March 2003 posts


Previous March 2003  

More March 2003

Buffy in S6 - a rebuttal of Marti Noxon -- Caroline, 08:45:57 03/11/03 Tue

I really shouldn't take time out to do this because I have so much work that needs to be done (this situation in Iraq should be condemned just on the basis of the extra work it has meant for me!!) but there was a bomb scare at my metro stop this morning and while I was waiting there for over 30 mins in the snow (yay!) while the police did their thing, I decided that life was too short and I was going to post something that has been playing at the back of my mind. Okay, that was a really long setup but now I'll get to the (hopefully) good bit.

I read most of lunasea's series of posts on S6 and all of the responses as well and I was doing a lot of disagreeing all over the place - esp. about Buffy, Dawn and Spike. But I decided that instead of doing something negative like saying that I disagree about this laundry list of things, I'd do something more positive and post my views on Buffy's development in late S5 and S6.

1. Marti Noxon's 'dark night of the soul' vs. Campbellian return

From lunasea's posts I gathered that MN referred to Buffy in S6 as experiencing the dark night of the soul. I hate the disagree with a writer but I must. MN is using her terms quite loosely here. I don't think that Buffy has experienced a 'dark night of the soul'. The closest she has come to it was at the end of S5, where she couldn't figure out how to save Dawn. A dark night of the soul is a complete absence of hope in one's life. The old values/ego/world and the new ones hold no attraction, no sway. One feels incredibly alone. This describes more accurately Buffy's state of mind at the end of S5. She's caught in a dilemma. The old values, the ones that Giles is trying to make her follow, would dictate that she sacrifice Dawn as she did with Angel in S2. But she can't do that. She's also cannot stand the thought of what would happen to the world if Dawn is used as the key. It's no wonder that this irreconcilable position led her to regress to a safe place.

In S6, after the resurrection, Buffy experienced a return and it's consequences, not a dark night of the soul. If it was a 'dark night' experience, she not only would have lost all hope but the old values would hold no sway for her. Here the old values were here experience in heaven. She desperately wanted to be back there and she was fighting being brought back, thus the cause of the despair and depression but not every period of despair or depression is a dark night of the soul. The return is the part of the hero's journey where they have undergone a series of trials, passed them, died and received some kind of paradisiacal reward. Buffy was happy in paradise. She wanted to get back there but now that she has been returned to the plane of duality, she must learn to live in it again. She has lost something beautiful and powerful but she must learn to let go of that attachment. In many religions and spiritual disciplines, the seeker must even transcend the pleasurable experiences as well as the painful ones.

2. The sojourn in paradise and the resurrection.

While Buffy was in heaven, she was in a place that transcended oppositions. There was no light/dark, hot/cold, good/evil etc. She describes a state of undifferentiated bliss. On her return to earth, she once again is thrust into a world of duality and it is harsh and painful for her after the bliss that she has know. Her resurrection remind me of the journeys of many of the mythological goddesses who live in the world above and then are dragged down in some way to the world below - whether voluntarily like Inanna or involuntarily like Ereshkigal (who was banished to the Great Below) or Kore/Persephone (kidnapped by Hades after picking his flower). Like Inanna and Kore who travel to the underworld but learn important lessons that radically change their lives and outlook, Buffy returns to earth and wonders if it is hell.

Buffy has difficult time adjusting - her friends have brought her back and think they did a good thing and saved her. Giles is happy to see her but accuses Willow of being a 'rank amateur' and not respecting the power or profundity of the magicks she called upon. The presence of Buffy's sister makes its own demands on her - she must be a mother before she has even been a wife. The return also means the responsibility of her slaying. Yet all she wants is the sylvan retirement of paradise. Like Ereshkigal, she if comforted by a mourners - in the form of Spike. From the beginning, he makes no demands, is there for her and makes no demands that she changes anything - even her depression. Like Enki's mourners who completely validate Ereshkigal's labour pains and feeling of loss after the death of her husband, Spike completely validates Buffy's depression about the loss of paradise and her return.

3. Duality - Anger/Depression and the metaphor of light/fire

But Buffy is not just depressed, she is angry. She is angry at her friends for bringing her back, she's angry that she must put on a front for them to make them believe that she is happy when she is miserable. She is angry that she has the responsibility of slaying again when she knew that she was complete. Now, she has been dragged away from 'completeness' into the world of light. It's no wonder that she sings about 'going through the motions' and being 'frozen by the fire'. In paradise, there is no duality, therefore no light/dark. It is only in the creation of the world, in the creation of light that we have its opposite - darkness. The first experience Buffy experiences on her return (or her 'creation' if you will) is found/lost. She had something beautiful, she was found, complete. Now, back on earth, she can construct her experience in a dual way - she has lost that paradise and completion and is now lost and fragmented. The next duality she experiences is depression/anger. She is depressed about her loss and then angry that she has lost it. Her inability to express her anger turns it inwards and merely feeds her depression (a common view in psychology is that depression is anger turned inwards).

Since the only person who validates her feelings is Spike, it is natural that she turns to him. But when Spike is no longer willing to play Enki's mourner to her Ereshkigal, and when they both discover that he can hurt her, another duality is introduced. He was the mourner - her ally, a part of her - but now he becomes an object, a threat to her Self, an 'other'. He has his own needs. He is angry at himself because he has all these feelings for her and has become her lapdog. When he pulls away from her in OMWF and tells her some home truths about why she seeks him out, she cuts of the blissful union that she has with him and spits him out as a projection of her own 'other'. All the anger that she has experienced since her return comes flowing out at him. Here Buffy becomes every vengeful earth goddess there is. She lets go all of the innocence of Kore and becomes Peresphone, the 'bringer of destruction'. She gets in touch with the fire alright - the fire that brings creation and destruction. She is Kali, the slayer of demons, she is Inanna/Ereshkigal, dispensing justice as she sees fit. She discovers her own fierce feminine power, her sexuality, and the full promise of her womanhood and slayerhood - sex, blood, menstruation. I know that Buffy has had sexual relationships before - brief physical encounters with Angel and Parker and a longer relationship with Riley. With Angel, she was very young and idealistically in love and was 'betrayed' by the loss of Angel's soul - how could something so beautiful as their love cause that? That incompatibility highlighted that Angel needed to go his own path and fulfill a mission that was separate from Buffy's. Love could not bridge that gap. She was betrayed in a more mundane manner with the sensitive musings of Parker. By the time she got to Riley, she felt less able to open up and give. Even if she had, I doubt it would have made a difference because Riley had the same problem as Angel - he wanted to be the mission, not the mission's girlfriend.

4. Mythical rape

Back to the sexcapades. One of the outcomes of the rather messy relationship with Spike is that they use each other. Spike does love her in his own way and Buffy does have feelings for him that she will not acknowledge but she does realize that she is using him. That recognition of his victimhood in this (I'm referring here to her dream in Dead Things where Spike/Katrina are paralleled) despite all her crying about his victimization of her ('why do I let him do these things to me?') is a wake up call to Buffy. They are mutually victimizing or raping each other. (I'd like to note here that I see the rapes of S6 in a mythical sense - Buffy is strong enough to repel any attack from Spike and the betrayal she feels when he does take not take no for an answer is on an emotional level - I don't think that physically she was compromised. To do Spike credit, he realized he'd gone too far and resolved never to be the kind of man to do that again). Their relationship is built on the yes/no duality, the want to/ought not duality. We are shown this time and time again - the scene in the Bronze where Spike appears from behind Buffy as she is watching her friends. The scene in Spike's crypt where Buffy is invisible. Why did this occur? I think that the reason the rapes occurred is that for both Spike and Buffy, the experience of being with each other was profoundly challenging and confronting. I think that Buffy felt as though she was being invaded by feelings, desires, etc she did not want and it felt like a violation to her, to the person she thought she was. But she is really 'raping herself' - she is the one who feels a certain way yet she is also the one who wants to deny these feelings, these parts of herself. Yet, as with all repressed and unconscious drives, they will somehow find expression and work their way to the surface. The greater the repression, the more compelling the projection and the bigger the explosion when it finds its way to the surface.

5. Returning to a sense of Self in the material world

Buffy and Spike have their explosion - the duality that each feel about their relationship cannot be contained. Buffy accommodates this by separating herself from Spike physically but maintaining some emotional connection with him, even after the rape attempt. We see in S7 that Buffy has come to rely on Spike in a very deep way. I think that she has to come to a better accommodation with Spike than this - there are still issues to be resolved between the two.

Buffy also learns to live again with her slayer responsibilities. In a sense, this is the easiest responsibility for her to accommodate - it expresses the fire, anger and vengefulness quite well. She can be Black Demeter, the Gorgon, Ereshkigal, Kali in a socially acceptable way. Buffy also makes an accommodation with her role as mother. She comes to understand what her neglect of Dawn has done, how being involved in her own misery has damaged her sister and that he must reclaim the maternal feminine within her, as well as the mature, erotic feminine that she has expressed with Spike. Buffy has negotiated the return and learnt to live in the material world again.


I stated above that I also disagreed about the views expressed on Dawn and Spike but that will have to wait for another time. I will mention that I don't think that Dawn is whiny. She was a neglected, troubled teenager experiencing very inconsistent parenting and it was no wonder that she was crying out for attention in the only way she knew. As for Spike, I think he's more than just a plot device, but I really wanted to focus on Buffy here and I'm a bit tired of defending Spike - I follow the maxim on the board above - Spike and Angel do not negate each other. I will, however, make one digression about Spike - unlike Wood, I don't think that he is suffering from an Oedipal conflict. I suspect (but don't have entirely enough proof yet) that Spike is stuck in a pre-oedipal stage where he has not even separated from his mother - I'm thinking of a Kleinian attachment here. Spike has a mother but a father is never mentioned, he seems to be a bit of a mummy's boy and never had a serious rival to mother's affections. Since there was no oedipal enemy, I think that Spike never had to fight for mother's affections, they were always his. I think this explains the devotion we see for his mother in FFL as well as the devotion we saw to Drusilla and now to Buffy. Each of the women he loved were wounded in some way - his mother was an invalid, Drusilla was mad and Buffy is the slayer who feels that she cannot love. Hopefully I'll get the chance to explore this more fully at a later date.
[> Wonderful post. Cutprint. -- s'kat, 09:15:48 03/11/03 Tue

Thank you. I agree with your take on this I think. And look forward to seeing you post more on the subject.

Have to print off to read more closely, before responding in greater depth.

SK
[> [> Damn! Just when I thought I'd had a bellyful of Joseph Campbell... -- Thomas the Skeptic, 13:08:07 03/11/03 Tue

... you go and write an amazingly on-target analysis of Buffy in S6 using his ideas as the paradigm. I had pretty much stopped posting here because my own taste in philosophy tends to run to pragmatism, positivism, and language games (with a seriously contrary passion for Nietzsche and Walter Kaufmann, go figure!) and the preponderance of posts here have a definite Campbellian and Jungian tilt, so I obviously have little to add. But, this is not to say that sometimes Campbell's use of comparative world mythologies is not perfectly appropriate heuristically and this is one of those times. I frankly cannot find anything to disagree with in any of the analogies you used. Outstanding insight! Disclaimer 1. Before any posters here assume there was veiled criticism in any of the above, please be aware that I feel a strong attraction to romanticism, mysticism and the baroque or I would'nt be watching BTVS in the first place. Its just that the hard-headed rationalist in me won't allow me to believe in such on the basis of the current evidence. I still enjoy reading the opinions of people who have reached different conclusions, however...
[> [> [> I'm so happy I didn't bore you or piss you off.... -- Caroline, 13:51:35 03/11/03 Tue

but I would have thought that you would feel right at home with all the other hard-headed pragmatists with a bent for mysticism who participate daily on this board!
[> [> [> [> Ok, I came across as a snooty bastard, but... -- Thomas the Skeptic, 11:07:10 03/12/03 Wed

... please, please believe me that it was not my intent to sound arrogant or condescending. As a matter of fact, I had to re-read my post several times to see what was so offensive. Whatever it seemed, all I really meant to say was that usually mythology doesn't have that much resonance with me but you made it pop this time. My wish was to be complementary but its not the first time I've garbled the message. In future, I think I will restrict myself to comments or questions and keep my opinion of posts to myself. Again, my apologies...
[> [> [> [> [> No, no, no, you misunderstood or I communicated badly. -- Caroline, 11:26:09 03/12/03 Wed

I was delighted by your post and didn't mean anything satirical or snide at all in response! I was so chuffed to reach someone who doesn't normally find this stuff interesting! You paid me a compliment and I'm happy that I found a way to communicate something that is important to me to you, especially since we seem to come from rather different perspectives.

