July 2003 posts

Previous July 2003  

More July 2003

BTVS Movie Makers -- neaux, 09:03:40 07/16/03 Wed

Hey folks, been a while since I posted a topic so be kind!

Well I find this interesting that every 2 months or so, MARC BLUCAS, aka Riley Finn has a hollywood movie coming out.

His next movie is I Capture the Castle and looks somewhat interesting.

Why is it He is banging out all these movies?
Of course he's been off the show since season 5. And going movie bound has obviously worked for him.

Well since BTVS is over (sob!) Which other BTVS actor will continue to get steady work.. as much so as Marc Blucas?

[> Re: BTVS Movie Makers -- Darby, 09:24:33 07/16/03 Wed

Does anyone know the timing enough to answer this question -

Marc Blucas was part of a Scooby-Doo send-up in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back. Could Kevin Smith have known the extra layers - not only the Scooby-Buffy connection, but also with SMG in Scooby-Doo the movie - at the time he made J&SB? And (ignore this last part if you wish, it's idle, distasteful speculation) is there some sort of feud going on here?

But here's another question - if Anthony Stewart Head returns to Hollywood, could he do okay in parts that Sean Connery has gotten too old for?

[> [> Re: BTVS Movie Makers -- Vegeta, 10:50:52 07/16/03 Wed

Anthony Stewart Head doing Connery-esque roles would be great. But, he seems quite attached to the UK television at the moment. But I'll cross my fingers and hope.
On the J&SB subject I did find it suprising that there were two BtVS alumni's in the film. However, I don't think it was purposeful that MB appeared in the SD sendoff, but then again Kevin Smith is the type of person to intentionaly put a scene in his films just to piss off/get back at someone. Was he possibly slotted to direct Scobby Doo at some point?

[> [> ASH movies? I'm there. -- neaux, 10:55:08 07/16/03 Wed

Whether ASH takes on Sean Connery roles or not, if he made feature films.. I would so be there.

I think any smart director would hire ASH. Hell, arent the "Potter" movies entirely British cast? It would be freakin'great to see him in a HP movie.

[> [> [> ASH as Remus Lupin . . . -- HonorH, 12:21:25 07/16/03 Wed

Oh, all my naughtiest fangirl dreams come true!

[> [> [> [> I'd heard... -- ponygirl, 12:58:15 07/16/03 Wed

That JM read for the part of Lucius Malfoy. Which would have been cool, except when I picture him in the long flowing wig they had on Lucius. Probably not a good look for him.

Ah Remus... sigh.

[> [> Re: BTVS Movie Makers -- Cheryl, 11:08:29 07/16/03 Wed

Marc Blucas was part of a Scooby-Doo send-up in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back. Could Kevin Smith have known the extra layers - not only the Scooby-Buffy connection, but also with SMG in Scooby-Doo the movie - at the time he made J&SB? And (ignore this last part if you wish, it's idle, distasteful speculation) is there some sort of feud going on here?

I've wondered for some time now what kind of connection a lot of the BtVS actors have with other showbiz types (i.e., agents, producers, etc.) because:

1) Blucas and Danny Strong were both in Pleasantville, which starred Reese Witherspoon of Cruel Intentions with SMG.

2) Eliza Dushku was also in the Jay and Silent Bob movie (although not in any scene with MB).

3) MB and Freddie Prinze Jr both play Scooby Doo Fred and they were both in Summer Catch.

4) Seth Green and AH have worked together previously.

5) Amber Benson, Eliza Dushku, and Lindsey Crouse were in a movie together.

As for I Capture the Castle - I've been dying to see that one since I first heard about it, and it's not even coming to Phoenix! At least not for awhile.

I also find it interesting that MB is not only getting lots of movies, but movies with some decent stars (Mel Gibson, Gwyennth Paltrow, Dennis Quaid, Edie Falco, to name a few). Now I love MB - I'd take B/R over B/A or B/S any day - and see him in everything he does (even including Summer Catch - ugh), but for someone who started out as a professional basketball player, he's sure come a long way.

As for the question of what other Buffy actors have movies coming up, isn't James Marsters supposed to start shooting a movie in September with Derek Jacobi?

[> [> [> Yes, indeed. -- HonorH, 12:24:14 07/16/03 Wed

Don't know much about it, but yes, James Marsters is set to play the Derek Jacobi character's lover. I believe Sean Bean is in the project, too.

Sean Bean--yummy!

[> [> Yes -- Sara, hearing 'Bond, James Bond' in her head, 12:02:33 07/16/03 Wed

What a great idea, sweetie, you should be a casting director! He's got the ability to put a real edge on, and he can also be totally charming and suave. That would be cool! (Going back to work now, really!)

New post about the JW S6 misogyny thread -- curious, 16:08:52 07/16/03 Wed

Since the posts on that thread are getting more and more confusing - it has been suggested that a new thread be started - with a new focus. I am hoping Diana and others will add their posts here.

(my connection seems really slow so I am having trouble with the page loading and finding all the disconnected posts I have been respoding to.)

Did JW actually say Spike was a misogynist? I don't think so. I think he was saying something else and we might be debating the wrong issues.

This is the quote that has caused so much debate:

And, her getting into a genuinely unhealthy relationship with Spike that was all about dominance, control, and deep misogyny. How lost did we get? Well, our villain turned out to be Willow."

I'll cut and paste some of my other posts here. Just wanted to start a new thread.

[> But DID Joss say Spike was a misogynist? -- curious, 16:18:37 07/16/03 Wed

That is what Joss is saying.

I'm not sure he did.The tiny little quote that has everyone so hot and bothered says:

And, her getting into a genuinely unhealthy relationship with Spike that was all about dominance, control, and deep misogyny. How lost did we get? Well, our villain turned out to be Willow.

It looks to me like he was saying that B/S was an exploration of an unhealthy relationship that contained elements of dominance, control and misogyny - on both sides. That Buffy's self hate was also a form of misogyny. And there really isn't enough to the quote to know exactly what he meant.

The quotes about S7 B/S as "romantic" and "beautiful" also change the interpretation of the first quote.

[> [> Agree... -- Q, 16:28:57 07/16/03 Wed

>>>It looks to me like he was saying that B/S was an exploration of an unhealthy relationship that contained elements of dominance, control and misogyny - on both sides. That Buffy's self hate was also a form of misogyny.<<<

Oh, I agree with this. As much as I think that Spike and Warren represented different types of misogynists, I think Buffy represented another abuse of male power. I think this was a comment on domestic abuse. Though both partners can be abused, the percentage is so overwhelmingly in favor of male abusing female that this becomes a womens issue. Even though Buffy is LITERALLY female-- in this situation I find her to be SYMBOLICALLY male (she is the stronger of the two). In domestic violence situations, husbands will typically use the other partner for sexual gratification, and will typically beat the hell out of the other partner... EXACTLY what Buffy was doing to Spike all season long.

Yes, I believe they were BOTH guilty of these things-- which makes it DOUBLE as hard to accept a Buffy/Spike pairing-- or at least the sheer numbers calling for it at that point in the series.

[> [> [> Well.... -- curious, 16:38:27 07/16/03 Wed

I'm glad don't see Spike as merely a misogynist but as a former counselor of Battered Women - I disagree about B/S as a case of DV. I'll paste my post from my archived response on another thread.

Here's the archived post:

I can only respond to this thread from personal experience. I have been thinking about why this "AR" scene didn't bother me as much as it did other people. And I think that one reason is the I have seen much worse situations in real life - but as a health care worker and counselor - not for myself and not with someone very close to me. In the ER and in the Battered Women's shelter, I had to maintain a certain emotional detachment in order to do my job - But I have never been a victim of DV or rape or sexual assault so - I looked at the scene fairly clinically and could appreciate the acting and emotionality without getting as upset.

I'm just not sure about whether or not ME was brave or stupid/naive to try to do this "AR" after exploring an S&M relationship where we switched between Spike's and Buffy's POV. We could go around and around about what they could or should have done differently - but the fact of the matter is they did the bathroom scene and we have to deal with the aftermath of that. I love the character of Spike and appreciated the intricate relationship portrayed but I also thought something dramatic like the "AR" was somewhat inevitable. I'm not sure what they were going for. I'm not convinced that it was "necessary" to the storytelling but I'm also not convinced an attempted siring would have been better. I do think they took an artistic chance by making the scene to stark and realistic rather than mythical/metaphorical. (The cut to commercial in the middle was TACKY though. It isn't any better on the DVD.)

The other reason I could see this scene as Spike going too far in trying to get Buffy to love him without any intent to harm her initially (I'm trying to short hand this. I realize more than that was going on) - was BUFFY's reaction - her state of mind. She didn't act like the victims of sexual violence I have worked with. She took Dawn to Spike's crypt for protection almost immediately after the incident in the bathroom. (which also causes me to ask - Don't these people have any other friends or acquaintances??? What about Janice's mother? What about that lady from L.A. Law at Social Services??? but I digress.) It can and has been argued that Buffy used poor judgment here - and I agree - but it also shows that she was less upset by the bathroom scene than many in the audience were. ME didn't have to show Buffy taking Dawn to Spike's crypt or show her looking sad when she found out Spike had left town. I'm not sure I want to expand on this point - except to say that this made sort of a "victim impact statement" to me. i.e. Buffy didn't feel victimized so I didn't hate Spike after the bathroom scene. (not sure I'm expressing myself well here.) I also felt Buffy was the stronger party and was never really in danger of being assaulted. If you think about it - the "AR" did two positive things - it definitively ended B/S and caused Spike to seek out his soul. Maybe that is what ME was going for??

And just a shortish note about Domestic Violence/Abuse (DV for short). I have seen some people call Buffy's treatment of Spike DV or more frequently Spike's treatment of Buffy =DV. IMO, this was not DV - it was a consensual, mutually abusive, unhealthy relationship - even though there may have been some mutual feelings in there somewhere. DV in real life is a lot different. There is an serious imbalance of power - even though love and caring might be muddying the waters on both sides. One of the partners - most often (but not always) the woman in a heterosexual relationship has a lot less power than the other partner and is psychologically and sometimes (but not always) physically abused. (DV can also involve child abuse, elder abuse, homosexual relationships, etc.) The thing that gets tricky is that sometimes physical abuse is easier to deal with than the day to day fear that something might happen. Waiting for the "other shoe to drop" is often described as harder to deal with than the actual violence. When blatant physical abuse happens, there is a possibility of getting attention and/or sympathy - from medical personnel, from social services, etc. Psychological, financial, etc. abuse is much harder to define. The abused partner feels worthless and embarrassed and can't "escape" and is usally very isolated. It doesn't help when well meaning people say - "Just get out." There is a lot of "blaming the victim" so the victim either blames him/herself and/or hides the abuse. This is especially true of male victims - so those victims may be under-reported. Medical personnel and police are finally getting training about how to identify DV in emergency and medical settings. Back in the old days, the cops would take the injured party to the ER to get patched up and bring her (usually her) back home and advise her not to rile up the abuser again - especially when he's drunk. (sorry if I got pedantic and OT here.)

Anyway - B/S doesn't fit the pattern of DV. Very different dynamic.

[> [> [> [> Re: Well.... -- RJA, 17:12:38 07/16/03 Wed

Completely agree with this post. From my knowledge of domestic violence, B/S doesnt replicate the typical experience of such victims, and if it was meant to it raises points I'm more than a little uncomfotable with regarfding their relationship. Mutually abusive works best as far as i can tell.

Although the thing about Dawn going to stay with Spike is that she asked to stay with him. He was her first port of call in her mind. So while this is most likely just a storytelling device to let the characters know Spike has gone, it also shows Buffy's feelings, as well as Dawn's basic instinct.

[> [> [> Re: Agree... -- curious, 16:53:33 07/16/03 Wed

Yes, I believe they were BOTH guilty of these things-- which makes it DOUBLE as hard to accept a Buffy/Spike pairing-- or at least the sheer numbers calling for it at that point in the series.

I agree with this. But I think that ME did this to themselves. They switched between Buffy's and Spike's POV and didn't make it clear to the audience. They made Spike the sympathetic underdog and then said "But you were supposed to see he was eeevil." Pretty confusing.

I thought B/S was an interesting, messy relationship - up to a certain point. I thought Buffy might have cared about Spike more than she admitted to herself. I think they were abusing each other - that neither was the "good guy" or the "bad guy". It was an unhealthy relationship but that was more obvious in retrospect after it was over - like a lot of unhealthy relationships.

In the S6 DVD commentary - Joss says Buffy wanted to be loved and touched but she also wanted to be punished - and used Spike to punish herself. That's a lot for and audience to understand. I think they went so far in trying to be ambiguous that they ended up polarizing the audience.

Some thought Buffy was the clear abuser and some thought Spike was the clear abuser. ME was trying to make another statement. I'm just not sure what that was. ;-)

[> [> [> [> Okay...reposting a somewhat controversial post -- s'kat, 21:34:12 07/16/03 Wed

Some thought Buffy was the clear abuser and some thought Spike was the clear abuser. ME was trying to make another statement. I'm just not sure what that was. ;-)

The more I think about it, more convinced I am that ECH is right on this one - that ME was attempting something very ambitious and ground-breaking for tv, and almost impossible for most viewers to wrap their minds/emotions around.

Here's a revision of a post that I made to the misogyny thread in response to Valheru's post on the topic. Upon re-reading it, I think it may inadvertently push some peoples buttons, hoping it won't. This is such a volatile topic.

"I can understand why some watching the AR scene feel the need to see Spike's act as being the result of hatred, it is far harder to deal with the possibility that it can be motivated by other emotions - b/c that would be akin to admitting you yourself could find yourself doing something like that and/or could be the victim of it, or maybe were and that, understandably is not something any of us want to deal with. To be honest the scene would have been easier for me to handle if it was more black and white, an evil monster, Buffy stakes. But it wasn't. And that is the reason we're still debating it over a year later, no matter what thread we're in at the moment. It is also the reason that I think the actor, James Marsters came very very close to having a nervous breakdown and leaving the show over acting it (as he implies in some interviews, stating CrazySpike in S7 was a bit too close to what he himself was going through for comfort, the reason he threw method acting out the window)...b/c he himself had troubles understanding what was going on in that scene. It hit a little too close to home. The Angel/Angelus story line in S2 was sooo much easier for us to deal with emotionally, b/c Angelus was so far removed from us emotionally, we had that nice layer of metaphor in between. Spike and Buffy's actions in S6 were not removed from us, there was no nice layer of metaphor and if we weren't careful we could see twisted versions of ourselves in their characters. But to put lables such as misogyny on it, I think is trivalizing it or may even be a means of stating that oh, I'm a guy and I'm clearly not a misogynist so no fear of me going there (I'm not implying that anyone on this board is thinking or saying that - just speaking generally - I have no clue what gender most posters are or their experience) or I'm a woman and oh my boyfriend isn't a misogynist so no fear of that and since I'm a woman? No fear of me ever doing it either. What the AR scene suggests in its murkiness is when you get involved in a S&M type of relationship - then the possibility of sexual assualt and/or rape always exists. When the two parties are playing domination games with each other, mixed signals can always happen. No matter how much you trust one another. And that I think is far more frightening to some of us than the idea that Spike hated women/hated Buffy and tried to rape her. Because the misogyny view - let's Buffy off the hook and us through her. "It's all Spike's fault...I feel better now. Stake him. Torture him. I don't have to think about it any further." etc.

The counter to that is equally true by the way - the posters who couldn't deal with the concept of Spike attacking Buffy in that way - make it all Buffy's fault, and that view in some ways scares me even more than the other one does. And is why I had problems with ME doing the scene. I honestly don't care if people blame Spike for it, but implication that Buffy was to blame - sends a message, I don't even want to contemplate. It wasn't Buffy's fault. It's not that simple. She had no way of predicting it would go that far. Did her actions propell it there? Maybe. But that does not make it her fault. (Again not saying anyone on this board is suggesting this, just speaking generally). So validating Spike's actions - is another way of letting ourselves off the proverbial hook. "Buffy drove him to it. It's all her fault. Torture her. The bitch. She should have kicked him off sooner. Spike would never do that." etc.

I honestly think the scene the way it's written doesn't give us that easy an escape route. There's no way out. No pat explanation. No safe answer. At least with Angelus, HyenaXander, Faith, Warren and Caleb we have one. And ECH may have come closest to seeing what happened due to the fact that his own experience oddly parallels it as well as the writer's whose experience the whole B/S relationship was based on. I honestly believe that if you've never been in this type of relationship or situation it is nearly impossible to completely wrap your emotions or brain around it without losing it a bit or wanting to come up with some nice answer to explain it away. And I think from Whedon's quote - that may have been Whedon and Company's intention - not to give us an easy way out because in real life things tend to be ambiguous and not so easy to explain away.

I think that's what Whedon was going for. The murkiness.
He wanted to shove us head-first into the moral ambiguity of abusive relationships which can't be neatly solved with a stake to the heart. It's a tough thing for a young audience to deal with. I know I didn't have a handle on moral ambiguity until I was at least 28 and I still struggle with it today. How do you handle watching your heros do horrible confusing things? How do handle someone you love and trust hurting you? It's in a way much much easier when it's a stranger or someone you hate - I suspect Buffy had an easier time dealing with Warren shooting her, than Spike attempting to rape her or Angelus trying to kill her. But at least with Angelus, she had that layer of metaphor in between. Although I think she'd tell you now there really wasn't any. With Spike - we get the Buffy/Angelus story through adult eyes, the metaphors ripped away. I think - that's why some fans can forgive Angel anything and Spike nothing or hold Spike to a harsher standard. I think it's also why some fans insist on dismissing Spike as just another misogynst, even though the notion seems incredibly contradictory to others. Because to see him in any other light...may be shining a light on their own inner selves, just as shining a light too brightly on Xander - makes some people uncomfortable. And that I think was what ME was attempting to do - shine that light.

Not sure that makes sense.

Just my humble view. YMMV.

I realize the above is somewhat controversal and I hesistated to repost it, liking the fact it was safely hidden below. So if you hate? Don't rip me to shreds for it. ;-)


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Okay...reposting a somewhat controversial post -- heywhynot, 11:24:27 07/17/03 Thu

I do agree that it was an adult relationship that JW & company were exploring with B/S. Sexually it was very adult though emotionally it was very immature. It was about dominance games, it was about shying away from the pain of life, it was about pleasure/passion, lust. It was not Buffy and Angel. They loved one another and then sex happened and changed everything. B/S wasn't about love to start it was about sex. Dealing with the consequences Buffy and Spike came to love & trust one another as seen in season 7. Season 6 though Buffy and Spike are using one another, giving into lust. Playing games that neither one of them is mature enough to handle but it is that immaturity that causes them to get into that relationship in the first place. It was complicated, it wasn't easy for me to watch throughout the whole season. They were willingly playing in grey area without caring really about the consequences. Spike though without a soul went too far, he couldn't tell when to stop. Buffy though knew he was soulless and in that universe without the ability to know where the limits would be. It is what drew her into the relationship but it is also why she finally ends it in AR. It is interesting that through sex with Buffy Angel lost his soul and by having sexual relations with Buffy, Spike is sent on a course that leads him to have a soul.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Interesting post. Agree with this. -- s'kat, 11:52:20 07/17/03 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> You knew I'd have something to say about this one....;) -- Rufus, 04:47:27 07/22/03 Tue

How do you handle watching your heros do horrible confusing things?

I think that for some people that heroes specifically female heroes are expected to do the right thing every time. In reality it's impossible for anyone to live up to that standard...that is why mythical heroes tend to be what we feel most comfortable. The idea that Buffy could have aggressive sexual feelings and anger that she worked out in a very physical way with Spike was enough for some people to throw the Buffy out with the bath water. I think it's easier to be a villian...in the transition from evil to good we already understand that the party involved has done some things that are evil, bad...but when our hero does something that deviates from a heroic norm it's harder to take. I think M. Night Shyamalan was onto something when he spoke about loss causing a paradigm shift. Season six for Buffy was about the loss of the perfect afterlife....she decended into a dark place because she somehow thought she was being punnished...her ascent to light came when she had her epiphany about life being more than suffering and loss.


Auteur, heal thy audience by Carrie Rickey INQUIRER MOVIE CRITIC

"I focus on loss because when you lose someone, the paradigm shifts," Shyamalan reflects. "Then the story becomes about moving from darkness to epiphany."
The marketer in him knows that audiences respond to the journey from dark to light more intensely than they do the return trip. But the shaman in Shyamalan also believes that the passage into illumination is more healing.

I loved season six because I knew that not only villains travel in dark places, that even a hero can become lost. The journey back to the hero we loved in Buffy was painful but I think can be seen as a metaphor for the journey many of us go through when we go from insecurity to the maturity that comes from the process of growing up.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Okay...reposting a somewhat controversial post -- auroramama, 19:34:58 07/18/03 Fri

Thanks for reposting -- otherwise I would have missed it. (I can't afford to read ATPo at work; it's just too distracting for too long.) Well written, well reasoned, and willing to get messy in order to describe a complicated, messy concept: I like it. Doesn't hurt that I agree, of course.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks! -- s'kat, 21:03:27 07/18/03 Fri

[> [> Re: Connection of the soul to Misogyny -- sdev, 22:24:01 07/16/03 Wed

I guess this is arguing backwards but what is the connection of the soul to curing misogyny? I don't see it. Was Spike in Season 7 no longer a misogynist beacause he had acquired a soul, or was he still a misogynist just no longer acting on it?

Does not make sense to me.

[> [> Re: But DID Joss say Spike was a misogynist? -- Ace_of_Sevens, 22:43:48 07/16/03 Wed

On the commentary to The Initiative, Doug Petrie talks about Spike being angry at all women after Drusilla dumped him.

[> [> [> Even if he was after Dru dumped him (and I'm not saying he was at all) -- Deb, 00:15:40 07/17/03 Thu

"The Gift" took care of that problem. He became all chivalrous and had dreams of saving Buffy every night. And he took care of Dawn, and almost died again for worry about her safety. Now he did kinka, (oops, Freudian slip!) yell at her when she was complaing about him being the babysitter and he did force her to play cards, eat her vegetables, be in at a decent hour, and probably brush and floss her teeth and use teeth whitner strips together to get ride of the yellow tar stains. And they shared their bereavement over the loss of Buffy while the others were out giving Willow a taste of the wild side of magic. And when Buffy came back, the real Buffy, he wanted to clean her wounds and tried to show empathy for Buffy having to claw her way out of the grave. I can just feel the hate. And he kept her secret: That she thought she had been in He-Heaven.

And when she wants to throw away her life, because she believed she had killed April, though it be morally ambiguous, he let Buffy beat the unliving crap out of him hoping she would come to her senses. He really, really hated Buffy.

God. It is quite clear to me, that, yes indeed, this not man not vampire hates women, and that is the real reason he did those disgusting things to Buffy when she came over for a booty call -- that's why he stopped her from falling to the will of Sweet and blazing away on the dance floor. He wanted her to live, the scummy she-hater. But he wanted her to live FOR HIM. Selfish, manipulative creep.....gag, gag, gag.........spit.....ewwwww!

[> [> [> [> Tone -- Sophist, 09:33:26 07/17/03 Thu

The sarcasm in your post makes it sound like you're attacking Ace personally. I don't think you are, because s/he was merely quoting an earlier comment by Petrie. You might want to clarify that.

[> [> [> [> [> No. That was not my intention. I apologize -- DEb, 20:39:40 07/17/03 Thu

Thank you for telling me. Guess I'm just not ready to play well yet.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Don't beat yourself up over it. -- Sophist, 21:18:49 07/17/03 Thu

We all do similar things -- it sounds ok in our heads because we know what we mean. It just comes out different on paper. Ace is new here and I just wanted to make sure there was no misunderstanding.

[> [> [> [> Re: Even if he was after Dru dumped him (and I'm not saying he was at all) -- Malandanza, 08:25:31 07/18/03 Fri

I think you're being a little too hard on poor William, who, after all, was a good man in life (unlike that drunken lout, Liam), devoted to his mother, cherishing his unrequited love. We all know Darla's quote on vampire -- "what we once were informs all that we become" -- so William who was devoted to women in life became Spike who carried that same devotion into his unlife. Sure, sometimes a devotion in life becomes twisted into something evil when a person is vamped, but not always. The examples are too numerous to be worth mentioning.

Probably the most damaging claim in the misogyny debate has been that Spike, like Caleb, got a sexual thrill from killing young women. Clearly, though, when you consider Spike's personality, these kills were not in the least misogynistic. Had the Slayers been boys, and the show been Xander, the Vampire Slayer the scenes would have played out exactly the same way. In Fool For Love it is not at all difficult to picture Spike standing over the body of the fallen boy slayer, hands covered in blood, offering Dru a taste of the aphrodisiac. We can easily envision an alternate ending of FFL where Spike works himself up into a state of sexual excitement just by thinking of the boys he's killed, leans over to grope Xander, but is ruthlessly rejected by the homophobic Xander, who accuses Spike of "getting off" on the kills (hypocritically) then declares that Spike is "beneath him" and treats him like a male whore, tossing the cash on the ground after he's gotten what he came for, leaving Spike to scrabble after it while Xander prances sanctimoniously away. You see, it was never about killing women -- it was just about killing. It may seem that Spike sought out women exclusively, but that's only because Slayers are exclusively women. He's actually an equal opportunity killer -- no misogyny there at all.

And anyway, Spike was really doing the slayers a favor when he killed them. These poor, young women had had their lives stolen by the patriarchal and deeply misogynistic WC, turned into weapons in the hands of a few old men, who used them ruthlessly. Their only escape was death, something they yearned for, the Death Wish. We saw in Buffy's case that the only time she was happy was when she was dead, she could finally rest. It was murder so much as assisted suicide. They wanted it. He was freeing young women from slavery to the patriarchy one death at a time. Spike is and always has been totally devoted to women. He gives them what they want, even if what they want is an untimely and gruesome death. This isn't misogyny! It's the opposite of misogyny! He killed them because he loved them.

Some people cast aspersions on Spike's characters for his Season Five escapades with Harmony, the Buffy Bot, and the Dru and Buffy chaining. Let me address these issues:

At first, Harmony may seem to be a contradiction of Spike's Courtly Lover personality, but think about what kind of woman Harmony was -- shallow, interested only in sex, looking for a bad-boy boyfriend she could brag about to her friends. Spike became exactly the sort of man she was looking for, the kind of man she wanted -- he did it for her, so it's really just an extension of the Courtly Lover. Even when he staked her, it was not because she was talking too much, it was a tough love lesson in where this sort of unfulfilling relationship ultimately leads. And look at the result -- Harmony went out and collected self help books. For the first time, she was interested in becoming empowered - Spike's tough love approach worked.

Next, the so called "sexbot". There are some prudes on the board who find Spike having sex with simulacrum Buffy (dressed up in clothes pilfered from Buffy's own closet) disturbing and wrong, and unjustly compare April and Warren to Spike and Buffy v2.0. April was a misogynybot -- a sentient creature built so Warren would have a woman to order around and demean. The Buffybot was a non-sentient relationshipbot, one that showed how deeply Spike cares for Buffy. Sure, Xander accused Spike of taking advantage of Buffy in her time of grief when he saw Spike and v2.0 romping in the graveyard, but Xander's didn't realize v2.0 was a robot -- an inanimate object devoid of any real feelings. Xander's not the sharpest nail in the coffin.

