/18/03 Thu

Ouch. Someone's been really stupid or really nasty.
At best the changes are confusing.
They practically coerce character assasination.

[> Other problem with diagnosing fictional characters -- KdS, 02:31:50 12/13/03 Sat

Psychiatric diagnoses are always imprecise to some extent, because human psyches and personalities are so different. A problem with assigning a specific psychiatric disorder to a fictional character can be that one becomes too hung up on it and makes the character the perfect textbook case of it, with no room for individuality and making their behaviour far too predictable and boring.

[> [> Re: Other problem with diagnosing fictional characters -- phoenix, 03:53:47 12/13/03 Sat

That's a very good point.

Something else has just occured to me, who said she can only be suffering from one psychiatric disorder at once? Couldn't there simply be a combiation of factors? After all, that feels more like real life to me. So, say she has an underlying disorder like ERD but then the accidental murder of Alan Finch sets off something else, which is how the story seems to play out. It's only after she kills him that she begins her seriously sociopatic behavior. The question is, what could push her from troubled and violent to cold bloodedly murderous? It could actually have been a temporary thing, in which case she is still suffering the psycological hangover and the deep seated fear that she could do a repeat performance, but has actually just reverted to a slightly more controled version of the condition she had before that happened. Arrrg. My head hurts! I think I might be contradicting my last post. Anyway, maybe that is a more satisfactory explaination, and it's easier than trying to make everything fit under one heading. What do you think?

As a side note, I think my fictional psychiatrist may well misdiagnose Faith anyway, as Lunasea pointed out that could actually make for a more interesting story.

[> [> [> Re: Other problem with diagnosing fictional characters -- Gyrus, 13:18:41 12/13/03 Sat

>Something else has just occured to me, who said she can >only be suffering from one psychiatric disorder at once? >Couldn't there simply be a combiation of factors? After >all, that feels more like real life to me.

Good point. From what I've read, 85% of people with mental illness have more than one. (That includes substance abuse.)

[> [> [> [> Re: Other problem with diagnosing fictional characters -- phoenix, 15:21:44 12/13/03 Sat

Yeah, I think that solves the problem.

I may have spent too much time reading about psychological disorders though, as now I'm seriously begining to wonder if all the Buffy characters are actually stuck in the Asylum-verse too. Wonder if Buffy and Faith have adjoining rooms...

[> [> [> Re: Other problem with diagnosing fictional characters -- details, 13:01:52 12/15/03 Mon

Faith's turn for the worse did seem to be set off by the accidental killing and later condemnation by authority figures like the Watcher's Council. How about a John Malvo defense of brainwashing by the Mayor when she was in a vulnerable state and was desperate for adult validation. Could that work?

[> [> [> [> Re: Other problem with diagnosing fictional characters -- phoenix, 13:26:00 12/16/03 Tue

Interesting.

I don't think that Faith actually was brainwashed by the Mayor, after all her attempted rape/murder of Xander happened before she went to work for him. Her behavior in that case did seem to be a very extreem reaction to the accidental killing of alan Finch. Her state was then made much worse by the Watchers' Council and the Mayor, but she was already heading down that path.

As for using brainwashing as a defense in court, I don't know if it would have worked, but I have the feeling they probably didn't try, or if they did it certainly didn't work.

Could you tell me more about the John Malvo case?

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Other problem with diagnosing fictional characters -- details, 00:00:35 12/17/03 Wed

CHESAPEAKE, Va. - The jury in the murder trial of Lee Boyd Malvo got the case Tuesday after his lawyer argued the teenager fell completely under the spell of mastermind John Allen Muhammad when he took part in the Washington sniper shootings.
Defense lawyer Michael Arif said Malvo, desperate for a father figure, found the wrong man to emulate in Muhammad and eventually became "a cult of one" with Muhammad as his leader.
"Lee could no more separate himself from John Muhammad than you could separate from your shadow on a sunny day," Arif told the jury.
"He was not the idea man. He was a puppet, molded like a piece of clay by John Muhammad," Arif said.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=4&u=/ap/20031217/ap_on_re_us/sniper_shootings_trial

Malvo was a 17 year old homeless kid taken in by 42 year old John Muhammad at the time of the murders. The defense is claiming that Malvo was brainwashed by father figure and war veteran Muhammad.

Unlike Faith, it sounds like prior to Muhammad, Malvo was a well behaved, good in school, kid.

Faith has the difficulties and moral ambiguities of Slayerhood, the death of her Watcher, the Watcher gone bad, and the accidental killing to contend with as well as her terrible childhood and obvious longing for a father brought to life in the Mayor.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks for the extra information. -- phoenix, 09:25:46 12/17/03 Wed

why do you guys like buffy so much? what does she mean to you? -- friendly visitor, 09:01:02 12/12/03 Fri

I'm just trying to figure out what it is about buffy that makes you all so into to her? so if anyone out there can help me understand i'll be really grateful thanx alot

Replies:

[> Re: Potential -- Brian, 10:50:35 12/12/03 Fri

Buffy is about potential: that anything, even the most concrete prophecy is mutable; that the good and the bad have choices, choices to be good or choices to be bad; That self-sacrifice can be for the most idealistic of motives or the most selfish; and that forgiveness and redemption are always possible.

[> why I like Buffy so much -- manwitch, 14:26:51 12/12/03 Fri

I would certainly be interested in hearing the many answers to this question.

For me, the short of it is that Buffy is basic life instruction.

In the last decade or so, it seems to me that people, at least in the US of A, have begun to show a desire for lives that are more fulfilling at a spiritual level. I expect this could be easily documented. It manifests itself in a number of ways. Increased attendance at church, political swings to the right, endlessly increased discussion of values and ethics, an increasingly obsessive interest in the afterlife and the mystical. On television you can see a great increase in shows that address the paranormal or the afterlife or religion. I don't know whether or not it began with the X-files, but that certainly got it going in high gear. Now you have Mr. Edwards, shows about dead people, shows about Angels, shows about religious families. I won't claim to know the source of this phenomenon, but it seems reasonably clear that many people are finding that material and political prosperity does not seem to be a recipe for happiness or a fulfilling life. They want something more. Most of these shows are, I think, indicative of that desire.

And a lot of these shows are very successful, and I expect quite good at what they are attempting to be. I certainly loved the first five years of the X-files. So I don't mean in any way to knock any of these shows. But I will say that while they appeal to the interest for something more, they do not provide it. They do not help us to find it. They give us lessons in ethics, ideas to think about, a few moments of escape into a world of fantasy. Nothing wrong with any of that. But it is my personal feeling that Buffy gives us more.

Buffy gives us instruction. It shows us where the something more is to be found, how to get it, how to hold on to it in our own lives. In this way it is truly mythic. Joseph Campbell, the scholar of comparative mythology who some on this board swear by and others swear at, outlined four functions that a living mythology had to provide. First was what he called "the mystical function: to waken and maintain in the individual a sense of awe and gratitude in relation to the mystery dimension of the universe, not so that he lives in fear of it, but so that he recognizes that he participates in it, since the mystery of being is the mystery of his own deep being as well." A lot of shows attempt to appeal to this idea through the inclusion of mysterious things. Buffy certainly has no shortage of mystical things, magical spells, vampires, demons, other dimensions. But the sense of awe it awakens in us comes from showing us the mystical dimension of very real things. The mystery of Joyce's death, of Buffy's life, of Willow's grief, of passion, love, purpose, commitment, fear, destiny. The mystical component of Buffy is not in the fantasy elements of its plot, but in the way it handles the very real emotions and experiences that are so familiar to us all, reminding us that they cannot be Scullied, reduced to an explanation about chemicals in the brain or hormones in the blood, that they are pointers to something much larger and more significant than themselves, and that when we grieve, love, fear, live, or even die, we are an expression of that great mystery.

The second function, according to Campbell, is "to offer an image of the universe that will be in accord with the knowledge of the time, the sciences and the fields of action of the folk to whom the mythology is actually addressed." Campbell follows with the point that on this score, the current desire in some parts to return to religion is doomed to failure. The story of Christ is compelling, but it doesn't take place in the reality in which we must actually live. He argues that what we need to do is find the message in the old religious stories and bring them into a new and relevant set of metaphors. And it seems to me that Buffy does that. The message seems to be, repeatedly, that we save the world through the sacrifices we make for others, the love we express for them, through compassion and forgiveness for those who display our hidden weaknesses, and that by participating in the common sufferings of this world, even unto death, we become an expression of the divine presence in the world itself. Hardly original. But it takes place in our world. One can certainly argue that there is some confusing science in the Buffyverse. I'm still trying to figure out how Angel sported a fever in Graduation Day or how vampire flesh heals. But the technology and science of the day is present in the show. The fields of action are recognizable to us. We do have schools. We do have hospitals, mayors, stores, jobs, colleges, police forces. We have computers and scanners and labs and microscopes, electrical grids, cell phones, cars, cold fronts, and on and on. By and large, the world we see in Buffy is the one in which we actually live. Obviously any show set in the present could say that, but the combination of the message with the image is perhaps a little more rare.

The third function Campbell describes is "to validate, support, and imprint the norms of a given, specific moral order, that, namely, of the society in which the individual is to live." Buffy does this as well, not simply in its admonisions to floss or to not kill people, or its reverance for love and compassion, but also, in my opinion, through its recommendation of a sort of postmodern ethics. It tells us not to desire authority, not to desire power over others, to avoid heirarchy, to be suspicious of institutions and their inertia, to allow ourselves to change, to recognize our identity is made up not simply of ourselves but of those around us as well, to find new forms of expression and to say new things. It gives us a moral model very specific to the culture in which we actually live today, articulating a set of values and the dangers and opportunities in which it will be tested.

The fourth function of a living mythology is "to guide him, stage by stage, in the health, strength, and harmony of spirit, through the whole foreseeable course of a useful life." Buffy does this twice over. Campbell reviews the sequence of these stages of a useful life. The first stage is that of the physically and pyschologically dependent child, under the guidance and protection of the surrounding family of adults. At some point, that child will need to be "twice born," to die to its "childhood season" and take its place as an independent and self-responsible adult, to assume its role as the life, the action of its community. And Buffy of course does this at the end of season one. Through all of season one she has behaved as the child, but at the end of that childhood season she dies, literally, and comes to life anew as a committed and self-responsible member of her community. But that second stage must eventually pass to a third stage when one's role as the vital energy of the community begins to diminish and one's knowledge and experience must be passed on to others, younger ones, who will be the new vital energy of a community in which the elder is simply wise. Buffy spends several years as the vital energy of her community, but at the end, at the very end, she recognizes that it is time to pass it on, to take on a new role while a new crop of vital adults shapes a new world. Buffy shows us, in a rather compressed format, the changes we will need to make and what life will be like on the other side of the divide.