Now that I read my post again, I do see your interpretation - that you sounded condescending. But please believe me that was not intended and I'm really sorry it came across that way. If I thought you were being condescending, I would have asked if that was your meaning. I try to be so careful in my written communication but sometimes things don't come across as planned. My apologies - how about we agree to keep posting until we get it right?
[> [> [> [> [> [> I'm so relieved because... -- Thomas the Skeptic, 13:18:42 03/12/03 Wed

... I live in dread of praising someone and having that praise perceived as an insult. I was afraid that was what I had done and I'm glad you took my words in the spirit intended. And, you've got a deal on the other thing too!
[> Re: Buffy in S6 - a rebuttal of Marti Noxon -- maddog, 09:41:18 03/11/03 Tue

It's kinda hard to disagree with what the writer means when you'r debating the writer. A lot of people ran into that issue last season with whether Spike wanted his soul back. No one agreed with Joss but a few of us and I said the same thing then. How can you disagree with what he told you what he, as the writer of that part, meant.

You can disgaree with how it came out, but not really the inentions. If Marti says she meant it to be dark night of soul then that's what she meant by what she did. There's no ambiguity there.

After saying that I agree with Marty. Buffy spent the first half of that season...maybe even more...thinking life wasn't worth living. She was mad at every one and every thing that was goin on. And to top it off she got into what turns out to be a dangerous relaionship with Spike. How much more rock bottom would you like her to get?
[> [> Re: Buffy in S6 - a rebuttal of Marti Noxon -- CW, 10:18:09 03/11/03 Tue

It's kinda hard to disagree with what the writer means when you'r debating the writer. A lot of people ran into that issue last season with whether Spike wanted his soul back. No one agreed with Joss but a few of us and I said the same thing then. How can you disagree with what he told you what he, as the writer of that part, meant.

Actually it's more complicated than that. What the writer means is one thing, how it plays out on paper or on the screen is often quite another. And yes, the reader or viewer has every right to argue about that. Joss meant Spike to want his soul back, but that's not how it played out for the majority of the audience at the end of last season. Whether it was a lapse in acting, direction or just an overzealous attempt to shock the audience, most people who saw it, thought Spike was shocked by the turn of events. Like it or not when the writer stops writing and shows what she's/he's done to someone else, her/his vote is no more important than anyone else's. That's an extremely important part of understanding literature, that even professional scholarly critics of literature sometimes fail to remember. If the author has to tell everyone, outside the work, what happened in the work to make them understand what she/he meant, she/he didn't write it correctly in the first place. Joss had the luxury of continuing the story and making it clear what he meant in context. Most writers don't have that luxury. In that case, the writer's intentions are truly meaningless. It's what's in print or on the screen that matters.
[> [> [> Re: Buffy in S6 - a rebuttal of Marti Noxon -- luna, 11:35:57 03/11/03 Tue

What the writer means is one thing, how it plays out on paper or on the screen is often quite another. And yes, the reader or viewer has every right to argue about that.

I agree. If readers were always responsible for comprehending exactly and only what writers intend, the world would be a lot easier for writers!

And furthermore, I don't think Caroline was saying that Marti was wrong about what was happening with Buffy, but that she was misusing, perhaps misunderstanding, the term "dark night of the soul."
[> [> [> Well, she agreed -- lunasea, 15:38:30 03/11/03 Tue

I am a viewer and if the writer's intent matches what I see, I don't see how that is irrelevant. I tend to look at shooting scripts to see more of that intent and to see if it was conveyed or if the actors/directors contribution changed things. Most times on BtVS the writers' intent is what I see. The few times I disagree are rather minor, and as I have said, what they continue to produce is based on that intent rather than what I see. Their intent is more important than my interpretation because my interpretation of what I see now is built on what they did earlier.

Chances are when a viewer disagrees with a writer it is a case of projection or not having the required experiences. Should I go with my baggage and ignorance rather than the story itself? That will enrich me how? I can discover my baggage and ignorance by discovering what caused my interpretation to vary from their intent.
[> [> [> [> Reader Response Theory -- Scroll, 15:50:40 03/11/03 Tue

Their intent is more important than my interpretation because my interpretation of what I see now is built on what they did earlier.

It's been a couple of years since I studied Reader Response theory, but I think the general intent of this theory is that the audience/reader approaches the text to figure out what the author meant at the time they were writing it. The reader doesn't read and interpret based on the text itself, but on what the author intended for the reader to see. You examine historical context, intertextuality, etc. (BTW, if I've got this wrong, somebody please correct me. I'm not sure Reader Response is the correct name of this analytical theory.)

Anyway, this is one type of analytical theory. There are many others. Some say you examine the text only, see how agent interacts with object, theme, setting. What is the agency? How is the narrative constructed? What are the archetypes? But there are many ways to read a text. Not one is more "valid" than another, IMHO.

An abstract painting is not about authorial intent. The viewer is supposed to examine the abstract as something in-and-of-itself. You get an impression of shapes, lines, colours. You interpret what it might mean based on your own experiences. Personally, I don't like abstract art. I prefer someting with a little more structure. I enjoy reading author interviews because it's nice to see the creative process.

But I also believe that art should be able to stand on its own. We're never going to know what exactly those cave painters in France were thinking. We can only interpret based on the art itself, perhaps placing it in historical context, but still not having the author's intent spelled out for us. And I don't always have to agree with the author. Also, Joss sometimes lies : )
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Reader Response Theory -- Miss Edith, 16:44:43 03/11/03 Tue

Trust the story, not the teller. Joss quote.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Though there's some irony -- Rahael, 19:01:15 03/11/03 Tue

on referring to Joss as an authority telling us not to listen to him ;)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOL -- Miss Edith, 19:14:19 03/11/03 Tue

Irony's kind of ironic that way.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Question -- Shiraz, 10:38:22 03/12/03 Wed

Do you know if he said this before or after the whole "Dead Lesbian" controversy last season?

Either way, irony is now being served by the gallon.

-Shiraz
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Question -- Miss Edith., 01:26:38 03/13/03 Thu

Before I think. I remember when Tara was killed off a lot of viewers were telling the angry people that Joss should be expected to lie, and it was foolish to trust him. I can't remember the first time he said it though.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Reader Response Theory -- lunasea, 16:54:55 03/11/03 Tue

Also, Joss sometimes lies : )

Sometimes? They all admit they are evil liars (though none quite as good at it as Steven DeKnight is). People actually expect them to answer "will Tara die" truthfully?

But when talking about past seasons, motivations or what they were attempting to do, I have seen no reason why they would lie. Do they just like screwing with us? Lying about these things also screws with their work. Say Spike did intend to get the chip out. When Joss says that wasn't his intent, those who said it was then abandonned that position.

I analyze the show to see how it is constructed. For my purposes, the writers' intent is paramount. I am tired of hearing that this isn't a valid way of interpreting the show. I am interested in the story that Joss is trying to tell. In order to evaluate whether that story is conveyed, I need to know what his intent was. Since they do give amazing interviews and commentary on the DVDs, I can find out what that intent was. I am also more interested in that story than my own projection. I have analyzed myself to death and undeath. The Buffyverse was supposed to be my break from that (really succeeded there, didn't I). Others may go from a different angle. That doesn't invalidate this one.

My Dark Night thread, which this was a rebuttal of sorts to was about how that intent was conveyed and whether I thought they were successful and putting my own experience on top of it. I went episode by episode and showed how various lines and actions conveyed Buffy's Dark Night. It was about the feelings behind it, or the lack of feelings. It was about a numbness that Buffy felt.

I think they did do a great job. I also think that Marti was right that this wasn't something most were interested in to such a degree. Those people find something else that interests them, that may not be put there intentionally by the writers. I do not see how what others see invalidates what the writers intended.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Cause, y'know, writers should always provide a commentary. -- Solitude1056, 21:58:35 03/11/03 Tue

I am interested in the story that Joss is trying to tell. In order to evaluate whether that story is conveyed, I need to know what his intent was. Since they do give amazing interviews and commentary on the DVDs, I can find out what that intent was. I am also more interested in that story than my own projection.

I'm not familiar with "reader response," but in theology/philosophy we called this the Fallacy of Intentionality. What if Machiavelli's Prince was intended as one big joke, a satire? Would we really find ourselves quoting Machiavelli in management seminars?What if Jonathan Swift beat two of his children to death and honestly thought the world would be better off with less children? Would we really find A Modest Proposal quite so amusing?

And then, of course, there's also the issue of When Words Aren't The Same Anymore. Shakespeare, Chaucer, and outdated translations by Richard Burton all contain excellent examples of archaic terms that have different meanings now (think of medieval 'mistress' as head-of-household, versus modern 'mistress' as expensive one-person prostitute). What was once a line referring to an honorable person, becomes a chance for the audience to snigger.

Let's see, here's one of my favorite examples: the fact that 90% of all theater-goers think Hamlet's solioquoy demonstrates unquestionably Hamlet's suicidal tendencies. This, even though Hamlet states, "The undiscover'd country from whose bourn / No traveller returns". That is to say, he clearly states that dead people don't come back, even though he'd seen his own father's ghost only an act before. Please. Do we really need Shakespeare to sit down and do a voiceover commentary on the latest Hamlet remake to help us understand what's already in the bleedin' play? It's right there, in the words themselves, everything you needed. If we, as the audience, got so wrapped up in Hamlet's suicidal act (that he enacts while knowing the King and Polonius are eavesdropping), then it's just kudos to the actor for convincing us as thoroughly as the rest of the characters - but this doesn't mean the story requires even a single footnote or addendum.

Point is, if an author requires the commentaries, or the extra interviews, or other noise, to explain what s/he meant, then the author's work failed. This is one reason I avoid Marti Noxon's interviews, because I can't shake the gut sense she wasn't the most secure in her S6 producer/headmistress role, hence the endless explanatory interviews where she seemed to invariably make things worse. What was that comment, Marti? Spike was based on bad boyfriends you had after college? Riley was based on your husband? Hunh? How does this make the story work better, now that I know you had relationship issues? Oh, right. It doesn't.

At best, I can ignore it; at worst, it snaps me out of the suspension of disbelief, because I hear mention of Riley and I think, "oh, Marti's husband. Yeech." When I run the world, authors will have to shut up and let their story do their talking - Joss reminding us not to listen to him is one way, I think, he's also explaining why he's not talking. In the end, if the story doesn't explain everything, in and of itself, the story didn't work.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Self contained texts -- Rahael, 00:48:30 03/12/03 Wed

I certainly agree - when you come to a subtle and complex playwright like Shakespeare, looking at the play itself can provide all the answers you need.

Buffy itself contains far more subtlety than any one person can describe, even Joss. It is written by more than one person. The dictates of narrative provide for resonances, meanings and metaphors not initially intended.

However, when the self contained text is taken to its extreme, I get a bit turned off. (i.e, to need some kind of contextualisation means the story is a failure) A lot of wonderful poetry becomes meaningless if you can't consider the context that it was produced in. We might not understand a concept in the same way as the contemporary society in which the work of art was produced. A play is not an isolated text. It is meant to be performed, to a specific audience. Shakespeare intended to entertain a contemporary audience - he didn't keep a master copy of his plays. Everything we have, we have from a transcriber in the audience writing it down (let's hear it for transcribers!!).

