May 2002
posts
Questions
and Interpretations (**Spoilers** and maybe a soap box or
two) -- manwitch, 16:11:59 05/11/02 Sat
First a question: The sound cut out on my TV for the last
line of the scene between Spike and Clem. Can anyone tell me
what Spike said to him right before it cuts to the
heist?
Now an interpretation that not everyone will or should agree
with. I think it was Angel vs Angelus who asked not too long
ago whether or not Buffy was postmodernist. Without going
into too much detail, the answer is yes.
Because of this, there are certain things the show will
never ever advocate. The show will never suggest that
exclusivity or cliques for any reason, even a clique of
Buffy, Xander and Willow fighting the forces of evil, are
preferable to open, inclusive communities whose
participation is based only on an interest and willingness
to participate.
The show will also never suggest that people are static,
unchanging, condemned to forever be what they once were.
People can change, and they always do.
So we know that the rejection of Anya and Spike was not a
good thing. I don't mean rejecting him after he assaults her
in the bathroom. I mean the years worth of rejections that
came before. And we know that Spike is NOT forever condemned
to be evil, nor is anya. He is not the same monster that
slaughtered half of Europe. Xander is wrong. The point of
their demonic side is not that they are bad and will always
be that way.
Sometimes its important to remember that the show is not a
plot driven contrivance like ER or The West Wing, which are
all well and good for what they are. Its a collection of
symbols that address how we, the viewers, actually live in
the world, how we might live if we could shake off everyone
else's vision of who we are and what we are to be. And in
that sense, Buffy is the important one.
Buffy and Spike are through. There is simply no way that
this show can have her "take him back." On a visual level,
he sexually assaulted her in the most intimate room of her
private home. No woman ever is or should ever feel
responsible for that. Doesn't matter what they wear, what
they said, or what they did in the past. Period. It would be
an extremely unfortunate image if she allowed him back into
her life any time soon.
That said, in this case Buffy is responsible. Not for
Spike's assault, but for what is going to become of him.
Personally I suspect Spike will be back as the devil
incarnate. He is now fueled by the fires of self-loathing
that only Lucifer himself has known before him. In an effort
to prove or demonstrate his love, he violated the object of
that affection, and expelled himself from its grace. And he
knows both that this brutal rejection is unfair and
that its his fault.
But, and this is the sad part, all Spike wanted was to be
with her, to be part of her struggles, to be accepted in her
circle and to have her acknowledge that he was worthy of
it. People will argue with that and say, no spike wanted
to bring her down. But he really didn't. He wasn't trying to
kill her, wasn't trying to vamp her, and was prepared even
to come to the aid of Willow and Xander when Buffy wasn't
preseent. He was by no means the perfect guy, but Buffy had
the chance to include him, the chance to "slay" him without
slaying him. And then she would have truly been the
transcendent slayer. But it looks like he's going to be a
monster. And I still don't think that Buffy can just kill
him. For Spike to be merely dusted would render the last
five years of Buffy's life meaningless. Spike is her
responsibility.
I'm still not sure Buffy is in her right mind, or being
honest with herself about Spike. Trust like love, is not
something one earns. It is given. That's why its trust. Its
a form of faith in other people. Seeing Red made clear that
Buffy didn't trust Willow enough to tell her, didn't trust
Xander enough to tell him, and she doesn't trust Spike. And
Dawn, at the end of entropy, said I know what its like to
feel you have to hide, to have secrets. This "trust" issue
is about Buffy's character, not Spike's worth.
So were the eggs in the crypt the symbol of creative
rejuvenation that Buffy could have had with Spike but
destroyed through her own denial? Or were they the seeds of
the monstrosity that Buffy's continued relationship with
Spike would have produced? I just can't accept the latter.
Buffy doesn't have to marry Spike. They don't have to live
happily ever after. She can even kill him if necessary. But,
as Captain Kirk once said, "everybody's human." And
so is Spike. And Anya. When you marginalize them you define
the limits of your own humanity. Buffy dropped the ball with
Spike. She's had a hard time of it. She's unhappy and
confused, and she is fallible. But she will definitely bear
the consequences of what happened between them. Since these
are the episodes where we typically get our glimpse of the
following season's big bad, I can only wonder if perhaps
Spike will come back as the monster of monsters.
This season has supposedly been about growing up, or
actually the refusal to do so. Growing up isn't just about
being responsible for your decision, but also about
attempting to earn the life you desire. Everyone on the show
this year is mirroring Buffy. She doesn't want this life.
She didn't ask for it. She wishes it was easier or somewhere
else. And so do they all. They all want it to be easier.
They want the love but not the pain, not the work. But you
get the life you get. That's the existentialist part. If you
want something different, you better make it yourself, not
just expect it to be different because you're
wishing, and not just thinking you can cut corners or find
some easy path, winning the lottery as it were. You do the
work, and you take responsiblity for your actions, and if
you're lucky then maybe you get some reward that
falls far short of your original dreams. But its better
because its really yours.
Buffy has waited a long time to recognize this, and she and
those around her are losing their way as a result. What
matters isn't that Willow has turned to the dark side, but
what will Buffy do about it. Its nice and all that Warren
will get the horrendous treatment he deserves without Buffy
being demeaned, but the fact that Willow is lost to us
really makes Warren that much more despicable. He wins even
as he loses. Its Buffy's responsibility to make something
good come out of that, to ensure that the moment Willow
seized in Welcome to the Hellmouth wasn't the moment that
destroyed her life and forfeited her future.
Oh well, a brilliant episode like that sparks a lot of
thoughts, but I must now channel my sparks in the direction
of the grill.
[>
Great post! -- Dariel, 17:18:19 05/11/02
Sat
I'm afraid you're right about Spike's direction in season 7.
The cherished belief that he would never hurt Buffy, a
belief that sustained him against his dismal existence, is
gone.The only thing that might save him is Buffy's
forgiveness. Not saying she should forgive him; just that if
he sinks back into evil, that might be the only thing to
reach him.
[> [>
Re: Can't answer this cause it would includes
spoilers -- Rufus, 20:22:42 05/11/02 Sat
I wouldn't jump to any conclusions about how Buffy feels
about Spike, or that she would be unable to forgive him.
[>
Re: Questions and Interpretations (**Spoilers** and
maybe a soap box or two) -- Cactus Watcher, 17:18:23
05/11/02 Sat
Clem - Hey! Come on now, Mr. Negative. You never know
what's just around the corner. Things change.
Spike (sarcastically) - Yeah, they do! Ha! ...(Something
occurs to him and his expression changes) If you make
them!