But of course, Buffy isn't only about growing up physically, it is primarily about growing up spiritually. Its messages of growth are not aimed only at 16 year olds, they are aimed at people of any age that still have spiritual growing to do. And to that end, each season tells the story of a spiritual transformation that is not dependent on age, but merely on a pyschological reorganization to see oneself in a new light. In season one, she resists the idea that she has a spiritual calling, a spiritual life, seeking instead to stay a "normal" child. But she changes by the end of the season, setting her fear aside and willingly embracing her spiritual destiny. Through this act she is transformed into a new and spiritually higher person. In season two, the passion and desire awakened by her embracing of this calling threaten to overwhelm her, and the result of her fixation is a pathological monster. But by the end of the season, she overcomes that passion, without rejecting it, to live out of a sense of passionately informed commitment rather than as slave to her own desires, and she is transformed again. In the third season she is transformed yet again, as she overcomes both the idea of living life for herself and the idea of living the life others would impose upon her, to instead choose to live her life in service to others. She is transformed again in season four, through knowledge of her spiritual source. In season five she recognizes that spiritual source as the energy of her own being, transforming herself again. In season six, she transforms herself yet again by overcoming the worlds petty bitterness and recognizing that same spiritual source and potential in all the world around her. And finally, in season seven, she makes the ultimate transformation, recognizing at last that she is not unique, that she and everyone else are all one. These spiritual transformations are addressed to anyone, of any age and at any stage, who is interested in progressing spiritually. And Buffy gives us sound and specific instruction on how we might stir these powers and begin to effect these transformations.

These transformations are not random, either, not simply the spewling of Joss Whedon's mind. They can be matched in considerable detail to the seven chakras of Kundalini Yoga or to the story of the Buddha, who was tempted by fear (season 1), desire (season 2), and social responsibility (season 3). When the temptations were rejected and the temptor dispersed, the Buddha acquired the knowledge of previous existences (season 4), followed by the divine eye (season 5), and then the Twelve Knots of Dependent Origination (season 6). Finally at sunrise, the Buddha acquired omniscience (season 7). I expect there are other traditions that recommend the same or similar series of transformations. But my point here is that Buffy is serious spiritual literature, of exactly the sort that people seem to be seeking. I, at any rate, was happy to find it.

All the characters on Buffy are metaphors, usually for some aspect of Buffy who is herself a metaphor for us. Consequently every episode of Buffy can tell a story of deeper richness and significance than its plot alone suggests. Today I saw The Wish, in which Cordelia, distraught over Xander's infidelity with Willow, and suffering the slings and arrows from her supposed friends, wishes that Buffy had never come to Sunnydale, and a vengeance demon grants the wish. Cordelia is immediately placed within a new world in which the Master rose and took over Sunnydale, since Buffy was not there to stop him as she did in season one. Xander and Willow, whose lives Buffy saved so many times, are dead, vampires, since Buffy was not there to save them. Cordelia quickly recognizes that the world was better with Buffy in it and tells Giles to get her, but Xander and Willow kill her. Buffy arrives, a scarred and hard loner, and goes to fight the Master, meeting along the way the Angel that had waited for her to arrive in Sunnydale. As they fight, Angel is killed, as are vamp Xander and vamp Willow. The Master kills Buffy as Giles, making an enormous leap of faith in the possibility of a better world, destroys the vengeance demon's charm and reverses the spell, reverting everything back to normal. We seem to end up, right where we were, with just an hour of escapist fun.

But it was more than that. Cordelia is a metaphor for Buffy without spiritual commitment. She is what Buffy was and would still be had she not become the Slayer. Because of her own pain, Cordelia makes a selfish wish to have the world be made to her liking, into a world that lacks spiritual commitment, and she is immediately placed into a colorless and dark existence. Cordelia, as selfish non spiritual Buffy, has condemned her heart (Xander) and spirit (Willow) to death, and the weight of that spiritual death ultimately drains Cordelia herself of life. At the same time, Buffy, having never come to Sunnydale, never found the personal commitments to give context to her spiritual calling. The result is that she becomes the job, a product of the institutions that created her, with no personal connection to the world in which she must live and struggle. So in the final battle, we see that her heart and spirit are doubly killed, the desire (Angel) that was supposed to kindle her love and compassion as a context for her spiritual duties turns to dust, and Buffy's fear (The Master) of her mysterious powers once again wins out, and she is destroyed. The only thing that saves them all is that Giles, metaphorically Buffy's mind, makes an explicitly conscious leap of faith, to believe that through his small action the entire world can become a better place.

I think many of us walk on a knife's edge. We are one word, one slip, one selfish wish away from a world in which Buffy never came to Sunnydale. So when I see that episode, I don't just see a great story. I recognize that I too must make that leap of faith, that I must recognize that the pains and insults I endure in life will not be cured by wishing the world were made to my liking. Life will be what it is, but if I stay committed to my spiritual progress and connected to those around me who give that progress its worth, I just might make the world a better place.

Like it is when Buffy is in it.

That's what Buffy means to me, why I like her. That and how she looks. I would be interested in what attracts other people to it.

[> [> I love your posts manwitch. That was wonderful! -- phoenix, 15:48:56 12/12/03 Fri

[> [> manwitch put it so brilliantly! But I'll add it's about great TV.... -- Briar Rose, 00:59:41 12/13/03 Sat

Everything that manwitch said is what attracted me to BtVS and held me watching it for so long, but I must add that if it had only been the storylines and they hadn't come though with a fresh and dynamic way of presenting them time after time I wouldn't still be hooked on BtVS.

Then I look at the absolute brilliance of the interwoven stories that even if this (and every other) board thought we'd discussed a particular ep to death and knew every nuance? Well, something that happened for two seconds in a bare mention that seemed rather insignificant in season 2 might pop up as a cataclysmic turning point in season 6!

Did BtVS "Jump the Shark?" Heck... too many times to count!*L And in a way, that was exactly what made it so uncommon and so enjoyable. No matter how far out JW got and ME pushed the envelope, it always came out to where it made perfect sense in the Universe they had created and what went on in it.

Joss Whedon and the rest of Mutant Enemy never really lost an opportunity to shake up the audience and to give the story so much MEAT that you could chew on it for weeks after an ep and never quite see all the facets of the story line. A bad episode of Buffy (and there were a few!) was better than the best of most of the derivative stuff that is shown on TV or even cable. Ratings be damned, the truth of the story being told always lead the show and was respected even if the viewers didn't necessarily like it.

The story telling is top notch, the dialog and the way that familiar stories are re-told through JW/ME's filters is always fresh, even the photography is done in such a way that it carries the story - no matter which season's budget we're talking about. Even the "lean days" of season 1 and 2 when it appeared that ME was shooting without permission in Hollywood Memorial (and which has been said they DID!) the mood of the shots was never spoiled to where it took away from the story being told.

I would also add that the cast had a large part to play in bringing the show to life. I can't even imagine any other actors in any of the roles that were portrayed. And that definitely needs addressed when speaking of BtVS.

And, yeah... I realize that I keep mixing present and past tense in this. I feel like BtVS is still there and just lying dormant for a whle. So it's hard to write in past tense when it still feels as if it's here and on-going - if only on DVD.>^..^<

[> [> Lovely post ... but I don't agree -- dmw, 10:24:23 12/13/03 Sat

I enjoyed your analysis, which eloquently explains a great deal about what I like about the first three seasons of BtVS and what they began to lose after that point.

The second function, according to Campbell, is "to offer an image of the universe that will be in accord with the knowledge of the time, the sciences and the fields of action of the folk to whom the mythology is actually addressed."

While BtVS didn't show as many absurdities in its early seasons as many fantasy or SF shows, it's always had its share, and by the last two seasons, the self-contradictions shredded the setting, exposing gaping holes in the thin, painted facade that revealed the reality of limited human creators underneath the illusion. Unfortunately, Buffy fails on this function, either because the story was continued beyond its expiration date, or because its authors had insufficient forethought and skill to create a world that could last for the duration of their story.

In addition to its failures of science, BtVS never managed to find a universal modern setting like that of the high school that would serve this function after season 3. The show restlessly moved from the university, which might have worked, to the magic shop, more the domain of fantasy than any place that reflects the image of our modern world, to the claustrophobic confines of the Summers' home, as Sunnydale and the formerly peopled world outside receded into a solipsistic oblivion as deep as that of the Buffy of Normal Again.

I don't have time to write similar essays about the other functions, but I generally find your statements to be reflective of the early seasons in general but only occasionally true for the later seasons, where they're more often directly contradicted than affirmed.

On the other, there is a modern work that I find to fulfill all four functions: Neil Gaiman's Sandman. It's the only modern mythology that I've read that deeply satisfies all four functions.

[> [> What manwitch said, and more -- purplegrrl, 09:35:41 12/15/03 Mon

What is great about Buffy is that it can be satisfying on various levels. The show delivers as strictly escapist entertainment with its witty banter and pop culture references. On the other end of the spectrum it delivers as a deep philosophical essay (whether intentional or not) on modern life. And repeated viewings of the episodes don't diminish their appeal. You enjoy reliving them like being with old friends, or view them with new eyes as your life/knowledge changes.

[> Why I love Buffy so much -- fidhle, 19:45:29 12/15/03 Mon

I started watching Buffy late. The first ep that I saw was Once More with Feeling, recommended by a review in the paper. What I saw blew me away. I have been involved in theater, and the respect for theatrical traditions and the quality of the performances were simply not what I expected from a teen-angst TV show with a silly name. I started watching as much Buffy as I could after that, and have continued to date, thanks to tape and DVD.

Buffy, for me, has great staying power. I usually don't like watching TV shows or movies more than once, in most cases. Watching a second time becomes boring. But not with Buffy. Every time I watch an episode, I learn something or see something I hadn't seen previously. The writing is that good.

Buffy is, to me, about life and living. To be sure, the setting involves things we don't normally see in real life, such as demons, vampires, and spectactular magic spells. But the issues in the show are very real world. Further, Buffy seems to explain and explore those issues in a manner which is both relevant and understandable for the viewer.

For example, I recently saw an episode of "Joan of Arcadia" which involved God telling Joan to take the high school bully to a dance. At the end, in a explanatory speech by God, it turns out that, by precipitating a crises for the bully and getting him arrested, Joan has saved the lives of a number of students who the bully apparantly was going to shoot, rather like Columbine.

I immediately thought of the Buffy episode "earshot" in which Buffy disarms a student who she thought was going to shoot the students at school. In reality, he was going to shoot himself, but Buffy did not know that until they talked. The Buffy episode discussed many of the pressures than might cause a student to decide to shoot other students, and provided an excellent psychological explaination of Columbine, which co-incidentally occured shortly before the episode was to be broadcase.

The Joan episode, on the other hand, didn't really explore or explain anything. Just God, in the guise of a lady with muffins, telling Joan of the people she saved. I felt very disappointed in that story. No question that the Buffy episode was far better and more satisfactory, both as a story and as a discussion of some very serious issues in society today.

For whatever reason, the most likely being the genius of Joss Whedon, the writing for Buffy has been very insightful and helpful in explaining and discussing serious issues, which affect most of us at times.

The "Zeppo" gives me a good insight into why some teenagers get into trouble, simply because they don't have the courage to say no to apparent friends, or zombies, whichever the case may be.