It's enlightening to realise that Bolingbroke saying that the tudors were going to bring fair cheeked peace and plenty was performed during a period of famine, uncertainty of succession and looming war presided over an unpopular tudor queen. Irony is added that is not immediately obvious. Shakespeare becomes harder to consider as a straightforward conservative cheerleader for monarchy.

In the future, I imagine that the pop culture savvy Buffy might lose some meaning without some kind of societal context. Of course, it might mean that having good historical general knowledge might become a requirement for all discerning viewers and readers ;)

I don't mind reading commentaries and interviews - Buffy can work well enough for me. And I find that the ME writers are generally very open to other interpretations. I watch soem commentaries (Joss, Tim) and start loving the Buffyverse again. It's just a demonstration of a quality of mind and intelligence that I enjoy.

Also, to my mind, to say that the meaning is immediately obvious if you only seach for it might suggest that there is only one meaning - I think there are many interpretations, many meanings. I don't think you are suggesting that, I'm just enlargening on my thoughts.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Self contained texts -- s'kat, 07:27:25 03/12/03 Wed

Interesting discussion Sol1056 and Rah, I agree with both of you.

Like Sol, I was avoiding MN's interviews for a while, for the same reasons Sol mentions so clearly above. MN seemed to be insecure in her executive producer role and as a result overly defensive in her interviews, often bringing out stuff about her own life to defend her work to the interviewers and critics, instead of just brushing them off as Whedon often does and stating let my work stand for itself. I did however find her episode by episode commentary (see the archives for my post on it) revealing. It showed just how insecure she truly was in her role as co-executive producer, how involved Joss Whedon had been in some of the better episodes, and how she had difficulty keeping the troops in line and staying ahead on production issues. The episode by episode commentary also demonstrated something I've always suspected -- how incredibly hard it is to churn out a collaborative product week after week without screwing up. The reason I often read interviews and commentary on tv shows -- is to see how they describe their collaborative process and the inherent pitfalls within that process. What I'm not overly interested in is the intent behind the story arcs, although there are times that can be equally fascinating.

Joss Whedon's commentary on The Body for instance is quite revealing in that he is so incredibly taken aback by the audience's positive response to the episode. He'd intended to take an unrelenting, raw, non-hopeful look at the physicality of death - and expected it turn people off, horrify them -- instead he got letters telling him how moved people were by the broadcast and thanking him for helping them deal with their loss. This touched him deeply yet shocked him at the same time. (See Archives for Rah's post on this commentary)

From my own experiences creating art, both writing and other types of mediums - I've discovered that often people will respond to or interact with it in ways I never imagined or intended. Ways that oddly enough enrich the art and make it better. I'm sure Joss Whedon experienced a little of that thrill when he learned about the Blood, Text and Tears Conference in England or when he comes online and reads some of our essays. And I can't help but wonder if Shakespeare and his players aren't grinning in their graves over our continued analysis and production of their plays. For me - it's how others interact with and interpret what I create that is most interesting, not what I may or may not have intended. It can be frustrating of course when someone sees the complete opposite of your intent, but it is also educational. Sometimes the audience's reaction to the work is far more interesting than the work itself or anything the creator has to say about it. This certainly seems to be the case with Btvs and Ats - at least in my humble opinion.

Hope this adds something. Enjoyed reading both of your posts.

SK
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Self contained texts -- fresne, 11:20:17 03/12/03 Wed

Thanks oh, everyone. You've said a number of things about interpretation that I wanted to, but didn't. Heck, I really should be typing up an agenda right now.

The agenda. The intention of the meeting. How the audience receives the agenda. Interprets the words Green Field Architecture or Universal Desktop, well, that remains to be seen. Do I even know what I mean by Universal Desktop?

ME's canon, BtVS and AtS, and poor, poor FF, are remarkable complex. The result of a myriad of visions melding to a cohesion through the lens of Joss, who in artful turns is opaque and transparent. Minion guiding of his vision as time allows.

Historical context, background, subconscious drives that we can only guess at, driving the text. The writers tell us what they meant. They lie. They agree. They disagree. And in the places between, we think. ME. We. All important for driving our unique view of this that we discuss.

I'm suddenly reminded of the hammer and the sickle in Anne. According to Joss it was coincidence, but was it? Could it have been a subconscious choice on the part of the prop designer. (yes, I've watched the props bit of the S3 DVD) Then again, I didn't notice said hammer and sickle until someone pointed it out. I was too caught up that Buffy was holding a Hunga Munga throwing dagger that my entire freshman college hall coveted from Atlanta Cutlery. I just love saying it. Hunga Munga. Hammer and sickle, damn bourgeois grinding the workers down, um, oh, look it's a Hunga Munga. Squee...

When I said in the Meet the Poster's thread that I'm a narcissist, I meant for you my readers to understand that what I view through my stylish yet affordable glasses is all about me. I being the one person that I cannot escape. In my interpretive dance, I privileging my steps as I follow the ME tap. This isn't the right way. It's just a way.

I think of this that we do here as the challenge dance from Top Hat. Fred taps out some steps. Ginger responds. Embroiders. Sends it back. He taps. She taps. There's a dance. And in the end, the smile of satisfaction and they shake hands. At least, until the tragic and silly misunderstanding. Or, perhaps it's one of those vast production numbers from 1930's musicals. With Brownian chaos at play. Or better yet, Mulan Rouge with opposing motion fighting for attention.

Now I really do have to go off and write my agenda.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> There's a difference between 'intent' and 'context' -- Solitude1056, 08:11:28 03/12/03 Wed

What you're talking about is context, and you're right, contextual information is sometimes crucial. If you weren't familiar with Apocalypse Now, you'd be completely lost during much of Xander's segment in Restless. However, do you really need to know that the person who wrote such-and-such an episode originally intended that the bit character represent his parents' love of bowling?

However, when the self contained text is taken to its extreme, I get a bit turned off. (i.e, to need some kind of contextualisation means the story is a failure)

I certainly hope it doesn't sound like this is what I was saying, although I'd agree that "to need some kind of 'external explanation' means the story is a failure."
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: There's a difference between 'intent' and 'context' -- lunasea, 08:27:44 03/12/03 Wed

However, do you really need to know that the person who wrote such-and-such an episode originally intended that the bit character represent his parents' love of bowling?

Why not? It is a show written by humans. I like to know about humans. How is that any different than the get-to-know you threads on the board?

I like knowing that the mausoleum in this episode or that one was named after this writer's niece or that one's sister. It makes the show more than just a show.

Is it absolutely necessary? Not really, but what in life is absolutely necessary. Certainly not talking on the net. I do a lot that isn't absolutely necessary that enriches my life.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Right, that clarifies it for me -- Rahael, 09:13:53 03/12/03 Wed

A great work of art has to be able to work on many levels, and at its basic, as a narrative that entertains, it must succeed. If it fails, no amount of explanation can fix that failure. If it succeeds, perhaps I may suggest that opinions and intpretations cannot diminish. Otherwise, why are we all here?

Rahael, taking a quick break from thinking and writing about Buffy. Hmm. Writing a proper post takes more effort than my usual scribbles.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Authorial intent -- Sophist, 09:21:35 03/12/03 Wed

I'm with you on this Sol. But let me pose a hard question that makes the papers whenever it comes up in my profession.

Suppose a woman comes to a party dressed "provocatively". A man decides she really wants him and won't take "no" for an answer when they leave the party. Was the woman "asking for it"? Whose intent controls?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Big difference, and explosive example. -- Solitude1056, 10:09:07 03/12/03 Wed

Since legally, it don't make no difference what the audience's interpretation is, one's dress or demeanor does not automatically indicate a willingness to have sex. However, as a literary analogy, this one doesn't quite work, or works only to a certain extent.

If, let's say, a poet does a reading at bookstore and delivers a line, "I was pleased," with heapings of dry sarcasm, this is authorial intent becoming a part of the audience's perception of a medium that otherwise normally has little input from the author once it's written down. If later, someone else reads the poem aloud, to an english class, and says, "I was pleased," with a smug, content tone, this could conceivably change the second audience's interpretation. When the author is reading/enacting the piece (similar to when a person is dressed), the author is occupying that space the audience would normally occupy. The person, similarly, is occupying the space of "this is how you are to see me" that overlays the audience's objectification of the person, such as would happen if the audience were simply looking at a photograph. Ah, in this photograph, she's wearing red. Yup, she's a hooker. But if it's a real person and she uses fifteen SAT words in the first sentence of saying hello, this changes your perception by virtue of the object's action. Similar to the way the author, while reading/enacting hir piece, can change the cadence or emphasis as fits the audience.

Which points up that Joss et al is effectively enacting/reading the piece, but is disadvantaged by our delayed audience reaction. This creates some of the issues, I think, between what I'm saying and your counterpoint. At what point does the delay in author-creation and audience-reaction mean the piece is pretty much a "do it and throw it out there" like a movie or a book? How close together do authorial creation and audience response need to be for it to be considered a feedback loop like in a stage play?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hard cases make bad law -- Sophist, 11:11:30 03/12/03 Wed

Or so they say. Not sure if that's true or not.

Since legally, it don't make no difference what the audience's interpretation is, one's dress or demeanor does not automatically indicate a willingness to have sex.

I probably could construct an argument in which it was relevant. My real point, however, was to raise the issue of communicative intent in a more general form.

Let's suppose Shakespeare acted the part of Hamlet at The Globe. By your example, his intonation of lines would provide us with an important clue about their meaning. That clue does not and cannot appear in the transcriptions available to us. But now suppose Shakespeare said, sometime later in his life, "I intended for Hamlet to express X in this scene, and this is how I would have delivered the lines." I'm finding it very difficult to articulate the difference between these 2 cases. And if in the first case we should consider authorial intent, why not the second?

My preliminary thought is that the issues of intent and control are closely related. That is, in your example of the poet, the poet controls the expression. When the poet writes down the words for someone else to read, s/he loses that control; now the expression can change to suit the taste of the individual reader. The problem is, why can't the poet attempt to control the reader by providing a guide to intonation along with the poem? Or, upon hearing the reader, offer a correction?

This, it seems to me, is what is happening in my original example. Clothing choice is (or can be seen to be) a form of communication. The viewer can interpret, but the author can correct the interpretation. If communication is intended to lead to understanding, shouldn't the author be permitted to clarify meaning in order to facilitate understanding?

Sorry about all the questions. I hate rhetorical questions and these aren't meant to be. Like Mark Twain, if I had more time, I'd tighten this up (maybe even remove the dangling preposition).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hard cases make bad law -- Solitude1056, 11:51:46 03/12/03 Wed

But you've just underlined what I was saying, although I suppose this means I didn't articulate the line between them. In a 'live' piece where audience response is part of the art (onstage, in person, poetry reading, etc), the author's intent very much matters, if only the authors intent at that precise moment. (Rewriting history as a means of authorial expression does not, in my book, warrant any attention or credibility. I've seen enough folks do that with the Deep South and the debate of Why We Weren't Really Fighting About Slavery.) But anyway...

In a piece where the author's presentation/creation is divided from the audience by time or medium (books, movies, dead authors), then yes, the author's intent can't be part of it anymore because the author isn't there to interact in a live medium. In the situation of a woman in red, she's theoretically there, in the dress, so she'd fall into the former category of "interacting and reacting to audience interpretation of her presentation."

I think what trips Joss up sometimes is that he's treating his story like an onstage play but he's got delayed audience reaction. He'd like to lend creedence to our responses beyond the usual TV mogul; the problem is that there's sometimes a gap of several months between "this is my brilliant episode concept" and "here's the reviews from the fans."
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Art as dialogue -- Sophist, 13:27:53 03/12/03 Wed

I had the chance to think about this some more at lunch. I started on your side and now I'm talking myself onto the other side. Save me from myself.

Let's start with the proposition, stated in my last post, that the purpose of communication is understanding. If that is the goal, then I don't see how we can avoid authorial intent.