[>
Re: Questions and Interpretations (**Spoilers** and
maybe a soap box or two) -- gabby, 18:58:52 05/11/02
Sat
Please, Spike doesn't have to become a monster because Buffy
spurned him, that would be a immature action and one clearly
of his own making and responsibility. If I get burned by
someone I can get mad, stamp my feet, whatever, but coming
back for revenge or to hurt that person physically and
emotionally would be of my own choosing, blaming the person
who hurt me for my downward personal destruction is a cop
out and a poor excuse. We mostly do what we do by choice not
because someone else made us.
[>
Re: Questions and Interpretations (**Spoilers** and
maybe a soap box or two) -- celticross, 20:40:09
05/11/02 Sat
Excellent post, manwitch, with some points raised that have
helped me clarify my opinions on Buffy's behavior this
season. I have not liked the way she has acted, and as many
have pointed out, she has been through a great deal. But no
matter how low she feels, how depressed, how disconnected
from the world, she is still responsible for what she does.
How we feel does not excuse how we behave. Buffy's sense of
loss and isolation does not excuse her using Spike anymore
than Spike's feelings for her excuse his actions in the
bathroom scene. Willow's desire to keep things happy in her
relationship with Tara does not excuse her use of memory
spells on her lover, and Xander's fear of the future does
not excuse leaving Anya at the alter. I just hope the
Scoobies realize that they've all done wrong to each
other.
[>
Re: Questions and Interpretations (**Spoilers** and
maybe a soap box or two) -- Grant, 00:04:05 05/12/02
Sun
While I agree with a lot of your post, I must disagree with
its beginning. BtVS is definitely not postmodernist. Based
on your argument, I'm pretty certain the only reason you
felt it is postmodernist is due to a mistaken definition of
postmodernism.
Postmodernism is a philosophy that says that it is
impossible to distinguish which rival interpretation is the
true one. Thus there no longer is any Truth, but a
lot of truths, each of which is equally valid. On a
purely theoretical level, this idea is somewhat interesting.
It is, after all, quite easy to argue away just about any
independent standard for determining the Truth one could
come up with. However, once you actually think about what
this doctrine actually means on a practical level it becomes
a lot more difficult to support. In declaring that every
viewpoint is equally valid, postmodernism also declares
every viewpoint equally invalid. And you no longer have to
even work to come up with the truth. I could declare that
the complete works of Shakespeare are a secret code that
describes oncoming Martian invasion, and according to
postmodernism I would be right because there is no objective
way to determine that my interpretation is incorrect.
Right after you state that BtVS is postmodernist, you write,
"Because of this, there are certain things the show will
never ever advocate." This is actually the exact opposite of
postmodernism, which declares that everything should be
advocated equally. You then write, "The show will also never
suggest that people are static, unchanging, condemned to
forever be what they once were. People can change, and they
always do." I agree with that, and I think that the fact
that you use it as evidence of postmodernism it is a good
illustration of where most people get confused when it comes
to that philosophy.
Postmodernism does not assert that we don't yet know what
the Truth is and thus a rival interpretation might actually
turn out to be the Truth. It asserts that there is no
objective Truth and thus all rival interpretations are
equally the truth. The idea that the world is a dynamic
place where we must work to find out the Truth far predates
postmodernism. Ever since the days of the Ancient Greeks we
have clear evidence of humans debating over what the Truth
is. And this attitude is clear in BtVS. Buffy and the other
characters fight for Good against Evil, even though they
aren't quite always sure of what it means to fight for Good.
They have their own arguments over what is the Truth, but
they never assert that there is no Truth. It doesn't matter
what his motivations or that there is no objective standard,
the Master was wrong in trying to open the hellmouth. Faith
had a lot of bad breaks in her life, but she was wrong in
going over to the dark side. The Scooby gang is open for a
debate on what is Right and Good and all that, but in the
end they know that there must be a Right and a Good and a
Truth or else the debate is useless.
[> [>
Common misconceptions: Why Buffy is Postmodern --
manwitch, 06:57:06 05/12/02 Sun
It is a common misconception about postmodernism that it
argues that "there is no truth," or that "one truth is as
good as another." This is absolutely not what
postmodernism argues.
The "critique of truth," as it is called, which is only a
fraction of what postmodernism contains and is about, argues
that all truth claims are mediated through language and
therefore historically and culturally contingent and
indeterminate. Truth is therefore never absolute.
Because the truth claim depends on words whose relationship
to their referents is arbitrary and forever changing and in
fact depends on other words and concepts for their meanings.
In addition, any truth claim is made within a community, a
community that can also be understood to be linguistically
based anad that will have its own rules and criteria for
making and judging truth claims. Postmodernism does not
argue that there is no meaning or that there are no
criteria for judging truth claims in the extremely local and
impermanent human communities in which the claim is
made.
Postmodernism is really a set of critiques of modern
culture, critiques that are so emphatic that they suggest
that the world we live in is no longer "modern." Hence the
name. But it isn't simply a philosophy or a theory. Its the
intellectual grounding for the left-wing opposition movement
that has supplanted Marx. And its basis is in Nietzsche, and
particularly his views on language and discursive
processes.
So Postmodernism isn't just the set of critiques but also a
set of reccomendations for how we might better live. These
include value your local interpersonal relationships over
the impersonal claims of grand narratives of human elevation
or empowerment, such as the French Revolution Narrative or
Enlightenment Narrative of human elevation through the
advancement of Reason, or the Hegel Narrative of human
elevation through the emancipation of the human spirit or
the Marx Narrative of human elevation through the
emancipation of the working subject or the Smith Narrative
of the elevation of humanity through the accumulation of
wealth.
The reccommendations also include creating new institutions,
non-hierarchical institutions that are based not on force or
authority, but on an exchange of different skills, knowledge
and energy. Also oppose the monolithic authoritarian
istitutions that would claim to be elevating humanity but in
fact exist to monitor and narrow human experience. In art,
these institutions will be represented as Government, Law
Enforcement, Hospitals, Schools, the Military, The
Master/Apprentice, the Patriarchal Family.
Since Postmodernism recognizes the linguistic basis of all
things meaningful, it advocates using language differently.
Say new things. Use language to break out of the constraints
that it imposes on our conceptual and interpretive
frameworks.
Postmodernism argues that scientific knowledge is simply one
set of knowledge, not the set, and in fact, not the
most important set. Other types of knowledge that science
would not even recognize as knowledge are equally important
and equally meaningful to the human experience.