Next we come to Crush where Spike chains up his past and future Ladyloves and threatens each with death. Some people would say this scene shows that Spike's relationship with Dru was never as passionate or romantic as it's been portrayed, as Spike would never have tried to kill his old flame, but they forget a few things: first, this sort of behavior is what Dru likes, so Spike is catering to her whims; next, the scene ought to be interpreted symbolically rather than literally (which I'll get to in a minute), and, finally, this would never have happened if Buffy hadn't been so uptight and prejudiced -- if she had admitted how hot she thinks Spike is and how much she wants him (it's really her fault, like most things). Looking back the Spike and Dru relationship, with the advantage of having seen Season Seven, it is clear that Dru represented Spike's ailing and infirm mother. Spike cares for her with all the devotion of a son, he loves her, but as a mother rather than a lover (and it isn't even clear that Spike and Dru ever had sex). But in Crush, Dru is the mother who stands in Spike's way of leaving the house and becoming a man. Spike has to cut the umbilical cord and make his own way, find a woman worthy of him, and start his own family. He cannot be tied to his mother forever. The threatened staking was Spike's way of proving he was an adult, ready for adult relationships after his extended period of enforced adolescence at his mother's side. And it's just like Buffy to see this grand, romantic gesture as something base an impure.

You've covered many of the complaints about Season Six already, so I'll just mention a few that you left by the wayside (no doubt because of their trivial nature).

First, Spike attempting to separate Buffy from her friends. Have we forgotten that these "friends" are the ones responsible for her pain? Not just in dragging her out of heaven, but in dragging her out twice (thanks to Willow in TR). Spike knows, better than anyone, what slayers go through. Resurrection is the worst thing they could have done to Buffy. He isn't separating her from a support group, but rather a group of prejudiced, self-involved children playing at being friends. The best thing that could have happened to her would have been to be bereft of these psychic parasites, and Spike knows it.

The demon eggs were an attempt by Spike to get money for Buffy -- he was nobly willing to flirt with darkness to save her from a job she found demeaning (she's such an elitist). And his reward? A blown-up crypt when Mr. & Mrs. Misogyny roll into town, full of jingoism and army steroids. A lesser man might have blamed Buffy for the havoc, since he did it for her, or might have found fault with his girlfriend for hopping out of his bed to flirt with her ex, but not Spike -- he loves women so much he sees past even their most serious faults.

Next, the so-called "Attempted Rape". I know some posters have claimed that "all vampires rape", but this absolute statement is hardly supported. We have seen suggestions that Angelus raped, but that's it -- of all the vampires on the show. Anyway, the word "attempted" is being misused. Spike never intended to rape Buffy -- he wanted to give her what she wanted, which he thought was a beating in her bathroom followed by their traditional bout of rough sex (which she likes and he does to please her). As we all know, morality in the Buffyverse is dictated by the law books of California -- so there is no way it could have been "attempted" rape. If Buffy hadn't repeatedly misused her "no's" to mean "yes" this simple misunderstanding would never have happened. And nothing did happen. So no harm, no foul. Season Seven also brought up the possibility that Spike was a rapist in his presoul state, when he tells Buffy she doesn't want to know what he did to girls Dawn's age. Obviously Spike is lying, or he would have gone into details. He just wanted Buffy to stake him, and thought he could make it easier for her with the lie.

Finally, we get to the jacket. Spike only wears the slayer jacket as a symbol of respect for the strong warrior women he has faced in fair and equal combat. Women he has charitably helped end their suffering by fulfilling their Death Wishes. When he puts on the jacket, he becomes the slayer, the embodiment of all the feminine virtues. The jacket, more than anything else, proves that Spike is not a misogynist. Anyway, if Spike is a misogynist, then so are Angel, Xander, Wesley, Giles, Buffy, Forrest, Wood, Riley (well, that goes without saying), Owen, Lance, Principal Flutie (but not Snyder, oddly enough), Ethan, Xander's construction worker pals, Clem, Jonathan, and Andrew. Which proves that Spike isn't a misogynist, because misogyny is graded on a curve.

It's just a shame that Joss Whedon, James Marsters, and David Fury can't see that Spike is feminism. That calling him a misogynist is like calling Gandhi a warmonger, but then, what do you expect from a bunch of men. (Maybe we should take up a collection and buy them dictionaries.)

[> [> [> [> [> Disagreeing with one of your points -- Finn Mac Cool, 11:25:52 07/18/03 Fri

"April was a misogynybot -- a sentient creature built so Warren would have a woman to order around and demean."

I don't think this is quite the case. Why? These two lines of dialouge:

Buffy: "Are you saying . . . are you in love with her (April)?

Warren: "You know, I really thought I would be."

While the reality turned out to be different from Warren's fantasy, it does appear that Warren intended to create someone who not only would love him, but that he could love back. So I don't think it's really accurate to call April a "misogynybot".

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Disagreeing with one of your points -- Malandanza, 06:31:05 07/20/03 Sun

I was wondering how you could disagree with only one of my points :)

"While the reality turned out to be different from Warren's fantasy, it does appear that Warren intended to create someone who not only would love him, but that he could love back. So I don't think it's really accurate to call April a 'misogynybot'."

I think there are two paths people who criticize Warren for April take -- the first is that April was sentient and Warren was, in effect, treating a real person, who could feel pain, as a disposable sex object (which is more true of Parker or Spike/Harmony than Warren). I don't think robots are sentient, and trying to make them so would open up a number of issues regarding the Scoobies' treatment of the Buffybot.

The second path is looking at the programs Warren wrote for April and what they say about his view of women. This is where the legitimate (IMO) criticism lies. First consider the original programming -- the files of "things Warren likes" (including a couple of files on oral sex). His initial view of the perfect girlfriend was that she will do anything he asks, no matter what, and it pleases her when she pleases him. And she's totally devoted to him -- won't even look at another guy -- tosses them through windows when they make obscene suggestions.

But we hear that April can "feel" pain (a kind of feedback, according to Warren) when she displeases him, so somewhere along the way he programmed in the ability to do things that displeased him. Warren's previous idea of the "perfect" girlfriend, one who waited on him hand and foot, eager and willing to do his bidding, was unsatisfactory, so he makes some adjustments. And look at them -- he made a robot that could cry! Now he has the ability to hurt the robot and it will simulate tears of pain and contrition. But Warren isn't the perfect boyfriend, so we can imagine April spending most of her time in tears, which must have had an effect on Warren's conscience, since he altered the programming yet again. He didn't remove the ability to cry, but he programmed in that "tears are emotional blackmail" -- adding tears to the things that displease Warren file. So she has conflicting subroutines running -- she "feels" pain when she does something that displeases Warren, and her subroutines tell her to cry, but other subroutines tell her that tears are back, causing further pain subroutines to kick in. At this point, it appears that Warren's idea of the perfect girlfriend is someone who will do anything he wishes, someone he can abuse as he pleases, who will feel that pain and exhibit it to an extent that he feels like man when he sees her suffering for him but not to an extent that he will feel guilty about causing that pain.

So I do think that calling April a misogynybot is apt -- it was designed for abuse. What is promising about Warren in Season Five is that he has given up the robot in favor of a real girl who is nothing at all like April (except maybe in the possessive area) having found April to be ultimately unsatisfactory, in spite of all his subroutines designed to make her so.

But the robots were still stupid.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Improvement or just upping the ante? -- OnM, 08:20:47 07/20/03 Sun

Great post Mal! Two comments:

*** At this point, it appears that Warren's idea of the perfect girlfriend is someone who will do anything he wishes, someone he can abuse as he pleases, who will feel that pain and exhibit it to an extent that he feels like [a] man when he sees her suffering for him but not to an extent that he will feel guilty about causing that pain. ***

That's a truly brilliantly phrased, and dead accurate evaluation, IMHO. Bravo!

*** What is promising about Warren in Season Five is that he has given up the robot in favor of a real girl who is nothing at all like April (except maybe in the possessive area) having found April to be ultimately unsatisfactory, in spite of all his subroutines designed to make her so. ***

This one I disagree with. What I think has happened is that Warren has merely realized that current (for the Buffyverse)technology has too many practical limits on the levels of abuse he wishes to enjoy. I see the Aprilbot as his last hold on some faint grasp of morality-- he gets off by abusing women, but the robot, as you correctly note, isn't sentient. So, the abuse becomes insufficiently rewarding, since he initially knows deep down-- and eventually on the surface-- that the pain isn't real. The only way to get real pain is with a real woman.

The next step in the process is to torment a woman that has an extraordinary resistance to abuse, namely Buffy. This follows logically from the Aprilbot, because to Warren, Buffy is a sort of organic robot, so in his mind she's fair game.

After Buffy, Warren then moves to the penultimate goal-- abusing a normal, non-super-human woman, Katrina, incidentally his ex-girlfriend. Katrina resists, and Warren kills her. While the act is inadvertant, he feels no remorse and in fact gets off on it after the initial fear of capture is relieved.

The ultimate goal achieved-- murder without remorse-- the last step is to kill a powerful woman, and we are back to Buffy.

Supremely bad move, of course, but inevitable considering the progression over time.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Where do you get the impression that Warren enjoyed abusing April? -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:30:06 07/20/03 Sun

He said that if she heard his voice and didn't respond, it would cause painful feedback. To me, this doesn't indicate a desire to abuse April, rather a desire to keep her under control. I never got any indication from "I Was Made to Love You" that Warren enjoyed causing April pain. Yes, he wanted her to be completely submissive to him, which isn't a good sign, but I saw no implied sadism in the Warren/April relationship. I think that, following the second half of Season 6, people are a little over-anxious to go back to every previous act of Warren's and dub it a misogynistic and/or sadistic act. Yes, his robot building was an early sign of the path he was on, but he had not yet descended to getting off on killing/hurting women. When he built April, all he was really after was someone who would do everything he wanted, love him unconditionally, and (this is important) be someone he could love back. Misogyny is the hatred of women, but Warren stated that, when he built April, he believed he would be in love with her, and it actually came as a surprise to him that he didn't. As such, I think dubbing April a "misogynybot" is inaccurate. Was she built according to chauvanistic/sexist ideas of a submissive woman? Yes. Was she created as a vehicle for misogynistic abuse? No.

P.S. I personally don't have a problem with the idea of Spike or Warren using a robot for sex, provided the robots are un-sentient (which is something of an iffy issue). While it may reveal some unpleasant sides of their personality in showing their views of the "perfect woman", the act itself I don't find morally repellent. However, in IWMTLY, it was implied that Warren used April while he was dating Katrina, which does bring him into the wrong.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> On the S5 DVD commentary... -- curious, 11:55:12 07/20/03 Sun

JE says they were paralleling Buffy and Warren. Buffy identifies with Warren. She sees she thought she wanted a perfect boyfriend (Riley) but wasn't as sensitive to his needs as she could have been. Warren was using April as a sex-bot and "perfect" girlfriend but wasn't really abusing her - he was just being insensitive to her feelings when he tired of her. April would have been happy to continue making Warren happy forever. He got bored with her perfection and didn't consider the consequences on April when he abandoned her. This is the ep where Buffy cancels her date with Ben because she realizes she isn't ready for a relationship yet.

I really don't think the "Warren as a murderous misogynist" was plotted in S5. They didn't even know there would be a S6. Although it is interesting that JE points out that Tara is the only one who expresses sympathy for Warren and he ends up murdering her in S6.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Actually this fits with DT -- curious, 12:13:24 07/20/03 Sun

Buffy/Spike are parallelled with Warren/Katrina in Dead Things. I'll leave it at that.

Spike also has some interesting interactions with Buffy and April in IWMTLY.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Xander had some sympathy, too -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:37:05 07/20/03 Sun

He clearly understood and sympathised with the sexbot fantasy.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Really? -- Sophist, 15:04:21 07/20/03 Sun

JE says they were paralleling Buffy and Warren. Buffy identifies with Warren. She sees she thought she wanted a perfect boyfriend (Riley) but wasn't as sensitive to his needs as she could have been.

I know I miss this stuff all the time, but wow. I never got this at all. Even having JE spell it out doesn't help -- I don't see the comparison at all. I'm starting to believe the writers were in their own world when it comes to Riley. Their world does not resemble my Earth world. Or maybe vice versa.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Really? -- curious, 15:55:02 07/20/03 Sun

Yeah. I have to say I didn't really see it until I heard the commentary. She mentions it several times. That was the main point of the ep - well to JE. The more I thought about it, the more it made sense to me.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I thought that -- Sophist, 16:02:15 07/20/03 Sun

the parallel was Riley = Warren, Buffy = April. I still think that makes more sense. Silly me.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I thought that -- Miss Edith, 10:24:26 07/21/03 Mon

I thought that as well. Riley wanted Buffy to be the perfect girl for him, and there were suggestions that he would have prefered Buffy to be more needy and dependent on him. Just as Warren thought that's what he wanted with April.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Where do you get the impression that Warren enjoyed abusing April? -- Malandanza, 20:31:54 07/20/03 Sun

"He said that if she heard his voice and didn't respond, it would cause painful feedback. To me, this doesn't indicate a desire to abuse April, rather a desire to keep her under control."

Except Warren programmed her. He could have made it so she had to respond to his voice -- that there was no other option. Instead, he opted for a more elaborate set of coding where April sometimes does not respond to his voice and gets the feedback as a result. He didn't build a willing slave, he built an unwilling slave.

"Yes, his robot building was an early sign of the path he was on, but he had not yet descended to getting off on killing/hurting women."

There are more forms of abuse than just physical abuse. Consider this quote (appropriately enough from Pygmalion):

LIZA. Oh, you are a devil. You can twist the heart in a girl as easy as some could twist her arms to hurt her.

Warren built a robot that could cry. Buffy was right -- he was a creepy man.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The crying had to be built in due to his desire to make her love him -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:22:01 07/20/03 Sun

Warren clearly said that he built April so that she could love him, and his tone suggested he didn't mean just in the physical sense. When he programmed April, he tried very hard to get her to simulate real human emotion, to make her actually feel love for him. Whether he succeeded in creating an emotional being or only created an imitation of one is up for debate. However, in trying to make a creature capable of love, you inevitably must make them capable of the emotions attached to love, such as grief or anger over rejection. How else do you explain the built in growl function?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> He could have programmed --(Warning-just a little bit graphic for our teen audience) -- Arethusa, 12:23:08 07/21/03 Mon

in both the tears and growling because they turned him on. It gets some guys excited to make their girlfriend cry. (Which is also extremely creepy.) And he could have programmed her to growl during sex. I think he programmed her to do whatever would turn him on, not to necessarily simulate real emotions, although that might have been a goal.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> At the very least, he seemed to want her to simulate love -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:44:47 07/21/03 Mon

So he may very well have programmed in other emotions, provided they weren't contradictory to loving him.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Sure. -- Arethusa, 23:46:10 07/21/03 Mon

One thing about Warren, though-he didn't really seem to understand emotions. He didn't understand why Katrina was angry at being pushed aside in IWMTLY. He did not form an emotional connection with Andrew or Jonathan, who were probably his only friends. His come-ons to the girls in the bar were patronizing and nauseating. Yet he was able to understand Andrew and Jonathan well enough to maniipulate them, and at one time attracted Katrina. But whenever he lost control of a situation, his first instinct was to take it back by force. So what was the source of all his violence? Being pushed around in school? That might have contributed to his problems, but doesn't turn most people into psychos. Perhaps it was his tremendous ego.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Different take+Spike arc -- sdev, 12:03:49 07/20/03 Sun

"I see the Aprilbot as his last hold on some faint grasp of morality-- he gets off by abusing women, but the robot, as you correctly note, isn't sentient. So, the abuse becomes insufficiently rewarding, since he initially knows deep down-- and eventually on the surface-- that the pain isn't real. The only way to get real pain is with a real woman."

I don't agree because Katrina is not real or sentient when Warren reclaims her under the power of the cerebral dampener. Essentially she becomes the Katrinabot- blindly obeying, unaware of her surroundings, totally focused on subservience. When she begins to awaken from the robotic affects of the dampener, Warren hastens to try to put her under again. Because she is not a sentient being under the control of the cerebral dampener, this is basically a regression for Warren. First he tries the Aprilbot and sometime after that he meets Katrina who he falls for. He contrasts the two-- April became boring, too predictable; Katrina OTOH was not predictable and she liked him on her own. Boring could be a code word for compliant. I'm not sure. The misogynist in him would need and enjoy the struggle, as you pointed out. In any event, real life Katrina made him realize the inadequacy of a robot. It seems pretty clear that he was enjoying some normal type of relationship with Katrina and trying to put his robot days behind him. Yes, this does appear to be a step forward for Warren, the man everyone seems comfortable admitting was a true red-blooded misogynist.

The step back comes when he decides to use the cerebral dampener on a woman in the bar. Katrina became the choice target of opportunity. He spends about a minute trying to reconcile with her without force, and then resorts to turning her into a robot. He cannot handle the real woman, the real rejection. He goes right back to robot without the plasticene.

Spike and Warren's arcs intersect in a very interesting way. Both resort to robots when they can't get the girl. Spike's difference, and it is a big one IMO, he wants a specific girl, not a generic girlfriend. Spike is infatuated with Buffy, can't have a relationship with her and resorts to a juvenile fantasy in which his dreams come true--he gets his heart's desire. Consistent with this, Spike takes pains to program the Buffybot so she imitates his perception of the real Buffy, only nice to him. Another major difference, Spike abhors any suggestion that the robot is a robot. His first comment--"she's too shiny." Also later on when she refers to her "program" he tells her never to mention it. He also did not program her to be slavishly subservient. His goal, however misguided is to have a real Buffy who is crazy about him. He wants as real life a model as possible because anything less would ruin the fantasy.

In contrast, Warren does not seem to want the illusion of reality. He really does not care if the robots are robotlike April and Katina are both programmed to be docile and submissive and to serve. Katrina under the cerebral dampener calls the trio "Master." While he complains that April bored him, he reverts to that quickly. Better boring than real life rejection and a mind of her own. He is looking for and has created a prototype of a girlfriend. It is telling that within a few minutes of close contact with April, everyone realizes that she is a robot. However with the Buffybot no one realizes she is a robot until Buffy herself shows up and confronts them insultedly.

The intersection of the Spike and Warren arcs continues. Warren moves forward to a normal relationship with Katrina and then regresses and makes Katrina a robot via the dampener and then accidentally kills her. As you said, "Katrina resists, and Warren kills her. While the act is inadvertent, he feels no remorse and in fact gets off on it after the initial fear of capture is relieved." This is very true. Warren in fact bullies Jonathon and Andrew out of their remorse as well. This control Warren has over the other two makes me wonder why he could not attract and hold a woman's attention on his own, no tricks. His misogyny obliterates any innate social skills and leaves him a shell of a person.

Spike progresses from the robot phase as well, but never ends up in the same place as Warren. He abandons the robot at the end of Intervention when Buffy, with one small act of human kindness and emotion, a kiss to thank Spike for protecting Dawn's identity as the Key from Glory, wipes away any hope that the fantasy the robot embodied would ever suffice again. Thereafter he has nothing but contempt for the Buffybot. He never regresses into believing a robot is an adequate substitute for the real thing. He has grown up in that respect.

The not-so-parallel parallels continue, however. Now to the infamous is he or isn't he a misogynist attempted rape scene. Regardless of how one interprets that scene as actual attempted rape morally or under the law or falling short of that, I think most can agree that this is Spike's moment of regression. Heretofore, whether one hated the Buffy and Spike relationship, felt there was verbal manipulation, nagging, or sexual using, there was no physical force by Spike on Buffy to compel sex. Her consent to sex was clearly present before this scene. Spike's response, like Warren's with robot Katrina, was triggered by rejection. Buffy had ended their relationship and made pretty clear in Normal Again when Spike came to her room, "You are not a part of my life." The AR is a regression to the vampire Spike who did not take no for an answer. That he was not in Vampire face does not change who he had been for the previous 125 years or so. Force and compulsion were habitual and in a crisis, his own personal crisis, he resorted to what he knew.

Here again is where the Warren and Spike parallels diverge. And whether one believes Spike would have stopped on his own had Buffy not thrown him off is also irrelevant for this next point. The fact is he did totally desist once Buffy threw him off. Also, he clearly has remorse. Whether the remorse is conflicted with thoughts of 'why the hell should I be conflicted' also does not controvert the remorse. It is still present. In fact the conflicted nature of Spike's feelings are what makes the remorse so powerful. He was who he was. And he is deeply confused by who he now is. The scene in Hell's Bells demonstrate with humor this conflict-- he wants Buffy to hurt and be jealous when he brings a date to the wedding but on the other hand cannot stand to see her in pain and agrees to leave to make it easier for her. In contrast as you noted about Warren killing Katrina, "The ultimate goal achieved-- murder without remorse-- the last step is to kill a powerful woman." Warren has no remorse. He enjoys the killing and getting away with it.

The parallels separate even further by the post-bad act behavior of Warren and Spike. Warren immediately puts into place an elaborate cover-up scheme that not only hides his commission of murder but also implicates another innocent person as the murderer, Buffy. He says he cannot go to jail. He refuses to take a painful route to pay for his actions, and opts to escape from any responsibility. Spike goes in the opposite direction. Again, motives may be arguable but actions are not. He embarks on an extremely painful endeavor to improve himself, "become what I once was." Through harrowing trials he regains his soul and thus attempts to ensure that the violent regression of the AR will not recur.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Buffy was using Spike as a sexbot -- curious, 12:22:50 07/20/03 Sun

I think it was murkier than that. I really think Buffy was parallelled with Warren (as she was explicitly in IWMTLY) and Spike with Katrina in DT. That's what Buffy felt guilty about. I don't think anything in S6 was a clear - "this person was GOOD and that person was BAD" (with the possible exception of Tara). I think S6 is about doing horrible things and not being able to deal with the consequences very maturely - especially in Warren's case. He was the one who went the furthest - or was it Willow??? hmmm....

Yikes! I don't have time to write a lot here so I have to be brief. Might write more later.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy was using Spike as a sexbot-Agree -- sdev, 12:42:02 07/20/03 Sun

In DT that is what comes across to me. Although most would not have trouble seeing that Buffy and Warren are eons apart despite what may be interpreted as Buffy's use and or abuse of Spike. After all, Spike was not a robot nor was he artificially compelled to act the part.

I was just addressing the thread topic of misogyny and the Warren/Spike parallels which are pretty striking since they both resorted to actual robots, and the somewhat closer, some may feel parallel, relationship of both to misogyny.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Everyone was parralleled with Warren -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:33:36 07/20/03 Sun

Spike, Buffy, Xander, Anya, Willow, and Dawn all had deep, personal issues in Season Six, and Warren acted as the embodiment of all of them.

Spike - both had to deal with a strong woman(en) who would not submit to their desires.

Buffy - both treated someone else as an object.

Xander - both had to deal with the knowledge/belief that they are becoming/will become a monster.

Anya - both were hurt by people and try to make up for that by hurting them in return.

Willow - both thirsted for power and control to make their lives not so hard.

Dawn - both felt unnoticed and unappreciated by the world, and so commited illegal acts to finally be noticed and acknowledged.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOL! That's true! -- curious, 15:56:04 07/20/03 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Everyone was parralleled with Warren-Agree -- sdev, 17:00:39 07/20/03 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Improvement or just upping the ante? -- Malandanza, 19:35:29 07/20/03 Sun

"So, the abuse becomes insufficiently rewarding, since he initially knows deep down-- and eventually on the surface-- that the pain isn't real. The only way to get real pain is with a real woman."

Looking at pre-season six Warren, and I don't the Warren/Katrina relationship was about Warren abusing women (emotionally, I mean -- we never saw any physical abuse between Warren and Katrina or April). If anything, it seemed to me that the roles were reversed. Warren was pleading for understanding in a desperate attempt to keep Katrina happy while she just walked away. Had April been a real girl rather than a robot, I'd call it poetic justice.

Nor do I think that Warren set out, in Season Six, to find a woman to abuse and dominate. Too much was left to chance -- the formation of the Trio, Katrina being at the wrong place, the mind controller fading unexpectedly, the accidental killing. None of this was planned. Now the invisibility and mind control certainly were not driven by feminist notions of equality, but I think they all of the boys were having difficulty with fantasy/reality at that point -- as evidenced by the Jonathan/Andrew light saber fight while Warren is dragging Katrina off to rape her.

"While the act is inadvertent, he feels no remorse and in fact gets off on it after the initial fear of capture is relieved."

I don't know that this is true. I think Warren did feel some remorse and his subsequent decline (he is a very different character in the last part of the season) is evidence of it. He felt somewhat insulated from his crime after the cover-up, certainly, but he seemed to be following Faith's path -- heading deeper and deeper into evil to try to outrun his conscience. Unfortunately for Warren, instead of Angel waiting to save him at the end of the flight, it was Willow waiting to torture and murder him. And speaking of Willow, I have always felt that the Katrina apparition was not Katrina's shade summoned from whatever heavenly or hellish dimension it had gone to, but a manifestation of Warren's guilt -- Willow reaching into Warren's subconscious, waking his torpid conscience, and bringing all his guilt and fears back into his conscious mind,

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Have to say -- KdS, 02:18:33 07/21/03 Mon

In my opinion, if you rewrite IWMTLY to show Warren consciously torturing April, you lose a lot of the coolness of his descent into evil in S6.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Improvement or just upping the ante?Question -- sdev, 09:45:23 07/21/03 Mon

"The next step in the process is to torment a woman that has an extraordinary resistance to abuse, namely Buffy."

Are you saying that the goal of what the Trio did to Buffy was to torture her? I thought their purpose was to thwart her because they were taking over Sunnydale and she was, or presumably would be, in their way.

Please elaborate.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Possible answer -- OnM, 19:55:33 07/21/03 Mon

*** Are you saying that the goal of what the Trio did to Buffy was to torture her? I thought their purpose was to thwart her because they were taking over Sunnydale and she was, or presumably would be, in their way. ***

How one views this depends on the way one interprets the actual intent of the Trio, which I maintain is different for each member of the group. The stated goal of the group as a whole was indeed to 'thwart' Buffy, but just how would they accomplish this?

Warren would have been happy to do what actually would have been the most sensible, practical thing given the stated goal, which was simply to kill Buffy. Jonathan and Andrew strongly objected to this, so Warren backed down, at least initially. If Buffy isn't going to be killed outright, then 'thwarting her' pretty much means making her suffer in some fashion or another. That Jonathan and Andrew don't fully make the connection between 'thwarting' and 'suffering' is an indication of how disassociated they are.

Warren, on the other hand, isn't disassociated from inflicting suffering on women, he in fact gets off on this. Note that his first 'thwarting' attempt is to plant a device that compresses time in some way so that everyone speeds up fantastically around Buffy. Warren, in effect, 'steals time' from her. Think about this in a death context, metaphorically. Also, Buffy keeps getting physically bashed into by the speeded-up rest of the world, and finally has to hide under a bench or table (I forget which) to keep from being trampled. So, there is a pain context also.