The major characters of the show, Buffy, Willow, Xander, Giles, Tara, Dawn, Spike, Angel, Cordelia, Anya, are all very human characters, with definite virtues and flaws, who grow throughout the run of the show. I think most people can identify closely with at least one, if not all, of the characters.

Buffy herself, to me, represents everyperson. Most of us will have problems like the ones Buffy experiences. I have had the experience of the loneliness of being in charge of others in a war, being responsible for others, and yet maybe having to put them in mortal danger if necessary. When my father died, I went through many of the emotions displayed in "The Body" and I've had my share of bad, dead end jobs and crazy bosses. These are fairly universal experiences and Buffy helps discuss and understand the emotions and feeling involved.

Buffy helps teach how to live life, too. She can be bad and cruel, but she always comes out of it and her basic goodness, compassion, and sense of responsibility always help her do the right thing. When we first see her, she simply wants to be a normal 16 year old girl, pretty but not a terribly good student. The last thing she wants to do is to resume being a vampire slayer. But she does because she realizes that that is her responsibility. As Xander says, she is a hero and when in doubt, ask what Buffy would do.

I watch the show because it is entertaining - comedy, drama, horror and action combined in a unique and very entertaining combination. The characters are very human, and very attractive. What is there not to love.

[> [> Joan and the Bully -- Sofdog, 11:41:21 12/16/03 Tue

I thought the lesson there was in learning to extend oneself to those one can't easily relate to. The message about being present seemed widely applicable beyond the school shooting/teen angst. It could as easily have applied to plain suicide, rising mental illness or even saving a shut in from dying of overheat or freezing cold.

The message seemed to be about the difference the slightest entry into someone else's world could make.

Free with purchase -- CW, 10:17:03 12/12/03 Fri

I bought my season 5 BtVS and Firefly DVD's today. Like magic, I find I have a whole shelf more closet space in the house than I used to.

I'm off to a weekend of binging on ME!

Replies:

[> These are the first ME DVD sets I haven't been able to watch the day they came out... -- Rob, 10:19:34 12/12/03 Fri

...I'm too bogged down with schoolwork!! I bought them but all I can do is gaze longingly at my DVD shelf and return to my paper. *sobs*

Rob

[> [> how much do I feel your pain, Rob? -- Anneth, 10:22:36 12/12/03 Fri

I won't let myself buy them till my last final is finished. (insert moue here) Which will be in 5 days. Which is 5 days too long.

[> [> Where are your priorities Rob? -- Lunasea, 10:56:19 12/12/03 Fri

As Head Buffy Cheerleader, your number one obligation should be to the show. You should have no life outside the show. You should be watching Buffy and Angel constantly. No more of those other shows that you keep talking about. What is this paper writing that you are talking about? You already finished your paper on Buffy (which was excellent and I hope it does get published). There are no other papers. Get to you DVDs at once and we will forgive this infraction.

We might have to take your pom-poms away if you don't correct your behavior immediately. It would be a pity because you look so dang cute in the skirt.

[> [> [> Re: Rob's Paper? -- Brian, 11:19:21 12/12/03 Fri

Hey, Rob, did you already print a link to your paper? If so, I must have missed it while I was in Florida. Could you reprint it? I really want to read it. Many, many thanks.

[> [> [> [> I didn't want to make the link public... -- Rob, 13:53:39 12/12/03 Fri

...until my paper is back and graded, so I only posted it at my LJ and sent the link to some of my friends. Even though I trust all the posters here, including you of coursre, I know that just about anybody potentially could read anything posted on the board, so I didn't post it here. But if you want, send me an e-mail and I can either e-mail you the link or the paper.

That goes for anyone else here who hasn't read the paper yet but wants to.

Rob

[> [> [> LOL! I wish you could use this argument on my mean professors! -- Rob, 13:55:19 12/12/03 Fri

[> [> Ah, yes the Firefly DVD -- fresne, 13:22:09 12/15/03 Mon

Which we bought yesterday and the 1st DVD is skip, jump flawed.

Sigh.

Back to the store it goes.

I want my Firefly and I want it in it's natural order. After all, I've already seen it in disorder.

[> Re: Free with purchase -- leslie, 13:53:12 12/12/03 Fri

I spent yesterday evening watching the first 8 episodes of S5, and all last night I dreamed about constructing a new order database (my current project at work) which had to incorporate a morphing vampire face in the order entry form. It just kept going on and on and on, and finally I thought, "Why do we need vampires on a database of sales of archaeology books?" I guess I feel like this database project is threatening to suck the life out of me....

[> Nick wont even let me see the BOXES until christmas -- Giles, 14:38:20 12/12/03 Fri

Darn him and his hiding place for christmas presents that i have no idea where it is even though it is a very small house and i have looked everywhere.

[> Post mortem post -- CW, 08:43:32 12/15/03 Mon

Having seen the entire series this past weekend I have to say that Firefly was doomed, even before FOX laid eyes on it. Just too much of it was done wrong. Joss' admiration for westerns and Sci-Fi didn't translate into any knowledge of either genre. Nathan Fillion is a good actor, but he was wrong person to play Mal. The character Kaylee was a mistake from start to finish; all potential wasted on a weekly bout of her fishing for compliments which end up being insults to her. Book was excess baggage for the sake of a plot twist down the road. Inara's part wasn't clear enough to the writers. What seemed like an exciting new charcter type was quickly devolving into old stereotypes. If she was supposed to be something more than a cross between a high-class whore and Counselor Troy (A disappointingly weak, and repetitious ST:NG character) then the writers needed to know that. Jayne was fine. Zoe was fine, but why wasn't she the captain of the ship? According to the commentary Mal's personality was originally supposed to be very much like hers. Wash as fine except his main purpose in the plot line seemed to be the other person in the relationship that Joss felt he had to bust up. Simon was a waste of space. River could easily have been Mal's sister. River would be a gorgeous moive character, but I'm not sure how much longer she'd have worked as a plot device (Objects in Space already showed she needed to develope into something else quickly.)

The DVD's point out an absurd amount of concern about what others in the business would think about the camera techiniques, and precious little about how the show would be perceived by a wide audience. The constant Chinese, beyond a few masked expletives, was just foolish. Obviously, no one at ME understood what was going on linguistically in Blade Runner and why no one spoke anything, but English in the dialog of that movie. Part of the success of Buffy was that at least in the earliest years it was suitable for a wide range of target audiences. Firefly seemed to be aimed at those people who didn't like traditional westerns or traditional Sci-FI, the very people who were least likely to bother tuning in to see what it was about.

FOX's stupidity didn't help one little bit, but Firefly wasn't going to make it anyway. What was good about it was Joss's masterful story telling. And that's the reason I wish that despite the errors Joss made in conceiving and producing the show I wish there were several more years of shows to view through.

[> [> Re: Post mortem post (re Firefly) -- Ames, 08:15:22 12/16/03 Tue

I've just seen the full series broadcast of Firefly on Space over the last few months, having missed most of it the first time around. I agree with some of what you said, but really I don't think the series got a fair chance to settle down and figure out where it should be going in just half a season. Perhaps the problem is that it was overhyped and the expectations were too high - JW built it up, and everyone was expecting it to be great right from the start. Even BtVS was a bit erratic in the first half season.

I would agree that some of the characters seemed to lack focus, but given time they would have become clearer. There just wasn't time to explore their stories.

I didn't find the Western theme compelling, but I didn't hate it either. And I liked the way the characters occasionally spoke Chinese - although it led me to wonder why there were no Chinese characters (did I miss some sort of backstory there?).

[> [> On characters -- KdS, 10:40:34 12/16/03 Tue

Inara's part wasn't clear enough to the writers. What seemed like an exciting new charcter type was quickly devolving into old stereotypes. If she was supposed to be something more than a cross between a high-class whore and Counselor Troy (A disappointingly weak, and repetitious ST:NG character) then the writers needed to know that.

It wasn't Inara, IMHO, but the whole Companion concept that was the subject of confusion among the writers. We had everything from Edlund, who bought into the male fantasy aspect uncritically, to Jane Espenson, who was utterly unconvinced and made it totally clear. (I feel sure I heard somewhere that Troi was originally meant to heal people sexually. Or was that just an anti-Roddenberry rumour?)

Nathan Fillion is a good actor, but he was wrong person to play Mal.

I remember reading your criticisms of Mal's leadership on various occasions, but I'd like to know why you thought Fillion was inapproporiate (or just tell me which thread on the FF board).

Simon was a waste of space.

Right... [ABORT FLAME! ABORT FLAME!]

Can I just boil it down to "I utterly disagree with you"? I thought that Simon's role as the outsider who surprises everyone else with his competence was a pivotal part of the ensemble, and an example of a standard Western trope which fully worked in the series. I also thought that they were hinting at exploring issues of social class with him and Kaylee that mostly get whitewashed in current US shows (where everyone lives like they have a $50,000 yearly income, regardless of their job).

[> [> [> Re: On characters -- CW, 11:48:57 12/16/03 Tue

I think Fillion could play a hero on most shows. I think he could have played the part of Wash or of Jayne better than he did Mal. NF says on the DVD's, he told Joss, he wasn't that guy (ie. Mal), trying to tell him he was uneasy about the part. To me it showed, but I don't expect everyone to agree with me. Part of the problem is also that it seems Mal was cast as a very closed, very private character like Angel, but the network insisted that he be funnier and more open. Fillion could do either funny or serious half of Mal, but when the two mixed, he came off more than a bit sadistic and untrustworthy. I think I said on the other board that Adam Baldwin would have been a better choice, and I still think so.

The big problem with Simon was that he was largely used as the guy who was supposed to be the butt of Jayne's jokes and to make Kaylee feel bad. I think the sensitive scientist who can't do anything, but put his foot in his mouth 90% of the time, and acts like the competent fellow he has to be 10% of the time, really isn't worth having, hence a waste of space. Make River Mal's sister and have him be tender with her to the extent the rest of the group is worried about their own safety. They'd still have a story, and one less actor's salary eating up the budget. As a writer if I was told I needed to trim the fat, Simon or Book would be the place to start.

I admit I went way overboard with criticism yesterday. I was angry with much of Joss' commentary. One thing he said was that, as originally envisioned, Firefly was going to have a cast of five regulars, but he decided to expand it to nine. From the very first episode we saw, it seemed to me that there were too many characters. Joss was definitely thinking two years down the road about the relationships between these people, when what he really needed to do was make damn sure there would be second and third seasons.

Go a little deeper into fewer characters would be what I'd suggest to Joss the next time he has an idea for a new series.

[> [> [> [> I must be weird -- KdS, 12:40:04 12/16/03 Tue

I have to say, I thought the "sadistic and untrustworthy" bit was deliberate and interesting. It's similar to my view of Angel - I find a guy who has these tendencies, knows he has them, and does his best to control them, just as admirable as and more interesting than someone with no dark impulses. But I know I have unusual tastes, and I'm sure it didn't make the series any more ingratiating to the average viewer.