Postmodernism believes that individuality is yet another
monitoring tool of the forces that would dominate us. We are
led to believe that we are individuals, and our individual
identity becomes the "permanent record" of who we are, where
we have been, made up of our test scores, certifications and
whatever other paperworks have been bestowed upon us. But in
reality, the postmodernists argue, our identities are
interconnected. Since they are linguistically based it
matters who we talk to, how we talk to them, how they talk
about us, how language about ourselves travels through us
and through others. Consequently Postmodernism argues for
what Foucault calls "de-individualization." To take away the
unit of measure that the State depends on for controlling us
and recognize that identity is not static and never located
in one place, to realize that identities come from complex
and ever changing relationships to ourselves and to others
and that we will not stay the same.
And because, as Derrida points out, the meanings of words
exist outside of the words themselves, and because, as
Foucault and Lyotard have argued, our identity exists
outside ourselves, postmodernism vehemently rails
against exclusion, and passionatley calls for the
incorporation of "otherness" into ourselves. It strongly
reccomends that we stop seeking what is normal, that we
recognize "normalization" itself is a tool of domination
that would narrow and constrain our experience, and to
instead open up to the world of difference and
possibility.
I think that all of these critiques and reccomendations are
manifested in Buffy over and over again. More often than
not, when Buffy is called to fight the Big Fight, she
declines. In Prophecy Girl, she quits the Council's
Mission and says screw the big prophecy. She's not part of
that. It is Willow's tears, LOCAL, that bring Buffy back to
the struggle. She's not doing it for the Grand Narrative,
she's doing it for her freinds, to make the world theirs
again. Xander makes sure that we recognize and understand
this point moments later when, after Jenny says, "Aren't we
forgetting something? The Apocalypse" (or something like
that) and he responds "I don't care. I have to help
Buffy. The point is that this is not the World Mission.
This is the my loved ones mission. The show regularly
illustrates opposition to the Grand Narratives in this
way.
It also shows it in the undermining of the institutions of
the Grand Narratives. The Master/Apprentice institution in
Season 1, the institution of the Watcher's Council and its
authority over her (notice that whenever Giles comes at
Buffy in his "official" Watcher's Council role she undercuts
him, sometimes quite literally taking his legs out from
under him with a staff. But if he comes to her as a
knowledgeable and loving friend, she looks up to him), the
instution of the School or the College throughout the entire
series, the institution of the Mayors office (Season 3), the
institution of law enforcement a number of times, the
institution of the military (Season 4), of the Science
Laboratory (Season 4), the institution of the Hospital
(Season 5), of hierarchical organized religion (in Seasons 4
and 5) and any patriarchal institution that comes within six
feet of her. She rejects, demolishes or overcomes ALL of
them by creating her own institution of the Scoobies, an
institution that is not based on hierarchy, but on a
willingness to participate and to bring what you have to the
community. It is interesting to note that the only big bad
Buffy faced in seasons 1-5 that was not represented by a
hierarchical institution was the somewhat anarchic group of
Spike, Dru and Angel. And they alone among Buffy's big bads
are ALL STILL LIVING.
The shows use of language is brilliantly postmodernist, both
in its use of words and in its suggestion of discursively
based identities and institutions. There is a discourse to
being a scooby, Tara is accutely aware of it when she is not
part of it. Anya is corrected on it over and over again
(normalization! uh-oh!).
The entire series is about the value of mystic and spiritual
forms of knowledge, and that what we "know" to be true is
not. And Science is not the answer. Season 4 makes
abundantly clear that in the battle for turf between
scientific knowledge and "other" knowledge, other wins. The
Scientists can only create the monster Adam. They don't know
what to do with him. To defeat Adam requires mystical
knowledge, and, oddly enough, a spell of "de-
individualization."
And of course, one of the major and continuing themes of the
series is about overcoming exlusion, overcoming the state of
being the outcast, including otherness and rejecting
normalcy.
Buffy shows us how to do it. She shows us how to live
without hierarchy, without the need to lead or the desire to
be led, without being crushed by the weight of other
people's knowledge and expectations, refusing to participate
in institutions of domination, and yet never stepping back,
never leaving the fray, never giving up.
Remember, the fight of good vs. evil sounds a bit like a
Grand Narrative. There is nothing good or evil but that
thinking makes it so. And as Nietzsche points out, we all
have some demon in us. "Though we condmen the evils of our
past, we cannot escape the fact that we spring from them."
And he reminds us in an aphorism that I think is quite
appropriate to Buffy, "Be careful lest in casting out your
demons you cast out the best thing that's in you."
Buffy's struggle is beyond good and evil.
Its a spectacular postmodern culture crit through and
through, and that's why its the best show, in my opinion, in
the History of Television, and why it is significantly
superior to Bonanza.
[> [> [>
Truly Excellent -- Rob, you might want to use this
for your site........., 08:10:51 05/12/02 Sun
[> [> [>
Re: Common misconceptions: Why Buffy is Postmodern
-- DEN, 08:17:59 05/12/02 Sun
An excellent analysis, convincing generally and in detail.
May I add to the list of deconstructed hierarchies the one
portrayed in the opening scenes of s6, when Willow's attempt
to be "boss of us" in the cemetery generates comedic chaos
(the last honest laugh of the season, IMO!).
[> [> [>
Re: Common misconceptions: Why Buffy is Postmodern
thank you excellent post -- zooey, 11:48:46 05/12/02
Sun
[> [> [>
Yes.... except... -- Liz, 12:24:50 05/12/02
Sun
I agree completely about that post (or most of it I can't
recall every word). I did not really have a definition of
"postmodern" but I did see all of those institutions and how
they were viewed by the characters and by the show itself.
It was one of those things I really liked about the show.
(stands behind riot shield)
That's one of the things I find missing in the 6th season.
And I really miss it. It's one of those things that subtly
makes the 6th season disheartening for me.
Emma Goldman, an American anarchist philosopher and
activist, was a believer in communism. Then she went to
Russia to see the communist revolution, and encountered
Stalinist Russia. When she expressed her horror at what
Stalin was doing, he said, "Grow up."
Anarchism is for childish dreamers. This is the real world.
In 3rd season we have Buffy fight her way out of an
industrial factory hell with a hammer and sickle. We have
her summing the place up as, "You work us until we're too
old and then you just spit us out." In 6th we have Anya
chirping about the tools of capitalism, and Buffy looking
defeated in her Doublemeat Palace uniform, saying, "So
that's why I feel like a tool." And everyone says how
adults have to do the hard things and work and bring home
the money, and they congratulate the show on it's maturity.