Andrew, whose skill lies in summoning demons, calls up a few nasty ones and has them attack Buffy at the construction site where Xander has given her a job. Andrew admires/is infatuated with Warren, so he also tries to emulate Warren's methods (i.e. cause pain and a risk of death). The difference is that he truly doesn't understand that the pain and risk of death he is causing is real-- to him, Buffy is like a cartoon character in a video game. You just hit 'reset' and start over. He doesn't see Buffy as human, but he isn't misogynistic, really.

Jonathan is the most interesting one. Jonathan actually kind of likes Buffy, and most certainly doesn't want to hurt her physically. He is the one who most strongly opposes Warren whenever Warren talks about killing someone, including Buffy. His 'thwarting' tactic is to make her figure out a difficult puzzle. It's a mental challenge, which makes sense to Jonathan. The other two members talk about finding out about what makes Buffy tick (so they can thwart her), but only Jonathan actually does this. Warren-- and his droog Andrew-- go for the kill, albeit indirectly.

Sorry if this is rambly, late here! Does this make any sense?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Possible answer- thanks -- sdev, 23:16:53 07/21/03 Mon

Need to think about this and maybe rewatch some stuff.

Never really saw Warren's actions to Buffy as per se misogynistic except at the end after Buffy had already interfered with his scheme. Certainly, as you said, he initiated the idea of killing her. I thought that because of his underlying misogynism, that when Buffy thwarted him it set him off; he certainly couldn't handle being undermined by a woman, slayer or not, particularly in front of Jonathon and Andrew who he wanted to impress and lead.

But I can see in your description of the trial he set for Buffy, the pain, and even more so the humiliation of making Buffy cower, smacks of Warren's brand of misogynism. He seems to get off on the servility.

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

[> [> [> [> [> [> D'oh! Upon re-reading, I should have realised this post was satirical -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:23:09 07/18/03 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> I am in awe! -- Rahael, 09:02:46 07/19/03 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> Wonderful satire. I loved it. (NT) -- dmw, 16:29:21 07/18/03 Fri

[> I agree with this -- curious, 16:24:01 07/16/03 Wed

from Diana's post below

Especially this:
Buffy is representative of WOMAN. Buffy's self hatred and Dark Willow's jealousy of her are as much an example of mysogyny as Spike in "Dead Things." Joss did NOT specifically say that Spike was a mysogynist. He said that the relationship was about deep mysogyny (control and dominance as well). Joss' art form is words. He chooses his words carefully. I think we should be looking at the flow of those words rather than seeing red at a particular one.

I think he was talking about S6 exploring misogyny, control and dominance in general - rather than calling Spike a misogynist. That's how I read that line too. I also think he confused the hell out of a lot of people in S6.

[> Re: New post about the JW S6 misogyny thread -- RJA, 17:06:17 07/16/03 Wed

I posted this down on the original thread, and sicne curious suggested I post it here too, I will.

On the misogyny issue, I think perhaps that if Joss did mean that the relationship dealt with it, he could be referring to how it was handled in Seeing Red, and more specifically, they were looking at the human weakness that could lead to that, and in a wider sense that went futher than the issues of misogny.

I viewed Warren in many ways as a counterpoint to Spike (not all the time, but where their paths crossed he seemed to be). The first distinction came with their respective Bots. Warren created one because he couldnt get girls - April existed as his example of the perfect woman, which essentially was a subservient sex machine. Whereas Spike's Bot wasnt a subsitute for women, but instead a way of being closer to a particular woman he couldnt have. Whereas April was designed to eradicate the flaws and complexities of women, Spike had to settle for something that didnt have those flaws - and it was settling because he wanted the real thing. So thats the first comparison the show made, IMO.

Carrying it to the end, I think another parallel was made with Warren and Spike in Seeing Red. I think both their actions came from the same place, the same spark. And that was fear, desparation, and an inability to be in control.

Warren ended up shooting Buffy because she represented everything that was wrong in his life, and as he saw it, women were to blame for everything that went wrong. And as the most powerful woman, the Slayer had to be taken down. BY feeling so powerless and emasculated, he had to take it out on the person who symbolised those feelings of emasculation. And as subsequent episodes showed, he had no remorse.

And I think Spike's actions came from a similar place. That fear - his life was shot, he no longer knew his place in it, and his relationship with Buffy made him even less sure of that. I think part of his actions in SR was a desperate attempt to put some control back into that relationship - not to control Buffy, but a desperate need to put some control back into his life.

Thats the difference as I see it. Whereas Warren blamed his failures on women, and saw Buffy personifying this, Spike didnt have that same opinion of women. Instead of blaming Buffy for all that was wrong, he turned it onto himself. He was to blame, and he made a change because of it. He took responsibility out of that moment of desperation, whereas Warren didnt.

And there is also the connection with Willow. Magic as a means to control, which also happens in Seeing Red. But thats maybe subject for another post.

So I guess I have no real idea of what Joss meant by his above comments, other than that this particular episode contained an examination of the spark of what can make good people go bad, and what can be the basis of wrongs in society.

Anyway, be kind :-)

[> Re-examining S6, Willow as the villain? What went right? What went wrong? -- s'kat, 21:49:18 07/16/03 Wed

From Diana's post below:

So the debate should be about how season 6 got lost. Why did it get lost? How could they have kept the focus on control, dominance and deep mysogyny? How did Willow end up becoming the villain in THIS particular season?

Good questions. Let's break them up:

1. How did Willow end up becoming the villain of S6?

Was it a natural progression? Or out of the blue?
What if any comment does this make on control, dominance and misogyny? And why this season as opposed to S5 or S4 or even s3? And how does it parallel B/S?

2. Did S6 get lost? If so how? When?

Did they lose Buffy in S6? Did it happen in Gone? Earlier than that? What would have been a better route? Or was it necessary to lose Buffy to get to where they were headed in S7? Does S7 justify S6?

3. How is the theme of dominance, control and misogyny expressed in S6 outside of the AR scene or Spike. How is it expressed through Buffy and Willow and Anya and Xander?
What issues were explored? How were they resolved?
Were they resolved?

(Okay, you'll probably hate me for this but unfortunately I have no time to explore any of these issues myself, it's late and I have to get up early tomorrow...so if interested? Have fun. If not? ignore me. ;-) Although I think we did explore many of these issues last year - see May and June archives.)


[> [> Since I started it, I will respond briefly -- Diana (who will now explain where lunasea came from), 10:10:58 07/17/03 Thu

The moon and water are traditionally two forms of the feminine archetype. The phases of the moon and the ebb and flow of the tide are an important part of the feminine. That combined with the whole mystery thing are a pretty good description of me. Hence, my old name.

The anima does not have this component. The feminine that Joss is showing isn't the totality that is the feminine. Marti added that into the show. Her scripts really show what it means.

I'm still the President of the "Marti is the Goddess of all things Twisted and if You Want to Say Anything Negative about Her You Better be Prepared to Feel the Points of my Stilettoes and the Sting of My Whip" Club, however, in order to understand where S6 went "wrong," one has to look no further than her one bad episode "She."

Topic of "She"? Control, dominance and mysogyny. That isn't what Marti writes. Her's isn't the simple play of masculine and anima that Joss does so well. Marti plays with the ebb and flow that is the feminine. When she lost that, when she lost Buffy, she didn't have a focus any more.

To be honest, it fit with the season and I think contibuted to the feeling. In that sort of deep depression, you do feel lost. I think the flow of the shows did this so well because they got so lost that people felt it. It isn't something that most want to feel and they reacted extremely harshly.

They could have had a very "9 1/2 Weeks" Spuffy that would have maintained Joss' desired focus. I don't think this would have hit people like S6 did.

Just another perspective. Joss says they got lost. I think getting lost was a good thing. There was a post a while ago, does a sex scene fail if it squicks you. What about a whole season?

It was their most ambitious season and I think Marti did a great job. There was nothing for her to focus on. I became Buffy and anytime I do that, I consider it a success.

[> [> [> 'She'? -- Rina, 10:47:19 07/17/03 Thu

I've never heard of an episode called "She". Which season was it in?

[> [> [> [> 'She' is in Angel The Series, S1. -- sk, 11:00:57 07/17/03 Thu

[> [> [> [> Season 1 over on Angel - Lucky episode 13 -- Diana, 11:02:01 07/17/03 Thu

[> [> [> Agree with you on Marti and more or less on S6 -- s'kat, 11:46:26 07/17/03 Thu

Marti gets a bad rap, which I too find somewhat annoying on the boards. I happen to really enjoy this writer. So she has a few bad episodes, they all do. I haven't liked all of Joss Whedon's episodes either (I Fall To Pieces, Waiting in The Wings, Ted - to name a few). And yes, she can be somewhat aggravating in interviews - but who isn't? Honestly, can anyone on this board say there hasn't been a time in our lives where we were either misunderstood, or put our foot in our mouths? I do think people judge her far too harshly. Forgetting to give her credit for some truly excellent scripts and Buffyverse episodes.

I've always found Marti's take on things interesting - as David Fury puts it in his commentary for Real Me and Primeval - they go to Marti whenever they need an emotional impact scene. Such as boyfriend/girlfriend moments (in The Real Me) or the girlfriend/girlfriend bonding in Primeval. So she has actually written portions of other people's episodes that we don't even know about.

If you loved Season 2? Then you love Marti Noxon. Marti wrote more episodes in S2 than just about anyone else and it was her first year with the team. She wrote What's My Line (that was her first episode, and what an episode - the Dru/Spike/Angel torture scene alone is worth making that one memorable) Surprise, Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered, Bad Eggs, I Will Only Have Eyes for You. Her use of metaphors is a little different than Whedon but I don't believe she drops them as some people seem to believe.

Marti introduced a wicked sensuality to the show, playing with the idea of S&M and the dark side of passion - something Whedon had begun to explore briefly in S1 with the Pack and Angel, and clearly felt the need to explore further with the Spike/Dru relationship. He found the person to help him do it with Marti. Marti added a complexity to the romantic relationships as well as a moral ambiguity.

Without Marti - we wouldn't have The Wish, an incredibly dark and trippy episode and/or the character of Anyanka. I believe Marti took the show to a deeper more interesting level in some ways. Was she perfect? No. But no one is.

It was their most ambitious season and I think Marti did a great job. There was nothing for her to focus on. I became Buffy and anytime I do that, I consider it a success.

Agreed. The season worked for me - for those reasons as well. I may have viewed certain aspects of the season differently than you have, but I did really like it, just for different reasons, if that makes any sense. I also became or empathized closely with Buffy in S6 possibly more so than any of the other seasons combined. (With possible exception of S2). If you didn't emphasize with Buffy or become her, then you may have hated the season. Or felt detached from it. But that can happen to anyone in any season of the show. I couldn't identify with Buffy in S3 very much - which most posters put at the top of their list of great seasons, but since I felt emotionally detached from it - it's not at mine. YMMV. ;-)

Thanks for posting that, Diana.


[> [> [> [> Didn't Marti write -- Diana (sorry, but I have to gush about MARTI), 12:23:59 07/17/03 Thu

the Willow/supposed to be Tara scenes in CwDP as well?

The woman has heart, wrapped up in her twisted sexuality. Just like Marti nailed Buffy/Spike (I decided I don't like the term Spuffy, because it puts Spike first and others do find it demeaning) in "Wrecked" better than anyone else with a single scene, she did the same thing with Buffy/Angel in the often denigrated "Bad Eggs." That isn't exactly easy to do. She nailed Angelus in "IOHEFY" and his relationship with Dru and Spike. She nailed Buffy/Angel after the breakup in "Forever," reversing "Bad Eggs." Marti does a whole lot of nailing. Riley is synonymous with Marti (that may be why some hate her though). "Buffy v Dracula" is probably the best stand alone episode and I show it to people I want to suck into the Buffyverse.

Would Joss have been inspired to write "Innocence" if say Greenwalt had written "Surprise"? "Amends" has to follow "The Wish." Only Marti could follow "The Body" and keep emotions that high. Marti-Joss deliver the best 1-2 punch in the Buffverse.

Looking back, the way the audience totally crucified her for S6, her cameo in OMWF is so appropriate.

It is hard to pick a favorite writer in the Buffyverse for me. It is a hard tie between Joss, Marti and the Tim Reaper. So as President of the Marti club, you can be Co-president if you want. In the precedent that Marti set by being the one that got to write more than one Slayer, we should have more than one President. Lots of Presidents, per Chosen.

And Rob can bring his pom-poms.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Didn't Marti write -- Yellow bear, 13:32:44 07/17/03 Thu

Loving the Marti love. Ms. Noxon has been the whipping boy of Buffy bashers for far too long.

I wanted to post briefly above Whedon's use of the word 'lost' in CFX interview. Some people have seized on this to indicate the writers got 'lost' during the season in regards to Willow-as-big-bad arc. I did not take it this way. I think of the phrase 'How lost did we get' as being a rhetorical device with the 'we' being a stand in for the characters getting lost (deliberately lost if you will since the whole season is about the wilderness that is your early twenties) not an indication of the staff getting lost. Big bad Willow was where S6 was heading all along (from numerous interviews & just the text itself) so how lost could the staff be about her being the BB.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Didn't Marti write- agree on lost -- sdev, 14:28:14 07/17/03 Thu

"How lost did we get? Well, our villain turned out to be Willow."

The scene in Smashed with Xander, Anya and Buffy discussing what is going on with Willow synopsizes what JW was talking about here:

Buffy says "But it's Willow, she of the level head." And Anya answers "those are the ones you have to watch out for the most. Responsible types." Further Anya says, " I'm serious. Responsible people are ... always so concerned with ... being good all the time, that when they finally get a taste of being bad ... they can't get enough. It's like all kablooey. Then Xander says, " It's human nature, Buff. Will's getting a taste of something powerful, way bigger than her."

So how lost did they get? The stable, stolid, you-can-count-on-me Willow went off the deep end and nearly destroyed the world.

I agree JW is talking about the character and how extreme they took her

[> [> [> [> [> Yes, she wrote that section of CwDP -- s'kat, 14:47:09 07/17/03 Thu

Marti wrote the Cassie/Willow segment of CwDP - see the RRK, JE, and DG Succubus Club interview for evidence, as well as other assorted interviews. The breakdown for those interested is: JE: Dawn, Joss Whedon: Buffy/Holden, Drew Goddard: Spike, Jonathan/Andrew/Warren, Marti Noxon: Willow/Cassie. The only people who are credited are JE and DG b/c Marti and Joss are co-executive producers and they didn't want to get paid twice - if you get a writers credit you apparently have to be paid by union rules or something -Whedon explains it one of the interviews he gave this spring, I believe. And, yes, I agree, MArti nails Willow in my humble opinion. Also does a very good job with Angelus, Spike and Dru - far better than Fury does, not sure why this is. Shame she wasn't able to write more episodes this season.

In Season 6, she actually wrote very very few. The only ones were Bargaining Part I (which I actually I loved and preferred over Bargaining Part II in some ways...),
Wrecked (yes, I know I'm one of the few people who actually liked parts of Wrecked. I did. I found her use of the empty dress as a metaphor with Willow brilliant and the opening scene with B/S very raw and very interesting, coupled with the later scene in his crypt and the scene in the alley. Wrecked is a very interesting episode, which I believe is underrated by some posters do to their dislike of the magic addiction storyline), Villains (another very interesting
metaphorical episode - loved Willow sucking the text up her arms and Spike's scenes with Lurky, and Dawn's discovery of Tara, not to mention the scenes in Clem's crypt and the flaying of Warren Mears. Marti isn't afraid to make the audience go whoa!).

I think Marti may have been one of the few writers who got Riley. In Season 5 -- she writes Into the Woods and the Riley/Spike dynamic works. It should have worked in reverse in AYW, I wish Marti had written it instead of Petrie, since I think it might have come out better for both Riley and Sam.

She also is responsible for Tara - Tara was Marti Noxon's suggestion. She suggested Amber for the role - Whedon wanted to go with someone more Fredlike. Marti said Amber was perfect. Marti wrote New Moon Rising, Wild at Heart that year.

She's an interesting writer. For a transcript of her take on Season 6 - see the archives around March - I transcribed it from SFX. She explains a few things - that she felt worked and felt didn't work. Acknowledges to an extent that
OAFA didn't quite work the way they wished and things got a bit rushed towards the end.

I honestly think she and Joss Whedon worked as a team in S5 and S6 and S7...regardless of what the rumors state.

Oh no need to make me a co-President.;-) But rest assured I do love and appreciate Marti's writing. It's risky, no-holds barred at times. Wish more television writers were as willing to go there.

(I honestly think most of the dislike of MArti arises from things she or others say in interviews which people overreact to. Again I caution people (speaking generally here, not to a specific person) to take what is said in an interview with a bit of a grain of salt - this is after all going through the interviewers filter, it's not the same as a commentary or season rundown. Also more often than not, the person is joking with the interviewer and just as sarcasm and sardonic wit seldom translates well on this board, it doesn't translate well in interviews - you need to hear the person's voice and see facial expressions as well. It's why I left a bunch of stuff out of my Succubus Club transcript of Minear and Fury - b/c they crack jokes that you honestly can't tell are jokes unless you listen to the interview.)


[> [> [> [> [> [> Warning. Slightly bashy towards Marti -- Miss Edith, 15:39:48 07/17/03 Thu

Sometimes I do feel bad for Marti because as someone else put it once, "Nearly every Buffy fan on the internet hates her, and she knows it". I believe she stopped lurking on-line after reading a post from someone writing a fantasy of Spike and Dru torturing and killing her? I'm sure that's what I heard anyway?

I have criticized Marti for her show running in season 6, I still think it could have been better. But I have always said the episodes she writers are generally very good, and work for me just fine. The interviews less so.

The main reasons why Buffy fans seem to dig the knife in is because of specific story arcs in season 6. Firstly making Willow and Amy magic crack addicts started with Wrecked, and is by and large seen as green-lighted by Marti. The second is of course Spuffy. The fans who didn't like Spuffy seem to have a tendency to hold Marti at fault. Particularly after she has admitted basing B/S on a past relationship. All the use of naked Spike, put off some fans.

But the majority of Spuffy fans certainly don't care for Marti any more than those who were against Spuffy. Call them naive, but a lot of B/S fans connected with late season 5, following Intervention. In early season 6 (Afterlife, LS, OMWF, TR) they believed a beautiful love story was developing. It was commonly assumed that Spike would redemn himself through love, and that was where the writers were taking us. Therefore a lot of B/S fans blame Marti for making the relationship as sick as it was. Personally I found the B/S dynamic from Smashed onwards complelling stuff. I also found it in character, and more interesting than a repeat of B/A, which is what B/S was at risk of being if the writers continued with Spike and Buffy not having sex, and Spike geninely trying to help Buffy. Marti's interviews at the time did make me look at season 6 less favourably, but now I am more objecitve I can say parts of it really worked for me. It was not the unmitigated disaster that some fans unfairly accuse Marti of creating.

It's the fact that Marti requested the AR to teach the B/S fans a moral lesson about choosing the good guy that really lost me. I just hated what that did to James, I found it hurtful and disrespectful. I also hated the calculating way it was used, knowing many of Spike and B/S fans were women, a lot of people felt it was almost a personal attack directed at female fans of Spike. I just didn't like how the AR wasn't thought through properly, and the way it divided the fans. If you are going to throw in something so controversial with one of the most popular characters, you should be damn ready to deal with the consequences of that is my opinion. I was on-line when SR aired, and some people were just ripping others apart. The repurcussion are still felt on-line today. I am aware that I'm being irrational and unfair, but the AR is the reason I cannot care for Marti all that much, although sometimes I feel bad about all the abuse she gets.

To be fair to Marti I think the fans are just a lot more hostile post season 5 anyway. The hatred sems to be building for Joss as well, I have heard more than one person calling him pompous with an overblown ego following his interviews. Something almost unheard of previously. (People used to call him God, now when he talks of wanting Bts to change the entire world, people say he needs to get over himself). So Marti is not the only victim of fans bashing the writers. I'm not sure how much that would comfort her though :) And Fury receives his fair share of hate mail, but from what I heard he loves to get a reaction anyway, and has always welcomed pushing peoples buttons and getting a strong response. Joss is always talking of pissing fans off, and that being important to him because then he knows he has got people to take notice. (When recently told most fans were happy with the finale, his response was Oh damn, I really hoped fans would be annoyed with me). Marti seems more fragile than that, and genuinely hurt with some fans response to her. I do feel for her there.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Warning. Respectful toward Marti -- Just George, 00:22:33 07/18/03 Fri

I hate to watch Spike's attempted rape of Buffy. I have watched the last couple of episodes of Season 6 several times. I almost always start just after the rape scene.

However, at the time the attempted rape seemed dramatically necessary. It grew organically out of Buffy's mixed signals and Spike's obsession/desperation. In retrospect it is almost impossible for me to imagine the arc of S6, or the S6 and S7 arcs of Buffy or Spike without it.

I have also heard that Marti is the person that suggested it was a dramatic necessity for Spike to try and rape Buffy. It was another example of her willingness to go where other writers feared to tread. BTVS was the better for her fearlessness.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Warning. Respectful toward Marti -- Miss Edith, 12:10:06 07/18/03 Fri

I guess that's just where we differ. At the time the AR really offended me, and I will never think it was a good idea to use it in the way that the writers did. I am aware that it's petty of me, but some part of me will never really forgive Marti for the AR, it just devestated fans at the time. I had read all the spoilers, but I can just imagine how the Spike fans who were caught unaware felt. Or the Buffy fans who had to sit through the commerical break to find out whether she would be raped or not.

On another board there was a poster who really affected me at the time. She had been sexually abused by her father. Yet she loved the character of Spike, not because she fantasised about serial killers, but because we should be free to enjoy any characters for entertaimment purposes, regardless of what David Fury thinks. This poster checked out links to pictures of the attack follwing the wildfeed. (It was a spoiler board). I just remember how utterly distraught she was, her favourite show had been ruined for her, and she couldn't even face watching the episode. It just made me consider all the people with siniliar experiences who would tune in to that episode without warning. It wasn't even dealth with responsibly, it was simply used as a plot twist. I remember at the end of season 5 rumours were circulating that Spike would go evil and turn Buffy in the finale episode. Now at the time I thought that plot would pretty much suck, but it never hit me in the way that the AR did.

And sorry this is all getting rather O/T. A lot of people seem to absolutely despise Marti. I'll just say that in her interviews (such as not not understanding season 5's arc, and getting themes of season 5 and 6 muddled up) she doesn't always come across well. But hey I lack tact too and am not always great at expressing myself, I don't think it makes Marti the devil or anything like that. She gets a bad rep.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> going off on tangent thinking about SR and The Forsyth Saga -- MsGiles, 09:04:18 07/22/03 Tue

I should say now, I don't intend to offend anyone with the following discussion. I'm trying to keep clear that I'm talking about fictional rape - which like fictional murder, can mean many things - and not real rape.

I remember coming up to SR (not that long ago for me), having caught various rumours of what was going on, and wondering if I dared watch it. I had the clear impression that Buffy was raped. It sounded awful. Gradually it became clear (I wasn't looking for spoilers, but just failing to duck them sometimes) that it was an attack, possibly an attempted rape, rather than a rape. So I switched off my alarm bells and just watched the ep when it aired. I have to say, perhaps because of my expectations of a devastatingly upsetting event, I thought it was not nearly as bad as feared. The most upsetting thing about it was seeing Buffy temporarily abandon her vulnerable but fundamentally tough persona to go all weak and wimbly like any stereotype tv bimbo. And of course it signalled the final end to any fantasy that the Spuffy (Buffike?) might work out. While no fanatical shipper, like others I had somehow hoped it would, after all that S5 buildup (good point by Miss Edith btw in prev post).

Was my lack of being devastated because I'm fairly old, and have grown a thick skin over the years, I wonder? I find myself looking back to another TV rape, Soames Forsyth's rape of Irene in the original 70's BBC version of The Forsyth Saga, shown when I was in my late teens. In some ways similar to SR, in some ways different. As emotive? possibly. It's stayed with me all these years. I imagine it was quite controversial at the time, when British television was still a pretty straight-laced affair, but I've got no memories of any debates. I've got a vivid memory of the episode, though.

The Forsyth rape was a key point in the historical series, a dramatised version of Galsworthy's book, which took the Forsyths from early Victorian times to the mid 20c. Soames was a buttoned-down late Victorian, carrying increasingly outdated views, particularly about the dominance of men over women, into the new century. He desired and married the younger, free-spirited Irene, only for them both to discover that she was not attracted to him and that she had no intention of lying back and thinking of England. The tension between his traditional belief that she was now, as his wife, obliged to 'love honour and obey', and her refusal to subjugate her independant spirit to his needs (paradoxically one of the qualities he loved her for) built until Soames' inner conflicts tipped him into violence, and he tried 'asserting his rights'.

The way the scene was handled wasn't that different to SR. Nothing Xrated shown, but a great deal of tension, and the sense that at the end of it both the actors and the audience were shaking slightly.

After that point in The Forsyth Saga, we start moving away from stifling Victorian England, and towards the Twenties, with flappers, jazz and change in the air, particularly regarding marriage, sex and the roles of women and men in society. Irene leaves Soames the next day, and finds happiness with an artsy crafty architect, a freethinker who is capable of adapting to new ideas. Like Spike, Soames knows he's crossed a line, done irreparable damage, but doesn't quite know why. He feels like he should be the wronged one, but it's obvious even to him that he isn't. At this point in the story, as well, Soames' story ceases to be the main thread. We leave him fading into the shadows of the past, and follow Irene and her daughter into the future, the new age.

Even though the attack in SR isn't a rape (and isn't even a very serious attack, looked at objectively, and in the light of other depicted violence on the show), it is experienced by the audience as a rape, and the reactions to it are on that basis. I think it's partly because the event is playing the dramatic role of a rape - there's a rape-shaped gap in the episode, despite the attack not quite fitting it. The dramatic role is that of an irreversible change, an irrevocable making of choices despite the best efforts of the protagonists to postpone them. It's a considerable dramatic statement. Both Soames and Spike 'lose it', and in attempting to re-assert control by violence, lose it completely and forever. In the case of TFS it's a narrative about change - the control that Soames is losing is to do with one set of cultural norms giving way to another. In the case of SR it's more about individual change. Spike is losing control in the sense that he is personally evolving, he doesn't know who he is any more. He's been attempting to go back, to reclaim who he was with Drusilla via a darkened Buffy, but it's not working. In both cases the act of violence destroys an equivocal relationship, an uneasy stasis, and allows the narrative to move on into a new space.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Amen! -- Rob, 16:43:37 07/18/03 Fri

[> [> Re: Re-examining S6, Willow as the villain? What went right? What went wrong? -- heywhynot, 10:56:44 07/17/03 Thu

"1. How did Willow end up becoming the villain of S6?

Was it a natural progression? Or out of the blue?
What if any comment does this make on control, dominance and misogyny? And why this season as opposed to S5 or S4 or even s3? And how does it parallel B/S?"

Willow ended up being the villian in my view because she still held the view of herself as the nerd from high school, who was unimportant. She hadn't grown-up and cast aside the role tossed upon her as a child. In many respects the Trio had the same problem. Being with Tara had allowed Willow to escape the view of herself as a nerd but instead of taking this chance to reevaluate herself she saw herself through Tara's eyes. When Tara was killed, Willow returned to viewing herself as the nerd. The difference being from high school was that Willow had developed great skills, abilities, power. Being a child once more, Willow sought to wield power to do things the easy way to fix her life (which has been seen as part of Willow's character from the begining, she reacts emotionally, not thinking of the consequences of her actions). She is in pain and wants it to stop because she doesn't believe she can handle the pain.