Take the posts here as an example. In fact, there's a good example a little ways up in the exchange between Caroline and Thomas the Skeptic. TtS posted, Caroline responded; TtS interpreted her response one way, Caroline rushed to assure him that she didn't mean it that way (but saw how he could have reached that conclusion).

If authorial intent were irrelevant, TtS had no reason to continue. He read Caroline's post and understood what she meant (he thought). He could have walked away with that impression. Instead, further discussion clarified the misunderstanding.

Now let's switch to BtVS. Certainly one way to see the show is as JW's communication to us. If we want to understand what JW meant, his own clarifications or explanations seem essential to that process. In the same way, we share our interpretations here and refine them for our fellow posters in order to communicate our understanding of scenes and themes ("scenes and themes" -- great book title offered free).

We may well say, in response to a clarification, "well, if you had said so in the first place...". That may affect our judgment of the quality of the show or of a post. But it doesn't dispense with the need for clarification in order to achieve understanding. Given the inherent ambiguity of language, I doubt that understanding can ever be achieved without dialogue (etymology important).

And dialogue is what's really at issue. JW gets the first word in. It's his show. We react, here or elsewhere. I don't think we can just dismiss his opportunity to respond (again, with the caveat that his response may affect our judgment of his original effort). Neither should we expect that our first post on a subject ends our participation in a conversation on the Board.

I don't see this as privileging the author. Words may be ambiguous, but they do constrain the universe of possible meanings. I can dismiss as disingenuous an author who attempts to explain that he said black but meant white. But I don't think I can refuse him a hearing.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Question: difference btw a dialogue and a presentation? -- shadowkat, 14:05:46 03/12/03 Wed

Sorry for butting in, but I've been enjoying the discussion and wondered about something:

Take the posts here as an example. In fact, there's a good example a little ways up in the exchange between Caroline and Thomas the Skeptic. TtS posted, Caroline responded; TtS interpreted her response one way, Caroline rushed to assure him that she didn't mean it that way (but saw how he could have reached that conclusion).

If authorial intent were irrelevant, TtS had no reason to continue. He read Caroline's post and understood what she meant (he thought). He could have walked away with that impression. Instead, further discussion clarified the misunderstanding.

Now let's switch to BtVS. Certainly one way to see the show is as JW's communication to us. If we want to understand what JW meant, his own clarifications or explanations seem essential to that process. In the same way, we share our interpretations here and refine them for our fellow posters in order to communicate our understanding of scenes and themes ("scenes and themes" -- great book title offered free).

We may well say, in response to a clarification, "well, if you had said so in the first place...". That may affect our judgment of the quality of the show or of a post. But it doesn't dispense with the need for clarification in order to achieve understanding. Given the inherent ambiguity of language, I doubt that understanding can ever be achieved without dialogue (etymology important).

And dialogue is what's really at issue. JW gets the first word in. It's his show. We react, here or elsewhere. I don't think we can just dismiss his opportunity to respond (again, with the caveat that his response may affect our judgment of his original effort). Neither should we expect that our first post on a subject ends our participation in a conversation on the Board.

What hits me, is that there may be a difference between authorial intent when you are discussing something (or in the midst of a debate) and it is important to make your point clear and when you have published a fictional work like a novel or made a movie or tv show - that once presented cannot be altered or necessarily clarified.

Aren't the two processes somewhat different?

For example:

When I post an essay to a posting board - I expect discussion on it and if I engage in dialogue on it, like I did below with Scroll further down on this thread - I do want to make sure my points are clear. As did Thomas and Caroline above. But if say I published a book of essays, would I have the same responsibilities to clarify? Would I be expected to engage in dialogue over them? Possibly, if I were to present those essays at a conference or post them to a forum.

What about a movie or film? Or better yet a piece of artwork hanging in a museum. Should the artist clarify h/er
intent? Or should they stand back and let the audience interpret as they wish? What I wonder would Salavador Dali or Jackson Pollack have to tell us about their controversial works? Some artists do engage in dialogues about their works, while others refuse to.

This week I debated going to a reading of Susan Orelean and Michael Cunningham - where they discussed in a public forum
the adaptation of their respective novels into films. (I had other plans so had to back off) Is this an example of the author's providing us with a clarification of a) their intent vs. b)the filmmakers - when only the author is present? Can such a dialogue even be entered into? We only really get one side of the issue, after all?

Also how does the writer or artist's clarification of their intent after their film or work is presented to us, change our perception of it? Assuming of course it does. And if it does change our perception - which perception is the valid one, the one prior to the clarification?

This brings up another issue - the reason I stopped reading spoilers and left spoiler boards and no longer read wildfeeds prior to the airing of an episode - I discovered that all these items alterred my perception of the presentation. To this day, I wonder how I would have responded to As You Were, Hell's Bells, and Seeing Red if I had not already heard someone elses opinion on the episode before I viewed it myself. Which makes me wonder how movie and book reviews affect our reading of a work and the authorial intent.

Okay I know I'm sort of rambling off topic here ;-), but
what would happen if Joss or Marti were to come onto the screen a la Russel Banks of Masterpiece Theater and introduce the episode, explaining their intent, then after it was over come back for an brief afterward clarifying it?
I've seen authors do this with afterwards and forwards in books. Would this change how we viewed the episode? And if so, why have they chosen not to do so?

SK
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Question: difference btw a dialogue and a presentation? -- ponygirl, 14:32:05 03/12/03 Wed

And is it possible that the artist's intent could change as well? That their opinion of their work could be altered by the reactions of others, or by their own changing perceptions? I think this is why artists are often hesitant to state exactly what they mean, because in many cases they may not know themselves. So often they are operating on intuition, or drawing inspiration from murkier parts of their brains.

A few years back I was doing research on film history and came across an interview with actor Norman Lloyd talking about his friendship with director Jean Renoir. Apparently towards the end of his life Renoir had taken to screening his own films, after one session he told Lloyd that he had had a realization. His whole life he thought he had been trying to get away from his father, the Impressionist painter Pierre-Auguste Renoir, but really he had been trying to understand him and be like him.

The work itself is static/complete but perception of it is always changing. Even for the author. I think that's what makes a work of art live and breathe.

Not sure if I'm just rambling here, it's been a long day!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Made sense to me. Totally agree. -- s'kat, 14:45:36 03/12/03 Wed

I know that I've changed my views on Buffy episodes over time. First viewing thought one thing. Two years later?
Something completely different. I also know that looking back over my own written work - I often change my mind on what I'd intended.

In reading the commentary on Btvs and Ats - I've found that it is interesting how the writers contradict earlier interviews on the topic. They'll say one thing prior to the episode airing, something different immediately after it airs, and then something completely different two years later reflecting back on it. Television more than anything else is an art-form that is continuously in process, not static, until well the series ends. And the scripts? Those like the plays of Shakespeare, because of the very fact they can be performed and read in numerous different ways and by numerous different acts will always be open to numerous interpretations. After all - in Shakespear's time all the actors were male. How does having female actors play the roles change the interpretation.

SK
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Show and tell -- Sophist, 15:25:14 03/12/03 Wed

I think you hit the key issues. I don't want this post to get too long, so I'm going to quote just one of your points but try to respond to them all. The crucial point seems to be this:

What hits me, is that there may be a difference between authorial intent when you are discussing something (or in the midst of a debate) and it is important to make your point clear and when you have published a fictional work like a novel or made a movie or tv show - that once presented cannot be altered or necessarily clarified.

I'm inclined to say that published works are no less intended as dialogue than any other form of communication. One reason for saying this is that I can't imagine the concept of "artist" as separate and distinct from the concept of "viewer". I doubt there would be art if no one viewed it. However, I'm not absolutely certain that this is correct, and I hedged my Art as dialogue post by describing that as "one way" to see art.

I suspect we sometimes see a work of art as fixed because for us it is. Shakespeare wrote 400 years ago; we can no longer question him about his intent. We can treat authorial intent as irrelevant simply because it's not available.

With current artists, however, can respond directly to them and seek their response back. This lack of symmetry may change the interpretive rules we accept.

The issue is especially acute when it comes to a continuing series. Let's take the example of Spike's soul. I, and many others, believed that Spike had no intent to get a soul. JW assured us that Spike did have that intent (in other words, he engaged in dialogue with us). Had BtVS ended with S6, we could adopt either interpretation. But S7 adds new information and our understanding of S7 may be radically different depending on which interpretation we adopt.

I would also suggest that the repeated metanarrations in BtVS strongly suggest that JW believes he is carrying on a dialgue with the viewers. I would even suggest that Shakespeare's prologues and narrative conclusions suggest that he also understood his plays as, in part, dialogues with the audience.

One last point. It may be that we are construing the term "art" too narrowly. Perhaps we should think of it as not just the picture in the frame, but as the picture plus context (as Rah correctly pointed out) plus dialogue.

Again, I don't want to carry this point so far as to give the author the only word. That would eliminate dialogue no less than if we ignore the author altogether. I'm just saying we should accept not only what they show us, but also what they tell us.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> authorial intent doesn't work here because... -- manwitch, 19:41:02 03/12/03 Wed

The problem with authorial intent in this context is there is no "the author."

Take Julie Taymor's Titus, which has been mentioned before on this board. Who is the author? Its not a simple question. And whatever answer someone comes up with, it can be convincingly refuted.

Same with Buffy. Marti Noxon is not "the author." Nor is Joss. There are many authors to Buffy, not simply in terms of the writing credit that goes to each episode, but throughout the entire creative process that takes it from an idea to something realized on the screen that we are free to interpret. By the time it reaches our home, it would be, I think, an incredible insult to the creative team, including the performers, to suggest that Joss or Marti or anyone was the author.

Beyond that, the author, to the degree that such a thing exists, is not always consciously aware of what it is that they are creating. To the degree that they make themselves conscious of the creative process, their proclamation of intent is also an interpretation. Read what authors say about their writing. It is very common to hear about characters who, once developed, write their own story. And in many other creative endeavors, the creative process is not an entirely conscious one. At least not in these terms. Did you see Robin Williams on Inside the Actors Studio? That isn't conscious. If he tells you what he was doing after, he is interpreting the experience after the fact. Is that interesting? Sure. Might it have relevance for us in musing about what he did? Absolutely. Does it limit the experience to his interpretation of it? Of course not. But don't let's get stuck on this example. The parallel holds with the jazz improvisor, the athlete, or the centipede trying to walk. Creative experise is beyond consciousness. It simply couldn't happen if it was in the check of consciousness the whole time.

And, getting away from that example, it is quite possible that someone outside the creation of the text will have a better vision of what it "means" than those involved in creating it. We don't always know why symbols, situations, or images affect us when we explore them in creative work. Frequently we are exploring them for precisely that reason. But it is very possible that someone else viewing from outside can make sense of it. That's part of the wonder of the creative interaction between author and audience. They are both involved in the creative act.

What authors say is interesting, because it reveals the perspective of the creative on the creative process. I think it can be very relevant to hear an author speak about their intent because it allows you to evaluate the creative process in terms of intent, what can be intended creatively, and the greater or lesser degrees to which a particular author achieves that intent, or even the degree to which it is possible to achieve that intent.

But, as has been said before, what the author says is not relevant to the interpretation of the work by the audience. Which is not the same as saying the author is wrong or that any interpretation is valid. But its what is in the text that matters, not what someone claims to have meant after. And in this case, Marti doesn't have the sole claim to authorial intent anyway.

Anyways, that Caroline is something. I'm sorry I missed this whole thing.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Read Sperber and Wilson's Relevance, or at least Grice -- luna, 18:31:44 03/12/03 Wed

Tried to summarize, but can't do them justice. They unsnarl a lot of this. There's a lot in what you're all saying, but there's a lot more, too.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Can't you give me the Cliff Notes version? :) -- Sophist, 18:42:15 03/12/03 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Inadequate attempt! -- luna, 19:59:25 03/12/03 Wed

Though actually, Sophist, I wasn't aiming that at your post specifically, though I really found your points interesting and persuasive. It was really the whole discussion.

Both theories are related, and are basically outgrowths of Speech Act theory, one approach to linguistic pragmatics.