Now it's real, now it's adult. And if you mourn the lost
fantastical elements and humor then you're shallow, and if
you mourn the lost themes then it's "Oh, grow up."
The first post of this said that Buffy was postmodern, and
therefore there are certain things that it will never
advocate. I don't believe that is true. Not that I think
it's likely to advocate those things listed (although we
seem to be headed towards both). But I think people aren't
paying attention to themes anymore.
Buffy was not only not totally plot-driven, it was also not
totally character-driven. It was theme-driven, and
experience-driven. Ok, I'm making up words here, but I
think there is a difference between experience-driven and
character-driven. With the character one, you are making a
coherent story surrounding what a character would do next.
With the experience one, you're taking a situation that you
want to explore and then you're putting your complex
character into it and seeing what will happen next, what his
or her previous personality will do with that situation and
how he or she will come out of it afterwards. It's a
different thing, and I think it leads to richer characters.
I think right now we're character-driven and a little bit
plot-driven. I just think that is they're thinking right
now as they write the story. And they could go like that
for quite a while because they're got lots of steam built up
from their developed characters. But I miss what's lost.
You don't have to miss it, but it's just what I happened to
like about the show. Maybe that's why some people like 6th
even better than before, and some don't.
But you can't have it both ways. If you love all those
things that people have labeled "postmodern", you can't tell
me that they're still here.
[> [> [> [>
This isn't quite the way I would have expressed it
-- matching mole, 12:35:26 05/12/02 Sun
but it sums up a lot of my feeling about season 6 (although
I would rank Doublemeat Palace as one of my favourite
episodes of the year to date).
[> [> [>
'mazing post, thanks for making me understand a bit of
what post-modernism means :) -- Etrangere, 13:41:28
05/12/02 Sun
[> [> [>
Why Buffy is Not Postmodern -- Grant, 15:03:22
05/12/02 Sun
You start out by stating, “It is a common misconception
about postmodernism that it argues that "there is no truth,"
or that "one truth is as good as another." This is
absolutely not what postmodernism argues.” Unfortunately,
this completely contradicts the entire rest of your
argument, as even you go on to admit that this is a portion
of postmodernism. This “critique of truth” is the foundation
of postmodernism, and I think if you reread your post you
will see that you fully admit this. It is impossible to
accept the postmodernist criticism without accepting the
idea that there is no Truth, and the idea that there is no
Truth is itself impossible to accept.
Unfortunately for the postmodernists, science completely
destroys the foundation of their argument. In science, there
are objective facts that can’t be refuted by word games.
Chemistry may be populated mostly with white males, but that
doesn’t change the fact that there are six protons in a
carbon atom. And two plus two equals four no matter how
phallocentric arithmetic is. This is why postmodernism has
been so vehement in its criticism of science, because
science has created a logical and objective system of
determining the Truth that completely undermines
postmodernism.
You can argue all you want about the merits of
postmodernisms critique of science, but I think that Alan
Sokal pretty much put the issue to rest. And no matter what
the postmodernists say, scientists continue to figure things
out and make really cool gadgets. Sure, in the Buffyverse it
is fun to see magic triumph over the abuse of science, but
in the real world I have never seen David Blaine produce
anything particularly useful for society. On the other hand,
the only reason we can even have this conversation is
because of computers, an entirely scientific invention.
The other major problem with the postmodernist
doctrine/philosophy/whatever is that people want normalcy.
Normalcy is not thrust upon them by an oppressive hierarchy,
as postmodernism maintains, but rather assumed by the
people. That is why people build communities that share a
set of values and, in many cases, a hierarchy, because they
know that in this community they can have the normalcy they
desire. The Scooby gang is one such community. It has a
normalcy, a hierarchy, and an exclusiveness, so how does it
support postmodernism?
Indeed, your argument on the postmodernist nature of BtVS
misses a number of important components in the series that
directly refute it. Primarily, the fact that Buffy and the
Scooby gang are portrayed as the heroes fighting for good is
very non-postmodernist. If BtVS were truly a postmodernist
show, than Buffy and the Scoobies would be seen as a force
that oppresses the vampires and the demons in the interest
of preserving the human hegemony over the world. They would
not be fighting for Good, but rather for a conception of
“good” that preserve the status quo from which they derive
their power. This is obviously not the case.
Further evidence is also apparent that Buffy is far from
motivated by mere local interests. You correctly point out
that it is Willow that encourages Buffy to go to the Master,
but you are wrong in claiming that her motivation is thus
entirely local concerns about her friends. Instead, the
conversation with Willow serves to remind her that she has a
mission, and that she cannot turn her back on it. This is
clear when Buffy goes to tell Giles that she will go face
the Master. Giles has decided to “defy prophecy.” Buffy
counters this not by stating that she has to do this for
Willow, but by saying, “That's not how it goes. I'm the
Slayer.” This is her affirming her role as the Slayer and
her place in the Mission.
The end of season two is particularly strong in portraying
Buffy as playing a role in a larger conflict. Whistler is
the closest thing we ever get to the voice of the forces of
Good, and he is actually a proponent of individualization.
He asserts that there are big moments in our lives, that our
lives are plot driven contrivances, in a manner of speaking,
and it is our individual reactions to these moments that
makes us who we are. When Buffy tells him that she is tired
of fighting by herself, he responds with: “In the end,
you're always by yourself. You're all you got -- That's the
point.” To him, fighting the good fight is about restraint
and exclusion; what you are willing to give up is a more
important question than what you are willing to do.
Her climactic fight with Angel is a major continuation of
these themes. When Angel has her backed into a corner, he
taunts her by asking, “That's everything, huh? No weapons,
no friends. No hope. Take all that away and what's left?”
Buffy’s response is simply, “Me,” a clear assertion of
individualization. This assertion leads Buffy to her victory
in the fight, but then she is presented with a horrible
choice. She must either kill her soulmate, who is
essentially an innocent in this, or condemn the world to
hell. She chooses the world, knowing that she has to make a
huge sacrifice for the sake of the world.
After this fight, Buffy decides that living in this world
and this order is too painful. So, she runs off to LA and
abandons both her calling and her friends. However, she
quickly comes to realize that she cannot abandon her role in
life and simply escape from the world. The crucial component
of this occurs in the hell dimension, where Buffy once again
asserts both her identity as and individual and her place in
the world. She is not just Buffy Summer, she is Buffy the
Vampire Slayer, and she has a mission in life and a role to
play.