So yes I do believe it was a natural progression of Willow's character. When things outside of her control happen that hurt her she reacts seeking to dominate, take control.

Misogny does not just mean hatred of women it can also mean distrust of women. Willow clearly distrusts herself to be able to deal with Tara's death. She doesn't believe she is strong enough, she lashes out at Warren, then the world as a whole because she wants the pain to end. Since Something Blue, I was expecting this from Willow. Restless only confirmed my opinion that Willow saw herself still as a kid, the nerd. Willow still believed herself to be the nerd from high school who Coredilia/Harmony picked on. Why then did Willow not go all "Dark Willow" back in seasons 4 and 5? First she did not have the access to the same amount of power. Second and I think more importantly, she had people around her to keep her from falling into the trap of seeing herself as a child/nerd.

Season 6 Buffy has withdrawn from the world and it is because of Willow's actions. Xander is lost fighting his own demons, his fear of becoming his dad. Tara dies and the pain is too much. Her supports are gone, Buffy, Xander and Tara. No one is able to force Willow to be true to herself, to escape the delusion. She is a child once more in pain and just wants it to stop & she has the power to do it. Luckily Xander rises to the occasion and forces Willow to see herself fully.

How does it parallel B/S? I have no idea. No one is really there for Buffy nor Spike to get them to wake up and see the immature relationship they are having. When Spike is in pain because Buffy doesn't want him, he reacts like Willow did to the pain, trying to wield power (AR). Buffy forces him to see himself fully and what he is doing, shaking him to the point that he wants to change. Though I still don't think that Spike really wanted a soul at the end of Season 6 he wanted to be Spike without the chip but instead got a soul, but that maybe my own views on Spike placing themselves onto the story.

Ok enough rambling, think about the other questions and hopefully come up with more concise answers.

[> [> [> Re: Re-examining S6, Willow as the villain? What went right? What went wrong? -- Pathfinder, 06:14:10 07/20/03 Sun

Sorry, I'm probably jumping into this thread way late, but you made some great points about the Willow character arc. I just had one comment.

Season 6 Buffy has withdrawn from the world and it is because of Willow's actions.

But on a larger scale, hadn't Buffy been withdrawing from the world ever since her mom's death? While her leap from that tower at the end of season 5 was on one level a grand act of self-sacrifice, it was also a way out for Buffy, who couldn't quite bring herself to be a part of the world anymore. She said it herself in her last words to Dawn :"The hardest thing in this world is to live in it."

It was undoubtedly a heroic act, but there was also an aspect of immaturity to it - I'll slay the dragon and make the grand sacrifice and I don't have to be here tomorrow to pick up the pieces.

As ill-advised (and, of course, entirely necessary in order for the show to continue) as Willow's actions in bringing Buffy back were, they also forced Buffy to deal with her deep depression, and to work through the pain day by day as a person.

And of course, ultimately it's Willow who removes the great burden from Buffy's shoulders at the end of the series by helping her share her power with all the Potentials around the world.

Sorry if this has all been rehashed a few hundred times already.

[> [> [> [> Re: Re-examining S6, Willow as the villain? What went right? What went wrong? -- dmw, 12:14:09 07/21/03 Mon

But on a larger scale, hadn't Buffy been withdrawing from the world ever since her mom's death? While her leap from that tower at the end of season 5 was on one level a grand act of self-sacrifice, it was also a way out for Buffy, who couldn't quite bring herself to be a part of the world anymore. She said it herself in her last words to Dawn :"The hardest thing in this world is to live in it."

Yes, Buffy had been withdrawing and there was a strong sense, especially after WOTW, that she was giving up her life because she wouldn't bear to live it, not because it was the only way to save the world. All the seeds are there without the idea of Heaven to have Buffy depressed and experiencing difficulties accepting her role in life after her resurrection.

As ill-advised (and, of course, entirely necessary in order for the show to continue) as Willow's actions in bringing Buffy back were

I think the biker gang in Bargaining was meant to show that the world needed Buffy and Willow's power levels are so erratic that I'm willing to accept she couldn't stop them herself, so I can't blame Willow and the other three for anything other than not digging Buffy's body up and that's something I can't suspend my disbelief over anyway. I just accept it as a dramatic necessity for how they wanted to show Buffy clawing herself out of the womb of the earth.

[> Recent Interview -- don't read if in serious, or angry mood -- Deb, 23:41:22 07/16/03 Wed

Just in the past two weeks, but since I read my magazine at the the store, I don't remember which one.

James Marsters flat out admitted they made a mistake and took it too far. Whether we agree or not, it's something that is going to be hotly debated as long as anyone is still debating Buffy Fonzie jumped the shark. WEll, the land shark got jumped and bitten back here. They made a mistake. One thing that they could have had happen was Spike threatening to dust himself if Buffy didn't admit she loved him. That would ALSO be a realistic "crisis" within an abusive relationship, and if anyone thinks that it has no effect or affect on the partner who is being blackmailed, your are so wrong. It is terrifying.

Problem is, once dusted, completely dead....send the Bustduster to Africa and order up a new body along with the soul(s) (I just knew there was something more significant than an allusion to "The Mummy" when those bettles.........yuck. This from one who just this week, while getting money from an ATM, threw the money into the air because a Daddy Long Legs was crawling on the top bill and making a run for her arm.) OR

Buffy stands her ground, and Spike has to back down on his ultimatum, thus, like a dog, Spike would have to roll on his back and expose his neck to Buffy, declaring her Alpha. She won. It's over. It's really, really over. Well, in traditional courtly foolhardiness, Spike then could go get souled and Buffy could still have feelings and still be able to leave Dawn with him. Damn, she could order him to protect Dawn.

Or, Spike could have dusted himself. That would have been a shocker, but his prior suicidal behavior would support it. Buffy freaks. Dawn freaks. No body else gives a damn. Spike is resurrected in season seven, but the problem is he didn't redeem himself when he dusted himself. He just became an ultimate manipulator. But he was an EVIIIL asshole anyway when he went for his souls, so what's the difference? Seeing Red becomes seeing dead: "get chipped, get shagged, get slapped, get beaten to a pulp, repeat last three steps until coming to a full boil, confront, have pointy end of stake pointed backwards, oops! dust in the wind, summer break, dust buster arrives in Africa. . . .

What if Xander had arrived a few minutes earlier and just walks right on in on Buffy in the bathroom (that bothered me too. Geez, might as well put a Public Restroom sign on the door.) and he defends Buffy by dusting Spike?

[> misogyny hatred and/or distrust -- heywhynot, 11:02:44 07/17/03 Thu

If I am not mistaken, misogyny can also mean distrust of women. Here I can see that. Given his issues with his mother, I can view that Spike on some level might be a misogynist. Season 6 I don't think Spike harbors strong distrust of Buffy. Season 7 he overcomes it and trusts her. He believes she will save him from the First.

[> [> According to the dictionary, you are mistaken -- Sophist, 12:29:17 07/17/03 Thu

The dictionary defines misogyny as "hatred of women". I could see distrust as being a consequence of misogyny, but not, in and of itself, an element of it.

[> [> [> Re: According to the dictionary, you are mistaken(Which dictionary?) -- heywhynot, 13:03:17 07/17/03 Thu

The ragged old dictionary in my lab (not sure what year nor what dictionary it is, since the first few pages, front & back, are no longer with us) defines it as hatred and or distrust of women. Hatred appears to be the most common definition. Always thought of it as a hatred of women myself meaning hating the idea females as equals of males (ie hating Lilith while adoring Eve) and that misogynists view women as objects, beneath men, not worthy of their respect/trust.

[> [> [> [> Three different versions of Webster's. -- Sophist, 13:53:24 07/17/03 Thu

Two books and an online version. Maybe not enough variety in source, though the date range is significant enough that I'd expect more nuance if they felt there was any.

Always thought of it as a hatred of women myself meaning hating the idea females as equals of males (ie hating Lilith while adoring Eve)

This is quite a bit broader than my sense. I don't think misogynists accept women even as inferiors; they just hate them. I'd be inclined to use the broader term "sexist" to cover what you suggest.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Three different versions of Webster's. -- heywhynot, 14:38:49 07/17/03 Thu

A sexist doesn't have to hate the idea of women being equals with men, they don't believe females are equals of males. Sexists believe in the superiority of their sex. Misogynist hate women not females. They hate the gender (a layering of humanity) not the sex (the body). Many misogynists are more than happy to have sex with females (the body) but they hate the woman (the humanity). They hate the adding of humanity (in all human societies to date known as gender) to the sex. Females are objects in their mind and any addition to that is to be hated. Are all sexists misogynists? No but are all misogynists sexists? Yes.

Of course the ideas of binary gender and sex break down upon examination of biology and psychology like most assignements of groups/other onto human beings. Thinking back to a history class where a history professor was talking about sex and gender. Saying gender was just a social construct (men/women) whereas they are just males and females. To which I then asked him how he would define sex and he looked at me with a curious look. Then I pointed out why men have breasts with nipples, XX people who have male genitals, XYs which can't process male hormones, hermaphroditism, etc. which left him very confused on the matter. Life is not as simple or as ordered as us mere humans wish it to be.

[> [> [> [> [> American Hertiage Dictionary 3rd Edition agrees (def: sexism, misogyny, patriarchy) -- s'kat, 15:05:01 07/17/03 Thu

Here's the word broken down:

Mis - 1. Bad;badly;wrong;wrongly
2. Failure; lack

gune (gyne) - women

Misogyny: n. Hatred of women [From the Greek - misein - means to hate + gune, woman] misogynist is the noun meaning person who hates women.

So in order to be a "misogynist" - you must hate
women. I've met sexists, misogynists, chavinists, racists, bigots in my life. I'd be very careful how broadly we define this.

A misogynist is someone who can't stand women. Misogyny
is just hatred of women.

Sexism is discrimination based on gender.

Patriarchy: a social system in which the father is the head of the family and descent is traced through the paternal line.

chauvinism: 1. Fanatical patriotism 2. Prejudiced belief in the superiority of one's own group [Fr. after Nicolas Chauvin - legendary French solider]

So you see word choice does matter. ;-)

[> [> [> [> [> [> So does the OED. -- Sophist, 17:46:36 07/17/03 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> Misogyny is not black and white, but subject to shades of gray -- Dariel, 17:59:37 07/17/03 Thu

As has been discussed many times on this board, humans are complex beings, and can contain within them many different, and even opposite impulses. I think many men in our society harbor some misogynistic feelings, which can be aroused by certain situations. Our culture (speaking of Western culture) has not suddenly jettisoned it's negative views of women, as they go very deep. Which is, I think, what Joss was referring to when he used the term "deep misogyny." It was in Spike, it's in a lot of men (and women), because it's so deeply rooted in our culture. Every time someone calls Buffy or (any other woman) a "bitch" they are exhibiting misogynistic views, often without realizing it. She's not acting like a real woman, a good woman; she's being a bitch.

I don't think that misogyny is about hatred of the woman as "other" in the way that racism is towards blacks; it is about hating women for the power that they have. Misogynists feel the need to control and dominate women because of their own vulnerability and immaturity--they don't really know how to have an adult relationship with a woman. Women make them feel needy, which they hate, so they hate women for "making" them feel this way. Many men harbor misogynist views on some level and in varying degrees; because they have learned it from our culture and because their relationship to women confuses and confounds them.

The idea of Spike as a misogynist doesn't bother me because it's not a black and white thing. Spike was capable of very strong feelings of love towards the women in his life. He was willing to do almost anything for them. However, these women--Cecily, Anne, Dru, and Buffy--did not return his affection in the same degree. They were all somewhat unattainable, and Spike felt controlled by his feelings for them. It's not surprising that he would also hate them on some level.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I don't think you're using the common definition of the term -- Sophist, 20:06:44 07/17/03 Thu

Which is ok up to a point. But the common usage as expressed in the various dictionaries doesn't fit very well with your suggestion.

Think of it this way: the OED gives examples of other words using "miso-" as a prefix. Most of these are nonce words (OED's use, not mine, but Random'll love it) like misogallic (hatred of the French; a timely word indeed). If we substitute "misogallic" into your post for "misogyny" and "French" for "women", I doubt anyone would agree.

Every time someone calls Buffy or (any other woman) a "bitch" they are exhibiting misogynistic views

I don't agree. If I call a man some equivalent term, I'm not expressing misanthropy, i.e., hatred of men in general, I just don't like that particular man. Some people who use the term "bitch" are misogynistic (Caleb), but not everyone is. The use of one term alone is not nearly enough for us to make that identification.

I don't think that misogyny is about hatred of the woman as "other" in the way that racism is towards blacks

I'd say that "racism" covers a spectrum of opinion from disdain to hatred. The equivalent term for women is "sexism". "Misogyny" is limited to hatred (at least in the dictionaries and to my understanding).

Many men harbor misogynist views on some level and in varying degrees; because they have learned it from our culture and because their relationship to women confuses and confounds them

In the broadest sense, no one can learn anything except from their culture. I doubt that explains misogyny; I'm quite sure it's much more widespread than that (unless you have a very broad definition of "our" culture).

I doubt that misogyny is "learned" in any meaningful sense of the term. Most deep emotions like hatred are pre-rational. We know far too little of the human psyche for me to have any confidence in the exact source of such emotions.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I don't think you're using the common definition of the term -- Dariel, 08:32:30 07/18/03 Fri

Which is ok up to a point. But the common usage as expressed in the various dictionaries doesn't fit very well with your suggestion.

Think of it this way: the OED gives examples of other words using "miso-" as a prefix. Most of these are nonce words (OED's use, not mine, but Random'll love it) like misogallic (hatred of the French; a timely word indeed). If we substitute "misogallic" into your post for "misogyny" and "French" for "women", I doubt anyone would agree.

The use of the same prefix does not make make the two concepts equivalent. The French are a nation; women are a sex.

"Every time someone calls Buffy or (any other woman) a "bitch" they are exhibiting misogynistic views."

I don't agree. If I call a man some equivalent term, I'm not expressing misanthropy, i.e., hatred of men in general, I just don't like that particular man. Some people who use the term "bitch" are misogynistic (Caleb), but not everyone is. The use of one term alone is not nearly enough for us to make that identification.

I shouldn't really have used the word "views." But the essence of the word is misogynistic. A "bitch" is, after all, a female dog. It is a gender-specific term. There is no male equivalent.

"I don't think that misogyny is about hatred of the woman as "other" in the way that racism is towards blacks."

I'd say that "racism" covers a spectrum of opinion from disdain to hatred. The equivalent term for women is "sexism". "Misogyny" is limited to hatred (at least in the dictionaries and to my understanding).

Again, disdain or hatred for a race is not equivalent to disdain or hatred of women. Most misogynists are raised by a woman, many have sisters, aunts, etc.; their relationship to women is more intimate than that of the racist towards the object of their racism. There's a very personal element to misogyny. To illustrate, here's a quote from a website named "Misogyny Unlimited"(!):

"'The Disciple asked: What is a misogynist?'
The Master replied: 'I do not know; but it is used by cowards as a term of abuse for those who say what everybody thinks. Cowards are the men who cannot approach a woman without going out of their minds and becoming treacherous. They buy the woman's favour by serving their friends' heads on a silver platter; and they absorb so much femininity that they see with her eyes and feel with her feelings. Agreed: there are things you do not mention in everyday conversation, and you do not tell your woman what is the essence of her gender.'"

That last sentence illustrates also a point I've tried to make--that misogyny is not some sort of pure form of hatred that one has or does not have. The speaker obviously expects men to "have" a woman, not to boycott them a la Caleb.

"Many men harbor misogynist views on some level and in varying degrees; because they have learned it from our culture and because their relationship to women confuses and confounds them."

In the broadest sense, no one can learn anything except from their culture. I doubt that explains misogyny; I'm quite sure it's much more widespread than that (unless you have a very broad definition of "our" culture).

I doubt that misogyny is "learned" in any meaningful sense of the term. Most deep emotions like hatred are pre-rational. We know far too little of the human psyche for me to have any confidence in the exact source of such emotions.

No, you're right--I don't think misogyny originates with culture--only that one's culture can reinforce it.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Words v. meaning (Masq: feel free to edit or delete this post if it causes problems) -- Sophist, 10:36:49 07/18/03 Fri

The use of the same prefix does not make make the two concepts equivalent.

The point of the OED entry was precisely that the terms were equivalent.

The French are a nation; women are a sex.

France is a nation. The French are people. Misogallic refers to hatred of an identifiable group of people.

But the essence of the word is misogynistic.

I'm not sure what you mean by "essence". Words don't have "essences". No word has any inherent, objective meaning. They only have meanings supplied by agreement and context. The word itself tells us nothing; only the usage can. Not every use of the word "bitch" is evidence of misogyny.

It is a gender-specific term. There is no male equivalent.

There are terms commonly applied to men and rarely, if ever, to women. Examples are prick, cocksucker, bastard, son of a bitch, and motherfucker. No one using such terms could, for that reason alone, reasonably be called misanthropic. We recognize that their use generally comes from anger, perhaps even hatred, towards an individual, not a group.

Again, disdain or hatred for a race is not equivalent to disdain or hatred of women. Most misogynists are raised by a woman, many have sisters, aunts, etc.; their relationship to women is more intimate than that of the racist towards the object of their racism.

The experience in the American South completely contradicts this.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Sorry to butt in here, but... -- Rob, 10:43:30 07/18/03 Fri

Examples are prick, cocksucker, bastard, son of a bitch, and motherfucker

Heh-heh. Just never thought I'd ever see all of those words in the same sentence in a post here! LOL.

You may continue now, and feel free to ignore my silliness. ;o)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Censorship isn't the way here -- Masq, 11:55:11 07/18/03 Fri

I've been meaning to post a longer post on censorship to the board, I just haven't gotten to it, which can be said of so many of the things I intend to do this summer. : )

My assumption is that this is an adult board (graffiti not withstanding) and that people are free to give arguments pro and con on a particular position as long as they attempt to follow some basic dictates of civility.

These dictates are mostly about refraining from personal attacks on and deliberate attempts to inflame the negative emotions of other posters. You are not obviously not intending to do either of these things, you're trying to make a point in an on-going discussion. And so far, no one's objected to your illustrative words.

So carry on with the discussion!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks -- Sophist, 12:57:57 07/18/03 Fri

Just didn't want to cause you or others trouble with filtering software.

I wasn't actually worried that this would offend you. In contrast, some have suggested my impending demise based upon my Ratconnor post....

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agreed - one more example.., also on that one word? -- s'kat, 16:26:55 07/18/03 Fri

It is a gender-specific term. There is no male equivalent.

There are terms commonly applied to men and rarely, if ever, to women. Examples are prick, cocksucker, bastard, son of a bitch, and motherfucker. No one using such terms could, for that reason alone, reasonably be called misanthropic. We recognize that their use generally comes from anger, perhaps even hatred, towards an individual, not a group.

I agree with Sophist on all of the above, btw. If using the word "bitch" meant you were misogynistic or was an misogynistic term...well,
we'd all be misogynists. It's not the same as saying the "n" word for African Americans. Nowhere near it, which I believe Dariel may be trying to compare it to. While the "n" word which is sooo bad, that I refuse to spell it out, can have a different connotation when used by African Americans towards each other, it has nothing but an extreemly negative racist connotation when someone of another race uses it to describe African Americans. Bitch
is not the same - it's too generalized a word. Now there are words that can be used - "cunt" being one of them which have a distinctly negative, misogynistic air...but there are egually male words that have that such as dick or prick.
Using portions of the female or male anatomy to slander someone is a common practice - is it a sign of misanthropy or misogyny? No, I don't think you can go that far with it, since the words can be used by men towards men and women towards women without the connotation changing that much.
The "n" words connotation does change, becoming less slanderous, only when African Americans use it. I honestly do not think there is comparable word for any other culture that has that a severe a change in connotations. The reason? Slavery and the history leading up to and through Civil Rights Movement.
You use the "n" word in a certain way and are not black or African American - you are coming across racist.

So why doesn't using word "bitch" do the same thing as the "n" word?

Bitch according to American Hertiage Dictionary:
1. A female canine animal,esp a dog. 2. Offensive Slang: A spiteful or overbearing woman. 3. Slang. A complaint.
4. Slang. Something very unpleasant or difficult. -v
Slang. To complain.

Well first off - some women don't really mind being called overbearing that much. IT's not quite as bad as being called a "butt-monkey" or an "ass". They even use it
to describe each other at times.

Also bitch isn't gender specific necessarily, neither is misogynist. A misogynist can be a "man" or a "woman" and has been used to describe women and men who show a negative view or hatred towards women. While "bitch" means a female dog or overbearing female, it has been used in more than one instance to describe a man or woman in Btvs, in real life, and in literature. For men - it
is used to describe someone who is being used, sort of as a synonym for butt monkey. Notice Spike often uses the word "bitch" to describe himself. "I'm love's bitch" or
"The First is using me as it's bitch" or "I'm no longer your bitch." In this sense - the term bitch is similar to the term ass, except it little worse depending on your point of view. I'd say a similar word or phrase would probably be whipping dog.

Now everyone in the show has called Buffy a bitch at times, including a good portion of the audience, heck I do. She is bitchy at times. What do we mean? Well overbearing woman.
She is a bossy, overbearing at times. It works.
Nothing misogynistic about that. Anya and Willow call her "bitch" all the time. So does Faith.

The comparable male term for bitch by the way is "ass" or
"asshole" or "nimrod" - a term that describes a donkey.

Ass: 1. Any of several hoofed, long-eared mammals resembling and closely related to the horse. 2. A vain silly or stupid person.

While this term is not clearly gender specific - it tends to be used most often to describe men. Asshole - meaning rectal opening - is also used to describe men. I don't think I've seen it used to refer to a woman.

Is it misanthropic? No. Of course not. IT is meant as an insult - often towards an individual as opposed to a gender.

If you say "all" men are asses = that might be closer to a misanthropic statement, depending on the context and if you really mean it.

When I look at the context Spike and others have used bitch, the only one I've seen who uses it in a misogynistic sense is probably Warren. Spike seems to use it as a general statement to voice frustration, also he swears, this guy swears more than anyone on the show. He calls Xander names, himself names, the door names, I think he's used every swear word Joss Whedon thinks he can possibly get away with on TV. The context he uses them in seems hardly degrading to me, especially since he calls himself the same thing. But perhaps Whedon meant them to sound that way?? Spike never calls Buffy a bitch after he gets a soul, or anyone any name that I can re-call - so it might have been a writers gimmick to show a difference. (shrug).

At any rate - I think using this word as proof of misogyny is pushing logic a bit. I mean, I call Buffy a bitch all the time, does it make me a misogynist? I should hope not.


sk(wondering if one of the side-effects of becoming an attorney...is a preoccupation with using the right
word. speaking only of myself of course. ;-)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> 'misanthropy' isn't the equivalent for males -- anom, 17:13:08 07/18/03 Fri

I haven't been reading most of this thread, but when it comes to words & terminology, I can't stay away.

The word for hatred of men is misandry. It's from the Greek root that means "man," just as misogyny is from the root meaning "woman." (The 2 occur together in androgynous.)

Misanthropy means hatred of people, not men specifically. The root is the same as in anthropology, which is the study of human beings ("Man" as distinct from men).

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks, anom! I had a feeling it was off... -- s'kat, 21:00:42 07/18/03 Fri

[> Degrees and kinds of misogyny -- Ace_of_Sevens, 13:02:33 07/18/03 Fri

Spike doesn't hate women. At least not in the same sense as Warren or Billy Blim. However, he does seem to blame women for all his problems. This could easily be seen as low-grade misogyny.

[> [> Re: Degrees and kinds of misogyny -- Yellow Bear, 12:19:30 07/20/03 Sun

It could be considered a low-grade misogyny, or perhaps to use Whedon's phrasing a misogyny that runs "deep" maybe below even what the character (or certain members of the audience) may be aware of.

[> [> [> Re: Degrees and kinds of misogyny -- Ace_of_Sevens, 15:16:04 07/20/03 Sun

It could be mild, but still deep-seated. Besides, he didn't say it ran deep in Spike. He said it ran deep in Spike and Buffy's relationship. That seems to be a fair assessment to me.

The First Evil vs Jasmine -- JBone, 20:03:44 07/16/03 Wed

So, you don't worry that it's possible for someone to send out a biological or electronic trigger that effectively overrides your sense of ideals and values and replaces them with an alternative, coercive agenda that reduces you to little more than a mindless meat puppet?


I'm back after a desperately needed vacation, and ready for carnage. I've got a couple quick thoughts, before I send ya'll off to vote. First, attention tiebreakers, who for the next six matchups will be Rob, Dub, and deeva, if you are not going to check in on the day's matchup, go ahead and email me who you voted for. But, if you are going to check in, I don't need you to email me until it starts looking like a tight contest. I am still taking volunteers for the tiebreaker council, if you're interested.

Also, I've only been back for a day, so I haven't done much to resolve the whole comment issue, so for now, I'll continue to ask you to post them here. This may become permanent, but, I plan to explore options this weekend. I've noticed not too many people have visited my rules page, so I'm posting my comment policy here.

I want all the comments, no holds barred, all the time (funny helps). The only way you will be censored by me, is if I have too many comments (which hasn't been very close to happening), and (not or) yours are too tame. No one is untouchable, except maybe your fellow comment makers. They should feel free to say what they want without someone attacking them. But even then, I'd like to think that they would welcome the fighting words. Last year I was kind of picky about character bashing, but I'm beyond that now. This is an antagonistic forum, and I'm finally embracing it.

[> Like this is even a contest! -- Scroll, 21:06:22 07/16/03 Wed

While "The First Evil" was a terrific concept to begin with, execution definitely lacked. Jasmine, on the other hand, is Kali and Madonna, Athena and Big Brother. She redefines phrases like 'divinely gorgeous', 'world peace', and 'healthy appetite'. She was a Higher Being come down to earth to bring love and harmony to all mankind.

Okay, so there was that pesky free will issue... But hey, media bias is a good thing, and the Catholic church definitely needed a new god, and more Jasmine temples would certainly brighten up the skyline, and anyway, those people were perfectly happy to be eaten as bed-time snacks!

Jasmine was a kick-ass PTB that made things happen -- none of that standing around being incorporeal and making only-slightly-terrifying-taunts. She was deeply misunderstood by Angel and the Fang Gang; I mean, all she wanted was to be loved! Is that so much to ask?

And as we all know, "Jasmine rocks!"

Oh Jasmine, well, you came and you gave without taking...

[> Is it wrong for the First Evil to vote for Jasmine? -- Masq, 21:43:00 07/16/03 Wed

I just felt this irresistible urge to vote for her creamy cool ebony effervescence....