[> [> Alas poor Firefly - sob - (spoilers) -- fresne, 11:58:40 12/17/03 Wed

Funny, I felt the same way - that it was doomed, but not because it was done wrong, but because everything was done exactly right. For me. And according to Myers-Briggs, I'm like 2% of the population, so yeah. Fresne loves it = doom, Doom, DOOM.

I was just grateful that for some reason Buffy lived, because really, I'm generally Typhoid fresne for shows.

There were some rough episodes to start, but if we'd started with Serenity then there wouldn't have been that scramble by ME to make up for lost - who the heck are these people. The Train Job had the highest ratings of the season. It would have been nice if the best, catch your attention, foot had been put forward. Sure, I love Mal's train job -bye bye kick, but I'm weird.

It would have been nice to have started with mystery and discovery. Meet Simon (who I grew into my favorite character) for the first time with those sinister red glasses. To not know who the girl in the box was. To say, "Huh." with Mal. To see Kaylee's face as she sat wounded in her engine room, "That's my girl." Watch Jayne crouching outside the window during Kaylee's surgery and know that he did in fact have a depth, somewhere in there. To race away from rievers. To Mad Ivan. Gunfights and battles and gunfights and fist fights and fly.

Not that I'm sure that if Fox had done things other than utterly wrong (pilot as last, episodes out of order, not much in the way of ads once the show started, ads out of joint with the show in the first place, etc.) that the show would have survived, because there wasn't an aspect about Firefly that didn't catch my heart.

And therefore, really, tiny cable network aimed at tiny slices of the pie. Much better bet.

WHY?? -- Fred, 14:11:43 12/12/03 Fri

Qhy did Amy's spell backfire in Gingerbread. I mean she cast that spell before right, well she should have had a handle on it. So why did it turn her into a rat

Replies:

[> BECAUSE!! -- LittleBit (sorry, couldn't resist), 14:37:55 12/12/03 Fri

Amy didn't direct the spell toward anyone in particular, so it worked on her.

[> I always Thought It workd the way she wanted -- Giles (Nickhawk is writing but wont post under his own name), 14:51:12 12/12/03 Fri

I always thought that she wanted to turn herself into a rat because she knew that she couldnt possibly turn everyone in the building into a rat, and she wanted to get the hell out of there asap. -Nick

Ummmm.... What he said
-Giles

[> [> Re: I always Thought It workd the way she wanted -- skeeve, 15:24:09 12/15/03 Mon

This of course leaves the question of why she picked on a rat.
Something that could talk would have been a better choice.

ANGEL reunions: Charisma Rides Again; Gavin Park Has Risen from the Grave (MissMatch spoilers) -- cjl, 19:57:10 12/12/03 Fri

Miss Match is definitely not my speed. It's a light 'n' fluffy romantic comedy, and I like my TeeVee a little grittier. But Alicia Silverstone is wearing me down. Ryan O'Neal is his usual charming devil whenever he has screen time. And Lake Bell (Victoria) is REALLY cute. Besides, we have not one, but two ANGEL alumni this week, with yet a third Jossverse veteran coming up next. (These actors are very popular for a bunch of TV shows nobody watches.)

I can see why the producers keep bringing Charisma back. She takes the character of Serena Lockner, who could be an unbearable cliche, and gives it some human dimension. It's like watching BtVS Season 1 and 2 Cordy, if she'd gone to L.A. and become an agent instead of an actress. To be honest, I think Charisma could do this role in her sleep-- but only because Joss' scripts exercised her acting muscles; it would be hard for another actress to convey that much undiluted bitchiness, and at the same time convince the audience there's a tiny spark of genuine humanity underneath. Charisma somehow balances the two beautifully.

As for Daniel Dae Kim, he's making the rounds these days: an Army man in The Hulk, a concerned social worker on ER, and now, the return of Gavin Park on Miss Match. Actually, the character's name is "Clifford Kim" (points for imagination), but he's the same shark-in-a-suit representing an evil organization. (Would make my day if, at some point, we could see that Wolfram and Hart is on Clifford's resume.)
His client?

If the spoilers are accurate, it's going to be Nathan Fillon. (Are Joss Whedon fans supposed to believe this is all a coincidence?)

The plot? Serena/Charisma wants to adopt a baby, because it's the perfect little Christmas-time accessory for the businesswoman on the go. Kate/Alicia doesn't so much indulge Serena as get swept away by Serena's relentless energy and shallowness; fortunately, Serena is paying Kate her usual enormous hourly fee for shopping, lunchtime chatting and babysitting. Kate is also working to save the poor infant girl from a lifetime of Serena by convincing the birth mom to take the baby back. Birth mom does, and we get a nice couple of scenes where Serena acknowledges that she was over her head, and she's not ready to be a mom. Fun, wealthy aunt, yes--mom, no. Holiday episode but not too cloyingly sweet.

The other main plot involves Kate's secret romance with Michael and her conflict of interest concerning Michael's ex, Lauren (Dina Mayer). Lauren is shaping up to be a Lilah-level manipulative bitch, but I'm kind of on her side here. Kate's trying to have her cake and--well, you know the metaphor--and if Lauren wants to roast Kate's pretty pink butt on the fire, I think Ms. Fox deserves it. Kate should have cooled it with Michael the minute the firm took on Lauren as a client; but no, she and Michael had to sneak around like giggly teenagers--and now, it's gonna get ugly.

If all that wasn't enough, Lake Bell moonlights as a naughty department store elf who has a little Christmas fun with Kerr Smith's Santa Claus. Now that's quality broadcasting. (For some reason, I enjoy this type of holiday entertainment. And I'm Jewish. I'm probably seeing Bad Santa tomorrow, with Billy Bob Thornton and Lauren Graham as a woman with a Santa fetish.)

All in all, a satisfying hour. Fillon's episode is Monday night, and I'll be there.

Replies:

[> I watched it too - small world -- Cheryl, 20:15:53 12/12/03 Fri

I was expecting CC but was totally surprised when I saw Daniel (Gavin) listed in the opening credits. Small role but he could be back. I had no idea NF was supposed to be on next Monday's ep - I was planning to skip it but now I'll tape it.

What's the ME connection with Miss Match? Is there one or do they all have the same agent?

[> [> The connection? Same producer and soundstage. -- s'kat, 20:54:05 12/12/03 Fri

Gareth Davies was the "producer" which is basically the guy who makes sure everything comes in on budget and helps with casting on BTVS, ATS and Firefly.

It's also filmed on BTVS's old soundstage. That's right the Miss Match sets used to be Buffy's Home and Sunnydale High.
Small World indeed.

See zapzit.com's interview with Nathan Fillion for more info. Don't have the link.

[> [> [> And there's more... -- Fenugreek, 23:47:33 12/12/03 Fri

...than the sound stage connection to BTVS. There was another BTVS connection on tonight's Miss Match. Gerta the nanny was played by Merion Calvert who also played Gina (one of the zombie workers at DMP) in Doublemeat Palace and Dead Things. I knew I recognized her from someplace. Just thought I would mention that in an attempt at completeness

[> Uhm a few disagreements here...;-)(MissMatch spoilers) -- s'kat, 20:49:33 12/12/03 Fri

Uhm...not completely sure...was Kerr Smith Scott Hope?
Or in Dawson's Creek? He reminded me of Scott Hope. But he's probably from Dawnson's Creek. His character was part of tonight's episode's overall theme - men = can't trust them.

The other main plot involves Kate's secret romance with Michael and her conflict of interest concerning Michael's ex, Lauren (Dina Mayer). Lauren is shaping up to be a Lilah-level manipulative bitch, but I'm kind of on her side here. Kate's trying to have her cake and--well, you know the metaphor--and if Lauren wants to roast Kate's pretty pink butt on the fire, I think Ms. Fox deserves it. Kate should have cooled it with Michael the minute the firm took on Lauren as a client; but no, she and Michael had to sneak around like giggly teenagers--and now, it's gonna get ugly.

Uhm, you misunderstood this entire plot point. But it's not your fault since you'd have to have seen the episodes since the beginning to understand the plot arc. If you hadn't, I can see why you might jump to that conclusion. IF you did see all the episodes, you'd have realized what a complete ass Michael really is and it's the big twist. Sort of like Wes suddenly ending up in bed with Lilah - you just don't understand the impact of it unless you've seen the build up.

The Michael plot has been going on since the first episode. Lauren didn't appear until about fifth? sixth? I've lost track.

At any rate - a bit of an overview, just to give an idea of what a sleaze Michael is: Episode 1 :Kate meets Michael, tells him she's a matchmaker - he flirts with her then asks her to set him up with someone. To be his matchmaker. She sets him up with someone, they don't click. A few weeks pass. Next episode. Serena appears - Kate sets him up with Serena - they appear to click, Kate is shocked. A week passes. They go on a double date with Kate and her chiropractor, who Kate's started dating, Serena makes an idiot of herself. Michael and Serena part ways. Episode 4: Kate finds Michael someone else, a lovely art professor- Michael seems really serious about this new girl. They date for a few weeks. The girl falls deeply in love with Michael. She throws a huge birthday party for him. Goes out of her way. Kate gets him a signed baseball card. New girl is a little jealous, asks Kate to back off. Kate backs way off. Michael calls Kate and complains he doesn't see her anymore. He pushes his girlfriend to make up with Kate. Kate calls him on it. They're all friends again. Episode 5: The girlfriend (I think her name was Amy) invites Michael home for Thanksgiving. Michael gets squirmy and forces Kate to get in the middle of it. Luckily for Kate, there's this other, much nicer guy, but sort of frumpy, whom she sets up with the girl and they hit it off.
Episode 6: Finally, Michael tells Kate that he has the hots for her, and why does she kept setting him up with other people when he loves her. Doesn't she like him. After much fretting and going out with a client, Kate caves in and they set up a first date. Episode 7: Kate manages to convince a bitchy new client named Lauren who alternately insults and flatters Kate to sign up with the firm. Kate goes to meet Michael for their first dinner date. First DATE. HE set it up. HE talked her into it.
And guess whose there? Lauren. Michael brings his ex-girlfriend, who Kate never heard about until now, who, I might add he hasn't seen in a year?? Michael introduces Kate to Lauren as his matchmaker...and makes it somewhat clear he's now interested in Kate, and is friends with Lauren. Lauren and Michael reassure Kate that they aren't involved. Kate goes on date two with Michael. Lauren asks Kate if she ever wanted to date one of the people she played matchmaker for - knowing Kate was Michael matchmaker and had planned a dinner date with him. Lauren sees Michael and Kate kiss - and that's when she goes to Ryan O'Neil's character (Dad) and tells him she's uncomfortable being represented by their firm if Kate is involved with her "ex-boyfriend", "whom she broke up with two years ago". Dad orders Kate not to see the guy. Kate caves. Michael pushes. Kate tries to break it off. Michael convinces Kate that he and Lauren are just old friends, there's nothing else going on. Kate sighs and gives in. That was where last week's episode left off...