Two notable characters, Faith and Spike, also represent a
distinctively anti-postmodern slant. Faith’s decision to
ignore the rules of society and follow her own mantra of
“Want, Take, Have” is the first step in her journey to the
dark side. On the other hand, her redemption only occurs
when she decides to willingly submit herself to society’s
rules and a distinctively hierarchical institution like
Justice system. Faith could easily have escaped at the end
of “Sanctuary,” and she could also escape from prison after
that, but her decision to accept these rules even though
they are contrary to her own benefit and she could easily
escape from them is the best sign that she is on the road to
redemption.
Spike is another case of a character dealing with
redemption. For him, redemption only began when the chip in
his head forced him to accept the rules of society. This
serves as the first step on his redemption, but Spike is
still a long way from being redeemed. His chip has now
become an obstacle to his redemption, because it is
impossible to know whether he truly is willing to live by
the rules and be good or whether an electronic leash in his
head is making him be good and live by the rules. That seems
to be the motivation behind his decision to get his chip
removed. Although you have argued that he will come back the
monster of monsters, I believe that the opposite will
happen. I think Spike will try to prove to Buffy and the
Scoobies that he can be good without the chip making him.
Thus it will be his willingness to play by the rules without
the chip that will serve as the next major component in
Spike’s redemption, a redemption that could not occur unless
Spike does follow the rules of a hierarchical society.
It seems to me that rather than postmodernism the main theme
of BtVS is sacrifice. Buffy is a hero when she decides to
sacrifice herself and her interests for the world and for
others, such as when she went to face the Master knowing she
would die, when she killed Angel to stop Acathla, or when
she killed herself in order to save both the world and her
sister in “The Gift.” Meanwhile, there have been many times
when she has acted selfishly, and this has lead to disaster.
The best example of this is in the season three episode
SChoices.” Buffy decides to base her decision making on her
own self interest, her desire to escape her role and go off
to college, and this cause Willow to be captured. She then
trades back the Box of Gavrok for Willow. The benefits of
this trade have and will be debated, but the end result is
that she traded the life of her friend for the lives of
Larry, Harmony, and every other student or parent who died
during the ascension.
Season six has also had a strong connection to this theme of
sacrifice as a component of growing up. In order to grow up,
Willow must forsake her connection to magic, which has
become something of an addiction for her. She must restrain
herself in this area and sacrifice her magic ability in a
manner that goes against her own self-interest, and she must
do all of this for the sake of others, like the friends her
magic use was hurting and her lover Tara. Buffy, meanwhile,
has tried to ignore her role in life again because life is
so painful. This has lead to its share of problems, most of
which seem to have been answered by her decision to leave
the happiness of the Normal Againverse and take her role
back in the real world. In this decision, Buffy is
sacrificing her happiness to help others, but it is clearly
the right decision.
I could go on with many other examples, but I have faith
that I have provided enough evidence. The point is that
there is a strong component of individualism in BtVS. And
though the show does go after some hierarchies, it is not
entirely anti-hierarchy. The Scooby gang is one hierarchy
that is not seen as a bad force, and most of the components
of our hierarchical society are taken as important
guidelines for human actions. And the central and most
constant theme in the show has been about taking your proper
place in society and sacrificing yourself for the sake of
that society.
So does Buffy have components that are postmodernist? Yes.
But does it present an overall postmodernist vision? No.
With postmodernism, you have to accept the entire theory.
Being part postmodernist is like being part pregnant, it
just doesn’t work that way. There are themes and occurrences
in BtVS that fit with the postmodernist theme, but they are
used to present a whole that is decidedly not
postmodernist.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Why Buffy is Not Postmodern -- Dochawk,
16:00:55 05/12/02 Sun
When I read the original post, I knew I didn't agree, but it
was a gut instinct, not knowing anywhere near enough about
this particular philosophy. I did know that Buffy was about
choices to a much greater degree than the original author
gave it. Thank You for writing this. Its excellent and
makes me more comfortable.
[> [> [> [>
Why science and postmodernism are closer than we might
think -- Sophist, 18:37:20 05/12/02 Sun
I want to say that the posts by Grant and manwitch are both
spectacularly good. I wanted to add some comments about
areas in which I think the two sides are closer than may
appear from these posts.
Let's start with the notion of Truth. By philosophical
convention, going back to Plato, we capitalize this (or any
other term such as Beauty) when we mean to designate
something eternal, perfect, unchanging. A claim that there
is such a thing as Truth is a claim that knowledge can be
certain, perfect, complete. By contrast, truth with a small
"t" means that the truth is contingent and subject to
change.
It is true that postmodernism rejects the notion of Truth.
So does science. Science does this because all scientific
truths (note the small "t") are subject to falsification
(there are other reasons too; I'm simplifying). In
principle, every scientific theory or statement of fact
could be disproved. As a practical matter, some statements
made by science are so well established that the idea that
they could be controverted is wildly implausible. But no
scientist should ever claim that some truth is eternal.
Now let's talk about establishing these contingent truths.
Postmodernism refers to these as socially constructed.
Science says that theories and statements of fact must be
subject to verification, and that the experiments to verify
them must be repeatable. In other words, and in the best
cases, multiple experimenters must agree on the same
results. This strikes me as awfully similar to the
postmodern concept of socially constructed truth. In this
case, it is the community of scientists which agrees upon
the "truths".
There are many areas where science and postmodernism have no
overlap at all. For example, science has nothing that I know
of to say about moral absolutes (e.g., adultery is a sin).
It does, however, teach us to be skeptical about any claim
of Truth. If postmodernism does the same that seems
beneficial to me.
At bottom, however, we need to recognize that science is
much less open ended than some formulations of postmodernism
seem to be. Science may not be able to establish Truth or
even "truth", but it certainly can disprove some
statements. When it does so, all the postmodernists in the
world can't reconstruct Humpty Dumpty. And I wouldn't
recommend treating gravity as a socially constructed truth
either.
[> [> [> [> [>
Excellent post -- matching mole, 20:06:44
05/12/02 Sun
I like your use of truth and Truth. One of my problems in
following these discussions is the use of language. During
his posts I often having the experience of following
manwitch thinking 'yeah this makes sense' and 'I'll buy
that' and all of a sudden there'll be a statement that
absolutely floors me usually having to do with science and
truth (or Truth). If I interpret the words the way I would
use them then they seem outrageous. But perhaps they're
not.
For me there is only one truth (or Truth). That truth is
the physical reality of the universe, the relationships
between matter and energy and their constructs. Science is
attempting to get at this truth. The scientific model of
physical reality is tentative certainly but far more
objective than any other model of the truth (in the very
limited sense that I am using it) and thus, in my humble
opinion vastly more likely to resemble actual physical
reality than other systems of thought.