Both postulate principles for how hearers/readers recover meaning.

Both assume that this recovery is based on the speaker's knowledge of the context of communication as well as the communication itself

And that speakers/writers must manipulate the context to convey not only meaning, but the INTENTION to communicate a particular kind of meaning.

For example, a wife wants to leave a party; she looks at her husband and glances meaningfully at the door.

How does he know how to interpret this? Based on his knowledge of her, her desire to leave usually before him, her unwillingness to say anything in front of people, their past history, etc.

But if she does this same act to someone who doesn't know her, it might make them think she wants them to notice someone who is coming in, or to close the door, etc.

Extended to literature, this means that the creator either must assume and care only for some "perfect" reader, a perfectly-tuned "husband," or accept a variety of responses. Since the real world means that we each have a different context for what we read, that means that each reader must have a slightly different interpretation.

But that completely oversimplifies the theories, so let me expand....in time to beat the Voymonster's evil archiving in resposne to a horde of Angel comments...nah, you can ask me later if you really can see any point in it!

Sorry for muddying that very clear water...
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> It's just a matter of preference -- lunasea, 08:20:03 03/12/03 Wed

Some of us like to hear the commentary and like seeing the show from different perspectives. I think the writers are funny with great personalities and enjoy just listen to them talk. It makes the show more personal for me. I like finding out about the perspective the writers are coming from. It is this perspective that generates the story.

That Marti's husband is like Riley makes sense. I married my own Riley (though he has Xander's sense of humor). We have similar senses of humor and both love/have a certain type of twisted sexuality. We tend to write from a very similar place. My husband heard her commentary on S2 and said she reminded him of me, even the way she talked. He actually started laughing and said "No wonder you like her stuff so much. She is you or you are her or however that works." Episodes of hers that people hate, I love. I can't decide what I am more excited about 21 BtVS because she is writing it or 22 AtS because Tim is. I look forward to her pilot next season. Marti without demons. It is just to delicious for words.

I hear Joss speak and I agree with a lot of it, too. I absolutely love the liner notes to OMWF. Again, my husband had to laugh when he read them. When Joss does talk about BtVS or AtS, he talks about things I have already seen. just maybe in a bit more depth or how he came up with something. I like to quote the writers to back me up and because they say things better than I do. I do the same thing when I quote the sutras. These things have been said before, so why should I say them in a less clear and concise manner?

I like the commentaries. Some of them I have watched so many times, I have them memorized. I devour interviews. I like finding out about the people behind the show.

What perspective someone takes is a matter of their preference. It is no more accurate to say that the text should stand completely on its own than it is to say that everyone should read every interview that comes out. From my POV I get the most out of the show by seeing what the writers' intent was.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> BtVS is just a TV show -- lunasea, 07:22:58 03/12/03 Wed

Machiavelli's wrote The Prince because he was in hot water with the ruling family. I don't remember the specifics, but it was a big suck up piece. He didn't actually believe what he wrote.

There is a big difference between the written word and a TV show. In your standard book, there is one author. It may get cleaned up by the editor, but there really is only one vision. With BtVS we are looking at how many writers, directors, actors, editors? Each of these people have their own visions and intents.

Typically writer's intent is brought up when people disagree about what they saw. If one person saw what the writer intended and one didn't is that the fault of the writer or the audience? The responsibility for understanding cannot rest 100% on the writer. As Joss says "Some people just don't get it."

Also, some things are fairly important, like why Spike went to Africa. If Joss feels it necessary to clear this up, I see no reason to stick with my interpretation. It is a TV show. Sometimes things work and sometimes they don't. I think Marti talks so much is because S6 was so far outside the realm of people's experiences that they didn't get it.

Sometimes things don't come across as intended. I see nothing wrong with the writers saying this. Then it is up to the audience which story they prefer, the one the writers wanted to write or the one they thought they saw. The one they continue to write is based on the one they wanted to write.

This position is as valid as any other. I like commentary. I like seeing tomorrow's episode based on what the writers were trying to show yesterday rather than what may or may not have come across. I have only disagreed with them a few times. Usually when I find out I went to deep (like with Spike), it makes me laugh my ass off and even learn a bit about myself. Mostly the interviews just confirm what I already thought. If I disagreed with them strongly, I probably wouldn't watch the show.
[> [> [> [> [> New Critics, not reader response -- Scroll, 01:03:01 03/12/03 Wed

Unless I'm way off base again, I think the analytical theory I'm actually thinking of is New Criticism. Which tries to figure out authorial intent. Somebody let me know if I'm wrong, please! I just don't know where I left my notes from that class... I'm losing my long-term memory at such a tender age *sigh* ;)
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: New Critics, not reader response -- luna, 19:04:21 03/12/03 Wed

Reader response, and other critical theories later, put the reader's experience as central. I too thought authorial intent went along with New Criticism and its 1950's and earlier cronies.

Personally, I think authorial intent is one part of the reader's context for interpretation--but not the main part. It's up to the author to figure out where the reader is, not vice versa (and a passle of thinkers along that line include Grice, Sperber & Wilson, and I believe the FE himself, Derrida).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: the FE himself, Derrida -- zantique, 00:38:34 03/13/03 Thu

haha - I've just been re-reading the D-man this week and that line just cracked me up entirely

thank you! I needed that
[> [> [> [> [> I think you might have the wrong theory? (OT mostly) -- skyMatrix, 01:05:26 03/12/03 Wed

Just last quarter I had my second class in literary theory, this one lower-division, and it doesn't sound like reader response is what you remember it to be. (I'm almost done with my BA in English, btw) To be certain myself, I consulted The Critical Tradition, ed. David H. Richter, the theory anthology we used in my upper-division class.

It says here that reader-response critics "all have in common the conviction that that the audience plays a vitally important role in shaping the literary experience." So reader-response criticism seems to be the opposite of what you remember, placing the audience's reaction above the author's intention and the critic's interpretation... sorta (it gets messy of course).

I'm not totally certain, then, which critical theory you meant to refer to. There is biographical criticism, in which you address what elements in the author's life led him or her to create what was created. Marti Noxon's interview quote, provided by ponygirl, in which she compares Buffy's experience to Joss Whedon's life, would probably be biographical criticism. This isn't one of the most popular theoretical approaches (I'm not even sure it is one, I'm going by memory here) because it's obviously limited.

Formalism, or New Criticism (it's kinda old actually) holds that every text is a unified whole that must be interpreted without any baggage of the reader's, the critic's, or even the writer's. If you even consider what the writer says he or she was trying to express, you are committing the "intentional fallacy," which is only gramatically different from what Solitude1056 described as a philosophical concept. Meanwhile, the "affective fallacy" refers to the reader interpreting things on an overly personal level (I think). Both concepts are put forth by W.K. Wimsatt and Monroe C. Beardsley. In general, formalism is now percieved as being too rigid.

Hmm, still not sure which approach can be said to place the writer's intentions paramount. New Historicism (looking at the text in all kinds of context) values the writer's intention but doesn't priviledge it too much. And psychoanalysis and deconstruction don't seem to fit the bill. Alas, sometimes I confuse myself. :P

(Apologies if this is beyond the patience or interest of the board posters, I'm still new here as far as posting goes!)
[> [> [> [> [> [> Our patience is long -- Scroll, 01:17:56 03/12/03 Wed

Thanks for the info, it helps! Now, as for which theory I really meant, I think new historicism is actually the closest. Funny, I'm about to graduate from English too (BA) but I cannot remember *anything* from my Brit Lit class three years ago. My memory sucks, and I don't have my notes. Worse, I studied all those things you listed: New Historicism, New Criticism, deconstruction, reader response, etc. Wonder why I paid tuition all these years if I can't remember... Also, I'm too lazy to look stuff up. But thank you for your timely intervention. : )
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Also, welcome to the board! -- Scroll :o), 01:19:01 03/12/03 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> [> Ooh, validation and the fallacy of intentionality -- Solitude1056, 10:41:26 03/12/03 Wed

If you even consider what the writer says he or she was trying to express, you are committing the "intentional fallacy," which is only gramatically different from what Solitude1056 described as a philosophical concept.

Actually, I ran across it the most as a rebuttal to theological arguments that such-and-such writing shouldn't be considered because "we don't know what the author intended." Big reason for not counting Book of Revelations. (But I, in my infinite evil wisdom, know already that the author of the Book of Revelations was a Jewish scholar who hallucinated billions of people running around hollering, "any day now!" while spending a rainy Thursday afternoon getting high on ancient goodies.)

Anyway, the fallacy of intentionality (or vice versa) is often at play in the theological world, when people say, "oh, if only we knew what Paul was thinking when he said women should cover their heads in church!" This argument (more of an excuse, actually) seems to get pulled out most often when the issue is a difficult one, and the secret message, revealed by my theological training decoder ring, is this:

We can't agree on what it means. And we don't have the author telling us what s/he meant when writing it, so we should probably just set it aside because we'll never really understand it until we can find out what the author meant.
This is a bit of a problem, since neither seances nor time machines have proven to be effective yet. Of course, what we haven't mentioned yet is that the intentionality fallacy assumes there must be an underlying truth buried somewhere. That if the author could just tell us what s/he did, thought, rewrote, and generally meant, then we'd be enlightened and move another step closer to Buffy Buddhahood. However, as I mentioned in another post (see a few lines above), the author creates the piece but when it goes through enactment/interpretation by others (director, actors, editors, audience), the original meaning may move several steps to one side or another, if not be flipped completely. So to really know the intentionality (and thus the mythical 'underlying truth,') we'd need to interview all of the intermediates as well, and somehow divine how much impact each had on the process. We couldn't go with just the author, because they're no longer the only cook in the kitchen.

And btw, welcome to the board. Keep talking!
[> [> [> [> [> [> great post. Welcome to the board! -- s'kat, 14:32:29 03/12/03 Wed

I tend to agree with Sol's take on this, but your post above was very informative. Been a long time since I've read up on reader response theory - it can get confusing.

My general attitude towards it - is while the author's intent and background can be informative to a piece, it should not in any way overtake the reader's or audience's view or equally valid interpretations and perceptions of it. When critiquing or analyzing a work - I often find it helps to get a range of views on it, partly to get past each of the fallacies you mention.

I want to know how much of what I see or read is a reflection of my own experience and issues, how much was clearly intended by the creator or creators, and how much is seen by others who have experiences different or common to my own. When I was an English major eons ago - I remember reading biographical data on the writers, reading other critics analyses of the work, discussing the work with other students who had recently read of similar and diverigent backgrounds from my own, and taking my interpretation into account. I do the same thing when I watch Buffy. In fact I think you may have touched on the reason that I came online in the first place - an urgent need to see how much of what I saw on the show was separate from my own experience and also the need to see which if any layers I had missed.

Thanks again for your post. And welcome.

SK
[> [> [> [> [> [> Well, sort of... -- Random, 14:51:05 03/12/03 Wed

The problem with reader-response (ironically, I mentioned one of its foremost proponents, Stanley Fish, in chat yesterday) is that it is more a social doctrine than a literary one in practice. That is to say, the literary doctrine is sound in theory, but its proponents have used it as a basis for self-promotion. Therefore, in practice, it generally boils down to the modern audience attempting, by hook or crook, to co-opt the Text, and doing so by invalidating the author's intent. Luckily, r-r crit's heyday has passed and people have settled down and are now arguing that nothing matters, it's all just a blip in the cosmos and that the only thing for it is to drink strong coffee and spend hours discussing how it really matters that nothing matters. We call it post-post-modernism with post-post-structuralism thrown in to keep it interesting. Oh god, now I'm depressed.

BTW, excellent post. Welcome to the board.