[> This is actually a toughie for me... -- Rob, 22:42:59 07/16/03 Wed

Villian-wise, sure, Jasmine kicks the First Evil's incorporeal ass. But that's part of the problem. As Buffy found out, the First has no ass to kick and can't be destroyed or defeated (just have all its toys and resources taken away). So, I'm voting for Jasmine, based on personality alone, but if it came down to an actual fight, it'd either end up being a draw...or really boring. Jasmine runs at First, tries to punch, but her arm GOES RIGHT THROUGH HER. She tries to give it a kick in the face, but her leg GOES RIGHT THROUGH HER. Get the problem? ;o)


[> This is not an antagonistic forum! -- d'Herblay, 22:44:08 07/16/03 Wed

Yes, we've had our problems in the past: strife, hatred, despair, Boke. But now we have a chance to make this the best of all possible boards, without hunger, war or misery. A board built on love, respect, understanding, and, well, just loving one another. Doesn't that sound nice? And we owe it all to Jasmine. And she requires nothing in return but for us to love one another. And maybe a temple. And definitely our votes.

[> [> Masq gets a blissful Connor-esque look on her face.... -- Masq, 12:05:56 07/17/03 Thu

[> After much deliberation... -- ApOpHiS, 00:39:01 07/17/03 Thu

After much deliberation, I had to go with Jasmine. All throughout this past season, I was in love with the First Evil. There was so much that could've been done with a truly cosmic-level bad guy. I waited for months for the First to do something cool... I'm still waiting. Since ME decided to present the First as such an ineffectual loser, I'm treating it as such here. After a long battle between the First's Turuk-Han/Harbinger army and Jasmine's mindslaves, it comes down to a one on one battle betwixt the goddess and the abstract concept... at which point the First realizes that it can't really do anything. Jasmine assumes control of the world while the First goes off to a distant galaxy to think of a plan B.

[> Jasmine absolutely -- KdS, 02:53:59 07/17/03 Thu

Is there anyone on this board who wasn't disappointed when the Incarnation of Evil was treated like an everyday Big Bad?

[> Re: The First Evil vs Jasmine -- MaeveRigan, 09:59:53 07/17/03 Thu

The First Evil so wants to win this one, but unfortunately, it has nothing to bring but rhetoric. Unless someone speaks her Name or touches her blood, Jasmine's mystery-mojo just mows everyone down.

Frankly, I think FE plays fairer, but Jasmine's gonna win this time. In the next round or so, I hope she meets the wild card that is the Power of Love.

[> FEJasmine? -- Anneth, 10:49:15 07/17/03 Thu

Only after I voted for Jasmine (she turns the FE's army of Turuk-Han into genuflecting gnomes; Caleb discovers his new-found love for women, being as they constitute roughly 1/2 of all humanity, which he now unabashedly adores; the FE crosses its arms and sulks) did I pause to consider what might happen if the FE took on Jasmine's form. Could it recapture the loyalty of its minions by process of rethrall? Was Jasmine's face the source of her power, or was it something intangible?

No matter; the FE next tries to take on Jasmine's 'true' visage and confuses itself while trying to be both RottenJasmine and 347 maggots. Jasmine victorious.

[> Re: The First Evil vs Jasmine -- HonorH, 11:34:15 07/17/03 Thu

Like the FE is supposed to be able to stand up against anyone who can wipe all free will from anyone's mind? You can be evil without choice. 'Sides, from what we heard, Jasmine's older. Inherently, she's more evil than Mr./Ms. Incorporeal and has more practical power. It's no contest.

[> [> me stoopid -- HonorH, 11:58:09 07/17/03 Thu

"You *can't* be evil without choice," she forcibly reminded herself, banging her head on her desk.

[> [> [> Jasmine, All The Way! -- Rhysdux, 21:50:33 07/17/03 Thu

The First Evil never seemed to have any power at all. Okay, so it could materialize in the form of anyone who had died. But that was it. It couldn't touch anyone, and no one could touch it. It couldn't take any direct action. It couldn't deprive people of choice and force them to serve it. It had no personality, no charisma, no nothing. It wasn't even an Evil-let.

If you look at Jasmine, the Evil Power That Was, you see what the First Evil wanted to be when it grew up. Jasmine was beautiful, charismatic, powerful and corporeal. She made people want to give up their free will to her. She could take direct action (witness her ability to devour her followers) and could also act through the bodies of others. In fact, Jasmine took over Cordelia's body while still in the womb. She was also more articulate than the First Evil, more inclined to persuade than to attack. Also, unlike the First Evil, who relied heavily on illusions to frighten and unnerve others, Jasmine used only one--the illusion of her beauty--and she used that to charm her followers, not to terrify them.

Finally, the First Evil had no goal that would persuade a potential follower. It wanted to become corporeal and take over the world. (Yeah, it promised Caleb unlimited power, but that wasn't the stated goal of the FE; it just promised that so that Caleb would help it get what it wanted.)

Now, corporeal existence and world domination are worthy objectives for your average evil overlord. But they don't hold a candle to Jasmine's public goals, which were love, universal brotherhood, an end to famine and disease, and world peace. With goals like that, Jasmine made it almost impossible for someone decent to oppose her, and created the impression that anyone who did oppose her and her lofty goals had to be evil.

Jasmine would knock out the FE in the first round. No question about it.

[> Jaz leads, 24-2. Gee, do you think some people thought the FE was lame? -- cjl, 12:53:16 07/17/03 Thu

[> [> Doesn't seem like I'll have to excerise my 'given' powers this go round. -- deeva, just itching to be all tie-breaker-y, 14:26:24 07/17/03 Thu

Once again no Emmy -- skpe, 11:20:49 07/17/03 Thu

Once again buffy is snubed. but I guess not a suprise to anyone

[> But on the bright side, Six Feet Under got 16 noms!!! -- Very Happy Rob, 11:23:31 07/17/03 Thu

[> Re: Once again no Emmy -- Rina, 11:26:13 07/17/03 Thu

Not really. The judges for the Emmy nominations tend to look down upon shows from the Sci-Fi/Fantasy genre. Only "Taken" received a nomination and I suspect it was due to the Spielberg name attached to it. The actors in the miniseries, however, were undeservedly snubbed.

[> And Now Forever More -- No Regard for Emmy -- frisby, 11:35:47 07/17/03 Thu

That was their last chance in my mind -- forever more I vow to have no regard whatsoever for anything 'Emmy' -- Buffy has been snubbed for the last time with regard to my giving any credence at all to their choices. 'Emmy' forevermore stinks! (stupid x$$#%[@$)

'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' is the best thing of its kind I've ever seen on TV -- and I've been watching over 1/2 a century.

[> Well, special effects - -- Darby, 12:46:04 07/17/03 Thu

For "Chosen," and "Serenity" on Firefly.

[> I thought Angel would get a cinematograhy nod -- Ace_of_Sevens, 14:04:01 07/17/03 Thu

No nominations any kind for Angel. The fact that Alias got several nomintions, meanng genre shows in general aren't being snubbed any more just makes it worse.

[> Buffy didn't deserve an Emmy -- dmw, 05:39:48 07/18/03 Fri

While most years I've been annoyed by the lack of recognition that Buffy received, this year is not one of them. The poor quality of this season didn't deserve to be rewarded.

It's true that fantasy or SF shows are unfairly ignored, but if I had had an Emmy to give out this year it would have gone to Farscape.

[> [> The Emmys aren't for seasons -- Ace_of_Sevens, 12:55:23 07/18/03 Fri

Almost all the awards are given on a per-episode basis. Regardless of what you thought of the season as a whole, you have to admit that Storyteller, Selfless and Conversations with Dead People were top-notch tv.

[> [> [> For the shows themselves, they are -- Darby, 07:26:54 07/19/03 Sat

[> [> [> [> Actually that's not true -- Tom, 05:42:00 07/21/03 Mon

The emmys for best drama series or best comedy series are based on the sample of episodes that are given to the emmy voters for consideration(usually around 4 or 5). This happens because the emmy voter can't watch everything that is on TV and so like the Oscars's, the Emmys become at least partially about marketing and packaging. This especially true for series like Buffy, because the old Emmy voters may have watched some Law & Order or Fraiser during the regular TV schedule, but definitely didn't take time to watch Buffy.

[> [> [> Re: The Emmys aren't for seasons -- dmw, 16:14:13 07/18/03 Fri

I know that most awards are given for episodes, but I wasn't particularly impressed by any of those you mentioned. Andrew's puerile humor annoys me as much as Adam Sandler does, so Storyteller's not one of my favorites though the concept of a minor character pov episode has been used to great effect in other TV series. CwDP wasn't too bad and again, I liked the concept if not the execution. Selfless is my favorite s7 episode, but it doesn't come off well if I compare it to past episodes of Buffy or episodes of Angel or Farscape from the same season. While past seasons all have episodes I'd be happy to see nominated for an emmy like Prophecy Girl, Becoming, The Wish, Hush, The Body, or OMWF, season 7 doesn't have anything to compare.

[> [> [> [> Re: The Emmys aren't for seasons -- Pathfinder, 11:55:28 07/19/03 Sat

While past seasons all have episodes I'd be happy to see nominated for an emmy like Prophecy Girl, Becoming, The Wish, Hush, The Body, or OMWF, season 7 doesn't have anything to compare.

And don't forget Restless. I never will understand why that ep isn't on more peoples' top ten lists. Oh well.

As for the sci-fi argument, I agree that genre gets little respect from Emmy voters, but honestly nothing on the smaller networks seems capable of getting the voters' attention. Note the stunning lack of nominations for The Gilmore Girls, which arguably has some of the wittiest, sharpest dialogue on network tv.

There was actually a pretty good Emmy write in yesterday's SF Examiner . The writer notes her disappointment with the lack of nominations for Buffy as a series, SMG, or AH.

[> [> [> [> [> Restless Small Networks -- dmw, 12:09:15 07/19/03 Sat

You have a good point about the smaller networks. Gilmore Girls has been my favorite show for the past couple of years. I remember when Buffy had that kind of dialog and a setting populated with real people too.

I found Primeval/Restless disappointing, though fun to analyze, when they first showed after the prior year's spectacular Graduation Day, but after watching a second time I decided that Restless was a good episode in itself. I'm sure I'm much too late for the long analysis thread on it though.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Restless Small Networks -- Pathfinder, 12:47:38 07/19/03 Sat

I'm sure you could pull up loads of stuff by doing a "Restless" search on the archives here. While I've never gotten the impression that it was a big fan favorite, I've always been fascinated by it. But then I love Joss' more experimental work (Hush, The Body, CWDP) as well as his dream sequences, so go figure.

As for the Gilmore Girls, I hope that show has many more strong seasons ahead of it, but I'll be shocked (pleasantly shocked, but shocked all the same) if the wonderful writers and actors have so much as one Emmy between them by the time they hold their final wrap party.

And that's a shame.

[> Good Emmy critique -- tomfool, 07:42:05 07/18/03 Fri

There's a good summary of the Emmy nominations on MSNBC by Chuck Barney, who is the TV critic for the Contra Costa (Calif.) Times. I suspect that he pretty much sums up the feeling of most of us here - the Emmy's are a retread of the familiar and seldom recognize new/true talent and innovation.

"There were other omissions, of course... And it's a shame that Sarah Michelle Gellar ("Buffy the Vampie Slayer") leaves prime time without ever getting her props. But we've come to expect that."


[> [> Re: Good Emmy critique -- Kate, 20:00:15 07/18/03 Fri

Thanks for the link. It was a good analysis. I was watching E! News Live from yesterday and their "Emmy Expert" - not Kristin, some other guy - pretty much said the same thing as the writer of the article - even specifically mentioning "Boomtown" and "The Wire" as well as being snubbed. He also talked about how the WB has been passed over for years, including mentioning BTVS, Gilmore Girls and even Smallville (I think ATS should definitely be included on that list for this year). The commentator's basic reasoning behind the same-'ol-same-'ol of the Emmys is that the Academy consists of aging voters who don't bother to tune into the cooler, younger, more pop culturery shows. It's numbers and names that they pay attention to and so the WB (and UPN for Buffy) gets overlooked constantly b/c the shows on that network lack the gigantic numbers of the big 4. As for HBO, USA and FX breaking the mold that is really thanks to HBO (imho)- their shows were new and different and did manage to instigate some change so that cable shows are beginning to be included. However, those shows (on all 3 networks) are aimed at older audiences anyway so again, it is a problem of (perceived) youthful of shows. Such a waste and a shame b/c good talent like Gilmore Girls, Buffy, Everwood, SMG, JM, AH, Lauren Graham, etc. will continue to be overlooked if the Emmy voters don't bother to change the channel. I gave up on the Emmy's years ago.

Side note: Until recently the only award show I thought was valid was the Golden Globes until two years ago when Jennifer Garner won for her first season on "Alias." Nothing against JG or "Alias" - love the show and her. It's just her 1/2 first season performance was *nothing* compared with the four plus seasons (or so) that SMG had under belt when nominated the year before (and lost to an older actress on a big ratings show on one of the big four -forgot who specifically). The GG's were SMG's best chance of an award (especially since it is the Foreign Press and the show has gotten such critical acclaim from the press) and it didn't happen. That was a bigger let down than even the Emmy's.

Here's to keeping hope alive that SMG gets her Academy Award winning role in the future!!

[> Have the Emmy's ever rewarded sci-fi or fantasy shows in their history? -- s'kat, 12:19:45 07/19/03 Sat

Can anyone remember an emmy being given to a science-fiction or fantasy show in the history of the EMMY's?
Or even an Oscar really? Or a Golden Globe? (not being sarcastic - I honestly want to know.)

Maybe movies...but never TV as I recall.

Has the Booker Prize or the NAtional Book Award ever been given to a book that fell within the science-fiction and/or fantasy category?? Can't remember any. Maybe one or two, I suppose.

They aren't genres generally respected by mainstream audience.

Sopranos is like The Godfather - accessible, real, gritty.
Six Feet Under - nicely quirky, dreamlike, but still accessible and real
Alias - also quirky, but real
West Wing - accessible and real world

Star Trek - considered a sci-fi fantasy show, not real and not accessible.
Farscape? Most people never saw it, on Sci-Fi Channel and also not very accessible.
Enterprise - same thing, sci-fi

Did they ever reward the great Rod Sterling for Twilight Zone or Outer Limits? How about Kolchak The Night Stalker.
Forever Knight. Highlander. Xena. Star Trek, Star Trek Next Generation, DS9...I would have been shocked considering the track record sci-fi and fantasy series have had at the Emmy's to see either BTVS or ATS nominated. Saturns? yes.
Emmy's ? nope.

Let's face it guys, we're in a minority, a sizable minority but a minority all the same. Most people just don't respect the genre.

[> [> Re: Have the Emmy's ever rewarded sci-fi or fantasy shows in their history? -- Pathfinder, 12:36:47 07/19/03 Sat

The X-Files racked up quite a few nominations and a few wins back in the series' best days. I know Gillian Anderson took home best actress at least once.

But I suppose that was one of the few SF based shows to ever win over Emmy voters.

[> [> [> Re: Have the Emmy's ever rewarded sci-fi or fantasy shows in their history? -- Ace_of_Sevens, 23:16:58 07/19/03 Sat

Here are the major awards X-Files won (they also got a bunch of technicals). I'm considering writing, acting, directing and best series to be the major awards.

1996: Darin Morgan got writing for Clyde bruckman's final repose and Peter Boyle won outstanding guest actor for playing the titles character.
1997: Gillian Anderson got outstanding lead actress

It got nominated for a bunch of majors it didn't win as well.

Xena was never nominated for anything except music, which it won in 2000.

Hercules: The Legendary Journeys was never nominated for anything.

Witchblade was never nominated for anything.

Buffy won makeup and score in season 2, but only major award it was ever nominated for was writing for Hush.

Angel thusfar only has a single nomination and that was for makeup for The Ring.

Farscape's sole nomination was for costuming.

Star Trek: The Next Generation won lots of technicals, and was nominated for outstanding drama in 1994.

Deep Space Nine only won 3 emmys. They were 2 makeups and an outstanding main title theme music. It was never even nominated for a major award.

Babylon 5 won once for makeup and was never nominated in a major category.

Stargate SG-1 has never won a technical or even been nominated for a major.

So out of all the popular genre shows in last 15 years or so, X-Files is the only one to not be mostly or completely ignored by the academy in the major categories. Buffy and Next Generation got 1 nomination each and all the others got zip. Most have done fine in the technicals, though.

If you consider Twin peaks to be a genre show, it did get several acting nominations, though.

[> [> [> [> Re: Have the Emmy's ever rewarded sci-fi or fantasy shows in their history? -- Pathfinder, 05:31:35 07/20/03 Sun

Darin Morgan! Whatever happened to Darin Morgan? He did a handful of really great offbeat comedic scripts for the XF and then he just kind of disappeared. Perhaps one of Hollywood's great mysteries...

And a few more to add to the list since s'kat also asked about other awards:

X-Files won Golden Globes for best drama series in 1995, 1997 and 1998.

Gillian Anderson also won GG for best actress in a drama series and David Duchovny (sp?) won GG for best actor in a drama series in 1997.

And Anderson won SAG awards (potentially more prestigious for actors than anything else, short of an Oscar) for best actress in a drama series in 1996 and 1997.

As for the Oscars, I know Kubrick was nominated for best screenplay and best direction for "2001", but didn't win. I think the movie did take home a technical award or two, but that was it.

[> [> [> [> [> Genre Oscars -- Ace_of_Sevens, 05:52:03 07/20/03 Sun

Genre movies have done better at the Oscars. Take Fellowship of the Ring's slew of nominations, for instance. The Sixth Sense also was nominated for a bunch of major awards, but didn't win any.

[> [> Re: Have the Emmy's ever rewarded sci-fi or fantasy shows in their history? -- Yellow Bear, 14:03:44 07/20/03 Sun

Pretty new here but can I assume that the majority of posters here are fans of Fantasy TV, movies & books. I am assuming from S'kat's post above, and the book club list I saw last week.

Curious because I am really not a fan of the genre. To put that in perspective, I've never seen an entire episode of any Star Trek show. Yes, that's right I have never seen an episode of Star Trek (couple of the movies) yet I know what a treeble which I guess is just some kind of weird cultural osmosis. I also strongly dislike the Lord Of the Rings movies although I really want to like them.

On the other hand, I love Whedon's voice and the shows he has created (specifically BTVS) are my favorite TV shows but I think my lack of Sci-Fi/Fantasy love definetly puts me in the minority here.

[> [> [> Re: Have the Emmy's ever rewarded sci-fi or fantasy shows in their history? -- Yellow bear, 10:57:15 07/21/03 Mon

Don't know if the question above was too vague or just too boring. :)

But I am curious about the make-up of this group. I find that I am one of the few BTVS fans on-line with little or no background in Fantasy literature or TV. Not too say I am totally againist the genre as I think it's an interesting way to explore character & theme but it often doesn't do that very well, for me at least.

Just wondering. Feel free to ignore if this is just a total snooze.

William the Bloody's Class Origins -- Rina, 11:22:43 07/17/03 Thu

I have read a few essays and posts regarding human William's class origins. And I have noticed that many seemed to believe that his class origins were lower than Cecily Underwood's - the object of his affections.

I'm not really sure if this is correct. If that were the case, William must come from an upper middle-class background and Cecily, from an upper-class background. And William's family - despite Anne's widowed status - must still have plenty of money. If William did come from a class lower than Cecily's and was living in genteel poverty, no way in the world would he have ended up at that party featured in "Fool for Love".

There are at least a few possibilites to William's class status around 1880:

1. Both he and Cecily were part of the upper middle-class. It is possible that William was living in genteel poverty and Cecily wasn't. Or both were living in affluent upper middle-class style. Or Cecily was living in genteel poverty.

2. William came from an affluent upper middle-class family and Cecily came from an upper-class family. Whether her family was affluent or not, is questionable.

3. William came from an upper class family living in genteel poverty and Cecily, from an affluent middle-class family.

4. Both William and Cecily came from untitled upper-class families. Whether both families were affluent or not is, again, questionable.

I must admit that I got the impression that William was mainly scorned for his choice in profession - namely a poet, instead of his class. The British upper middle-class and upper class barely tolerated those with brains - especially the scholarly types. They did tolerate brainy types who managed to make a success in life, whether in business, the military, Church, politics and possibly even in the Arts. But William was a terrible poet. Combine that with his brains and lack of a manly figure (Victorian masculinity was highly rated), is it any wonder that Cecily considered him "beneath her"?

[> maybe, maybe not -- Anneth, 12:07:11 07/17/03 Thu

There are an infinite number of possibilities as to why Cecily considered Wiliam beneath her. Simple "class status" may not be as important to the analysis as you imagine. For example, they could have had relatively equivalent class stature, but he the son of a merchant and she the second cousin of a duke.

I got the impression that William was mainly scorned for his choice in profession - namely a poet, instead of his class.

Well, to begin with, poetry probably wasn't his profession. Strictly speaking, poetry isn't a profession; during the Victorian era it was considered sort of an inclination. Whether or not he had a profession, which is not a given, writing poetry was probably more a hobby. Victorian poets were generally independently wealthy people who wrote in their spare time; the same goes for novelists, painters, etc. Of course, this wasn't always the case - but generally so.

The British upper middle-class and upper class barely tolerated those with brains - especially the scholarly types.

England has a long and proud educational tradition and being able to converse intelligently about all manner of subjects - from religion to philosophy to politics to literature to society - was considered the very height of sophistication during the Victorian era, especially for men.

They did tolerate brainy types who managed to make a success in life, whether in business, the military, Church, politics and possibly even in the Arts

This is also both true and untrue - the Victorian era was the time that society began to respect the self-made man, but at the same time, being in business was not considered genteel and frequently looked down upon. It was far better to come from old money than new. Military commissions were bought (and so, often, were advancments); church positions were often also bought. All of this may sound contradictory, but much of the history of the Victorian era is fraught with such contradiction. The same society that ushured in the SPCA and SPCC also distinguished between "deserving" and "undeserving" poor.

Combine that with his brains and lack of a manly figure (Victorian masculinity was highly rated), is it any wonder that Cecily considered him "beneath her"?

Can you explain why you don't believe William cut a manly Victorian figure?

Anyway, my point is this: we can speculate til the cows come home, but we simply don't have enough information about William or Cecily to understand why exactly she believed he was 'beneath' her. The concept of class that you bring up is interesting, but as it stands now, the analysis is too general. The structure of Victorian society was incredibly complex - and its strictures, as well.

[> [> Re: maybe, maybe not -- Rina, 14:46:16 07/17/03 Thu

[England has a long and proud educational tradition and being able to converse intelligently about all manner of subjects - from religion to philosophy to politics to literature to society - was considered the very height of sophistication during the Victorian era, especially for men. ]

That's possible - from an idealized point of view. I've read plenty of books on Victorian England that they believe otherwise.

[> [> [> heh - different educations -- Anneth, 15:22:02 07/17/03 Thu

That's possible - from an idealized point of view. I've read plenty of books on Victorian England that they believe otherwise.

I stand by my original point, that the Victorians had a great deal of respect for intelligent and educated people, but with the following caveat: my argument is the product of my education.

I was a British history concentrator in college, and specalized in the Victorian era. (I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that we haven't a common book between us!) :) While, of course, my education will always be incomplete, and my knowledge and understanding of many things, from aquaducts to the categorical imperative to the Victorians, will always be far from perfect, believe me when I say that I do my level best to approach subjects from a realistic POV, and stay away from the idealized approach. It's entirely possible that my contention in this matter is wrong. But I've done a lot of research on the Victorians, from which my conclusion here is a direct result.

[> [> Re: maybe, maybe not -- Rina, 14:48:57 07/17/03 Thu

[For example, they could have had relatively equivalent class stature, but he the son of a merchant and she the second cousin of a duke . . .]

So, in the end, you're assuming that William came from a class lower than Cecily's?

[> [> [> Not quite -- Anneth, 15:07:03 07/17/03 Thu

The two could be roughly equivalent class-wise (same relative money and income, same relative influence on society) but still an unequal match because of their forebearers, for example.

Essentially, both could be "middle class" but one might be of 'better blood' than the other, one might be from old money, one might have a disgraced parent or an insane sister... my point is, these things mattered to the Victorians, and affected how they acted towards each other, despite relative class-standing.

[> Was William the Bloody Really Bloody? -- ZachsMind, 13:25:26 07/17/03 Thu

I always took it that William was scolded because his poetry was unquestionably bad. Bloody bad. Hence the nick. His class status never seemed to be at issue. You do bring up an interesting factor though and could be right. Personally I think William and Cecily were financially peers. It was not uncommon a century or two ago for classes to fraternize as you suggest. However, William would have been chastised even greater than we saw, and for far more than his poetry. Of course we only got a glimpse of his life before it was taken from him, and admittedly, if he were richer than his peers, the fact his poetry was atrocious would not have been an issue. People would have fawned all over him, bloody or not. Kinda sick how wealth affects some people.

Spike Speculation (caution for spoiler-free proponents - please do not enter) -- ZachsMind, 12:15:22 07/17/03 Thu

How will they bring back Spike? It might be easier than one might think. This is going to be entirely speculation on our parts. Too early to tell. However, I'd like to hear a variety of thoughts on how events might transpire. What's your best guess? Based on the history of Angel and Buffy, this is my best guest.

This is not exactly unprecedented. There's a little something called The Revivification Ritual. They did do this once before when they brought Darla back from the grave in the first season of Angel. And a similar (failed) attempt was made to bring The Master back in the second season of Buffy. That was an entirely different set of circumstances of course, but this has happened before. So it's not completley new territory. As with Darla, Spike's body has been utterly destroyed, so the people at W&H will need to get ahold of four or five vampires and tie them to a box. Then the matter of those vampires will be used to create a new body for Spike. Some lower level executive assistant gopher stooge will stand there chanting for a few minutes and voila! Instant Spikey! Just add water. Leather trenchcoat sold separately.

First, the facts as I see them.

FACT ONE: As I've been able to glean, we got that for all intents and purposes, Spike IS dead. He died in the Buffy series finale. There's no coming back from that. He got burned away. Or so it appeared. Now, Whedon's not gonna wanna cheapen Spike's sacrifice there. That was sincere. That was genuine. Spike's assuming he's dead and he's gonna wanna stay dead. In fact he'll probably be a mite ticked off when he realizes he's not.

FACT TWO: A little something like death hasn't stopped the writers behind the WhedonVerse before. Darla was dead. They brought her back anyway. Spike may have died in season seven of Buffy, but he was already dead anyway. He's been dead for a century! That didn't stop him before. So the writers can kill Spike all they want and then resurrect him. That's the beauty of being undead. What's the point of being undead if something petty like death can actually kill you? Kinda takes the fun out of the already being dead part.

FACT THREE: Now just how and why is Spike dead? Well, he died in the ubervamp reality, wearing that silly amulet. What appeared to be this all consuming light of goodness and truth poured outta Spikey like the sun, burned him and all the ubervamps to a crisp. Now, where did Spikey get the talisman? Buffy ("There's always a talisman") Summers. Where'd she get it? Angel. Where'd Angel get it? Lilah. And where'd Lilah get it? The Partners of Wolfram & Hart. Funny how that works, isn't it?

FACT FOUR: In the season finale of Angel, Wolfram & Hart gave Angel the talisman as part of their plans to bury the hatchet and bring Angel into their little family. And of course W&H is always hoping to bury the hatchet on Angel's head. So when they gave Angel the talisman, they were expecting Angel to be the one to use it. Angel said to Buffy, "I don't know everything. It's very powerful and probably very dangerous. It has a purifying power... cleansing power... possibly scrubbing bubbles. The translation is... anyway, it bestows strength to the right person who wears it. ...Someone ensouled but stronger than human. A champion. As in me."