Truth in any sense that includes values or morality is a
social construct (again in my opinion). Science tells us
nothing about this kind of truth (which is not the same
thing as saying that scientists shouldn't think about
it).
[> [> [> [>
Re: Why Buffy is Not Postmodern -- J,
09:14:12 05/13/02 Mon
It is impossible to accept the postmodernist criticism
without accepting the idea that there is no Truth, and the
idea that there is no Truth is itself impossible to
accept.
Uh . . . can't agree. To argue that there is no meta-
narrative Truth is not the same thing as arguing that
statements have no truth value within certain situations.
You're conflating the two. And your statement that science
destroys critiques of truth-claims as situated has little to
do with postmodernism and far more to do with some notion of
empiricism as the fount of knowledge. But it's been clear
for centuries that plain empiricism is a dead end -- check
out Hume's critique of causation and Kant's attempts at
reconciling western thought in the Critique of Pure Reason.
The battle of "truth" v. "Truth" was fought long before the
advent of postmodern thought.
[> [> [> [>
Some follow-up, SPOILERS through Bargaining --
manwitch, 19:05:26 05/13/02 Mon
Hmmm. It comes off almost as though you don't think Buffy is
postmodern.
Fine. As I said in the original post, and should have said
repeatedly in the second one, this is an interpretation that
not everyone will or should agree with.
But, after reading your post and the responses to it, and
after re-reading mine as you suggested, I have some
questions for you. They might take me a while to get to,
sorry.
When you talk about Buffy, rather than the postmodernism
issue, I agree with much of what you say, although not all.
This is interesting to me because it suggests that
postmodernism itself is the issue, rather than different
views of Buffy. You and I clearly disagree about truth. My
claim is that to argue for the linguistic constitution of
truth is not the same as to deny truth or say that all
truths are equally valuable. You seem to either refuse to
accept the distinction, or perhaps feel that denying all
truth is sort of the necessary reductio ad absurdum
result, so the distinction is meaningless.
To you, this denial of truth is the basis of postmodernism
and therefore the whole theory is problematic. I see the
basis of postmodernism in its critique of language and that
the other positions I described in the earlier post all
arise naturally from that critique. And I don't see why one
has to have the whole kit and kaboodle. Like any
intellectual offering (and unlike pregnancy), one can take
what works and discard what doesn't at any time.
So I guess my question is this. You've made clear why you
don't think Buffy is postmodern, but I'm curious as to why
its important. I recognize that its not really a fair
question. It seems important to you that Buffy
not be seen as postmodern. And its not just you,
either. People frequently react that way to postmodernist
interpretation or even just to the word itself. No one
bristles at the suggestion that Buffy might be acting out
the Persephone myth or that it has parallels to Middlemarch,
but say its postmodernist and look out. Its just another
interpretation, and it can yield some very interesting and
enriching insights.
My own experience back when was that a lot of people use the
lingo of postmodernism to be real cool and to make other
people feel like they don't know what's going on. I
personally don't care for that attitude and I try to present
postmodernism in an open and inclusive way. (My apologies if
I am failing to do that.) Also in my experience,
postmodernism is viewed as an extremely negative philosophy.
I would argue that it is in fact empowering and optimistic.
I find Buffy empowering and optimistic precisely because of
what I see as its postmodern bent.
As far as Buffy goes, my only real disagreement with you is
that the Scoobies are exclusive or hierarchical. While they
have been at times, I think that has been when they have not
been at their best. I think the show made a deliberate
attemtp to emphasize that in the beginning of Season 6, as
DEN has described. By Willow questioning who was the leader,
and by having a vote to establish it and by having a plaque
to certify it, Willows approach to the scoobies is extremely
different and deliberately contrasted to Buffy's model of
total self-sacrifice and inclusion. This is further
illustrated by Willow's position atop the tomb in the
opening scenes of Bargaining, overlooking them all and
giving them instructions by invading their very brains.
I certainly don't mean to say that Buffy doesn't exhibit
leadership, but she rarely forces her leadership on those
who do not want to participate. Again, contrast this to
Willow in Bargaining.
I don't disagree at all about the idea of sacrifice or
personal choice. I don't see those as incompatible with the
postmodernist view I articulated. I don't believe, however,
that the basis of her decision-making process is
righteousness. Xander is more the voice of righteousness,
and he's frequently wrong when he's being righteous. Buffy's
decision making comes from love and compassion, and not just
a general love and compassion for all things, but
specifically for the people in her life.
Does she have a mission? Yes. Is it the same mission that
the Watcher's Council laid out for her? No way. Is it the
same mission the First Slayer had? Buffy sure doesn't think
so. Her speech to the first slayer at the end of Restless
is, to me, the perfect illustration of what Foucault calls
"epistemic ruptures," a total transformation of meaning and
context while the words and ostensible referents seem
unchanged. Yes they are both Slayers, and yes, being the
Slayer seems to mean the same thing, but they are
very different. And its not just a difference in
personality. Its a deliberate and sharp laceration of
historical continuity. Yes she's from a long line of
slayers, but its not the same thing anymore. There is no
long line of Slayers like Buffy.
Anyways, take it for what you will. I am just curious as to
why it sounds like a Postmodern Buffy would be demeaning to
the show. My apologies if I have you wrong.
Oh, and you did say something about If Buffy was
postmodernist they would oppress the vampires and secure
human hegemony. I don't get that. Postmodernism tends to be
anti oppression and anti-totalitarian. If Buffy were truly
postmodern, they would let some of the vampires go, and even
let some of them participate in Scooby-dom. Or, if they
didn't, consequences would result that would demonstrate
that an error was made.
I don't have the energy to go into the science question
right now, and I'm sure few would have the energy to read it
if I did. But to the degree that science uses language to
describe its theories, methods, equipment, discoveries,
communities, etc., it doesn't refute postmodernism but is
rather subject to the same critique of language that
everything else is. The fact that people can make a space
ship or a hydrogen bomb, doesn't mean that they aren't
social constuctions. Conversely, the fact that the meaning
of something is socially constructed, doesn't mean it isn't
real. Sometimes I think people are afraid that postmodernism
means that all their furniture is about to disappear. No, it
recognizes that you have a computer and that the computer
does things. But it argues that the meaning of that
computer, what it does, how its used, is determined by human
communities (and the language they use that both constrains
and empowers them) within a limited space and time. In a
thousand years, the computer won't mean what it does now.
Nor will gravity. The social environments in which they
operate and the communities to which they apply will be
different, so the reality they address will be different.