Okaaay...tell me again, whose the nasty here? ;-)

Poor Kate. I'm sort of hoping sparks fly with Nathan Fillion (playing Lauren's ex-hubby) and Kate gives Michael the boot - now, that would be a "real" conflict of interest.
This? Not a conflict of interest. Except maybe for Michael, whose lied to Kate repeatedly. And for Lauren whose not only lied to Kate, but may have been involved with someone while married, giving her ex-husband grounds to cut her off without a cent. Confusing plot arc. Not the best. But there it is. Kate's a bit of a doormat..unfortunately. I keep waiting for her to build a little backbone. Maybe her friend can teach her.

sk

[> [> Michael: Dreamboat, weenie or smooth-talkin' bastard? -- cjl, 07:27:56 12/13/03 Sat

This is more thought than I wanted to give to this show, but I'll play along here. Now that you've given me all the background information, I'm thinking much less of Michael, but I'm not exactly sure (despite the episode-ender) that he's been telling bald-faced lies to Kate; I think he still has feelings for Lauren, but doesn't want to acknowledge them, to Kate, Lauren or himself. (On the scale, I think he's solidly in the "weenie" category.)

That said, Michael could well be a smooth-talkin' bastard, trying to have his cake and...well, you know the metaphor...stringing Kate along while pursuing Lauren. But I think Lauren pulled a neat little power play at Laguna Sands, telling Michael that Kate blew him off and she oh-so-kindly decided to pinch hit. (Or something.) Besides, the producers have exerted a lot of energy setting him up as the nice guy in a city of sharks. (Would be interesting if they pulled a switch, and made Michael the villain.)

And Kate? I still think she made the wrong decision.

Is the situation fair? No. Lauren had no right to reach into Kate's personal life, and Kate's dad shouldn't have backed Lauren up. But that's business. Lauren is going to pump a TON of money into the firm, and she's the client. Kate's relationship with Michael is too new to stand the kind of stress we're dealing with here. Time to step back, Katie. Michael insists he feels nothing for Lauren? Fine. K&M will pick things up when the case is over. And if Michael is lying about his feelings for Lauren? Then he's a liar, and K&M are doomed anyway.

I sympathize, though. Given the same circumstances, I'm not sure I would I be Mr. Ethical and tell my pretty new GF to back away. But then, this isn't my show...

[> [> Scott Hope -- Dochawk, 16:09:16 12/13/03 Sat

Nope, Scott Hope was played by Fab Fabrizio, who is currently Ethan Gold, a gay man, on Queer as Folk. This explains the reference in CwDP where Webs tells Buffy that Scott is now gay. I always wondered if that part was originally written to be SH, but the actor was previously engaged so it had to be changed.

[> [> [> One of my other favorite tv shows :) -- Giles, 19:51:15 12/13/03 Sat

He does a great job on QAF, btw, how are you dochawk? i haventseen you in ages

[> [> [> Thanks! It was Dawson's Creek then... -- s'kat, 23:31:22 12/13/03 Sat

[> [> [> [> Yup...Santa was played by Kerr Smith, who used to play Jack, the gay character on 'Dawson'... -- Rob, 07:47:50 12/14/03 Sun

...which may be why you got him confused with the guy from QAF.

Rob

[> Batgirl vs. Capt. Mal & Gavin Park vs. Batgirl, or: Shadowkat was right (Miss Match spoilers) -- cjl, 21:35:01 12/15/03 Mon

S'kat, you were right. Michael went so far beyond "weenie" in this episode that I'm not sure Kate wants to see him again. (Heck, I'm not even sure I want to see him again.) I mean, possibly having residual feelings for a psycho ex-girlfriend is one thing; concealing a months (year-?) long erotic e-mail correspondence with said ex-girlfriend is another. Thank god Kate found enough backbone to tell him to GO AWAY.

A question to all the lawyers on the board: how did Clifford/Gavin/DDK manage to spring that "surprise" in the courtroom? When Capt. Mal's lawyers subpoenaed Michael to show up in court, weren't Kate and Jerrold entitled to a look at whatever evidence the other side was going to present? Either I don't have enough knowledge about the law, the show's creators don't have enough knowledge about the law, or Fox and Associates are really stupid. (None of the above options would shock me.)

Nathan Fillion was supremely charming as Lauren's ex, and he looked and sounded relatively honest and straightforward. Of course, compared to Lauren, a used car dealer would sound honest and straightforward. He was flirting with Kate and she didn't seem too opposed to the idea. (Especially by the end of the episode.) I still think he's evil, though--and if Kate decides to hook up with him, I can all-but guarantee another car plowing into the already-blazing wreck.

There were other plotlines, but not much of interest. I have no idea what's going on between Nick and Victoria, but I don't feel the heat. And as for the Indian client, you had to be completely oblivious not to see the Brother Option coming a mile away. (Although I did like the Hindu-ized version of "Every Breath you Take.")

I don't know. I'll wait for Nathan Fillion to end his run, and I'll tune in when Charisma visits--but otherwise, I don't know if I want to stay with the show. By turning Michael into a complete weasel, I don't have any reason to be invested in his relationship with Kate. The creators may have sabotaged themselves here.

Willow's Spell in 'Something Blue' -- Felicia, 11:53:54 12/13/03 Sat

I'm confused about something. In "Something Blue", Willow casts some kind of "I will" spell, causing Giles to go blind, Xander to attract demns, and Buffy and Spike to get engaged. Now I realized that everyone's basic characters do not change because of this spell. But what I don't understand is why Buffy and Spike would believe that they were in love. All Willow had said was why don't Buffy marry Spike. She said nothing about the pair expressing their love for one another. And quite frankly, not everyone who get engaged are automatically in love. So how did Buffy and Spike end up believing they were in love?

Replies:

[> Re: Willow's Spell in 'Something Blue' -- angelverse, 11:59:02 12/13/03 Sat

one can only speculate that the "love" and "affection" we see them have for one another in season 6 and 7 was latent during that season and that willows spell brought it out in full force. maybe it took their feelings and exaggerated them to that point. thats my take

[> [> Or alternatively... -- KdS, 14:44:10 12/13/03 Sat

Both Buffy and Spike are pretty romantic types - it's perfectly possible that in their minds marriage would automatically imply love.

[> [> Re: Willow's Spell in 'Something Blue' -- Claudia, 07:34:33 12/15/03 Mon

[one can only speculate that the "love" and "affection" we see them have for one another in season 6 and 7 was latent during that season and that willows spell brought it out in full force. maybe it took their feelings and exaggerated them to that point. thats my take]

Considering my own theories about Buffy and Spike's feelings for each other, I'm inclined to agree with you.

[> [> [> Re: Willow's Spell in 'Something Blue' -- The Sorcerer, 03:34:57 12/16/03 Tue

If you consider realverse magic to be any bearing on Buffyverse magic, it is more probable that in Willow's mind marriage necessitates love or at least instantly evokes the sense of marriage requiring love and therefore the effect of the spell reflected such.

[> [> [> [> Re: Willow's Spell in 'Something Blue' -- Claudia, 10:44:12 12/16/03 Tue

Or their behavior could be a reflection of . . . well, not their true feelings for one another, but some kind of attraction that neither was willing to face.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Willow's Spell in 'Something Blue' -- The Sorcerer, 06:14:19 12/17/03 Wed

I suppose the spell could have provided a medium or "excuse" to express those feelings which may have been buried deep within them, but I think it has more to do with Willow than Buffy and Spike. Then again, I'm presupposing Buffyverse magic works on the same principles realverse magic does.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Willow's Spell in 'Something Blue' -- auroramama, 14:58:24 12/18/03 Thu

I like that take on it. After all, "marry him" was the climax of a complaint about Buffy's being more involved, in a manner of speaking, with Spike than with Willow. The rational reason offered was that Buffy had to pursue Spike because was evil, but Willow discounted him as a threat or even as a fugitive. So what did Willow think was going on? Buffy must prefer chasing Spike around to comforting her friend! Therefore the marriage that Willow's mind created had to involve a desire on Buffy's part to spend all her time with Spike. A marriage of convenience or necessity wouldn't fit the bill.

A note about analytical psychology and an apology -- lunasea, 18:29:48 12/13/03 Sat

I apologize to anyone I have offended, especially Shadowkat. I have been working on phrasing things. I am sorry if my words have been inadequate to explain Dr. Jung's theories. That is what I have been trying to do and my failings come from attempting to focus the show, specifically the character of Cordelia Chase, through the lens of Analytical Psychology. I will freely admit that the show does not exist on one plane and requires many lens in order to see it in its entirety clearly. I am using but one lens in order to get one plane into focus. This is necessary in order to get that one plane into as sharp a focus as possible.

We have many wonderful discussions on the board about the archetypal images. The archetypes are but one part of Dr. Jung's theory about the self-regulation of the psyche. The archetypes fit into a much larger picture and I was trying to expand discussions we have had in the past so that we could see how the characters and show fit into this much larger picture. I did not use the words allegory or metaphor. Since I was speaking from the lens of Analytical Psychology, I used the terms that Dr. Jung used to explain his theories. If I were to use anything, I would say archetypal images, as he did.

Allegory and metaphor can be conscious or unconscious. The allegory which punkinpuss has spoken about as "prosaic" tends to be deliberate/conscious. The demons on BtVS tend to be this. They are deliberately/consciously designed to represent something. Another example is in "Older and Farther Away" everyone trapped the house represented something in Buffy's psyche. In "Primeval" when Buffy/Willow/Giles/Xander are Hand/Spirit/Mind/Heart that is also a conscious design for that episode. There are many examples of deliberate allegory and metaphor on the shows.

What I am exploring are the main characters, which "Primeval" labeled as Hand/Spirit/Mind/Heart. If we look back to the seasons prior to this, we can see how the characters filled these roles before this. Was this a conscious design? I don't think so. In tracing Xander's evolution the three seasons prior to "Primeval," which I wrote about this summer, I knew I was looking at evidence of a complex. This is defined by Dr. Jung as feeling-toned ideas that over the years accumulate around certain archetypes, forming the archetypal images. Xander was an archetypal image. There are plenty of essays by plenty of posters supporting this in the archives.

To label something a particular archetypal image can be seen as being limiting or it can be seen as a necessary part of the self-regulation of the psyche, a process that leads to individuation. Dr. Jung did not believe that complete individuation was possible. He also said "The goal is important only as an idea; the essential thing is the opus which leads to the goal: that is the goal of a lifetime." Just because something can't be done, doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted. That may be the ultimate message of Angel. Shanshu may be just an unattainable goal, but a goal that Angel should still strive for. In striving for it, he becomes more human, which is not limiting. It is dissociating into the complexes and exploring those complexes that leads to individuation.

We have discussed Buffy/Willow/Giles/Xander from Hand/Spirit/Mind/Heart, mainly because "Primeval" labeled them as such. That isn't the only archetypal image they are. Buffy is not only Hand, but also Hero and Self. Willow is not only Spirit, but Feminine Consciousness. An interesting exploration is why Feminine Consciousness is portrayed in Buffy by Spirit and not Heart. When Buffy loses her connection to Willow season 6, she leaves the realm of consciousness and goes completely into shadow with Spike. How the viewer perceives this (good or bad) speaks to our own complexes.