~Random, who finished his M.A. in English mostly unscarred by critical theory. Just a few wounds here and there to remind him to never start caring about anything.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Well, sort of... -- Random, 14:51:06 03/12/03 Wed

The problem with reader-response (ironically, I mentioned one of its foremost proponents, Stanley Fish, in chat yesterday) is that it is more a social doctrine than a literary one in practice. That is to say, the literary doctrine is sound in theory, but its proponents have used it as a basis for self-promotion. Therefore, in practice, it generally boils down to the modern audience attempting, by hook or crook, to co-opt the Text, and doing so by invalidating the author's intent. Luckily, r-r crit's heyday has passed and people have settled down and are now arguing that nothing matters, it's all just a blip in the cosmos and that the only thing for it is to drink strong coffee and spend hours discussing how it really matters that nothing matters. We call it post-post-modernism with post-post-structuralism thrown in to keep it interesting. Oh god, now I'm depressed.

BTW, excellent post. Welcome to the board.

~Random, who finished his M.A. in English mostly unscarred by critical theory. Just a few wounds here and there to remind him to never start caring about anything.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Sorry about double post. Dunno how that happened. Evil Voy hates me especially<looking paranoid> -- Random, 14:54:07 03/12/03 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> [> Critical methods -- Zus, 16:27:06 03/12/03 Wed

Wow, something I know about. As an English professor, I work with critical approaches to literature daily. From what I've seen on this board, the most often used forms pf critique are Reader-response, which SkyMatrix has carefully defined, and Formalist criticism, which is the idea that a literary work is best understood by reference to its literary elements--focusing on style, tone, genre, symbolism, figurative language, etc. This focusing is called close reading, or in this case, close watching I guess. Formalists believe that a careful close reading of a text will help the reader understand how the elements work together to make meaning. This interdependence is what makes the text (show) literary. This form would include explication in the case of poetry.
Biographical criticism believes that the circumstances of an author's life necessarily influence the meaning of the text. Sometimes knowing an important fact about an author can greatly enhance our understanding. The distinction between Biographical and Historical criticism is small but important--Historical criticism believes that social, political, cultural factors which are in play when the work is produced are important. It is important to understand how the work effected its original audience and how the meaning has changed over time. I tend to apply all of these in my teaching of different works. There are many others--Gender, Mythological, Sociological, Deconstructionist,Marxist, Green (something to do with ecology, not too clear on this one) but, I really know of none that favor what the author intended over what the audience perceives. Whew. Heading back to lurkdom now.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Uh-oh, English prof in our midst! -- Scroll, 16:49:18 03/12/03 Wed

Welcome to the board, Zus. Thanks for outlining those forms of criticism above. It's certainly making me wish I had paid more attention in class! Or at least had a better memory for literary criticism.

One thing I've learned from this Board is that there can never be too many ways of analysing Buffy and Angel. Each approach lends something new and interesting to our understanding. I'm sure I speak for the group when I say we'd love to add your voice to the group. Welcome!
[> [> [> [> Re: Well, she agreed -- CW, 16:26:24 03/11/03 Tue

I am a viewer and if the writer's intent matches what I see, I don't see how that is irrelevant.

Maddog was saying that the author's view on what they have written is irrefutable. If that were true I'd never have to correct my typos. The point is if the work and the author's intentions agree why bother worrying about what the author says later. You're just hearing the same thing again. If they don't agree why bother with what the author says later. You won't learn any cogent to the work . It's always irrelevant to the work. What the author says later proves nothing one way or another about the work. Should we give up on Shakespeare because we don't have copious notes about what the author was thinking? Would it make any difference to understanding of the plays, if we had those notes? If you can say yes to that question you're mixing the author and the literature in one pot, and you're bound see things in the literature that aren't really there. (Not at all necessarily the case in this instance!)

However on the other hand if what you're interested in is the writing process rather than the work itself then what the author says can be very important. Caroline is asking the question did MN do what she said she wanted to. That's a question about the writing process. If you think they matched, your discussion should be with Caroline.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Well, she agreed -- Rahael, 04:24:40 03/12/03 Wed

I'm interested, are we saying we don't need to know about the author's opinion on his/her work, and that we need not know anything about the background to the play?

For example, Thomas Wyatt's 'translation' of Petrarch's sonnet about Laura certainly stands on its own without any need to read Petrarch's in Italian. But, reading the original sonnet shows significant divergences from the original sonnet. Significant enough for us to see that the difference was meant .

Petrarch's original talks about the beautiful Laura, who has died, and is now in the hands of a greater king. She is untouchable, holy, ungraspable. He chases after her, but fails. It's simultaneously a poem about love, and a poem about God and his church.

In Wyatt's poem, the emotions become a little cruder. The Deer in his poem seems a little less holy. The jewels graven about her neck have a different significance to the jewels around Laura's neck. There's a cynical tone. He says he knows where you can hunt for a hind, if you were so inclined. While others are eagre, he trails behind. She seems wild and untamed, but in fact she is a possession. There is no mystical experience in Wyatt's poem. No awe.

Does it add depth to the reader's understanding of the poem if we know that Wyatt was a courtier? That he was a member of Henry VIII's court? That Henry VIII, formerly Defender of the Faith, had given up the church for the love of a 'possessed' and bought woman of his court?

Does this transform this poem into a daring criticism of the King right under his nose? Subtle, requiring knowledge of the original, undermining Henry's claims to holiness and greatness, while demurely, and ostensibly just carrying out a translation of a sonnet?

Knowing who Wyatt was, knowing that he was imprisoned after Henry got tired of Anne Boleyn, and that he could see his friends being beheaded from his prison cell, does this illume and add to his work? Does it help the reader to tease out where Wyatt the person is speaking, and where Wyatt the poet is expressing sentiments that are not his own?

It does for me. Good thing that even if it's not fashionable, I can keep on making those connections, looking for the communication between me and the text, and the author, and adding incredible meaning, resonance and subtlety to my appreciation.

At the end of the day, I think it's pretty much up to the individual to decide how they wish to approach a text, what they want from it, and how it resonates with them. I don't think there is a 'right' way, though I think conclusions should be up for debate. Just cos it's interesting.

I sometimes change my position depending on the text I'm looking at. When I did a wonderful term of literature and politics, I read virtually no commentaries on the text. I was just too busy, there was too much work - imagine reading all of Shakespeare's and Marlowe's history plays in one afternoon! No time for anything else. But I only did this because I had already spent two years studying virtually nothing else except the period these artists wrote in. I felt I had enough of an understanding of the complexity of their world, and the world visions they might have had, to appreciate it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Well, she agreed -- CW, 07:10:16 03/12/03 Wed

Poetry is often a different matter, I'll agree. There have only been a few periods in the history of western prose movements that symbolism has been as important as it frequently is in poetry. The problem with thick symbolism is that if your not in on the 'joke' you're not going to appreciate it fully. It's kind of a way for a poet to make his own snobby clique; i.e. only people who know the things he knows will appreaciate his poem, but nobody else is worthy of it anyway. That discription is very harsh I realize, but it's true. I think such writing is acceptable for poetry, because if the reader does have the proper background the shared experience between the reader and writer can be greater. Poetry is often so cryptic that knowing something about the author can be very important toward the enjoyment as you've pointed out. I'm a firm believer that prose be self contained; that the individual work or set of works (as in BtVS or a trilogy, for example) be mostly understandable and enjoyable without knowing anything about the author or even anything else he or she has written.


But, I still have to say that's not the same thing as the poet saying at some later date, "I meant in this in this line." That is a strong indication that either the poet no longer thinks his metaphor and symbolism were adequate or that he realizes his original audience (the ones who would understand) was too narrow.

Learning about a prose author can be equally enjoyable, but I put that under enjoyment of biography. Mixing prose literature and biography is frequently done, but as I said in my last post that can be a mine field. Dostoevsky is a prime example of an author whose interesting life obviously affected his work. He was actually led out to be executed, before his sentence for being part of a 'subversive' group was commuted. His writing before and after his arrest is worlds apart. Critics of Russian literature will go on endlessly about his world view. But, the point is that even if you know absolutely nothing about him, his work is still worth reading, because it's always internally complete.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Here is an example where intent helps (spoiler=Showtime) -- lunasea, 08:45:37 03/12/03 Wed

Drowning a vampire. The boards lit up with how stupid it was to drown a vampire. The symbolism seemed pretty obvious to me. Probably to most of this board. Still a lot of fans went on and on about how a vampire doesn't breath. That is one of those places where intent could have cleared up a lot.

For me, most of the lesbian things went right over my head. Not with Willow/Tara, but with Faith/Buffy. Knowing this was one layer they were writing on, gave me another whole layer to those episodes. The commentary isn't because the work isn't complete. It just adds layers.

Sometimes the audience doesn't get it. It is wrong (IMNSHO) to assume that the author has failed if the audience doesn't see something. Sometimes the audience can't see things unless they are pointed out to them. Why deprive the audience of this added layer because the audience's experience didn't make it obvious?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Here is an example where intent helps (spoiler=Showtime) -- CW, 11:14:46 03/12/03 Wed

Actually it's not a good example for your case. You can interpret it as "The writer must know what she/he is doing, so therefore I missed something," or "The writer stretched the symbolism in context beyond the reasonable, so therefore it was a bad piece of writing." If so many people are griping so much, then perhaps it's time for the author to reexamine how he/she expresses what he/she means. Again that's a writing process question. As everyone who's ever taught knows, you can't get through to everyone. A writer can't be expected to make everyone understand. It's just impossible. But, if you've established a certain set of rules in a story, and then violate them without explanation in context, you are asking for big trouble as a writer. If all the layers aren't in the story, then the story isn't finished.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Here is an example where intent helps (spoiler=Showtime) -- lunasea, 12:43:26 03/12/03 Wed

If Spike died, I can see your point. He didn't. He got held under water. It messed up his hair. It splashed on his cuts. I bet he didn't like that.

Bullets can't kill a vampire. Neither can stabbing. Can hurt like hell though. Why can't "drowning" be an unpleasant, torturous experience? Does it really matter that much? It was great to watch.

At this point (after 6 1/2 + 3 1/2 seasons), I would say that ME knows what they are doing and therefore I have missed something (or it really isn't important enough to worry about, like retconing "Angel" and "Darla"). I didn't miss this particular one. I actually liked the symbolism and it was fun for the whole family to watch Spike tortured. Forget the symbolism. It was just damn entertaining.

Seemed pretty obvious to me, but EVERY time I thought the characters were acting out of character, that was deliberate. Whenever little warning bells go off in me that something doesn't feel right, that is something that drives the arc. It is that word EVERY that has led me to put my faith in Joss. It has also led me to see what tends to drive the arcs.

Some people get caught up in the warning bells and miss their explanation episodes later.

I think the lesbian thing illustrated the point rather well.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yup, yup, that's what I meant. -- Solitude1056, 08:58:16 03/12/03 Wed

But, I still have to say that's not the same thing as the poet saying at some later date, "I meant in this in this line." That is a strong indication that either the poet no longer thinks his metaphor and symbolism were adequate or that he realizes his original audience (the ones who would understand) was too narrow.

I quoted it again so you'd know what I meant when I say, "exactly!"

Bwahahaha.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> A drive by posting -- Rahael, 14:46:07 03/12/03 Wed

Hmm, that's an interesting point about prose and poetry. I'll have to think more about it. But I just wanted to add something else. I think poetry at its heart be even more accessible for those who cannot understand it than any other. Because even if the metaphors and concepts aren't working for you, you have the beauty, the sound and the rhythm of verse. Great prose will have that too.

I love reading out Dante in Italian though i barely understand it. And some poetry, with its cadences and incredible structure is designed to affect you in ways that rise above the words and ideas. So perhaps not so cliquey maybe?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A drive by posting -- Arethusa, 15:00:46 03/12/03 Wed

Like Poe-I first read his peotry when very young, and didn't even know what half the words meant. But I loved the sound of the words, the use of repetition and alliteration. I use the same techniques in my posts sometimes for the effect.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A drive by posting -- CW, 17:26:52 03/12/03 Wed

I think that sound aspect of poetry is very important, as well. How many people really understand every word in Shakespeare's plays any more without some help? I've noticed that at the begining of a good (British naturally) performance of Shakespeare, it's hard to understand anything. Then the rhythym kicks in and words I can't define are perfectly understandable in context. Like different tastes in music, though, some people care for poetry a lot more than others do. (I used to think of rap as bad poetry to a good beat. These days to me, it's just bad poetry.)