W&H gave the amulet to Angel. They expected him to be the one to use it. Angel was planning on using it until after he talked to Buffy. The Partners couldn't have known Buffy was gonna give the amulet to Spike. So when Angel comes back in the season premiere, after having visited his son's new premises, and then the side trip to Sunnydale, the people at Wolfram & Hart should and most probably will act VERY surprised. Whatever happens to Spike in season five of Angel, W&H had anticipated it happening to Angel. So where was W&H going with their plans? They gave the amulet to Angel. They knew something was brewing with the Slayer and The First. Precisely how much they knew, Lilah wasn't very forthcoming. They also know, or their seers have surmised, that Angel was to play an important part in the End of the World. Or at least ONE of the ends of the world. Which one is left to speculation of prophecy.

If you're not so much an agent of evil as you are the kinda capitalistic corporate entity that likes playing both sides against the middle for your own selfish gains, you're gonna want someone like Angel in your corner. I mean, if, in the end game of all known reality, it's in your best interests to be good, Angel's right there for ya. If you find at the last minute it's in your best interests to be bad, just make Angel feel really good and you got Angelus. Either way, you can't lose.

So what I think W&H was gonna do was they were gonna retrieve Angel's essence AFTER he accomplished his duty at averting the End of the World. The amulet was maybe not designed to help the champion become one with a sunlamp. That was gonna happen regardless cuz of the events transpiring. The amulet was really there to allow The Partners to recall the champion from oblivion. OR the amulet was there to help a souled vampire champion turn into a lightning bug, but W&H's techies also managed to put some sort of a homing device on the thing so they'd be able to retrieve the soul of whoever died while wearing it. In either case, they'd have control of a very powerful champion entity AFTER he accomplished his prophetic destiny. It'd be like grabbing hold of a free agent variable that could upset any future event because prophecies wouldn't have anticipated him. Of course, W&H likewise didn't anticipate Spike entering the mix. So now they have a champion in their clutches whose supposed to go on to the Happy Hunting Grounds, but the guy they have ain't Angel.

Spike will show up inside the box - probably naked. Women everywhere will swoon. Marsters will be guaranteed another season on prime time. This will probably happen right under Angel's nose, while he's busy taking care of something else, and he'll be oblivious until it's too late to stop it.

Your thoughts? Holes in my theory? Comments? Criticisms? Shameless grovelling at my feet? Et cetera, are welcome. =)

[> Re: Spike Speculation (caution for spoiler-free proponents - please do not enter) -- JCC, 14:09:16 07/17/03 Thu

Shanshu would have been a perfect way to bring Spike back. It would have put a very nice twist on "vampire with a soul". We all assumed Angel. Where we wrong?

Probably not.
1) It's too obvious.
2) We wouldn't get to see the Spike v Angel showdown we've been waiting years to see. (If Spike was human, he couldn't fight Angel)
3) I think Whedon recently shot it down, calling it utter rubbish and only a fan-fic.

You do bring up an intresting point on W&H expecting Angel to wear the amulet. Maybe they have the power to bring back the "more than human, but with a soul". And maybe it brings them back on W&H's side. That's a lotta maybe's,(well... 2) but Joss said Spike would be a foil for Angel. Plus, it would make sense for this to be W&H's plan for Angel. They do want him evil for the apocalypse.

[> [> Spike as foil? In which way did he mean? -- ZachsMind, 15:01:59 07/17/03 Thu

"Joss said Spike would be a foil for Angel."

Which definition of 'foil' was Joss implying? As a writer, there's a number of ways to go here. A 'foil' for Angel wouldn't necessarily be an enemy. Doyle was a foil for Angel. The foil is like the sidekick, or for purposes of exposition, the one that the lead character talks to who doesn't know what's going on, so that the viewer learns through the foil all the pertinent information. Scapino for example would occasionally be Pantalone's foil in medieval comedia del arte.' In Shakespeare R&J, Romeo's foil was occasionally Mercutio, and occasoinally the apothecary. Juliet's foil was usually the Nurse. Tybalt was Romeo's villian. So there's a distinct difference here. However, sometimes the writer can opt to turn the villian into a foil. For example, in Othello, Iago becomes Othello's foil for several scenes, because he wins over Othello's confidance and trust, seeking to betray him all the while.

Actually, this would be the best way for the writers to use Spike. Bring him in as an assumed good guy. Work the entire season towards having Angel slowly learn to trust Spike (I mean if Buffy thought Spike was an alright egg, eventually Angel could buy it too) and then for the season finale, have Spike betray Angel outright, after all this time working hard winning Angel over. This would work best however if either Buffy or Cordy were still in the mix, and could operate as the equivalent of Desdemona.

There are other (in my opinion incorrect or misleading) ways to use the word. Some take the approach of "curses foiled again" but that's predominantly for melodrama and I don't equate Angel with melodrama. Buffy would sometimes (endearingly) lower itself to such writing pitfalls but it'd be almost a satire on the whole 'good/bad' thing. Angel rarely goes that far.

Spike as villian in season two would be an example of the "curses foiled again" kinda villian. Still not a foil, but some mistake the word in that context.

Especially that time when he stormed the school during parent/teacher night. That was sheer classic melodrama satire! Spike coulda been swirling his moustache in that episode if he had one! However, those days are long gone, as was evident in season seven's "Beneath You." Spike with a soul becomes a mockery of himself when he tries to go back to his glory days. If they did that to Spike now, even the most diehard fans would change the channel, and newcomers wouldn't get it at all. So ultimately? It's Iago or bust for Spike. Get Angel's confidence and then betray the bum. That's the only way to go.

[> [> [> Re: Spike as foil? In which way did he mean? -- s'kat, 15:26:16 07/17/03 Thu

It's Iago or bust for Spike. Get Angel's confidence and then betray the bum. That's the only way to go.

But wouldn't you lose your audience that route? I mean if they'd change the channel if he turned evil at the get-go, why wouldn't the flip the channel, never watch anything you wrote ever again if you did it ten episodes in??

I know if they flipped Angel - they'd lose fans in multitude. Same goes with Spike. Actually they almost lost their fanbase just flipping Cordelia and Willow.

The only characters I can see them getting away with doing this on is Gunn and Fred - who don't have fans rooting for their redemption to the enth degree. Oh they got fans.
It's just the audience isn't nearly as fanatical about them.
People just want them to have a storyline.

The only way Iago or bust would work is if, Spike isn't evil, and Angel isn't. You have to keep the moral ambiguity going. Hard to do, but possible.

I do know that 50% of the audience would flip to Karen Sisco in a redhot minute if they learned Spike would become evil so Angel could be redeemed. Or vice versa. That would be a huge mistake. And WB? They'd nix it. (Also didn't we sort of already have some of this with Connor?? Let's hope ME has some new ideas.)

So how to do it without losing the fanbase and making Spike's redemptive sacrifice lame and null and void?
That's the question.

Haven't wrapped my brain around a solution as of yet.

Ways to come back? 1) The amulet
2. As the orb bearer of the Ra-tet (the one Gwen saw getting killed)
3. ghost (god, please no gimmicks!!)
4. halfhuman/halfsomething else
5. human - gets vamped again halfway through a la Darla, (please no, been there, done that.)

Hoping ME does something new, interesting and unconventional, basically holds with their tradition of not following a banjo act with a banjo act. At the same time not doing the cliche - oh here comes the Iago character..also been there done that in Btvs and Ats (with
Wes in Loyalty-Sleep Tight) and with EvilCordy. So don't want a repeat.

From the spoilers I've read, I have a hunch that whatever it is will be complicated and will work well on an episodic basis. Basically it will be the C plot in the ABC story.
A - the episodic plot, B the on-going Angel regs plot, C - what the heck is Spike and why is he back plot.
So what we'll probably get is lots of Angel saving people and or working out problems, then this little mystery in the background. So you can watch one episode and skip the next without too much trouble. A la CSI and West Wing.

[> [> [> [> Or another outside favorite: The Zeppo... -- ZachsMind, 21:21:19 07/17/03 Thu

Let's say when Spike got burned through that amulet, it burned only the evil - that it was Spike's soul which took out all the ubervampires and stung the demon vampirism out of Spikey. So now he's cured. He's human. And that's all he is. About halfway through the season a vampire tries to turn him, and when they suck on his blood, the blood intantly causes the vampire's throat to start smoking. So Spike's blood is now tainted in such a way as to be poisonous to any and all vampirism. In other words he's immune. He can't be turned again if he wanted to be. So he's human. Irreversibly human. Incredibly, blandly, uselessly human. And his plot arc for Angel Five is how a guy who's been a powerful Big Bad type for a century and then only recently got his soul back deals with getting his humanity back.

Meanwhile, Gunn is going through a strange transformation that involves that weird big cat and some strange surgical procedures that he's not telling the others about until they all find out by accident, or things go horribly wrong and Gunn's a weird mutant. Also, Wesley's more into the whole weird gadgets thing and also improves his vampire hunting techniques. He becomes a heroic normal person - much more of a commando type than Riley ever was.

Spike is blessed and cursed with a normal lifespan, and a vulnerability to everything. His place in Angel becomes the greatest irony. He's the Zeppo in the group. He becomes the guy who drives Angel's car. He effectively becomes Xander.

The only problem I see with this, after having written this out, is that this plot arc has already been explored, and performed exceptionally well, by Emma Caulfield (Anya). If they just made Spike human, it'd be a bit of a disappointment, because with Anya's unceremonial death Whedon said everything that can possibly be said about a human who becomes god-like only to become human again.

[> [> [> [> [> Probably unlikely, but amusing -- KdS, 03:58:05 07/18/03 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Or another outside favorite: The Zeppo... -- Dariel, 20:26:02 07/18/03 Fri

If they just made Spike human, it'd be a bit of a disappointment, because with Anya's unceremonial death Whedon said everything that can possibly be said about a human who becomes god-like only to become human again.

Well, except we'd be dealing with a male this time. What if Spike's identity as a man is based on his super strength, former Big Badness? Being human again would then be quite a blow to his sense of self. Could put him in quite a funk, even make him a bit self-destructive, always trying to prove himself. Then Spike could learn that the most important weapon a man has is his integrity, not his fists.

God, I hope not! Sounds to "After School Special." I vote for cjl's idea below.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Agreed. Me too. -- s'kat, 22:05:27 07/18/03 Fri

No ghost Spike
No evil Spike
No human Spike
No regressed Spike to S4, (been there, done that)

Please do the Inside/Outside Man idea. That's at least new and different.

Oh beg to differ on Anya, ZachsMind - Human Anya was done exceptionally well in S3-S6. Human Anya was done horribly from Selfless
to Chosen, not by EC so much as by the evil writers who just lost the character. Just my humble opinion of course:-) (Although the writers do admit it). But since they failed on the second go around, I shudder to think how they'd handle a human Angel or Spike.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well, like I said... -- ZachsMind, 13:15:34 07/19/03 Sat

The writers said all they had to say on the subject with Anya, and when she came back from being evil, the writers were kinda done with the whole plot arc. I mean they were done with both of them when Xander left Anya at the altar. I mean the writers had nowhere to go. It was actually a very bad writing choice. They wrote themselves into a corner with that one.

[> did anyone else get the idea..... -- tam, 19:34:35 07/17/03 Thu

when buffy held spike's hand as the sunlight was reflecting off the amulet, and before spike's hand began to burn -- did anyone else get the idea that some kind of transference occurred?

[> [> Re: did anyone else get the idea..... -- Corwin of Amber, 20:41:01 07/17/03 Thu

Heh. So we'll get Buffy in Spike's body? THAT would be a twist.

[> Mr. Inside/Mr. Outside -- cjl, 09:02:48 07/18/03 Fri

Let's look at this practically.

They're not going to make Spike the villain. He went through the prototypical redemption arc in Buffy S7 (almost down to the letter), and turning him evil again would invalidate all of Joss' hard work--not to mention alienate a big chunk of Spike's fan base, the very people Jordan Levin wants to pull in for Angel Season 5.

They're not going to make Angel the villain, because--well, that's just plain nuts.

So what to do?


They're both heroes, but they differ in methods. Angel--Mr. Inside, working inside the system as the head of Wolfram and Hart; Spike--Mr. Outside, the new superpowered vigilante on the streets, cleansing the world of evil in his own inimitable fashion.

Each thinks the other is well-intentioned, but deluded. Angel wants to bring Spike in from the cold, because he's learned that the whole independent operative bit has huge limitations, and he knows they can do more good with W&H's resources. Spike wants to bring Angel to his senses, because he knows in his gut that absolutely no good will come from working with the snakes at W&H.

There will be a great many fascinating, philosophically profound discussions between Angel and Spike about the relative merits of their positions, and they will share....

Heh. Who am I kidding? There will be insults, snarkiness, brawling, mutual distrust, old resentments, and the name of a certain blond Slayer will keep cropping up in conversation. They will never give each a moment's peace, because they're both convinced they're right.

And then, if God is listening to my prayers, Drusilla will come to town and things will REALLY get bad.


[> [> Amen! -- ponygirl, 10:59:41 07/18/03 Fri

[> [> [> Addending that Amen! -- OnM, 07:41:33 07/20/03 Sun

[> [> heh heh. *So* with you, cjl. -- deeva, 12:09:38 07/18/03 Fri

[> [> From your lips to ME's ears...please?? Pretty please?? -- s'kat, 15:37:28 07/18/03 Fri

Completely agree cjl.

I really really hope this is the route they take - b/c in a way it echoes the S4 Spike/Riley story and the AtsS1-2 Angel/Lindsey story, but with a more interesting twist.

What better way to examine that 30 something dilemma of selling out? You know - you've spent your twenties trying to figure out a way to save the world or doing it on your own - then along comes that offer - join us, we'll give you the financing, the salary, you can still help the little guy on the side - just better our way. So you have to help the big guys occassionally..

Or the public defender/prosecuting attorney/legal aid guy who gets that offer to join the big corporate law firm.
Or the writer who is asked to sign that deal with the corporate entity - hey, we'll finance your dream projects, as long as you write a few formula tv shows or script doctor a few scripts.

Just as you've made this wonderful decision - signed a little piece of your soul away for the greater good, along comes your old college friend/little brother/rival who has decided to do his own thing, fight the good fight, basically what you'd been doing for ten years - but now he's doing it. Ugh. You think. I can't watch him screw up things as I did...got to correct boy, bring him in under me, or ...what if he does a better job than I did and I should have stuck with it? What if he's right?? No...can't go there. I know I'm right on this! (Now this is something I understand all too well.;-))

Sort of like what would have happened if Batman joined the Justice League full time and Nightwing (ex-Robin) stayed costum vigilante, outside of it.

Now this is a story I can identify with. It also is a story that in a way speaks to the audience that loves Alias.
The idea of compromising part of yourself - so you can right
the wrongs of society or your own past...can we do that, without compromsing all of ourselves? Is it possible to just compromise a small portion of our soul for the greater good? And what are the ambiguities along the way? Lindsey struggled with this dilemma in Season 2 and Season 1, Kate also struggled with it, as has Riley, Giles...but Angel never really has. Be interesting to see how he would deal with it and with Spike as the outside foil....the possibilities are unlimited.
Also its the least conventional story of the group.

Only other thing I want: Bring Back Drusilla! And Giles!

Thank you muchly.


[> [> [> Re: From your lips to ME's ears...please?? Pretty please?? -- O'Cailleagh, 16:21:36 07/19/03 Sat

"Sort of like what would have happened if Batman joined the Justice League full time and Nightwing (ex-Robin) stayed costum vigilante, outside of it."

It reminded me of the Batman/Superman rivalry, the Truth and Justice method versus the Vigilante method. And also...I'm thinking why not get them both in tights? ;-)
Seriously though, I'm still not sure on Spike's move to LA. As big a fan as I am, I'm not convinced that it's the best way to go. I'm sure this has been mentioned a million times by now, but is there really a way to bring Spike back without cheapening the ending of 'Buffy' and by implication (the whole dying a hero thing) nullifying Doyle's sacrifice?


[> [> [> [> If he's sent back as a messenger of the PTB, I think it would work -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:00:06 07/19/03 Sat

After all, people still consider Joan of Ark to be a saint and martyr even though many claim to have been divinely visited by her, so I think returning as a PTB messenger could stop his sacrafice from being cheapened.

[> [> [> [> Re: From your lips to ME's ears...please?? Pretty please?? -- s'kat, 21:39:32 07/19/03 Sat

As big a fan as I am, I'm not convinced that it's the best way to go. I'm sure this has been mentioned a million times by now, but is there really a way to bring Spike back without cheapening the ending of 'Buffy' and by implication (the whole dying a hero thing) nullifying Doyle's sacrifice?

Well, they brought Buffy back to life and she sacrificed herself in Chosen.

I honestly think it does work if you look at it another way, which is that redemption is an on-going process. You see, I found the whole - the fatale dies and is redeemed
by his death a tad conventional. It disappointed me.
I know I'm in the minority on that. (shrug) I felt the same way about the Doyle scene. HEro was not a favorite episode.
So I saw Spike's willingness to sacrifice himself, sort of the same way Random describes it in his post on eternal flames - as a type of catharsis or step. I'd like to see him come back and deal with that catharsis with what he learned and move forward. The fact that he died saving the world and is all done is nice and all...but not all that satisfying. By the same token I don't want it cheapened by an equally conventional plot of coming back and turning evil, which would be sort of out of character after Chosen.
(At least in my humble opinion. YMMV).

So yes, to answer your question - I think it's possible to bring him back without cheapening what happened in Chosen, just as it was possible to bring back Buffy without cheapening what happened in The Gift. It's a writing challenge sure - but it's a really interesting and uncoventional one. And it provides the writers with
a means of exploring the other characters from a new angle.

But then keep in mind...I wasn't esctatic over Chosen. IT didn't move me like Home or Becoming or the Gift did. Yes, it was beautiful and symbolic and I love the posts I've seen on it. But it left me...wanting more. Sort of...what's the word? Half-full? Disappointed? So the idea they are bringing back Spike? It just means that maybe they can give that whole storyline one last little twist.

Hmmm, not sure I put that well - how about this:

" Is this the end of Whedon's subversion of the noir motif or will he go further with the planned crossover of the character of Spike on to the more nourish Ats? If this is to be a true subversion of "the fatal is redeemed by self-sacrifice", somehow the sacrifice will either not completely work or by the very act Spike will break the vampire curse and in true Pinocchio fashion become human, except he won't get the heroine or be reunited with his family. If this were a fairy tale, he would. If this is a noir gothic fairy tale, he won't, he'll live but he won't be with the one he loves. Instead, like Angel before him, he'll have to use the heroine's example to find his own way in the universe with few if any guideposts to lead him. If Whedon chooses this path for Spike - it would in a sense be a re-telling of the Pinocchio story where the toy-boy becomes real by sacrificing himself to save his loved ones. By drowning, Pinocchio lives. By burning himself inside out, Spike transforms. There are certainly enough hints in the episode to suggest this - everything from Spike's odd dream of "drowning in footwear"(Chosen S7 Btvs) to the fact that he is finally at the end bathed in sunlight not unlike Pinocchio in the Disney Film of the same name, where the wooden boy emerges from the dark cavern of the whale, is drowned saving his family, and transforms. "

That's how I put it in my revision of my Fatals essay.
Only thing changed my mind on is the whole human thing, not convinced ME knows how to do it, they seem to make them weaker as humans - just re-watch IWARY and the whole Anya
thread after Selfless. Not to mention Darla. If that's their take on it? Please don't ever do it again.

Another option is the corporeal/non-corporeal human creatures in the Matrix Reloaded. They can turn non-corporeal to drift through things and corporeal to fight.
They can be defeated in corporeal form. Wouldn't be surprised to see Joss play with something like that, since he's a Matrix freak.

[> [> [> [> [> Ah, but you're forgetting something . . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 07:16:58 07/20/03 Sun

Come Season 5, "Angel" may no longer BE a noirish show. The writers have stressed again and again how different Season 5 is going to be, how they're going to change everything, how it will be lighter, etc. As such, it may be a little hasty to find Spike's noir role in "Angel" for Season 5 since they may decide that they don't want to do noir anymore.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ah, but you're forgetting something . . . -- s'kat, 07:28:04 07/20/03 Sun

Oh it's still noirish...Finn. I'm on spoilers. (And yes,
enough spoilers have been released that I can say this. But nothing on Spike.)

You can do noir and be lighter with more action. Noir isn't necessarily all dark and depressing. Believe me. ;-)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> The thought just struck me, 'Angel' was built around noirism -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:06:54 07/20/03 Sun

So that, if they wanted to make the show incredibly different, they might want to avoid noir. Of course, there are limits to how different you can go while still making a good show.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The thought just struck me, 'Angel' was built around noirism -- s'kat, 16:31:54 07/20/03 Sun

From what I've read the show is basically going more an episodic route than anything else - hmmm, how to explain without giving anything away...

Imagine what would happen if the Practice took place in a world where there are vampires? And the lawyers clients
were demons instead of just bad people?

So still noir, just...less soap-opera. What they are changing isn't the noir element - that actually worked, they are changing the more soap-operaish serialized elements, which didn't work in bringing in new audience members.

It's going back to the original concept - which we saw more in S1/S2 and beginning of S3 and away from the arcy one.
And oh, for any one who is wasting their time worrying about it becoming the Spike show? It's not. So stop worrying about something that isn't going to happen and driving everyone nuts around you. Angel from what I've seen is still the major focus, with Gunn, Fred, Wes,
and Spike behind him. From what I gather - Spike has
a huge a role as he did on Btvs S4/S5. He's no more
major than the other supporting players are.

I've Got a Theory -- Diana (full of musical lunasea), 13:52:03 07/17/03 Thu

I'm sorry if this has been discussed before, but I just wanted to share something I noticed. The flow of the song "I've Got a Theory" is probably the best example in the Buffyverse of how Joss views society. Not his perfect society, but the reality of how it is.

It opens with Giles, representing the Patriarchy singing first. His first reaction is what he knows, demons. "That it's a demon." He goes on a bit further, "A dancing demon." To his logical mind that sound ridiculous. Demons don't dance and he dismisses it. The thing to remember is that Giles is right. It is a dancing demon. Giles not only represents the Patriarchy, but someone who is limited/hurt by it This won't be resolved until the finale of the series.

Then we go to Willow, who really doesn't want to sing (at least AH doesn't). Her inclusion is very important. No one else could have said those lines, so poor AH had to sing a bit. The Patriarchy is unable to solve the problem, so what happens? Something that happened in the first season is remembered "some kid is dreamin.'" When we don't know what to do, we often do fall back to the past. Willow's image of herself, which is based on her past, is going to seriously mess her up this season and the next. This too really isn't resolved until the finale of the series.

Next comes Everyman Xander. He is concerned with the practical "we should work this out." That is importantly followed by the trio of Willow/Anya/Tara who are concerned with feelings "It's getting eerie. What's this cheery singing all about." The rhyme scheme paired Giles' patriarchy with Willow's reliance on the past. It also pairs the male Xander with the female trio.

What follows is probably the best statement of what Joss believes and why he is a feminist. Everyman Xander comes after the pairs are set up. There is no rhyming scheme and he is paired with no one really. His first reaction, his gut reaction is "It could be witches. Some evil witches." Joss has been raised in the Patriarchy. No matter how much he carries the banner of Feminism high, his gut reaction is still "It could be witches. Some evil witches." In "Hush" when he needs 2 new characters to be terrified of the Gentlemen, he relies on Tara and Olivia. As much as he hated seeing the blond victim in the alley in horror movies and empowered her, when he needed victims, he turned to two women.

Then Xander sees Tara and Willow's reaction and changes his statement. "Which is ridiculous 'cause witches they were persecuted wicca good and love the earth and women power." Joss' feminism is a corrective measure to counter the Patriarchy that causes him to think "some evil witches." We have seen an evil witch, again in that first season. Witches aren't all wiccan good. Still, Xander feels bad and so now "and I'll be over here." The music drops off after "ridiculous" and comes back after he leaves. Xander has been taken out of the song by trying to correct the Patriarchy's view. Could there be a more succinct statement of the male feminist's dilemma which includes why he is a feminist in the first place?

Then we get Anya. Anya's reason is her biggest fear. She too doesn't rhyme with any one. Our fears separate us. It is simply stated. It sounds completely logical to her. The others look at her weird. To the audience, it is a ridiculous answer, but often our fears are completely rational to us, but to others aren't.

Tara tries to speak. She is almost the last person to give her idea and speaks quietly. She can barely be heard. We don't get to hear her. Before Anya's fear was calmly stated and fit with the melody. Now it overcomes her and Tara doesn't get a chance to be heard. Instead the music changes to a driving rock beat. She tries to rationalize her fear, giving us ridiculous reasons why "Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes." She is incredibly insistent that "Bunnies, bunnies, It must be bunnies," but then the melody returns and she ditches that answer for an equally ridiculous one "Or maybe midgets." Fear tends to be rather irrational and can grip us one minute and cause us to do wild things. Then just as quickly, it leaves. Think of the mob mentality that follows national tragedies. It grips us and then just goes away.

Fear drowned out the feminine represented by Tara and Tara doesn't reassert herself. Earlier we had Xander - male Willow/Tara/Anya - female. The fear of Anya drowned out Tara, so next to sing is poor Willow. She goes over to Giles and opens a book. "we should work this fast." Tara couldn't to that and neither could Anya. Willow is representing the female here and she is trying to work with Giles. When this happens, the next line is a duet between Giles and Willow who are focused on the problem "Because it clearly could get serious before it's passed." They are right.

Then enter in Buffy. The music changes as Buffy rallies the troops. Buffy isn't concerned about the current problem. She is really the everyperson in this song. How many of us try to actually solve problems (I'll give you a hint we live in a REPRESENTATIVE democracy)? They just get solved somehow.

Everyone, but Giles joins in the song. Eventually he does join, but as the descant voice, not singing with the others. The song ends with they can face anything "except for bunnies." Fear is even stronger than together.

That song is more than just exposition to music. The flow of it shows stuff not only about each character and their motivation, but the flow of it from one character to another, shows how Joss sees society, most importantly, his/Xander's view.

What do you think? Sorry if all this has been said before. Just something rolling around in my head that I needed to get out.

[> Re: I've Got a Theory -- O'Cailleagh, 14:28:58 07/17/03 Thu

--She tries to rationalize her fear, giving us ridiculous reasons why "Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes."--

A ridiculous fear? With those big, pointy teeth? ;-)

A really good post here Lu..um..Diana!
I'm hoping this thread'll stick around for a while 'cos I've only got half-formed thoughts about it just yet! I've actually been thinking a lot about OMWF recently, mainly the musical themes and motifs and what they symbolise. Again, not much more than half-formed!
With a bit of luck, everyone will have somthing to say on this matter and it'll be up long enough for me to come up with a proper reply!


[> Excellent! Much to ponder here. -- LittleBit, 15:47:31 07/17/03 Thu

[> Re: Thanks, Diana -- aliera, 17:19:13 07/17/03 Thu

Good post. I still think that OMWF was more a mini Joss bio than any other ep I've seen...