BtVS is gone, but not forgotten. We will continue to talk about that side of the Buffyverse as much as people still talk about Middle Earth. AtS is still around and giving us new material for the story. I have been trying to see how the process of individuation is being demonstrated with Angel's hero's journey. Currently my focus is Fred as anima. That is the archetypal image I am currently interested in. Cordelia used to fill this roll and as such, she is something I wanted to explore through this particular lens.

The animus or anima does not tie us to the world. It ties us to the unconscious. It is often the soul-image of the unconscious. On the show this manifests as tie to the supernatural. Giles is the animus of Buffy, just as Cordelia is the anima of Angel. What ties us to the world is the consciousness. That would be Willow for Buffy and Wesley for Angel. This triangle between anima/animus, consciousness and self is something that interests me now. It is something I have been exploring on the board, in the journals, talking with friends, and in my dreams.

That isn't limiting, because just like the writers brought in extra characters to round out Buffy's psyche in "Older and Farther Away," my psyche can always expand what I am interested in. Today my favorite character is Fred. Tomorrow it may be Eve. I only limit myself if I force myself to stay with Fred. A few months ago, my focus was more on Angel. Season 6 of BtVS, it was Willow that held my interest. That is the beauty of the show. Many archetypal forms are there, so I can latch onto whatever my particular needs at the time dictate. That is why when I watch the seasons again, I see different things. The shows haven't changed. I have.

The show is written from many different layers. Just as Cordelia is Angel's anima, Lilah was written to be her foil. I am not saying those layers don't exist. I am just not discussing them at this particular time. I am interested in the interaction between anima, conscious and self. I am focusing on that to better understand it. That is what my psyche is driving me to do. I see nothing wrong or limiting in doing this.

One more thing before I go. I am not saying that what I am seeing was consciously written or that the writers try to pigeon hole the characters into these images or even should. Xander as Heart was probably unconscious seasons 1-3 and by the time they got to "Primeval" the image was assimilated into the consciousness. The show changes after this point and that could be because of the individuation writing "Primeval" represented. All I am trying to do is consciously analyze the show so that I can consciously analyze the relationship of anima, conscious and self.

If that attempt offends anyone, I am sorry.

Replies:

[> Apologies not necessary... -- Corwin of Amber, 21:46:13 12/13/03 Sat

I think people took some of your phrasing...overly personally. BTVS is unusual for network TV in that it rewards the viewers for investing themselves in the characters. That's good, in that it leads to passioned debate, but it's bad, in that people are surprisingly easy to offend because they identify with the characters. Personally, I find your essays some of the most thought provoking on the board (even forcing me to do outside research, which i thoroughly enjoy) and I hope I you don't change them because of the latest brouhaha.

[> [> Re: Apologies not necessary... -- jane, 22:10:54 12/13/03 Sat

I agree with Corwin. I thoroughly enjoy the debates this board brings, and find so much to think about because of them. Although I might not agree with you (or with any other poster) about a particular point, the fact that a TV show can stimulate such thoughtful discussions is amazing. Everyone sees it through their own lens. My feeling is "vive la difference!" I like a good debate, as long as it focuses on the issues.

[> [> [> Thank you both for the very kind words -- lunasea, 19:39:32 12/14/03 Sun

I will keep posting and hope that my next stuff about anima/animus is interesting. It may take a while to get it out. I need to go back and reread a few of Dr. Jung's papers. I will try to define terms as I go along.

I love how the show can be warp for us each to weave ourselves around and create these amazing tapestries. The posts and various perspectives that people bring to the show are as interesting as the shows themselves. Sometimes I can't help but analyze those instead of the shows.

[> Apology accepted. Want to try again? (spoilers to Destiny 5.8) -- s'kat, 22:41:19 12/13/03 Sat

Thank you for the apology.

I don't think you and I will ever agree on certain things.
But hey, that's a given in any interaction. ;-) And you do have a tendency to push my buttons...

Also as I admitted below, I'm really uncomfortable discussing things in pure Jungian or Freudian terms. I have troubles with both analysts on a certain level and the terminology often confuses me. Allegory happens when something is shown in purely archetypal or symbolic terms - everything is examined as merely a symbol. The series the Prisoner is a good example of this - literally every character was used as a psychological archetype. The Matrix- the last two films slipped into this as well, all the characters became symbols for Neo's journey. Red Dwarf - a friend of mine describes purely in this manner as well. From what you've said above, you clearly realize that BTVS and ATS aren't allegories, so I misunderstood you and possibly over-reacted. What pushed my buttons were comments like: "Spike is sketchily written", "He's just Buffy's shadow""the idea of Cordy as hero? blech!" and "Fred needs to spend more time with Angel than with Spike!"...it distracted me and made it impossible for me to see anything else you wrote, I got angry and upset, you took me out of calm analytical mode and all I saw was red. So, what I think happened is your emotions got in the way of your analysis as did mine. That's a shame, because from what you stated above? I think we do agree on a few things and are in some ways interested in figuring out similar issues, just not going about it exactly the same way. IF you'll forgive the analogy, one of us is going at it the way Fred might and the other the way Willow might.(I use those two characters b/c we both share a love for them, that way no one gets offended.)

Okay that said, I'd like to attempt to start our discussion again, but unfortunately you're going to have to tolerate the fact that I'm not familar with most of the Jungian terminology and not comfortable with strict formulas. What I can offer is my love of finding patterns and reading visual metaphors. I like playing that game and am willing to attempt to do that more in pseudo Jung terms than say, noir ones. So, I guess what I'm asking is would you like to attempt this again with the understanding that I'm no expert on Jung, and my syntax will be completely off at times? (Heck I've been known to make up words as well).

***********************************
(Bear with me, this may seem rambling at times, also, I'm writing this in a posting box not word and have been disconnected from the net three times already...so mistakes will be numerous.)

A friend and I have been trying to figure out Angel's psychological journey in discussions for over a year now. Tonight we were discussing the psychological/archetypal roles. For instance - tonight we came to the conclusion that Xander was Buffy's animus (he was by the way, I believe you're mistaken about Giles, no wait, not completely mistaken, you just didn't go far enough - Giles fulfilled an element of that, just as I believe Angel, Wood, Caleb, Warren, Andrew, Holden, Forrest, Spike and Riley did, but Xander was the central one = the heart/animus, the writers say as much in Primeval and again in Selfless. The animus takes many archetypal forms - it might be interesting to examine how each male in the show symbolizes a different way or function of Buffy's animus? Or rather her relationship with it? Part of the difficulty my friend and I had with S7, is we wished the writers had made Xander the co-hort of the First not Caleb, and Buffy's task was to forgive Xander her animus, as opposed to slicing him in half...this would have echoed Angel and Cordeli perfectly in S4). Cordelia, I believe, had always been Angel's. I think they may have even set this up as early as S2, which is why it's interesting that Xander and Cordy get hot and heavy the same time Buffy and Angel do.
Then when Xander and Cordy break up in Lovers Walk, caused by a stomach wound - which is repeated in Becoming (Angel stabbed through the stomach), Selfless (Anya through the stomach) and Habeas Corpus (Lilah through the stomach) - Cordy almost dying b/c of Xander - is when Buffy breaks up with Angel. It's a nice corollary. What I like about the shows is ME gives all the characters arcteypal representations, Angel has an anima, Buffy does, Spike does (it's Buffy), Willow does (it may be Warren). But to focus on all of them or analyze all of them at once would drive people nuts and confuse them. So I'll restrain myself. My mind tends to be a bit like Fred's it spits out tons of information at once.

I do enjoy Fred, she is my favorite female character currently, written two essays on her already. But I don't think she's Angel's "sole" anima. Fred symbolizes one aspect of the anima...hmmm I wonder if that might work better? To see each of the female characters as aspects of Angel's anima? (Similar to what I did with Buffy above?)
Cordelia is still in the show by the way (just asleep, which is vitally important) Angel has put the portion of the anima he can't deal with to sleep, while allowing the portion he can deal with to remain awake - Fred, the studious, non-agressive, damsel as opposed to the powerful, aggressive, tell it like it is, in your face bitch goddess. By denying the one and permitting the other - we see an unbalanced Angel filled with a sense of self-loathing. The portion asleep is also popping up and taunting him through EVE who may in fact be an echo of it - just as Lilah was possibly in Home. If so, isn't it interesting that the echo has teamed up with Angel's shadowself? Wonder what that means? And Harmony? Another echo of the sleeping Cordy. Putting Cordy to sleep - causes the aspect of the anima she represented to split into three: Fred, Eve, Harmony. With the sleeping Cordy - sign of Angel's desire to suppress her. Another way of interpreting Unleashed - may be that Nina represents both sides of this anima - the monster and the damsel - the damsel -Angel talks with and saves, the monster - Angel puts to sleep. Note Fred befriends the damsel but does not interact with the monster. (What pushed my buttons in your post below was the statement: Angel should be spending more time with Fred than Spike. What I'm more interested in, is why have the writers chosen to put Spike and Fred together? I'm wondering if Spike may be the mirror of Angel? Not the shadow and here I realize I'm leaving Jung behind and this why I'm not comfortable with Jung because the analysis limits me in my own analysis..if I stick with Jung I get stuck...but I've never much liked formulas or limitations, as you no doubt noticed about my unstructured rambling posting style...;-) I think Spike is Angel's mirror self, the split side. (If you want to explore this through the head cheese - Whedon, I'm wondering if Spike and Angel may be two halves of Whedon's persona? Spike - the side with the aggressive radical feminist mother who became sick and Whedon couldn't save and Angel-the side with the successful and busy father who demanded a great deal but was never there. So perhaps Spike and Angel need to find a way of joining, becoming partners, to resolve their issues? Sorry, one of my current obsessions with the show is the Spike/Angel relationship.) I think the shadow this year is Lindsey, as it was in S1-2.
(In S3, it was definitely Holtz, with a little of Wes thrown in, although I see Wes in S3/S4 being more of a mirror character as well. I'm sorry, I'm not comfortable with the idea of Wes as mind or spirit, it doesn't work for me. I do see him forming some of the same functions as Willow though...something just feels off about it. Maybe it's just the spirit archetype that doesn't work for me? So I can't help or add to that one.) In S4, the shadow's Connor, although I see him as the inner child as well.
Lindsey though is the shadow this year.

Well I hope that made a lick of sense. I also hope I didn't inadvertently push your buttons in it. Button pushing is a tough thing to avoid, I'm afraid. I will try hard not to overreact again to what you say...but can't promise anything. Emotionally volatile right now.

sk

PS: Thank you again for the apology. I hope this will start us off on a better foot.