Italian does have a certain sound appeal, doesn't it? I've never studied it either, but I've memorized Avogadro's Law (important in chemistry) in Italian because it sounds great. (Talk about geeky!) I'm not a big opera fan, but a lot of people tell me they enjoy Italian opera better when they don't understand what's being said.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh yes -- Rahael, 03:40:18 03/13/03 Thu

For some reason I find it hard to listen to Italian operas where the words have been translated into English!! Not just Italian, I guess I prefer listening to the familiar words.

I, after all, learnt to read English before I could understand it. I learnt it by reading aloud to my mother every night (I was in England for 2 years when I was 6), even if I didn't understand what was happening. By 6 months, I found that things started slipping into place. (I can remember having trouble figuring out how to pronounce 'laugh')

But, the world of English literature is always a little removed, even my beloved poetry. There's nothing like the sound of my mother tongue to evoke emotions in me that I didn't realise I had. Works of art written in English just inherently seems more formal to me. For a long time it wasn't the langauage of every day. I wrote essays, and was taught in a totally different medium, spoke to people in every day circumstances in my first language. English I reserved for the world of books and stories. It's a club I got to join by accident! Oh, and I was inspired to learn Italian too, because of Dante. I did it with a dictionary and a English and Italian side by side version. In the end I got too impatient, and just read the English version all the way through, enjoying the sounds of the Italian verse without trying to understand it.

And, if on rare occasions now I have to use my other language, the world around me seems to change a little. An imperceptible shifting.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Now you're bringing tears to my eyes. Who needs poetry when we have you around? o) -- CW, 05:38:54 03/13/03 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Awwwww!! -- Rahael, 05:44:13 03/13/03 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Would you mind? -- luna, 08:27:04 03/13/03 Thu

..telling us what your mother tongue is? I'm just curious because I'm a linguist by training and partly an ESL teacher by trade. But since even insensitive moi can see that if you wanted to tell us, you probably would have by now, so feel free to ignore this request.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> In the way of a driveby -- fresne, 18:08:18 03/12/03 Wed

"I love reading out Dante in Italian though i barely understand it."

Funny. Just last night my housemate was suggesting that we learn Italian so we could read Dante in the original. Since, we were driving on a freeway at about my 70+ mph, my only response was "Guh!" and some Buffy-esk eye rolls of terror. Foreign languages not being my strong point. Oh, the horror.

On the other hand, something other than a note to look on the left hand side because Dante's using harsh sounding words to indicate the harshness of the environment, might be nice.

Also, you're right the allusion isn't always necessary to enjoyment of poetry. It was years before I learned that Hotel California is about Odysseus's little hijack with Circe. Yet, quite an enjoyable song/selection of words without that added layer.

The best things in life are flaky. Like tiramisu. Because you know, then there's the chocolate layer.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yum, tiramisu! -- Scroll, 18:18:20 03/12/03 Wed

Know exactly what you mean about Dante, fresne.

I love reading the DVD commentaries Rahael, s'kat, and others have posted, but I think you're right in that we can still derive enjoyment from the text even without knowing the background behind it. Er, not that I know anything about "Hotel California" or Odysseus and Circe.

The best things in life are flaky. Like tiramisu. Because you know, then there's the chocolate layer.

Now you've made me want dessert... Mmm, tiramisu. Mmm, chocolate : )
[> [> Here's Marti's own words -- lunasea, 14:55:46 03/11/03 Tue

I wrote that entire thing before I even saw this. It was my interpretation of S6 based on my own experiences. The purpose of that thread was to possibly help people understand what Buffy was feeling (or not feeling) by using my own experiences to elaborate. By the time I finished, I figured I had gotten too deep or way just projecting as usual. Then my husband found this for me (don't know how I missed an interview, especially one by Marti).

I think everybody thought the show got perhaps a little too dark and intense last year, especially for younger viewers. It went to a real sexual place with Buffy and Spike, and Buffy was really going through a dark night of the soul -- which I think people found interesting, but only to a point. I think that one of the things we had already been striving to do, and one thing UPN really wants us to do, is to see that it doesn't get as dark this season.

link: http://www.prevuemagazine.com/Articles/Thevault/589

Somehow I would think that someone associated with/heading a show that uses such mythic themes would know what that term means. It is a profound absense of light and hope. A good link is: http://www.themystic.org/dark-night/index.htm

(sorry that I don't feel like making them clickable. Dinner is almost ready)

Different people see different things. If a writer, especially Joss or Marti, says something is what a character was going through, that is what happened in the Buffyverse. People can argue about whether their intent was realized, but that is why I tried to elaborate on what Buffy was feeling/not-feeling. I'm not sure how well it came across to the audience as a whole.

It came across to me. Maybe I will be able to watch it better in a few years.

I didn't think that Spike went to Africa to actually get his soul. I thought the demon read his heart's desire and gave hm what he really wanted, rather than what he thought he did. Joss said differently and I have accepted that. Still like my interpretation better :-) but the show is built on HIS idea. If I continue to interpret the show from *my* idea, I will be way off. These things snowball quickly.
[> [> Re: Buffy in S6 - a rebuttal of Marti Noxon -- Alison, 15:37:10 03/11/03 Tue

As someone who writes frequently, I have to disagree with you.
1) I often find that when writing, the story gets away from me, in a way. I simply become a tool to tell certain character's stories, and I don't have much control.
2) I think the beauty of writing is that everyone interperts a story differently..the purpose of a story is two fold: to express the feelings of the author, and to allow the reader to veiw it through their own spectrum of experience and gain something from it. So everyone's interpertation is valid, as are their emotions.

Not sure that made much sense,and its just my opinion...
[> [> Yes and no. -- Solitude1056, 21:34:18 03/11/03 Tue

You can disgaree with how it came out, but not really the inentions. If Marti says she meant it to be dark night of soul then that's what she meant by what she did. There's no ambiguity there.

Sure there's plenty of ambiguity. Not because Marti is in doubt about her plan or her methods, but because she's misused a term. "Dark night of the soul" seems to be used, in a wider colloquial sense, to mean, "when I'm really depressed and hating life." As Caroline so succinctly pointed out, this isn't entirely accurate. There's more to the phrase. IOW, you may say that you want an Internet Portal, but your demonstration model is just a single web page with a bunch of links. There may be folks out there who also think a page o' links is a Portal, but those of us with the technical training are aware there's more to it than that. Reading some of the other responses, I find it mildly amusing that people can get irked, as though it's my fault (or Caroline's, actually) for misunderstanding their misuse of an otherwise well-defined psychological-cum-philosophical phrase.

Marti is a writer, and a fine one, but she's used a term in a misleading manner. The first step in good communication is making sure we're using our terms in an accurate, precise and socially-clear manner. As philosophers and quasi-philosophers, this is one place I would've expected folks to know colloquial vs. technical understandings of a phrase.
[> [> [> LOL! You can't say that! -- Celebaelin, 03:52:42 03/12/03 Wed

I'm posting a bit early on this as I have yet to check out the exact portion of Mesopotamian-Sumarian myth Caroline's referring to, I'm going to butt in anyway though. This comment also has relevance as regards the retcon. thread but I think it's best placed here, it's a point about ambiguity.

What is to say that writers cannot deliberately script their work so as to allow multiple interpretations? This allows the predominant preoccupation of the individual audience member to be satisfied whilst still progressing the plot. Much of what some people will regard as disappointing about the outcome of a piece (including certain Buffy stand-alones, mentioning no names) is that the events do not seem fair or true to life to them or that the characters behaviour seems inconsistent. Either the internal logic of the piece or the characterisation is compromised. With Buffy we have the luxury of lots of additional information about the characters, the Buffyverse in general and even the path to completion of the presentation so the chances of producing a definitive appraisal of the work are greatly increased. Take Shakespeare's Henry V though, one simple line of relatively little consequence but one with which most people will be familiar. Oh, hang on, in the film Renaissance Man the de Vito characters says that you can't see this play in the USA, they have to go to Canada, is that true? Anyway, as I said, this is the first line only of a speech which serves to establish King Henry as a leader of men in battle.

Conventionally this is written as

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more,

(Attack the hole in the wall again)

Not much to go on as concerns interpretation you might think but 'once' can be heard as 'wants' in either or both uses

Wants more, unto the breach dear friends, wants more,

Wants in this context could mean needs, it could also mean desires.

Henry might be motivating his troops to 'stick it up their ass (again, possibly)' in order to exploit the breach in the wall. Militarily, if the wall was breached it would be unlikely that multiple assaults would be required so the second use is probably a re-iteration. The line refers to the historical siege and capture of the port of Harfleur incidentally.

After having said all that however the question of interpretation still remains, what would your portrayal of the recently crowned Prince Hal be likely to say to his men-at-arms and is one performance objectively any better than another on the basis of delivery or interpretation. The play is in fact a more interesting work because of its' ambiguities and I don't see the necessity to definitively nail down the precise meaning. With BtVS, where further information confining previous events, or rather the interpretation of those events, is forthcoming it seems to occur either as a plot development or as a solution to a current problem. What it is never been is an irrelevance intended to clarify a previous point. Why confine yourself or the viewers unnecessarily to one interpretation? As I write I am looking forward to my first viewing of NA tomorrow and wondering what I will make of it.

The retconning (ah, retroactive continuity) aspects of certain eps. I have found to detract from the willing suspension of disbelief required in viewing any dramatic work. The troll hammer reveal I found very weak "So you couldn't have mentioned this earlier? 'Cos like then we could have just pounded Glory into a greasy spot before she started making with the hostageness (and perhaps even getting all apocalypsy)". There was a fair point made about Anya staying in with the demon community but I think letting Glory go about opening an apocalyptic gate to a hell dimension would probably have spoit everyone's' day. It wasn't even found in research, just blurted out in response to a moment's criticism, poorly done in my opinion.

I'll post on the true Mesopotamia ring later if I can research it in time. That itself probably requires some explanation. Mesopotamia - from the Greek, the land between the rivers (Tigris and Euphrates) ie Iraq. the true Mesopotamia ring is a term for something that sounds fascinating, intriguing and pleasing but is in fact beyond comprehension. Apparently, so the story runs, a lady told her pastor that she "...found great support in that blessed word "Mesopotamia'."
[> Brilliant! -- luna, 09:45:38 03/11/03 Tue

This is really excellent--exactly true on the psychology of S6 and the Buffy/Spike relationship. I'm really intrigued by your start on Spike's women. I had noticed how he fell so completely in love, but hadn't seen this issue of the missing father and the wounded women. This absolutely fits with what I see of his psychology, that he's pre-Oedipal. That's why he's willing to go to such enormous lengths to gain Buffy's acceptance. I wonder, though, IRL, is a good relationship with a woman possible for a man with his background? Won't he always want too much from her, smother her rather than challenge her, as he seemed to with Dru? Or is it that the woman has to learn to accept this kind of love, and is that a task for her?

However, with Spike, I think there's also a moral issue. Unlike Angel, who as Liam, pre-vamp, was not a particularly good person, Spike as William was good. He says to Cecily, "I may be a bad poet, but I'm a good man." Before he re-gains his soul, he chooses in S5 to sacrifice himself to Glory to save Dawn. Perhaps this is an aspect of his total devotion to Buffy, but it also sets the stage for his choice in S6 to regain his soul. So I would say that the story of Spike is a story of the survival of more than a spark of original human goodness, even when bound in demon form. That's in addition to, not instead of, the psychological point you make so well (and that I'd really like to read more of!). Thanks.
[> [> Can a 'bad boyfriend' be a good partner? -- Arethusa, 10:25:20 03/11/03 Tue

I wonder, though, IRL, is a good relationship with a woman possible for a man with his background? Won't he always want too much from her, smother her rather than challenge her, as he seemed to with Dru? Or is it that the woman has to learn to accept this kind of love, and is that a task for her?