[> That's great, Di! -- Random, 19:18:50 07/17/03 Thu

[> Wish I had more to add, but just had to tell you this was terrific. -- Rob (doing his part for Preservationism), 08:29:33 07/18/03 Fri

[> Maybe people would help me -- Diana, 16:47:34 07/18/03 Fri

I'm trying to analyze scenes that have multiple characters and see how the writers keep them all active and in voice. That is why I started looking at this song in the first place. There are a million and one exhibition scenes with the Scoobies, but I am looking for a bit more. One example is in "Revelation" when they confront Buffy about Angel's return. Another one is in "Choices" when they discuss what to do about getting Willow back from the Mayor. There are a couple of good scenes in "Long Days Journey" as well.

Any other scenes that people can think of either on Buffy or Angel that have more than 5 people in them that is more than just one person mainly talking, if you could post them here, I would really appreciate it.


[> [> Re: Maybe people would help me -- shadowkat, 20:57:49 07/18/03 Fri

I liked how you did the OMWF scene - another one might be Walk Through Fire - where all the characters sing a line or two. Hard to do I think - since, unlike Got a Theory, it's really more a group sing.

Here are some more:

1. Dead Man's Party - the scene where they go after Buffy in the house. (Actually I'm not sure anyone can do that one without bashing characters - last time we did it, we ended up with threads going after Willow, Xander, Buffy, - it became a war.)

2. Yoko Factor - this scene at the very end - had Anya, Tara, Buffy, Giles, Willow, Xander. Another arguement.

3. The scenes in Graduation Day - where they plot out the battle, after Buffy gets out of the hospital.

4. The scene in Empty Places - where they throw Buffy out of the House. Everyone talks in that one.


1. Spin the Bottle - the drug scene.

2. Peace-Out - Gunn, Lorne, Fred, Wes, Connor and the cage.

3. Early Angel S1 - Doyle, Cordelia, Kate and Angel in Sense and Sensibility??

4. last scene of Orpheus - Connor, Faith, Willow, Wes, Angel, Gunn, Fred (hard one to do since many people feel Willow is off).

5. In The Dark - OZ, Doyle, Cordelia, Angel


Interesting idea to explore characters voices and what they state about the characters by examining group scenes. Haven't seen anyone do that before on the boards. Oh I've seen analysis of these scenes but not from that perspective.
I've also seen voice analysis - but also not from that angle.

Sounds intriguing. Will be interested in reading more. ;-)

Hope that helps a little.


[> [> [> Thanks so much for that -- Diana, 08:57:57 07/19/03 Sat

These are exactly what I am looking for. I am going to write my first scene with the full cast present and it isn't easy. It really made me appreciate what they do and seeing what tricks they use to do this, such as what I gave in this thread, is really helping.

Another one is the entire episode of "Older and Farther Away," but I've already done that one in the dark night thread.

A smaller grouping that really does the voices amazingly well, probably the best out of any Scoobie gathering is, Buffy-Willow-Xander in "Same Time, Same Place" when they discuss what to do about Anya.

Not really interested in bashing anyone. I just want to see how the writers are able to handle that many characters in a single scene. Any more than 5 tends to require a second director on set.

What I left out of my initial analysis was physical placement of the characters. Giles' descent down the ladder, putting him back on the same level as the other Scoobies is important. The first part of the song is Joss' view of how society is. When we get to "If We're Together," it goes more into how to cure that, but wrapped up in this is what keeps us from curing it. The flow is absolutely amazing.

Most large groupings, like in "Orpheus," tend to take the group and break them off into smaller groups. The hard part in that is how to go from one pair to another and maintain flow. The first part uses Faith to bridge Angel to Connor-Gunn to Wesley. I will be using this scene in a later essay when I compare heart-mind-spirit on Buffy to how it is shown on Angel.

Empty Places is a great one, that I am ashamed to admit, I forgot about. It think is very telling that these scenes are key to season 2 and 3, but fairly absent 4-6. Another one I love to do is the decision to resoul Angel in "Becoming," but I've done that before, too. They come back again and are important parts of season 7.

[> [> [> [> How about Family? Or Pangs? -- s'kat, 12:05:28 07/19/03 Sat

Your welcome. Glad it helped. ;-)

Actually if you want to figure out placement and voices,
how about trying Family? That episode more than any other, has group scenes - two big ones:

The scene in the Magic Box with all the regulars but Riley,
against Tara's Family. Then the scene in the Bronze with all the characters but Spike.

Some other really good ones:

1. Where the Wild Things Are - the scene at the party.
2. Fear Itself - in the attic of the frat house
3. Intervention - outside Glory's house, and at Buffy's house.
4. Spiral - tons of scenes in that one. The best may actually be in the Winnabago

Actually S5 - may be amongst the best to analyze.
Because it has so many well-directed scenes. Such as The Gift, The Body.

Now on Ats: I'd grab the scene in The Hyperion in If You Are or Ever Were, the scene in This Gange of Mine -at the Karakoe Club w/Wes, Lorne, Fred, Gunn, Angel, Cordy.
There's a later one in Offspring - when Holtz tries to kill all of them that works as well.

Oh another really really good one is Pangs - you can bring framing into it. (check out alcibades posts in the archives on Framing on ATS for a resource). Pangs - you can do
Angel, Giles, Buffy, Willow, Anya, Xander, Spike, and the vengeance spirits.

Doomed is yet another one.

Actually I'd say Seasons 4 and 5 may have done it the most.

Hmmm, more I think about it - it is a trick Whedon and Company use to explore characters and story. Often pushing characters who are outside the group outside the frame.
Buffy for instance in Empty Places is clearly placed outside the group, Faith we see placed with Wood who are slightly separate from potentials on the far wall, Giles is closer to them, but sort of in the middle of the room - no one near him, Dawn is with the potentials and gets up from them - like their representative. Xander is sitting in the middle of them. Kennedy and Willow are slightly apart from them but closer than Giles or Wood or Faith are. Buffy is in the middle of the room with no one. Spike/Andrew gone.
Anya between the potentials and Kennedy/willow.

Similarily - we often have Spike in group scenes as either behind everyone - off to the side, or outside, or tied up.
Clearly part but not a part - or part only under certain conditions. Same with Angel - usually a mirror, a window frame or something is separating him as well. Notice in Graduation Day everyone is on one side of the library facing Buffy and Angle is sitting on the opposite side of the room behind her - set apart. When Wes comes in, he's also behind, even further back, behind Angel. Cordy is off
to the side somewhere between the group and Angel.

It could be coincidence I suppose - except that you can trace it back through just about every episode with a group scene. The Pack really uses it to emphasize the behavior of the hyena people. They all move like one body together, coordinated, not much space between them. Also you see it
somewhat used in Bad Eggs - the placing of Xander/Buffy as opposed to the others. And in School Hard - willow/cordy,
Xander/Jenny/Giles - Xander/Angel - Xander/angel/Spike
Spike/Angel (distrust) = Buffy/Sheila...then of course
the group scene with Buffy/Joyce/Snyder. But that might be making it much too complicated...you're wise to narrow it down a bit. My difficulty is I often go nuts and grab too much data to analyze, then end up with going off on tangents. Recommend not doing that. ;-)

Anyways, probably more than you needed.


[> [> [> [> [> I'm glad I came to you -- Diana, 13:11:22 07/19/03 Sat

Pangs is another great one, specifically the exchange at the end. Why did each particular character get the line they did? That will be another good scene to include in the Buffy/Angel heart-spirit-mind essay.

Another one I thought of that will be easy to do is the "resouling" of Angel in "Calvary." When you have all the characters together, there had better be a darn good reason. Those scenes are a logistical nightmare.

I was thinking earlier about the fight scene against The Beast in "Apocalypse Nowish" and how Fred is separated from the group, which seemed completely manufactured to me at the time. The grouping of that scene really foreshadowed what would later happen with Jasmine.

Basically what I am looking at is what perspective does the writer use to keep the characters in voice. In this thread, Joss' characters became representations of society. Normally, they just go back to mind-heart-spirit-whatever else in Buffy/Angel they represent. The scene can be taken to be a complete representation of the main character, which makes it even more interesting is how this main character is framed in the scene. This is done phenomenally well in "Sacrifice," but I already wrote about that too.

Thanks again for all your help.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Oh thank you. Glad it's helping. You know another idea... -- s'kat, 21:15:55 07/19/03 Sat

I had is maybe the distinctions between the writers in how they each do it? And the two shows?

Whedon is interesting - he is a true film scholar - has studied film and really consider TV more of a visual medium.
In his commentary on Restless and Hush - he mentions how he tried something new, b/c he felt like he was falling into bad tv habits with the framing of two - three people in each scene discussing something over food or coffee.
Instead of doing what he swore he'd do once he got his own show - which is "show" not "tell" the story using visuals.
This is why we got Hush, Who Are You, and Restless.

What would be interesting if any one wants to try it is just focus on Whedon directed/written episodes and see how he places characters vocally and physically in group scenes.
I think he's more into it than his other writers and or directors. Note for example in Hush - that the Xander/Spike scenes were directed by David Solomon, while the others by Whedon. Now Whedon knew what Solomon did and was watching the dallies - I'm not suggesting he wasn't in control of those scenes - but I do think that it's interesting that Whedon left Solomon to do the two people scenes, while he insisted on directing groups himself.

Here's a group of Whedon episodes to compare:

1. Prophecy Girl
2. Innocence
3. Becoming I & II
4. Graduation Day II
5. Freshman
6. Hush
7. Restless
8. Family
9. The Body
10. The Gift
11. OMWF
12. Lessons
13. Chosen
14. Spin The Bottle
15. Waiting in The Wings

I think it would be interesting to see how he accomplishes/sets ups
theme, character advancement, plot advancement, exposition, all by vocal distinctions and character placement within
group scenes. Also whether he does accomplish it or doesn't.
Not sure he always does...

Just a suggestion if you're interested.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Actually already on that for another essay re:Feminism -- Diana, 09:35:37 07/20/03 Sun

Comparing/contrasting Joss and Marti is really educational. If you want to know more, email me. Maybe you could help with it. The way he uses groups is actually going to become part of this massive undertaking (which involves more than Joss and Marti).

The essay is going to end up being the ultimate defense of Marti and what she brings to the show and the mythos itself. It will probably outdo my Dark Night thread in terms of length and breadth. It will make my stuff of the Catechism look superficial.

Then again, it is so overwhelming that I might not do it at all.

[> [> Re: Maybe people would help me -- sdev, 22:52:17 07/18/03 Fri

The Gift, opening scene, brainstorming how to attack Glory and rescue Dawn.

'The Pack' Revisited -- Darby, 14:30:13 07/17/03 Thu

I've got a theory about this one that I haven't seen discussed yet...more later.

James Stephens will forever be The Paper Chase guy to me. There's an age requirement to get that.

The script had Xander "face down" the mean kids in the Hyena House more clearly than it was filmed - was it merely time considerations, or did they not want Xander to be brave under physically-threatening circumstances that could be considered normal?

Speaking of the mean kids, this was a good job of casting - these actors don't fit the classic mold, which makes the situation more realistic (unlike the casting in Help). Jonathan, Larry, even Lance here, fell back on physical "types," but not the Pack. It's all in the attitude. Interestingly, most of the actors cast in this episode have extensive resumes, the longest belonging to the PE guy and the husband in the car - yeah, you have seen them somewhere before!

An important subtext of Xander's early possessed scenes echoes vamped Jesse - a little bit of animal in a guy ups his attractiveness. Is this in any way a comment on Angel (his name comes up, and demonic possession is compared)? Anyway, as many have noted, Nick Brendon is very up to the task of playing dark and dangerous, I daresay with more nuance than a certain witchy actress later...

There are only a few minor differences this episode between what's in the script and what hits the air - a few lines of dialogue, some set decoration. And in the dodgeball scene, when the Pack turns on Lance, Buffy's supposed to take them out with a flurry of balls, she is supposed to "win." You can see the balls all around her feet when the Pack turns - did they film it and decide for some reason that just coming to Lance's aid directly worked better?

The "punch line" from the PE guy is funny but seems unusual - how often in the show do fringe characters get to have the last word like that?

When Xander sets Willow up for a dumping, the dialogue could easily have made her hopeful - except that the character would be too smart to get hopeful under the circumstances, and that's the way it's played. Television convention be damned!

Did they cast actors who could mimic that weird hyena laugh, luck out, or foley them in later? It's very effective, in limited doses.

Okay, I don't get the reference for "The dode patrol." What's a dode? I even checked Annotated Buffy, but am still clueless (shaddup!).

It's nice that Giles trusts Buffy to hear him when he brushes Xander's changes aside as puberty - even if he is wrong. He expects her to get it without involved explanations of his own youth. And he's willing to change his mind, even if it takes something pretty dramatic. We needed Ripper - Giles was becoming too perfect.

Um, if the hyenas couldn't get on the Ark (Buffy reads the story / legend), how did folks explain why they're still around? How long can you tread water?

Is it just me, or are the ideas of the "Primals" and the possession by animal spirits something that could have been half-planned to have later Slayer connotations? There are definite and repeated clues of equality between the possessed here and Buffy. And the Shadowmen...

The video Willow is watching does start off with hyenas, then quickly switches to wild dogs (they're still on screen later with hyena laughs playing). Maybe that's a sly segue to the explanation for Flutie's end. Probably not.

Interesting that, after having Flutie eaten, a woman and baby are put in peril but spared. Was the show playing with us, now that we'd been shocked, or demonstrating its own limits?

All of the hyena people have to gang up on the book cage door to open it. It's as if ME knew that the cage would need to be established as really strong for later use.

Willow hides from the Pack but doesn't lock the door of the classroom - which Buffy locks later...

Okay, the sort-of theory - not too surprisingly, based upon Joss' roots, there is a lot of humor in BtVS (that's not it). But the styles vary widely, and can be very revealing of the characters. Here, humor at others' expense is a defining aspect of the predatory students, and a key clue to the changes that Xander goes through. There may also be a hidden message about the way tv humor was moving at that time and continues to move, toward more mean-spiritedness.

But such mean humor becomes, over times, very much a part of the predatory Buffy persona, perhaps the strongest indication of the darkness inside her that we keep hearing about but aren't really shown. There's probably an entire essay here about the role of humor types in characterization, but, as usual, I'm just sayin'...

[> Re: 'The Pack' Revisited -- Anneth, 14:55:17 07/17/03 Thu

But such mean humor becomes, over times, very much a part of the predatory Buffy persona, perhaps the strongest indication of the darkness inside her that we keep hearing about but aren't really shown.

I'm completely with you on this point. Some of the things Buffy says off-hand, mainly to Giles and Joyce, are not so much funny as they are mean. And, of course, I can't think of a single concrete example right now. But you're right; arguably, those mean jokes are indicative of Buffy's darkness - and also, a sort of Cordelia-esque callowness. Maybe they indicate that, for as much as Buffy has grown and changed, she'll never quite lose her inner-Cordy.

[> Re: 'The Pack' Revisited -- Eric, 18:51:19 07/17/03 Thu

The Pack is one of my favorite early episodes. It is also one of the eps that most clearly relates the supernatural metaphors in Buffy with the realities of high school. As Willow said (more or less quoting from memory) "Whenever they build a new school they get blackboards, desks, and a bunch of mean kids." An there are loads of mean kids in high school.

Packs of mean kids group together because of shared looks, hobbies, and/or values. They enjoy laughing at the weak as a group exercise. Jocks are often accused of this - and the make the most ferocious type of pack. But many other high school clicks are just as bad. Packs seek to hide their individual insecurities in numbers and escallating vicious behavior that is mutually reinforced. The Pack captures the group mentality at its most ferocious, victimizing people outside the group while dehumanizing its participants. In this ep the pack turns on the weakest individual near them - naturally avoiding Buffy herself - during the dodgeball game. They indulge in behaviour that as individuals they'd find repugnant such as eating a person and piglet raw (double EW!).

For some reason I always get a kick out of Principal Flutie's untimely devouring. As a Californian I can tell you there's a lot of people there like him. They live in a world of their own that is soft and fuzzy. There is no evil, just misunderstood people that need therapy. Everyone is considered reasonable until you decide they are just misunderstood. They are not bad people (as Flutie was not a bad person and even likeable) but their not really very good people or useful in a crisis. Their influence on the California school system boils down to an increase in self esteem building classes and methods but a decline in academics that vindicate self esteem. I doubt if he was crunchy too.

Of course, Flutie's replacement was Principal Snyder, who used the above as example of why he'd be the opposite of Flutie. But Snyder was a creature of Order at all costs. As long as Order fit within his own arbitrary predjudices. It certainly wasn't a moral or rational idea of order. He gets his too, but I'm sure he was crunchy (or would have been if he hadn't been swallowed whole.)

BTW, the video Willow was watching very clever. It illustrated a pack devouring juxtuposed (I use big word!) with the news of Flutie's scarfing for a properly visceral impact, since actually showing Flutie get it was impossible. The mother and child shown later got a good scare, as did the TV audience. But though it was obvious that while the pack would have eaten them both, they were well sated after their Flutie snack.

The ep should also be noted as the first prophetic mentioning of Buffy's choice in men. Dark and dangerous. I'm not sure hyena Xander would have put her off so much if she met him in episode one (minus the physical assault, of course).

Minor question: Is the PE Coach the same character as the swim team coach? It would fit.

[> [> Ah, if Xander had waited to S6 to go lean and mean.. -- MsGiles, 05:48:43 07/18/03 Fri

I think perhaps because the hyaena pack behaviour is such a neat combination of animal pack and of human gang behaviour, they come over as really chilling. So many little details in their behaviour build up the illusion. They never smile, simply stare, and then break into laughter which clearly doesn't have the same meaning as normal human laughter (but *nearly* does. Human laughter on occasion can be cruel, without humour. Which I suppose is why we find real hyaenas' laughter-like sound so creepy). The way, when they approach the lunching students, Xander (who seems to be alpha, in this incarnation) tastes the food first, (and in this case turns it down) for the pack. The way they attack Flutie, not confronting directly, but circling, testing, assessing weakness, gradually escalating threat as they feel more secure.

Also the way they move, staring warily around, bonding enthusiastically with touch when they rescue Xander from the cage. the way they echo things we've seen on TV nature programmes, programmes referenced for us by Willow, who seems to be rewinding through all the most gruesome bits she can find. I would guess the effect is theatrical interpretation rather than the result of getting in an animal behaviour expert, and it's the mix of the animal and the human (maybe not that far apart anyway) that makes it scary.

A small tangent thought, Xander and Anya seem to become fond of nature documentaries, when Willow is trying to round them up to bring Buffy back in S6 Anya complains 'Discovery Channel has monkeys. And our tape machine's all wonky' . Can't help but wonder if all the predation brings out the Jim Morrison in Xander still ..

And another tangent. That cage will be very useful for Oz later on, but is such a strong cage normal for keeping returned books, or has Giles thoughtfully had it installed as a special Sunnydale extra? It reminds me of the Unseen University's library (in TP's Discworld), where the more powerful magic books had to be chained down to stop them getting into trouble.

[> [> [> Giles strikes again! -- Darby, 06:41:03 07/18/03 Fri

Maybe he had the book cage reinforced when he first came to Sunnydale figuring that, as in The Wish, he'd need to hide from the baddies in there occasionally.

Also, in his developing role of middling translator, although he describes a "predatory act" as being key to the ritual, it's really an act of dominance, first by Xander then by the zookeeper, that seems to get the mojo working. That would also explain why Xander did seem accepted in somewhat of an alpha capacity (and why hyenas, with more female dominance, are a poor choice), which had bothered me a bit.

[> [> [> [> could have been a different story if Buffy had got in there first to rescue Lance, then.. -- MsGiles, 06:52:29 07/18/03 Fri

[> Re: 'The Pack' Revisited -- CW, 06:39:19 07/18/03 Fri

Actually I remember as a teenage boy that most of our humor was pretty mean spirited. Whether something said about you sounded funny or not depended on whether your friends said it or your 'enemies.' Yes, Buffy borders pretty close to nasty at times, but no worse than I remember most teenagers I've been around over the years being with those closest to them. I think ME was just giving us the facts.

When it first ran, I thoght 'dode' must be a last name. Maybe it's just be inscrutable 'Joss speak.' I didn't figure out the Joss favorite 'sitch," for instance, until I saw it in print. Not suprising the actors the first year all swore they didn't speak or even always understand Joss speak.

PE follies. I used to love dodge ball as we played it in grade school; one ball, no hitting above the waist... Used to be one of the last ones out every game. In high school we switched to a game like they're playing in The Pack that we called Murder Ball. Since you could catch the ball and the person who threw it would be out, you could hit somebody anywhere. Unfortunately. the coach forbid everybody from wearing glasses, which meant I had to change my strategy completely. Couldn't come close to winning because I barely could tell who had the balls. Instead of hanging back, I had to rush forward to get a ball to clobber somebody before I got clobbered in return. Then it was sit around and do nothing. It was still best to try to hit sombody below the knees most of the time since they couldn't catch it. If you were lucky you could block a few balls if you had one in your hand as a shield. But sooner or later if you got outnumbered, the balls would come from all sides, just like the kid Lance in The Pack. Never from your own team though!

I heard somewhere that Lance is almost a taboo name for boys any more, like Percy was when I was in school. I knew a guy who's middle name was Lance, and wanted to be called that. We refused because at that time 'Lance' was always some big tough football player and this guy was just a nice normal fellow. We had a Cecil (pronounced American style SEE-sul) in high school and he lisped, and, yeah, he had a hard time of it.

[> Those kids remembered eating Flutie -- shambleau, 15:26:26 07/18/03 Fri

when they recovered. At least, they should have, since Xander remembered everything. So I wonder if they ended up at the Sunnydale mental hospital Holden Webster interned at. He said they should have had a bouncer and a rope, the place was so popular.

The ultimate misogyny thread: Is Miss Kitty Fantastico a misogynist? -- Random, 18:30:19 07/17/03 Thu

Excerpts from a recent joint interview with Joss and Peppers, the method actress feline who played Miss Kitty Fantastico on BtVS, found in the New England Journal of Jane Stevens. I can't locate it right now because Jane wanted her diary back.

Joss seemed ill at ease, while Peppers chainsmoked during the entire interview...As Joss shifted in his chair to glance out the window, Peppers stubbed out a Virginia Slim and shook her head.

Interviewer: Joss, I understand you got some backlash from S4?

Joss: Well, you know, I think we took the Miss Kitty Fantastico story to a very dark place. But what you have to understand [pausing to chew thoughtfully on his lip for a moment] what you need to see is that Miss Kitty was originally concieved to be a modern Shere Knan figure, bringing Kipling's jingoism and sexism into the 21st century. Peppers objected though

Interviewer: Peppers?

Peppers: mrrrowrr

Interviewer: Mmm-hmm...and does that mean you still feel that way?

Peppers: murp!

Interviewer: I see. Now Joss, what do you feel happened then in the aftermath of S4?

Joss: [sighing] It was a stressful time for all of us. Restless had introduced us to the concept of a larger-than-life, fullscreen Miss Kitty Fantastico. But the fan outcry was enormous. Why wasn't Miss Kitty Fantastico according Tara and Willow the respect they deserved? Were we stereotyping cats as being self-absorbed and misogynistic? What sort of relationship did she have with Buffy. You see, we clearly had issues. Marti kept insisting that Miss Kitty was a metaphor for larger feline issues....

Peppers: [interrupting] prrrrr

Interviewer: Clearly Peppers agrees.

Joss: Well, notwithstanding, we had to write her off in S7. We knew that if we brought her back with a soul and some sensitivity training, she would destroy everything we planned, especially if -- as seemed likely at the time -- this was to be the final season.

Interviewer: Many people were stunned, to say the least, that Clem didn't --

Joss [interrupting, annoyed]: I don't wanna talk about Clem! Everytime someone brings him up, they get obsessed with the whole "Does he cheat at poker?" issue. I originally created him as a nuanced, complex character and all anyone can talk about is the skin and how easy it is to hide stuff in the folds!

Interviewer: Okay. Back to the Miss Kitty Fantastico misogyny...

Joss: We took her to a very dark place. That's all I can say. She doesn't hate women. She just doesn't care for humans much period.

Anyway, that's all I have. It doesn't seem to clear up much, but I thought I'd present it for your comments.

[> Re: The ultimate misogyny thread: Is Miss Kitty Fantastico a misogynist? -- LittleBit, 18:35:54 07/17/03 Thu

I don't believe anyone has yet addressed the question of whether Dawn's action was really an accident or did Miss Kitty Fantastico drive her to it.

[> [> As I recall... -- Random, 18:39:11 07/17/03 Thu

Joss mentioned something about Dawn being the new feminist icon to replace a Buffy whose feminist credentials had been badly damaged by S6...so it is entirely possible she was striking a blow against misogyny in the "accident."

[> I think this explains a lot. -- Jay, 18:37:10 07/17/03 Thu

[> Re: The ultimate misogyny thread: Is Miss Kitty Fantastico a misogynist? -- O'Cailleagh, 18:40:19 07/17/03 Thu

I read that interview too, wasn't sure whether to post it or not, but glad you did!
Its a shame Joss felt like that about MKF, he obviously doesn't know what he's talking about. MKF was an breakthrough character in the fantasy genre. A cat that belongs to a lesbian couple, obviously a metaphor for Gay/Lesbian adoption issues...how can he put that down to misogyny?

I'm really beginning to lose faith in him as a genius.


[> [> disagree totally! mkf may not have been a misogynist... -- anom, 19:49:26 07/17/03 Thu

...but I sure had her pegged for a homophobe. The point is not that she belonged to Willow & Tara, it's that she ran away from them! Why would she have left a stable, loving home except that she couldn't deal w/Willow & Tara's lesbian relationship? This is obviously the only possible explanation.

And don't try citing Dawn's comment about the crossbow incident. That's the clumsiest attempt at a retcon in the history of the show.

[> [> [> Whoever said she ran away? -- ZachsMind, 19:53:51 07/17/03 Thu

She may have accidently wandered off and gotten lost, or she may have been abducted by aliens! Or perhaps she accidently got hit by Warren's invisibility ray when no one was looking, and wandered the streets of Sunnydale undetectable to the naked eye.

Okay. That would be clumsy retcon. Just say Clem ate Willow's *ahem* and leave it at that.

[> MKF and the Feline Archetype -- LittleBit, 18:49:30 07/17/03 Thu

I think that it would be interesting to examine MKF's role as it reflects the archetypes established in Egyptian mythology. We see her as the center of attention for her people (Tara and Willow) which merely symbolizes the worship of cats as ancient deities.

Hmmm... need to think on this some more.

[> [> Don't forget the Osiris element Bit -- O'Cailleagh, 18:53:00 07/17/03 Thu

Did he have any connections to Bast, the Cat-Goddess? Not up on my Egyptian myth...


[> [> What if Giles shipped Willow's *ahem* off to Mrs. Slocombe..? -- ZachsMind, 19:38:21 07/17/03 Thu

If magic was a metaphor for lesbian sexual activity, what did Willow's pussy represent between them? Ooh.. perhaps Willow's pussy is best left unexamined, come to think of it. I'm hearing in my head echoes of Are You Being Served? the BBC comedy series. Some people wouldn't take an examination of Willow's pussy the right way. Feminists and Gay Rights Activists for example. Or anyone who wouldn't want people talking about Willow's pussy in polite conversation. It could lead to endless misunderstandings. Perhaps that's why some metaphors are best kept.. uhm, metaphorical. =) I mean if even Tara herself never truly discovered the truth about whatever became of Willow's pussy, perhaps it's best left a mystery to the rest of us as well?