[> [> A bit more Jungian theory -- lunasea, 08:38:24 12/14/03 Sun

The hero's journey is just that--a journey. The symbols that make up the story are there to give form to this journey. The journey is what I am most interested in. This journey illustrates what Jung termed the self-regulation of the psyche. So that we are on the same page, this process is described at the following:

1. Difficulty of adaptation. Little progression of libido.

2. Regression of energy (depression, lack of disposable energy).

3. Activation of unconscious contents (fantasies, complexes, archetypal images, inferior function, opposite attitude, shadow, anima/animus, etc.). Compensation.

4. Symptoms of neurosis (confusion, fear, anxiety, guilt, moods, extreme affect, etc.).

5. Unconscious or half-conscious conflict between ego and contents activated in the unconscious. Inner tension. Defensive reactions.

6. Activation of the transcendent function, involving the self and archetypal patterns of wholeness.

7. Formation of symbols (numinosity, synchronicity).

8. Transfer of energy between unconscious contents and consciousness. Enlargement of the ego, progression of energy.

9. Assimilation of unconscious contents. Individuation.

Not only does the hero's journey give form to this, but it is a part of it. It is step three. The various characters are an activation of the writers' unconscious. As the writer goes through the process towards individution, when the story continues, the characters also progress towards individuation and vice versa. It is often through writing the story that we can go through this process. Have you ever looked back on a story to see why you wrote it? Why that particular story? What personal meaning does it hold for you? If Joss is Xander as he realizes, what did he learn from writing the story? The final empowerment that Buffy/Willow do in "Chosen" is done on a smaller scale throughout the series by Xander.

Later today, I will be looking at several things: how Angel and Giles were Buffy's animus, how and maybe why Angel's role evolved beyond this, Cordy as possessed by animus (give me a chance to explain the concept, before you get upset). Then tomorrow, I will do how this carries over to AtS.

First a few terms, so we are on the same page. If you need a good resource for Jungian terms, I recommend Jung Lexicon It is a lot easier than trying to work with the Collected Works.

Soul: I have been compelled, in my investigations into the structure of the unconscious, to make a conceptual distinction between soul and psyche. By psyche I understand the totality of all psychic processes, conscious as well as unconscious. By soul, on the other hand, I understand a clearly demarcated functional complex that can best be described as a "personality." [Definitions," CW 6, par. 797]

"The "soul" which accrues to ego-consciousness during the opus has a feminine character in the man and a masculine character in a woman. His anima wants to reconcile and unite; her animus tries to discern and discriminate."[The Psychology of the Transference," CW 16, par. 522.]

This will be something that I will focus on in later posts. Buffy is so rich because she is Joss' anima, but also as hero/self has animus. Angel is seen to be less metaphorical than Buffy because he lines up with the writers for the most part, so this level is missing for the most part.

BtVS is about reconciling and uniting, but Giles is trying to get Buffy to discern and discriminate. I will focus more on BtVS to illustrate the concepts before moving onto AtS and Cordy. I will refrain from discussing Spike and season 6 until much later.

Anima and animus get interesting because they are both a personal complex and an archetypal image. Archetype is an "instinctual image" which is the psychic counterpart to instinct. The process of individuation is taking instinct and making it conscious. This is done through the process I give above, the process of individuation. "Psychologically . . . the archetype as an image of instinct is a spiritual goal toward which the whole nature of man strives; it is the sea to which all rivers wend their way, the prize which the hero wrests from the fight with the dragon."["On the Nature of the Psyche," CW 8, par. 415.]

Jung admits that much confusion of his theories comes from using the word archetype in place of archetypal image. An archetype has no form and "can be recognized only from the effects they produce."["A Psychological Approach to the Trinity," CW 11, par. 222, note 2.] I wish to avoid such confusion, so I will use archetype when I mean archetype and archetypal image when I am talking about the form it is taking.

When we look at Cordelia, she is an archetypal image. Her role as anima or good mother or anything else is also an archetypal image. The archetype would have to be something tied back to instinct, such as our desire to be nurtured or to nurture others. At this point, I'm not going back that far. Anima is far enough for the purpose of this discussion.

Anima and animus get complicated in a society that has lived through feminism. Things aren't assigned to sex any more, or at least we try not to. There are still biological drives/instincts that are determined by sex. It is hard to apply Dr. Jung or Dr. Freud's theories that do have this sex component to them to a society that has tried to get away from sex, but I still find what they said to be valid, even if it needs some modification.

Maybe that helps clear things a bit or muddies it up completely. I will do a separate post to address specifically what you have said. Hopefully what I have said above can serve as a framework for the discussion and keep things on a less personal level.

[> [> Now a direct response (spoilers Destiny) -- lunasea, 10:19:08 12/14/03 Sun

I think it may be best to separate my responses to you from any additions I make to the discussion. I don't want you to think I am not listening or directly responding to you and instead am just spouting off my own theories/perspective. I will add on my own stuff about Buffy, Angel, Giles, Cordy to the subthread that I started "A bit more Jungian theory." I would like to keep the lens of psychology to one thread, until it gets as long as the initial Cordy thread did.

I find pure allegory uninteresting. The episode that most illustrates allegory on BtVS isn't "Restless." It is "Older and Farther Away." Let's get all Buffy's psychological components under one roof, even if we have to bring in a few extra characters. The house is a very standard symbol of Self. I am exploring Cordy as anima so that I can work up to Fred and see how Angel's relationship with this component has changed. We can use Darla, Buffy, Cordy and Fred as the four levels of development that Dr. Jung theorized or perhaps it is Darla, Buffy, Cordy/Fred, Buffy. The progression from character to character, from Eve to Helen to Mary to Sophia is what interests me. We could even trace Cordy's development in these roles. There are various things that can be done beyond just pigeon holing Cordy into a title.

One of the things I like about Stephen DeKnight's writing is the thing he does exceedingly well, IMO, is show how one thing leads to another. His dreams aren't about symbols, but how one symbol gives rise to another. These connections are the heart of his episodes. It is a visual word association. It is one thing I wish I could do in my own writing.

"Spike is sketchily written" I don't see this as an insult, to the character or his fans. Gunn is sketchily written. So was Tara. Other than Buffy's kid sister, Dawn didn't have a whole lot to her most of the time. How much do we know about Fred? Season 1, how much did we know about Angel? How much do we know about Spike outside of Buffy? I thought it was fitting he came back noncorporeal, because he didn't have much of an existance outside of Buffy. This isn't an insult. It's just the needs of the story and medium. It isn't meant to be a put down of the character or as a fan. It is just an observation about how much of the story he got.

"He's just Buffy's shadow" There is nothing demeaning about that. It isn't just as in he is beneath Buffy or that the shadow is no big deal. It is that he isn't animus. He can't be, by virtue of his character. The animus is Logos. That is why it is Giles and Angel and not Xander. Psychologically speaking, I think Xander is author's self. That is why he is heart. Heart is the part of individuation that Joss was working on. The reconciliation and uniting is Eros often symbolized by heart. In many ways, Xander was witness to what was happening. Buffy is hero/self that needs to learn the lesson, but even as far back as season 1, Xander knew and exhibited that lesson. Please don't take this as an insult to the character or you as a fan.

I spent a great time and libido (psychic energy) on a image I refered to as "The Bitch." When I was exploring how far I had come and if in fact I had changed, I was most interested in the dichotomy between Angel and Angelus. Seeing Angelus in a cage confirmed for me that this image was no longer a complex for me. That is why Spike holds little interest for me. That is me. I am not interested in that aspect of Buffy's shadow. If you are, that is great.

I think something happened on the show though. With Giles being gone season 6, the female writers had no animus any more. Spike became that for them and they wrote him more sympathetically then the male writers did. Fury's comments about Spike are Spike as shadow and Jane and RRK probably saw him more as animus. I think our own disagreement arises from this. Perhaps later, if we survive discussing Cordelia, we can discuss Spike through this lens. It is this complexity of the role of the character in relationship to Buffy played against what he is for the writers that give the show such texture.

"the idea of Cordy as hero? blech!" Cordy had a history on BtVS that they just ignored when she crossed over. Greenwalt isn't Joss and when the story changed hands, the characters became what the new author saw them as. Wesley barely was a character, so that was ok. Joss had a pretty good idea of what Angel was and set this down in "Amends," so that was ok. Calling Cordy "big smile girl" to me misses her whole character. As Skip said, "No, Cordelia was chosen to become a higher being because she's such a pure, radiant saint. (scoffs) Puh-lease." This is after Greenwalt leaves. Maybe Greenwalt saw her as a hero. Maybe you do. I think Skip was speaking for those of us who don't. Maybe my tone is a bit off, but it is just fan girl. She keeps the essays from getting too academic. The show used humor to undercut even the most dramatic moments. I do the same with fan girl. I'm sorry if the style is offensive to you. It is still a TV show and even though I get a lot of out it personally, the key is to remember the fun.

"Fred needs to spend more time with Angel than with Spike!" Fred is anima and heart. Angel needs her. Angel is still the hero/self/story. I can rephrase that as Angel needs Fred to spend more time with him, though I think Fred will need it as well. Fred is instead spending her time in the shadow. If you want to see my wacky idea with what I think they are going to do with her this season, it is in my journal. Just ignore the fan girl stuff dismissing Spike.
**************

We are seeing season 7 a bit differently. Season 4 was a transition that occurs once Joss has individuated regarding the archetypal images of Giles/Xander/Willow, which he consciously labels Mind/Heart/Spirit. Seasons 5-7 are taking each one of those things and incorporating them into Buffy. In season 5, Buffy doubts her ability to love. After this season, Xander is pretty absent. Heart has been Individuated. Season 6 focuses on Willow, Spirit. We see what happens to Buffy when she loses touch with this, what it takes to get it back and how this affects her. Season 7 focuses on Mind, Logos, Animus. Buffy is what is known as possessed by Animus this season. This manifests negatively in fixed ideas, collective opinions and unconscious, a priori assumptions that lay claim to absolute truth. Buffy needed Giles' opinion and approval when it came to the Sycthe spell. Season 5-7, Buffy incorporates and transcends heart/Xander, spirit/Willow and mind/Giles. It is too bad that ASH wasn't more available for Season 7, for this should have been the season of Giles. That is what I see.

Season 2, we have three couples--Buffy/Angel, Willow/Oz and Xander/Cordelia. Buffy is self/hero. Angel is animus. Willow is feminine consciousness and she connects with the unconsious/beast part of Angel. Xander is the author's self and he connects with a representation of Buffy as not Slayer. We have the supernatural pair of Buffy/Angel. The completely human pair of Xander/Cordelia and the in-between pair of Willow/Oz. There are many parallels going on here, but I don't see Cordy as Angel's animus season 2, other than Buffy is sort of (if we are looking at it from Angel's perspective, though that perspective is limited) and Cordy parallels to Buffy.

Actually there is one more couple, Giles/Jenny, but we can talk about that later if you want. There is so many yummies here. I'm going to gain 50 lbs. That is why I am trying to just focus on the main characters and how the others relate to them. We can view the show from each character's perspective, but then we have the problem that the main character is the one that has the most material and is Self. I wouldn't say that Gunn is Fred's animus, but that they got together because Angel's mission became his son, so spirit/mission and heart/anima got involved.