I believe it is possible for two people to deal with such issues successfully. Yes, he will always want too much, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he won't challenge her. Spike frequently challenged Buffy's refusal to cope with reality and her emotions. A strong woman (the only kind Spike seems to really be interested in) would be able to resist being smothered. Absolute devotion would be easy to accept, as long as it's tempered with the ability to address the issues arising from neediness and insecurity.

And I second your request-more on Spike (and Dawn), please!
[> [> Re: Brilliant! -- Caroline, 13:58:22 03/11/03 Tue

Perhaps Spike can be a 'good enough' boyfriend. Are any of us so adjusted that we can say that we are healthy or sane enough to be a good partner? I think that that Arethusa's point is a really good one - it's how well he can accomodate and discipline the inner yearnings, how conscious he can become of how they affect his relationships. I also agree that the good man that Spike once was means that the demon he became was more pragmatic and less driven by pure evil. To use Joss' terms, his moral compass was over towards the evil side of the spectrum but perhaps less so than other demons. That's why he loves Dru, that's why he helps Buffy in S2, that's why he understands slayer psychology in FFL, that's why the chip can modify his behaviour so easily, and that's why his devotion to Buffy is apparent. Okay, I'm really going to have to write this Spike post soon.
[> Fantastic post -- Tchaikovsky, 09:57:35 03/11/03 Tue

Have no time to write anything the length this post deserves in reply- but loved a lot of your parallels, and agree on your summation of Buffy- as well as what you do say on Dawn and Spike. Hoping this thread becomes abundant so I can add more later.

TCH
[> Excellent post. -- Arethusa, 10:35:47 03/11/03 Tue

A wonderfully comprehensive and enlightening examination of Buffy's journey in season 6. Thanks very much for taking the time to do this. I hope you can get to Spike soon!
[> S6 - the thing with feathers -- Anneth, 11:29:13 03/11/03 Tue

Imagine chasing a little bird, maybe a finch, through a woodsy grove. Every time you get within a few feet of it, it flutters off to a new perch, maybe twenty feet away. You never completely lose sight of it, but you never get quite close enough to touch it, either. And yet, you feel compelled to chase it. It's no wonder Emily Dickenson said "hope is the thing with feathers."

The fascinating thing about S6 to me was the fact that every few episodes, ME would give us a smidgen of hope that things were about to improve a little for Buffy; that things couldn't possibly get much worse for her. And then they'd cruelly dash our hopes by making something else go horribly wrong with her life. For every Older and Far Away, which ended on a somewhat positive note, we'd get a DoubleMeat Palace, which ended with Buffy humbling herself to ask for her dead-end job back. For every Normal Again, which ended with Buffy pulling herself together at the end, and not consigning her friends and sister to death, we'd get Entropy, which ended with a devastating one-two punch of Spike-betrayal (sleeping with Anya; making clear to Xander that he had previously been sleeping with Buffy.)


You have to admire ME - they took a beloved character and dropped a load of bricks on her, and then an anvil, and then a dead horse, and then they kicked her in the shins. It takes a lot of guts to put your main character through the garbage disposal of life for an entire *season.* S6 didn't really have a happy ending, or even the trademark ME bitter-sweet ending: yes, Willow didn't destroy the world, but she and every other character was left to deal with the consequences of their season of severe human failings. THey didn't cheer, or even grin - they survived.

Anyway, the point is that I agree with your post, Caroline - Buffy's Dark Night came at the end of S5, when she actually went catatonic with despair. S6 was the beginning of her journey towards fully-realized adulthood. The funny thing about despair - it's a stepping-stone to maturity. To complete my sorta lame metaphore, Buffy never stopped chasing the finch of hope (omigawd, that's the cheesiest thing I've *ever written ever!*) in S6; the closest she came to giving up was in Normal Again. She had no S6 experience on par with Spiral/Weight of the World, no utter despair, no complete absense of hope. As ME would give the viewer smidgens of hope every so often, so would it give Buffy hope; a little bit here, a little bit there. As bad as things got for Buffy and everyone else, she could still end the season laughing about it.
[> [> Agree completely! -- Caroline, 14:04:16 03/11/03 Tue

I had the same sense of S6 - although I did not come up with your cute and whimsical bird/feather thingy! I remember being here during S6 and we would all happily post about some great progress that Buffy had made and then despair over the two steps back taken in the next ep. The few complaints I have about S6 had nothing to do with Buffy's slow return to the world - I was just amazed that Joss and the other writers could put something so psychologically real for so long - it was a brave decision and it certainly paid off for me.

;) I'm still addicted to you anneth!
[> [> Love the bird metaphor -- Tchaikovsky, 03:09:28 03/13/03 Thu

Very good point about Season Six- you keep wondering whether Buffy is about to get her old life back- but she doesn't, and it's only in 'Grave' that she finally learns how to love the beauty of the world again
[> Illuminating! Also: comforted by mourners... -- Just George, 11:42:34 03/11/03 Tue

Thank you. This was very illuminating. I enjoyed it a lot and hope to read your take on Dawn and Spike in Season 6. One comment:


Caroline: "The presence of Buffy's sister makes its own demands on her - she must be a mother before she has even been a wife. The return also means the responsibility of her slaying. Yet all she wants is the sylvan retirement of paradise. Like Ereshkigal, she if comforted by a mourners - in the form of Spike. From the beginning, he makes no demands, is there for her and makes no demands that she changes anything - even her depression."


At one point my wife Donji and I talked about how the Scoobies should have handled Buffy's return in S6. We postulated a real world model of a woman who went into a coma for several months. During the coma, friends took over her responsibilities. When the sleeper awoke she was disoriented, physically and emotionally off balance, and perhaps even depressed. She had symptoms that resembled Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. How should the sleeper be handled?

I hope her friends would give the sleeper lots of time to recover. They should NOT load her with responsibilities. They dealt with problems when the sleeper was away; they can deal with problems until she is ready to get back into life full time. If the sleeper wants to spend the next couple of months in front of the TV eating cookie dough mint chip ice cream, fine, let her recover. Spend time with her. Movie night is a good idea. More bonding, fewer demands. As the sleeper recovers, she will ease herself back into life a bit at a time. As the sleeper successfully re-assumes her previous responsibilities, her friends can move their relationships back to something resembling the pre-coma state.

In Buffy's case, the Scoobies could have maintained responsibility for her finances, raising Dawn, and for patrolling. These are activities that they could handle (and had been handling all summer). If a powerful monster came on the scene (or a powerful group of monsters like the demon bikers) they could ask Buffy for help. But they probably wouldn't have to. Buffy would volunteer. Otherwise the Scoobies could have let Buffy recover her equilibrium (or mourn as you metaphorically you it).

But, this is not how the Scoobies handled Buffy upon her return. Season 6, like season 4, was about conflict within the Scoobies. To create that inner group conflict the Scoobies had to mishandle Buffy's return. To build the conflict the only person to give Buffy space to recover was Spike. Ultimately, I blame the Scoobies for Buffy's depression in S6, not for bringing her back but for how they treated her once she was back.

-JG
[> [> Re: Illuminating! Also: comforted by mourners... -- Caroline, 14:12:14 03/11/03 Tue

I think that you and wife would make excellent therapists Just George! I agree with you that the gang's treatment of Buffy was not great - they were too invested in thinking that what they did was a good thing that they couldn't hear Buffy and she didn't have the heart or nerve to tell them the truth. The lack of honesty caused far more problems than if Buffy had been honest from the start and Willow et al had been less busy with the congratulations and more concerned with Buffy's actual state. Willow compounds that again with the forgetting spell in Tabula Rasa and makes Buffy relive the realization of being ripped out of heaven.

I agree with you about the support Buffy needed. I think that Giles felt that she was becoming too dependent on the assistance of others and that she would never stand on her own two feet. I personally feel that his decision could have waited a bit longer - Buffy was in no state to be standing on her own - that's why the support should have been maintained.
[> [> [> Re: Illuminating! Also: comforted by mourners... -- Just George, 17:53:46 03/11/03 Tue

Giles leaving Buffy in Season 6 was one of those things that ME did because of external circumstances (ASH wanting to go back to England to live with his kids). I doubt under the circumstances that the character Giles would have made the same decision.

-George
[> [> [> [> Re: Illuminating! Also: comforted by mourners... -- Miss Edith, 19:38:50 03/11/03 Tue

Marti says in her SFX interview that the reasons given were a bit of a stretch.
[> [> [> [> [> You'd think they could just have Giles' mom... -- Scroll, 21:03:22 03/11/03 Tue

Just have Giles' mom or dad or Aunt Edna be sick. Giles has to go home to England to care for the family. Not that hard to drum up a reasonable excuse. Something more plausible than, "You were torn out of heaven, are now depressed and possibly suicidal. You don't want to take responsibility for your life so I'll force you by leaving the country." Something, y'know?
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: You'd think they could just have Giles' mom... -- Just George, 07:40:22 03/12/03 Wed

Agreed. Most of the time all I ask is plausible deniability.
[> Some comments and bit more on Spike and Angel -- s'kat, 12:45:09 03/11/03 Tue

This is a truly great post, Caroline. I agree with all your points and actually from reading more recent commentary of Marti's -- I don't believe you disagree with her as much as you may think, actually you appear to be on the same page. Marti just tends to misuse the term dark night of the soul -using more a (I want to say) Western? understanding of it.
Because I've seen her state quite a few of your above remarks in her own commentary on the season. (See the archives for a post I did on Marti's rundown of S6 episodes.)

But what I really want to comment on is this interesting idea, which got me thinking, as did the OnM and Sol post below:As for Spike, I think he's more than just a plot device, but I really wanted to focus on Buffy here and I'm a bit tired of defending Spike - I follow the maxim on the board above - Spike and Angel do not negate each other. I will, however, make one digression about Spike - unlike Wood, I don't think that he is suffering from an Oedipal conflict. I suspect (but don't have entirely enough proof yet) that Spike is stuck in a pre-oedipal stage where he has not even separated from his mother - I'm thinking of a Kleinian attachment here. Spike has a mother but a father is never mentioned, he seems to be a bit of a mummy's boy and never had a serious rival to mother's affections. Since there was no oedipal enemy, I think that Spike never had to fight for mother's affections, they were always his. I think this explains the devotion we see for his mother in FFL as well as the devotion we saw to Drusilla and now to Buffy. Each of the women he loved were wounded in some way - his mother was an invalid, Drusilla was mad and Buffy is the slayer who feels that she cannot love.

I think you may be on to something here. (And like you? Bloody sick of defending Spike. So I just ignore Anti-Spike and Bashing posts.)

Let's back track a bit. Imagine you are Joss Whedon, it's the end of S3, you just did this huge melodramatic slayer/vampire romance and it succeeded so well that the vampire got a spin-off. Now you want to do another vampire/slayer story, but you don't want to repeat yourself. You love vampires as characters but you don't want to follow a "banjo act with another banjo act". You also want to explore more of this interesting concept of what makes a vampire. What to do? What to do? Well, you can always invert the vampire character, maybe explore it from another angle completely, the inverse of Angel so to speak.
All you need is a good, somewhat brave actor to do it.

Joss Whedon, according to the commentary, both from actors and writers, likes to incorporate his own, his writers' and actors' personal experiences into his story. It's the old - relay what you know approach to storytelling. In numerous interviews James Marsters has commented that he was "a mummy's boy" in his youth. The child of divorced parents, he spent his childhood with Mom, and got picked on due to his size and no father figure. In his teens, around Junior High/High School he moved in with Dad for a while, learned Tae Kwon Duo and got into Theater and music and got a tad violent. Went through a violent period in his twenties, now has calmed down quite a bit and managed to return to that core personality, intergrating the two. Joss Whedon, also the child of divorced parents, and apparently having a closer relationship with his mother - who was sick and died of Cancer when he was in his 20s...probably can identify with Marsters quite a bit.

***********************************

How Spike is the inversi