[> [> Pussy and the Erotic Feminine (warning - very long) -- Caroline, 21:21:06 07/17/03 Thu

Bit, you definitely have struck a chord with this line of thinking. MKF is central to the expression of Sapphic love between Tara and Willow - juxtapose the scenes in Restless where Willow writes Sapphic poems on Tara's back to the [air quotes] naming [end air quotes] of the pussy. MKF obviously represents the shared erotic love of the Willow and Tara. Naming the pussy Miss Kitty Fantastico is a testament to the erotic skills that each possesses and each wishes to pay tribute to the other in the [air quotes] naming [end air quotes] of the kitty. We can intimately feel the full flowering, blooming, blossoming, swelling of the erotic undertones, overtones and just plain tones of the [air quotes] naming [end air quotes] ritual. The erotic feminine is unrepressed, and later comes to full ripening and fruition in the kiss in The Body and OMWF with the singing of I'm under Your Spell.

However, this paradise, this nirvana, this lotus blossom of love, this [air quotes]'baab al-Sama' (Arabic for Gates of Heaven) [end air quotes] this silken field, this 'cavern where heaven grows' (thanks to Mark Seymour of Hunters and Collectors for this quote) is vilely destroyed in an abandoned, irrational, Kali-like rage of jealouy by Dawn. Dawn is dealing here with complex psychological problems - abandoned by her all her mother figures in S7, she goes into a towering rage fuelled by separation anxiety and abandoment issues that culminate in the destruction of the symbol and product of the Sapphic love between TAra and Willow - MKF. By eliminating MKF she becomes the best-loved child and Tara and Willow must focus on her. I'm sure that's how she got Tara to the movies and Willow to take her out for burgers in Wrecked. I'm very disturbed that Dawn later makes light of this event - it's psychological causes are obviously deeply rooted and suppressed. In effect, by destroying the pussy, Dawn was trying to be the pussy.

But ultimately, how clever of Joss to subvert the misogyny of the destruction of the symbol of Sapphic love by using a female and the murderous, irrational rage inherent in the destructive feminine archetype.

More later as thought swell.

[> [> [> Wow -- Celebaelin, 05:31:37 07/18/03 Fri

[> [> [> KABOOM - no really, something actually just exploded next door, I better go check it out -- ponygirl ;), 07:03:26 07/18/03 Fri

[> [> [> Pussy and the Neurotic Feminine (warning - also long) -- Calebus, 14:04:49 07/19/03 Sat


I hate to burst the bubble, but there's a third juxtaposition in this scene- seem to remember that the pussy is attacking a ball of yarn in slo mo, every bit the vagarious dentata. Faster Pussycat... Which lends an interesting air to...


Then there's the actual content of the "Sapphic poem." Quite ominous, really.

"Yo, Aphrodite! Don't give me a hard time, wench. You've always done my bidding before, putting your spells on whatever girl I've chosen, for the moment. Hie thee to me and say, 'Who should I snag for you this time, Sweetie? She may be dissing you now, but soon she'll be singing a different tune. She may be fleeing, but soon she'll be running after you. Soon she'll love you, even if it's against her will.' Be my comrade-in-arms, because (sing along now) Love Is a Battlefield."

Long before those sugar walls come crashing down for good, Miss Kitty Fantastico will have chosen a new name- "Miss Fuzzy Questionable." Tara will have broken up with Willow because Willow refused to accept Miss Fuzzy's act of independence and challenge to Willow's [air quotes] naming [end air quotes] of her own dastardly acts. Miss Fuzzy will also have then resurrected herself as "Miss EthicsandSelfrespectBeDamned MakeUpSex."

This assertion of her right to do whatever the heck she wants, regardless of what others think, and perhaps against her own best instincts, is astonishingly evocative of Dawn's own storyline. Did Miss EM steal shiny metal objects and covet others' possessions, as well? Did Miss EM also unfurl clever plots to snare the undivided attention of Tara and Willow?

<<...But ultimately, how clever of Joss to subvert the misogyny of the destruction of the symbol of Sapphic love by using a female and the murderous, irrational rage inherent in the destructive feminine archetype. >>

Is it that, or is he far more clever? Subverting the surface misogyny of the destruction of the deceptively soft and langorous symbol of Sapphic love (the smoke lingering over the wreckage of this primal scene obscuring her fang-ed, grinning archetypal Trickster aspect) by using her equally-deceptively 'soft' female mirror image- the murderous, irrational rage inherent in the destructive feminine archetype (Dawn the Sex Kitten, who worships, imitates, and seeks to become an even more effective destructive feminine archetype, Mama Cat Buffy).

The Surviving Sapphic Sister is later shown to have a stereotypical 'male' side as she drools over Dawn as one of the Trimurti of Love Gods- Xander, Giles, and Willow, a shadow image of the trio of Geek Gods- subverting the surface misogyny of the new awakening of sapphic love with (an equally surface?) misandry.

And the wily Joss then goes even further- Miss Kitty reaches out from beyond the grave, calling herself 'The First Evil,' and unveils a buff new symbol of sapphic sexual conquest, who preys on a newly fluffy, soft Willow, sows more dissension than even The First, and even has a gender-ambiguous yet masculine-sounding name to counterbalance her girly outfits, to hide the fact that she's really a gay man in disguise who has put an un-lesbian spell on Willow!

Moon-Peace-Feminine Tara is supplanted by Sun-Sword-Masculine Kennedy with straightforward please-only-the-crassest-of-lesbians-and-other-droolers-over-sapphic-sex-scenes homophilic misandric misogyny, as Willow flips, switches again, and then completely jumps ship to some other plane which, though not gender-neutral, appears to at least have shed our culture's clinging to primary colors.

Miss First Fantastico admits that her desire was to touch *Buffy,* not either of those silly lesbians, having shed all pretense of being a symbol when the magic bullet shattered all romantic illusions. But then she is foiled by her wily love object by way of a non-symbolic castration of her minion, Caleb, and the alchemical wedding of King Sun's light with Firsty's Moon-lit unconscious, underground, and butt-ugly ubervamps. And what is born of this union? A whole new litter of Miss Buttkicker Fantasticos? Or something more sinister (in the full sense of the word)? A New Dawn?


[> [> [> [> And how is your ex currently? -- Celebaelin, 00:26:59 07/20/03 Sun

[> And I thought the ball had been dropped with this year's Cordy arc! -- Rob, 18:51:35 07/17/03 Thu

But no, apparently far more insidious actions have been taken against Miss K than ME even did to Charisma this year. Sure, Joss can talk a blue streak about how they'd taken the character as far as she could go, that she wouldn't fit into the season 7 dynamic because of all of the misogynistic, homophobic, and anti-human subtext she would bring to the story. But really it's quite clear that he can't stand that poor cat ever since she urinated on Jane E's Jonathan bath towel. Quit talking like a suit, Whedon, and cut to the truth...You hated her. You always did, and so decided to destroy her character rather than allow her to leave the show with some dignity. Miss K ended with an errant arrow? Please. As if we don't know that she'd be smart enough to run out of the way, had she been written in character.


[> [> Re: I knew it! -- LittleBit, 19:07:04 07/17/03 Thu

I'd heard that the reason she never got screen time was all the problems she caused on the set with her Diva demands. But then, as a cat, shouldn't she be entitled? And didn't she also have a bit part in the movie "Cats and Dogs"? I think she plans to expand her film career.

[> [> [> She'd better hurry up! -- Anneth, 19:10:38 07/17/03 Thu

I think she plans to expand her film career.

I mean, she just got married - she's gonna start popping out the litters soon, and before you know it, the only roles she'll be able to land are "ditzy older sister" and "young mother." And frankly, I don't think she has the star-power to become the next Morris. She'd better hurry up with the expansion while the expanding's kept down to a minimum.

[> [> [> [> It may be too late -- LittleBit, 09:25:59 07/18/03 Fri

I read online that they wanted MKF to reprise her role as a guest on Angel but there was opposition because of her Diva tendencies, so in a shocking role reversal the casting call went out for male cats with MKF's coloring.

[> [> The season opener of Angel should include a cameo of Kitty Fantastico... -- ZachsMind, 19:49:09 07/17/03 Thu

Whedon wouldn't have to explain it. Suddenly this cat is hanging around at Wolfram & Hart. She just shows up periodically in the shot, following the others around and interacting occasionally during stage business. No explanation is ever given. The cat's all black & white spotted, looks like Kitty Fantastico all grown up. No one ever refers to it by name. No one ever actually picks the cat up, and rarely even acknowledges she's there, but we see her several times. Then near the end of the first episode, we see Wesley pick up Kitty Fantastico and stroke her lovingly while rattling off complicated dialogue. Then as he puts the cat down he winks at the camera obtrusively before the plot moves forward as if nothing ever happened. We never see the cat again.

*looks about the room observing the ones who get it and the ones who don't.*

I think it'd be absolutely purr-fect.

[> [> [> See what happens when they take away our BtVS? -- Briar Rose (ROTFL at all you glorious nuts!), 00:40:00 07/18/03 Fri

[> Frankly, I don't understand all this MKF hullaballo -- Anneth, 19:01:42 07/17/03 Thu

I don't want to upset the legions of MKF fans, but I've never understood how anyone could prefer MKF over Amy the Rat - the original, and best, BtVS pet. I suspect they are all bamboozled by her cute miaos. Really, Peppers is an overrated actress, and getting a little long in the tooth, if you know what I mean. That last shot of her in Restless - you could see her crow's feet.

I read once in Variety that it was a power-struggle. Peppers kept trying to eat Amy-rat. Peppers overestimated her star power, and that, combined with the misogyny issue, pretty much spelled the end of her BtVS career.

[> [> Wasn't that MKF we saw going after Buffyrat in BB&B? -- Sophist, 19:38:45 07/17/03 Thu

[> [> [> Wow, Sophist. I thought I'd seen facile retconners before, but that was amazing! -- Random ;-), 19:45:37 07/17/03 Thu

How did you do that without being consumed in the absurdity?

[> [> [> [> Ratconnor?!!! MKF went after Ratconnor too??? -- Sophist, 20:09:17 07/17/03 Thu

[> [> [> Greatest Retcon Ever -- Yellow Bear, 21:52:25 07/17/03 Thu

[> [> Did Amy still have magic powers while she was a rat? -- ZachsMind, 19:58:41 07/17/03 Thu

Maybe Miss Kitty Fantastico tried to eat Amy and got turned into a newt.

[> [> [> Thanx for bringing this up. -- O'Cailleagh, 20:05:00 07/17/03 Thu

Am I the only one to have noticed the lack of representation newts have had on the show?
The few mentions they *have* had are all relating to the use of their eyes in Witchcraft. Which isn't even strictly accurate. Its more a dietary thing.


[> [> [> [> The word 'newt' appears to have been mentioned in four episodes... -- ZachsMind, 20:33:20 07/17/03 Thu

Bad Girls
WILLOW: "Chemistry's easy. It's a lot like witchcraft, only less newt."

Out Of My Mind
WILLOW: "Are these real newt eyes?"
GILES: "No, too rich for my blood I'm afraid. No these are salamander eyes. It's the cataracts which give them their newt-like appearance. They're really equally effective, though, it's just a matter of overcoming snobberies."

WILLOW: "It's a search engine. Look. OK, let's see what 'Cassie Newton' pulls up. Hey, look. Check this. She's got her own site."

Band Candy
JOYCE: "That's cool! Very Juice Newton."

[> [> [> [> [> Re: The word 'newt' appears to have been mentioned in four episodes... -- O'Cailleagh, 20:45:19 07/17/03 Thu

The last two don't count and the first two support my arguement.
What is it Joss has against the feminine that he has to create misogynistic characters, defame Witches, and force Buffy to call Spike "William"?
Plus, with this show he had a real chance to create a real female icon, instead we end up with a butch cheerleader.
The mind boggles.


[> [> [> [> [> I am truly scared -- Afraid of the depths of Zachsmind since its full of Newts, 22:29:16 07/17/03 Thu

[> [> [> Re: Did Amy still have magic powers while she was a rat? -- Celebaelin, 05:48:44 07/18/03 Fri

Undoubtedly, as long as the mind doesn't start to go all rodentine with the sheer rattiness of the quadruped experience (and we know what happened in this case). But the thing is - no fingers to speak of, no opposable thumbs, no vocal chords and probably a strong compulsion to eat the spell components.


[> [> [> [> But she could still twitch her nose.... -- O'Cailleagh, 06:58:50 07/18/03 Fri

Which brings me on to Samantha Stevens from TV's 'Bewitched'.
A classic '60s-'70s sitcom, 'Bewitched' was praised in it's day for it's empowering message to women everywhere. It has been mentioned repeatedly by Joss as one of the inspirations behind the Buffyverse-indeed he paid homage to it in the classic episode 'Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered', by introducing the 'wacky identical cousin' concept in Faith, and with the character Anya, a clear Samantha clone, down to her interfering mother-in this case D'Hoffryn rather than Endora.
However, in the opening credits of 'Bewitched', Sam, in cartoon form, turns into a cat in order to escape her domineering husband. He then captures her and she is transformed back into her usual self just in time for the frying pan to start burning. Here the cat is clearly being used as a symbol of the Bad Wife, the 'whore' who neglects her 'hardworking' husband in order to pursue her own interests.
How this show could have been held as an example of female empowerment is beyond me.


[> Ok, this will get me through my temporary chat withdrawal! -- Sara, just sitting here giggling, 19:07:33 07/17/03 Thu

[> [> But this is a very serious issue Sara. -- O'Cailleagh, 21:33:35 07/17/03 Thu

[> [> [> Well, I was seriously laughing -- Sara, never one to underestimate the power of the cat, 10:36:57 07/18/03 Fri

[> Ahhhhh. What a refreshing breath of philosophical fresh air. Very refreshing. Fresh, too. -- OnM, 19:13:03 07/17/03 Thu

Just like the good ol' days here at the board! (Not that the new days aren't good, they are! But it's a different kind of good. It's all good, though. No argument there. Not from me anyway.)

Now, how about a post on cats and holographic memory?

[> [> Re: It's the refreshingest! -- LittleBit, 20:47:18 07/17/03 Thu

I'll need to do a little research into that. I'm trying to set up some time to talk with Data's cat Spot about her extensive use of the holodeck and how that affected her memory.

[> [> [> Pepper and Spot -- Rob, 23:46:33 07/17/03 Thu

Actually, this would be an interesting angle to research. I heard that Spot and Pepper had a fling once in the holodeck, when Pepper won the role of Worf's son, Andrew's, pet cat. Unfortunately, all of her scenes ended up on the editing room floor, as they opted to instead shoot a longer bridge scene where, for a change, Deanna sensed something was wrong, Picard said "Make it so," and Riker's expressions changed from proud to jovial to sneering to angry and back again in the space of 25 seconds. Hmmm...what we need to do is track down Spot to get to the bottom of this holographic thing. I tried to get in touch with Pepper herself, but her publicist wouldn't return any of my calls.


[> [> [> BTW, speaking of holograms, anyone else see this month's *Scientific American*? -- OnM, 06:05:51 07/18/03 Fri

[> [> [> [> 'Information in a Holographic Universe, August 2003 issue, on sale now for only $4.95! -- cjl (ow! ok, Masq, ok! no more plugs!), 07:45:27 07/18/03 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> As long as you're not linking to porn, you're OK ; ) -- MKF's luv slave AKA FE AKA Masq AKA That Connor lovin' freak, 10:03:59 07/18/03 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> still reading that article--but what really blew my mind... -- anom, 21:21:23 07/19/03 Sat

...was reading the "50, 100, and 150 Years Ago" feature (one of my favorites) & suddenly realizing that in a few months it'll have examples of the latest scientific developments the month I was born! (Ahem, that'll be in the 50-years-ago part, just so we're all clear on that.)

[> Re: The ultimate misogyny thread: Is Miss Kitty Fantastico a misogynist? -- eLeCtRiCxAnDeR, 19:16:25 07/17/03 Thu

I heard that Peppers the cat was fired for doing drugs. Can't remember where I read it though

[> [> Sorry, I think you'll find that it was the cat from Witchblade -- O'Cailleagh, 19:56:35 07/17/03 Thu

[> [> Peppers was set up by the monkey from Outbreak who framed her. -- ZachsMind, 20:09:35 07/17/03 Thu

Everybody knows the monkey from Outbreak who was also in the early seasons of Friends was secretly getting his stash through the dog from Frasier, but that one day they almost got caught during a transaction and hid the evidence on Peppers as she happened by.

Amber Benson witnessed all this but didn't want to testify in court because she feared the scandal. So she left Peppers in her moment of crisis and last I heard Peppers was doing ten years in rehab. She hung out with Charlie Sheen and Robert Downey Jr. for awhile. Actually I think she's still handing with Robert Downey Jr.

Winona Ryder wants to do a remake of Lassie with Peppers when she gets out. Peppers won't do it though because Winona stole Pepper's Depp.

[> I still say Clem ate Kitty Fantastico, and I for one applaud him for it. -- ZachsMind, 19:22:04 07/17/03 Thu

I'm a dog person.

[> I think the interviewer was missing the core issue of the interview -- VampRiley, 19:32:49 07/17/03 Thu

If a cat named Peppers really didn't care much for humans, why didn't she flick her cig at the interviewer, piss on Joss and run away, much less how did she get to the interview in the first place?

[> Rumors (Warning, possible AtS S5 Spoilers) -- Anneth, 20:18:31 07/17/03 Thu

I've heard that MKF's purported death on BtVS this last season is acutally a big cover-up: ME has made plans to rehire Pepper to replace a regular AtS cast-member - Gunn's Big Black Kitty Cat! If ME hires Pepper onto AtS and fires The Big Black Kitty Cat, I plan to begin an angry-letter-writing campaign to ME. It's just a stupid ratings-stunt. BBKC is a well-established character and integral to the show's plot, his problems with the cast and crew notwithstanding.

[> [> Re: Rumors (Warning, possible AtS S5 Spoilers) -- ZachsMind, 20:38:46 07/17/03 Thu

Yeah I heard BBKC threatened to eat Eliza Dushku if she ever set foot on the Angel set again. Something about her taking the last tuna sandwich off the buffet table.

[> [> You realize, the decision was made solely based upon the caliber of her whiskers. -- Anneth, 20:50:10 07/17/03 Thu

[> Hallowe'en -- O'Cailleagh, 21:08:11 07/17/03 Thu

This second season episode was cited in a recent webchat with Charisma Carpenter as a prime reason for leaving 'Buffy'.
I don't have the exact quote but in it she stated that it was one thing to be turned down for the character of Buffy, but to be made to dress as a cat for this episode was beyond demeaning. A traumatic childhood event, where CC's mother had been victimised by a cat, and forced to behave like a good wife and tend the home, had left CC with issues regarding her own femininity ever since.
Her remaining episodes that season were a combination of CGI and body doubles.


[> male chauvinist -- MsGiles, 02:44:13 07/18/03 Fri

male chauvinist

since we are on the subject of the impotant, I mean important contribution of our thespian animal ('humanly challenged?') friends to gender issues, I think we should bear in mind (let's not duck the issues here) the first and highly significant entrance of an animal actor: Herbet the Pig.

Herbet appears early in S1, when Joss was still working out some metaphor issues, and I believe he intended Herbet to have a much larger role. In The Pack, Herbet represents the ever-present male chauvinism which the enlightened Flutie is trying to control. Sadly, it keeps getting away. Flutie has mixed feelings about this testosterone-fuelled impulse - he dresses it up to make it look more impressive. Buffy is able to trap and hold it quite easily: she's the only one who can get it back in the box.

Joss has mentioned in interviews that he identified with Herbet, and intended the pig's story to be a main theme of the series. It's possible that Buffy might even have had a relationship with the pig, thereby coming to terms with male impulses in society and solving gender issues once and for all. Unfortunately, Herbet's rather rapid growth meant he soon became a little porky, and the interest of the cast in bacon butties outweighed artistic consideration. I suspect there may have been some jealousy there as well.

Does anyone know if the actor was related to the actor who played 'Babe'?

[> Do we always have to talk about MKF? It's getting boring -- Tchaikovsky ;-0, 04:15:31 07/18/03 Fri

[> [> If you don't like the MKF threads you don't have to read -- ponygirl, 07:21:06 07/18/03 Fri

...but some of us feel that the depiction of pets in the Buffyverse bears further discussion. It's quite a remarkable journey from Herbet the pig, the ultimate victim - hunted, caged, snacked upon - to MKF. Sure we had hints in s2 that pets could be far more - Willow's fish representing her desire to explore the depths of magic, the puppy Sunshine foreshadowing Spike's final destiny - but they were still extensions of human stories, symbols of their "masters" journies. Finally in MKF we had a pet that stood on its own, that had the ability to choose her own name, her own destiny. MKF represents the fuzzing of the Buffyverse, and whatever Dawn may have said, I still picture the cat alive and well, making her own choices and scratching her own post.

[> [> [> Angelus strung Willow's subconscious desire on a thread? Ouch! -- MsGiles, 07:40:26 07/18/03 Fri

[> [> [> Season Seven pig is much cooler than Herbet -- Tchaikovsky, 07:41:39 07/18/03 Fri

Surviving slaughter is what I like to see- not useless compliance with The Pack. No-one could possibly say that Herbet achieved the same boday of acting as Season Seven's star. And he's bloody stupid


[> [> [> [> Actually, one of the only good things in that awful 'Chosen' novel.... -- Rob, 10:45:31 07/18/03 Fri

...which, if you didn't know, is an extremely poorly edited and written 700 page novelization of the entire 7th season, is the revelation that the pig in the seventh season is actually one of Herbert's great-great-grandchildren!


[> [> [> [> [> Herbert looked a little young to be having children. Piglets having piglets? -- ponygirl, shaking head sadly for the future, 10:52:37 07/18/03 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> But he got eaten when he was just a baby! -- Anneth, 10:55:42 07/18/03 Fri

I mean, I know kids today are hitting puberty earlier than ever before, but really...

[> [> [> [> [> [> Heh heh. So I guess the book was even worse than I thought! -- Rob, wondering why he paid $7.99 for that stupid book, 11:45:48 07/18/03 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Like Mikey, Because Rob is a 1 man focus group for all things Buffy??? -- If you won't buy it, I won't buy it!!!, 14:32:22 07/18/03 Fri

[> [> Well, there was that off-camera incident... -- LittleBit, 08:44:32 07/18/03 Fri

with Miss Kitty Fantastico and Spike, but we don't want to talk about him do we?

[> [> Agree, MKF threads always take over the board -- Masq, 13:36:35 07/18/03 Fri

Pushing threads on topics I'd rather read about into the archives. The Voynak demon knows what threads will give him indigestion.

Luckily for me, I can shove the MKF threads down his throat.

Mwah hah hah!

[> [> [> God, I love a good Mwah hah hah -- Yellow Bear, 14:54:02 07/18/03 Fri

[> Re: awww... much yummier, now. -- aliera, 04:31:28 07/18/03 Fri

Thank you for your post. The issue may more more complex than than the interviewer seems to have realized:

Let's go back to the text, Venzini:

Tara: Do you like cats?
Willow: I'm more of a dog person. But I'm not like 'Death to all Cats.'

Yet only one episode later...

Willow: I keep thinking 'Okay, that's the cutest thing ever.' And then she does something cuter and completely resets the whole scale.

Hmmm, and...

Tara: Did you see her yawn earlier?
Willow: Yes! I thought I was gonna die! Oh, I love you Miss Kitty Fantastico..."

And yet later we hear...

Willow: You cannot have more catnip. You have a catnip problem.

And of course, in the Ultimate Restless Issue...

Tara: I think it's strange. I mean...I think I should worry that we haven't found her name.
Willow: Who? Miss Kitty?
Tara: You'd think she'd let us know her name by now.
Willow: She will. She's not all grown yet.

Ah hah! Maybe because....

Tara: Once upon a time there was... um... a kitty. She was very little, and she was all alone and nobody wanted her.

Willow: This is a very upsetting story.

Tara: Oh, it gets better. 'Cause one day the kitty was running around on the street and a man came and swooped her up and took her to the pound. And at the pound there were lots of other kitties, and there were puppies, and some ferrets

Well, I don't need to connect the dots for the members of this board, it truly explains everything. All quotes courtesy of http://pages.zoom.co.uk/kfantastico/home.html (thank you, MKFAS) which also has pictures, a brief but insightful bio, and not unusually fan-fiction... seems that there's always fanfiction.

Poikilo' thron' athanat' Aphrodita
pai dios doloploka, lissomai se
me m'asaisi med' oniaisi damna
potnia thumon.

She Dwelt Among the Untrodden Ways

She dwelt among the untrodden ways
Beside the springs of love,
A cat whom there were few to praise
And less to truly love:

A kitten by a jossy stone
Half hidden from the eye!
--Fair as a star, when only one
Is shining in the sky.

She was little known, and few *could* know
When Miss Kitty ceased to be;
But she is gone now, and, oh,
The difference to me!

-- William

[> O'Cailleagh's annual Eastenders/Buffy post -- O'Cailleagh, 16:02:03 07/19/03 Sat

Some of you may remember the thesis I wrote last year regarding the many parallels between 'Buffy' and the gritty British soap, 'Eastenders'. In it I pointed out the themes they have in common, and the amazing similarities between Little Mo/Trevor and Buffy/that blonde vampire whose name escapes me. It was a wonderful piece which earned me honorary degrees in both English Literature and Quantum Physics, the Turner Prize and a lifetimes supply of Huggies Pull-Ups, and later went on to open a highly successful antiques shop in Bournemouth.

While reminiscing on that, I realised the following, concerning another of the infamous Slater sisters.

Kathleen Slater, known to all as Kat, is a happy-go-lucky girl with only one thing on her mind...men. She started out as a lovable tart-with-a-heart, a compulsory character in most British soaps. With her bright orange foundation, neatly-troweled eyeshadow and leopard print wardrobe, she symbolised all that is held dear by the British populace until it became clear that her character was merely being used to push the misogynistic viewpoints of the Eastenders writing staff onto the general public.
Here they had the perfect opportunity to empower working class women through Kat's glorious exploits, but instead they chose to have her confess to being her sister's mother, fall in and out of love with the local womanising doctor and, for a brief but scary period, they had her stop wearing makeup altogether. All this pales in comparison to the recent introduction of a relationship with the lovable rascal, Alfie Moon, the jovial ex-con man who now runs the Queen Vic. All this would be fine if he was played by someone else, but alas, the actor behind Alfie is in fact Shane Richie, famous for the long-running commercials for Daz Washing Powder.
Such an obvious connection with drudgery and household chores is surely stretching the limits of decency by implying that wild, young-at-heart and fancy-free women should be taking their rightful place within the home.
As well as this damning evidence, there is also the fact that Kat has been called a bitch by most of the other characters-clear signs of misogynistic tendencies.
When will this indoctrination through television stop? When will the nightmare end?
Won't somebody think of the children?


[> [> LOLOL! -- Rahael, 17:06:20 07/19/03 Sat

Current board | More July 2003