Angel didn't put Cordelia to sleep. I think that is important. It isn't he can't deal with that part, but that part has been incorporated/evolved and isn't necessary to the story any more. She is in the coma for the same reason Spike got toasted and ghosted.

People have commented on how Angel's tends to rescue the damsel, but it is this part of Angel that Angel needs to rescue in himself. I am also interested in why Fred is the one helping Spike, though psychologically I know the answer. Angel/Spike are self/shadow. Shadow is unconscious. Wesley is masculine consciousness/Logos and is where Angel is right now, though Angel disses him too. Angel is exhibiting many of the traits that in a woman would be termed possession by animus. Fred as anima has been pushed into the shadow, into dealing with Spike and not Angel. Spike occupied her time.

Spike is corporeal now. He won't need Fred's attention. At this point, Fred is disconnected from Angel. "Lineage" did a good job disconnecting her from Wesley. She's not going back to Gunn, who is disconnected from everyone by virtue of being lawyered up. That leaves Knox. Fred needs to reconnect with Angel, for both of their good. Eventually, she needs to end up with her true love, Wesley.

Very interesting idea about Joss re:Spike and Angel as split sides of him. Angel will have to find a way of dealing with Spike, just like he has to deal with every character. I think this season, Spike isn't the ultimate one he has to work with, but the ultimate shadow, the Senior Partners. Jasmine kicked Angel's evolution up a few notches.

[> [> [> Re: Now a direct response (spoilers Destiny) -- sukhrit, 13:34:58 12/14/03 Sun

"Spike is sketchily written" I don't see this as an insult, to the character or his fans. Gunn is sketchily written. So was Tara. Other than Buffy's kid sister, Dawn didn't have a whole lot to her most of the time. How much do we know about Fred? Season 1, how much did we know about Angel? How much do we know about Spike outside of Buffy? I thought it was fitting he came back noncorporeal, because he didn't have much of an existance outside of Buffy. This isn't an insult. It's just the needs of the story and medium. It isn't meant to be a put down of the character or as a fan. It is just an observation about how much of the story he got.

don't believe you didn't intend this as an insult, given past discussion, lol.

figure out how many eps BtVs and Angel are ALL about Spike-not sketchy imho-you keep saying it, but it isnt true. Spike has got WAY more of the story than others. you just refuse to see it if it doesnt match your fantasy.

[> [> [> [> Hmmm... -- Random, 15:59:07 12/14/03 Sun

Fantasies aside, you seem to have some issues here. If you want to make your coming-out party (you did say you were a generally a lurker in your previous post, no?) an exercise in antagonism, so be it. Up to you. It's not going to impress most of us, but we can just pointedly ignore future posts from you. Up to us. Or -- just a radical suggestion -- you could post an idea of substance. Perhaps something about what you think. Not that I'd be so cavalier as to suggest such insight is required for posting. Far from it. Your posts have been enlightening, I'll grant, but perhaps not in quite the manner that reflects best on you. Since you choose to grace us with your wit and wisdom, perhaps you could deign to submit something edifying as well as revealing.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Hmmm... -- sukhrit, 16:15:18 12/14/03 Sun

huh. no issues. no need to impress. do you?

just tired of sameold sameold from lunacyposter/spikehater.

did not know straightforward comment would trigger combative response. simple really-lots of eps center on Spike, lots more than others mentioned in lunasea's post-therefor lunasea's not stating fact, hust his/her fantasy.

thats it.

[> [> [> [> [> [> I will not respond -- lunasea, 18:47:45 12/14/03 Sun

Except to point out that this response constitutes a personal attack and this is a violation of board policies.

Earlier, my character was inpugned when this poster came out of lukerdom to say that I would not respond to punkinpus. This thread constitutes a response, as it has referenced what punkinpus said, and I see that that accusation has not been retracted nor any attempt conciliation made.

I could defend my earlier statements about Spike, but will not to a poster that has already made up his/her mind about me and will simply dismiss what I say as coming from "lunacyposter/spikehater" or "fantasy." As the section about board netiquette in the FAQ's which can be accessed at the top of the screen on the main index page says, "personal attacks are not reasons for or against a viewpoint." Since I have seen nothing but personal attacks, I see no need to respond because these do not constitute a reason against my viewpoint.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I will not respond -- sukhrit, 10:17:23 12/15/03 Mon

why all this immediate and overblown animosity?

apologize for lunacyposter, that was perhaps personal, but spikehater is accurate given past discussions, imho.

BUT my main point remains the same and is very simple and worthy of discussion rather than dismissal-many more episodes of both Buffy and Angel have focused intently on Spike. examples would be Fool for Love and Lies My Parents Told-both give a far more detailed look as Spikes history and cause of his current actions that has been done for characters mentioned like Gunn, Fred, etc.

I see a reason for this, in that Spike is more important, integral to the stories being told that you continually state as fact. my view has merit, too, don't know why it can't be debated, but I have now been unnecessarily and unfairly abused by you and another as if I had no piont to make at all, just wanted to flame you, which is NOT clearly NOT the case.

way too touchy for me, didnt use to be such a clicky board IIRC-back to lurking

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I am tempted to assume that you didn't want AtS before Spike showed up -- lunasea, 10:47:56 12/15/03 Mon

Because both Gunn and Fred's history has been given along with much growth. Fred isn't the shy she-cow from Pylea and her motivation is in that growth as much as it is her backstory. Same with Gunn. He isn't the self-destructive young man haunted by his sister any more.

Fred first appears in "Belonging" on May 1, 2001. Her story is set up with being sucked into Pylea and the effect being a slave and fugitive for five years have had on her. "Fredless" sets her up as the anomaly she is, namely the only character (besides Riley) that has two good parents and the strength she gets from this. "Supersymmetry" really goes into her feelings about being sucked into Pylea and what a true genius she is. "Shiny Happy People" and "Magic Bullet" show her strength and lack of self-esteem. She is as well drawn as Xander, Willow or Giles. Eventually, I will have an essay on Fred for the character essays. I wouldn't say she is sketchy at all.

Gunn has been on since Season 1's "War Zone" which aired May 9, 2000. That episode sets him up pretty well. He should have the number 2 spot in the credits. This is furthered specifically in "That Old Gang of Mine," "Double or Nothing," and "Players." He is as well drawn as the Xander, Willow or Giles.

I know no one who has watched AtS that has any doubts about Fred or Gunn's motivation. That Spike's is so hotly contested on the board shows how sketchily this is drawn.

The shows focus around hero/heart/mind/spirit. The characters that respresent these are the most drawn, having not only centric episodes, but pretty big hunks out of hero centric episodes.

If you are going to call me a Spike hater, would you call David Fury or Steven S. DeKnight one? My opinions seem to line up with theirs. If you would use this term to describe the people that take the time to write the character (and are now in charge of him), I consider myself in good company.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I am tempted to assume that you didn't want AtS before Spike showed up -- alcibiades, 14:39:12 12/15/03 Mon

I know no one who has watched AtS that has any doubts about Fred or Gunn's motivation. That Spike's is so hotly contested on the board shows how sketchily this is drawn.

Come on, that is just silly.

First of all, I'm expecting Gunn's motivations to change a great deal now that he had the injection from W&H. I couldn't say what his motivations are now -- I knew what they were originally, but change does seem to be in the air.

Secondly, you are taking a Jungian framework, imposing it on the show, then saying Spike doesn't fit with said framework to your satisfaction, so this shows his motivation is sketchily drawn.

You know, if the theory doesn't work, alter it.

Spike is a lightning rod -- people love him or hate. Either way he invokes strong emotion from them. Very few people feel blase about him. And that doesn't happen when characters are sketchily drawn either in fiction or in real life.

If you are going to call me a Spike hater, would you call David Fury or Steven S. DeKnight one

In a recent interview Fury said Spike was his favorite character to write.

Which doesn't speak much for the fact that he agrees with you that the character's motivation is sketchily written. To me it implies that he enjoys getting into the spirit of the character because it is a rich character, not a sketchy one. His former favorite was early Cordy, btw, also not a character that is sketchily written and one that also invoked strong feelings in people, both negative and positive.

It is interesting, however, in light of Fury's statements that these are two characters you appear to have little liking for.

My opinions seem to line up with theirs.

Um...so the Spike of Seeing Red has motivations that are sketchily drawn? In what possible way? It seems to me just the opposite. He has competing motivations of good and evil, from the superego and the id, both of which are intense.

I think you are confusing complex motivation with sketchiness. Fury's Spike is not consistently motivated but tugged from various sides of his personality. So, too, is DeKnight's. But that does not reduce to sketchy characterization, quite the opposite, it indicates complexity.

Spike is a chaos figure. His purpose until now on ATS 5 is literally to walk through walls that others are imposing, to break through boundaries, to destroy complacency.

He ain't never going to conform to any damned rules.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Excellent points! Well said! -- Pony, 16:18:17 12/15/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I am tempted to assume that you didn't want AtS before Spike showed up -- lunasea, 17:02:52 12/15/03 Mon

I really was trying to hold off on discussing Spike or how he is/was written until after I got a better handle on Cordy/Fred as anima. The shadow, whether it is Angel's or Buffy's, is sketchy. If it wasn't, the individual would be fully individuated. Spike as shadow is drawn enough for that whatever particular issue Buffy is dealing with that season.

Season 3 we learned he was "Love's Bitch." We didn't get the motivation for that motivation until LMPTM, episode episode 17 of season 7. There were some interesting discussions about whether Spike was Oedipal or pre-Oedipal before this. Those could be had because we didn't know. To use LMPTM to say that Spike was drawn in well says that before this he wasn't. He appeared episode #15 and his motivation was finally given #139. That is 124 episodes without this motivation. That motivation was supplied by the viewer. When this was validated by the show, many rushed to say "I told you so." Told me what? That the writers finally decided to sketch in his motivation for this main character trait since he was going to cross-over? I agree. It was Spike's "Amends." His motivation fit standard Freudian thought. It isn't the first time the show has gone to Dr. Freud and I'm sure it won't be the last. I don't think "Life of the Party" will be. A show that deals with the importance of dreams and the un/subconscious is going to be influenced by psychoanalytical thought.

Gunn's motivation for getting lawyered up was given last season, both in "Players" and in "Home." We can still trace this all back to what happened to Alonna (I hope that isn't a new mini-troll). When his motivation changes, we will be given that. It was started with him marking his territory in "Life of the Party." We still need a Gunn-centric episode this season. I'm sure that will cover the change that he has undergone.

Spike is a lightning rod -- people love him or hate. Either way he invokes strong emotion from them. Very few people feel blase about him. And that doesn't happen when characters are sketchily drawn either in fiction or in real life.

The strong emotional reaction, also known as a complex, tends to be a case of projection. That can't happen if the character is well drawn in. The ones that are well drawn in are complexes for less people so they have less of a reaction. I think the beauty of his character is how people can fill him in with themselves. Xander, Willow, Giles and Buffy had too much story to do this with. Spik