Their meaning, and in large measure the reality that they
address, will be socially constructed, as their meaning to
us is now. Am I saying that it means we aren't really still
on the planet as it hurtles through space? I don't think
so.
[> [> [>
can't think of the right word of praise, but... --
yuri, 17:46:12 05/12/02 Sun
it's so good to read some of your posts again. You're one of
my favorite writers here, both because of your ability to
explain, expound, and enlighten, and for the beautiful way
you convey it all. Anyway, thanks for those posts. After
those and some others on postmodernism I've read here, I
think I can actually say I understand postmodernism. Well,
understand is a strong word, I at least have a good idea of
what people are constantly referring to when they use the
word.
[> [> [> [>
thanks for your very kind words -- manwitch,
05:44:50 05/14/02 Tue
[>
want to read this post, but are the spoilers *past*
SR? -- yuri, 15:56:21 05/12/02 Sun
[> [>
Re: Nope -spoilers to SR only -- hoping,
16:05:52 05/12/02 Sun
[>
Re: Questions and Interpretations (**Spoilers** and
maybe a soap box or two) -- Ronia, 22:40:48 05/12/02
Sun
I enjoyed your post very much, and agreed with most of it.
Just thought I'd throw a couple of ideas on the plate and
see what happens when people pick at them...
Buffy seemed a tad uncomfortable in gingerbread when the
townfolk started making plans w/out her, but otherwise I'd
mostly agree that they have welcomed individuals on a case
by case basis who wanted to pitch in.
I definately agree that Buffy shares some responsibilty for
Spike's state of mind (not his actions) even minutes before
"the scene"..she just keeps slamming the doors in his face,
not validating his feeling, not even letting him finish a
thought without interruption...ever met anyone who does
this? Did you successfully repress the urge to whap them
over the head with something blunt (like a tree)?
I also liked your statement about Buffy's trust issues, and
I might go so far to say that they are maybe less trust
issues, than control issues. Buffy has taken control of
every conversation, every argument, every relationship....
except for some reason Spike...and Angel... seem not to be
(in earlier years) so much affected by the world according
to Buffy. It is clear that she has trusted him and others,
but has she allowed them a measure of control? Not on your
life. And what did they do? The resurrected her from the
dead, they took her BANG and made it a whimper. She was
this great icon, this supreme warrior, and now she works a
Mcjob with no future and no control in sight. For a control
freak like Buffy, this must be a rude awakening indeed, and
not one she is likely going to forgive easily whether she is
aware of it or not. I think that part of her separation
from her former bud's is self protective. I'll help you,
but you do not have the number for my inner man. The other
thing that strikes me is that they have delivered her into
pretty much the same situation that she left, none of the
things afflicting her now (winces because someone is sure to
come up with at least one thing..) are the result of her
death. I know that none of these thoughts take into
consideration the other characters developements, just
focussed on Buffy tonight. Any thoughts?
On the state of
Angel's mind -- RichardX1,
18:52:43 05/11/02 Sat
In one thread, someone asked how Spike would be judged if he
became human and got his soul back--if we would be entitled
to just blame the demon. I thought this sounded just like
Angel's moral quandary, then I noticed the "became human"
part, and it made me realize some things about Angel's
nature...
The demon is still there. He still has that dark side,
which is proud of every foul act it ever committed. Half of
him still feels no guilt over his past, and that's what
torments him. It's not "His soul is in charge but there's a
demon inside him"--his mind is getting spiritual-emotional
input from two sources (the distinction between
"mind" and "soul" has been implicitly expressed since Angel
visited Pylea). He's simultaneously feeling all the normal
human feelings for his friends and family, while at the same
time feeling the urge to torment, destroy, and devour them
all.
I'd say Angel's a champion just for being able to hold his
sanity (at least until the hospital incident with
Wesley).
[>
Re: On the state of Angel's mind -- ApplePie,
19:33:22 05/11/02 Sat
I agree with with most of what you said, up to the last
point.
"I'd say Angel's a champion just for being able to hold his
sanity (at least until the hospital incident with
Wesley)."
The hospital incident had nothing to do with the demon
inside him. The demon would have no attachment to the baby
so no grief at its lost. It was the HUMAN soul that
encouraged Angel to act the way he did.
Not the demon, but the man.
[> [>
Re: On the state of Angel's mind -- RichardX1,
10:05:48 05/12/02 Sun
I never said the demon made him attack Wesley. I just said
that he snapped. And you're right: anyone else might have
done the same. I was just saying that I'm impressed it
hadn't happened sooner, under some previous mental-emotional
pressure.
[>
Re: On the state of Angel's mind -- yabyumpan,
08:23:38 05/12/02 Sun
"I'd say Angel's a champion just for being able to hold his
sanity"
I totally agree. It does seem that because he is a
"champion" that there is the expectation that he will
respond to situations in a way that is "morally" better than
other people (i.e. see DorN thread). I see that he is a
champion, partly because of the work he does but also
because every second, he's having to do battle with his
"inner demon". He was cursed with a soul but the demon is
still there, not only does he remember all the bad stuff
that he's done and feel guilty but also he must remember and
feel the pleasure of doing all that stuff. As we see in
"real" life and also on the show, having a soul doesn't mean
you automaticly do good. He has to make an active choice all
the time not to give into his demon side (i.e. the blood
drinking scene with Harmony in Disharmony).
People come down very strongly on him, both characters on
the show and fans on the boards when he is less than heroic
or just plain screwing up, but very rarely is he given
credit for the good that he does or how
difficult/conflicting it must be to do the good stuff. He
could just walk away, be the manpire he was in 1952 and stay
in his own private cell but he chooses not to walk away, he
chooses to do good. That for me is why he is a champion and
hero.
[> [>
Re: On the state of Angel's mind and the minds of the
others -- VampRiley, 11:39:19 05/12/02 Sun
People come down very strongly on him, both characters on
the show and fans on the boards when he is less than heroic
or just plain screwing up, but very rarely is he given
credit for the good that he does or how
difficult/conflicting it must be to do the good
stuff.
I've noticed in real life that this is often the case. Like
this one time, I was watching this talk show about mothers
and fathers who were not together and they were going on
about how some fathers don't help to take care of their
kids. This one guy on stage said he did. The audience
applauded and the woman who he had the kid with kept saying
how she should't give him credit for that because that is
what he's supposed to do. You shouldn't be given credit for
being responsible and doing what you have to do. I forget
the rest of the show, but I see this very often (this was
the only time on real life tv that I saw this).
Many times I see where people are doing the right thing, but
they never get credit for it or even a thank you. The ones
in emergency rooms take care of people who come in: they
take care of them, keep them alive, sometimes having to go
to extraordinary lengths to keep them with us long enough to
get them to the OR. Sometimes the ER people are the ones
that do the things that keep them alive. If it wasn't for
them, those people would be dead. They are real life savers.
And the OR people come in and patch things up. But what
often happens? The OR people get pretty much all the praise
for saving their life. Duties in the ER are thanked, just
not all of them.
I think that deep down, everyone of them is deeply afraid of
Angel. They don't give him credit for being a good guy
because that's what he's supposed to do. Being a good guy is
supposed to be a thankless job. It makes them feel safe
around him. But when he screws up, it re-instills their fear
of him and to make themselves feel like they are safe again,
they come down on him. Now, granted they are his friends and
friends tell it to you straight to your face. I just feel
that sometimes they do it too much. Feel free to
disagree.
VR
[> [> [>
Re: On the state of Angel's mind and the minds of the
others -- oceloty, 01:22:47 05/13/02 Mon
I think that deep down, everyone of them is deeply afraid
of Angel. They don't give him credit for being a good guy
because that's what he's supposed to do. Being a good guy is
supposed to be a thankless job. It makes them feel safe
around him. But when he screws up, it re-instills their fear
of him and to make themselves feel like they are safe again,
they come down on him. Now, granted they are his friends and
friends tell it to you straight to your face. I just feel
that sometimes they do it too much.
Can I chime in to admire all of what you folks have said,
but especially this?
In the context of the show, Angel's human soul is wrestling
with a inner demon. I like the literal demon as a metaphor
for the darker side of human nature, so that Angel is a
walking dramatization of good vs. evil, battling inside the
human heart.
In addition to everything you guys have said, I also think
this metaphor could be part of the reason why people (both
fictional characters and real-life viewers) are so hard on
Angel. If I want to believe that people are fundmentally
good and identify with Angel as symbolizing the conflict
between good and evil, then it makes sense that I get upset
when Angel screws up, because it symbolizes evil winning,
when I want to believe it won't.
On a literal level, Angel making bad decisions can be very
frightening. (Say, Forgiving.) Metaphorically, it's also
scary to think, hey, maybe we're not as good as we thought.
Seeing the dark heart of human nature -- that is truly
disturbing, and I think that can make people flinch. Or
respond irrationally (maybe unconsciously), by taking it out
on poor Angel. Who, in the meantime, is doing his best not
to eat us all.
[> [> [> [>
"Doing his best not to eat us all" LOL! Great
line! -- Scroll, 08:50:52 05/13/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
Aww, thanks. -- oceloty, 00:07:24 05/14/02
Tue
Hope I didn't beat that metaphor into too fine of a
pulp.
Spike and Darla
parallel (Spoilers up to Seeing Red) -- agent156,
20:29:19 05/11/02 Sat
After rewatching the ep "Darla" yesterday something came to
me. Spike as he is in "Seeing Red" reminds me a lot of
Darla, second human go.
Darla was brought back to life by Wolfram & Hart as a human.
But she doesn't feel human. She may be alive and have a
soul, but she still has all the memories and feelings of
Darla the vampire. As she sees it her soul isn't something
allowing her to live as a human, it is just something that
is holding her back, keeping her from being the way she
feels she should be. As long as she has it she is incapable
of being a monster. So she doesn't feel human and isn't
capable of being a monster. Sound familiar?
Spike is in a similar position. He has a chip that was
inserted into his head against his will, just as Darla never
chose, or would have chosen, to be given a soul. The chip
just holds him back keeping him from acting in the way that
he wishes. But it has not changed how he feels or his
desires, it merely keeps him from being able to fulfill
them. Just as Darla's soul hasn't changed her desires, only
kept her from being able to act on them. Thus Spike doesn't
feel human and he can't be a monster.
Both of them long to be back to the way that they were and
for the same reason, it was easier. As a monster, there
were no restraints on behavior, no remorse for actions.
Everything was clear and easy. As Spike says to Clem
"Everything used to be so clear. Slayer. Vampire. Vampire
kills Slayer, sucks her dry, picks his teeth with her
bones." Darla wants that as well. As she tells Angel, the
only things to being alive are "pain and suffering and
disease and death."
And interestingly enough I think both of them could learn to
live as humans, if only they would allow themselves to.
Darla has a head start and probably a slightly easier path
to it since she already has a soul, but seeing as how it
took Angel one hundred years and the intervention of
Whistler to get him started to redemption it would still
likely be really hard. Spike would have the harder path as
he would have to make up for not having the things that a
soul would provide, such as a conscience. But I think the
fact that he is able to feel bad for what he did to Buffy
after doing it, shows that the possibility for him to do so
is there, even if extremely slim. Just because it's never
been done before that we know of doesn't mean it couldn't
happen. After all, don't they say that there's an exception
to every rule? I'm curious though if each of their past
experiences as humans affects their current choices to not
attempt that path. Neither one of them exactly lived great
lives and undoubtedly don't look back on them fondly.
So instead they both choose to go the same way, back to
being a monster. Darla goes to Angel to try to get him to
turn her and then to other vampires when he won't do it.
Spike is leaving Sunnydale with the apparent intention of
getting his chip removed to make him a true vampire once
again. But the events following Darla being made back into
a vampire led to her eventual redemption of sorts. She got
to feel love and happiness through her baby, and was able to
do the noble deed of sacrificing her own life so that her
child would live. It seems a bit ironic that her becoming a
vampire again, a very non-redeeming spot, would lead her to
the redemption she didn't want back when she was in a good
position to get it. Could this perhaps mean that Spike,
despite having the possibility through his chip to follow
the path to redemption, will be led to it or something
similar by once again becoming a vampire?
[>
Printing now.....get back to you later -- Rufus,
20:46:17 05/11/02 Sat
[>
Great analysis, but... -- Vickie, 20:47:55
05/11/02 Sat
I really think Darla didn't choose to go back to being a
vampire. My impression was that Angel had convinced her to
remain human (with his support). She was just too weak and
vascillating to resist Dru at all (as if she could have
succeeded).
my $.02.
[> [>
Re: Great analysis, but... -- agent156, 21:01:27
05/11/02 Sat
Yeah, right before she got turned she decided to stay human.
I was referring to before then though when she was actively
seeking out someone to turn her into a vampire. At that
point she was making the same decision as Spike, to go back
to being a monster.
[>
Re: Spike and Darla parallel (Spoilers up to Seeing
Red) -- shadowkat, 21:33:14 05/11/02 Sat
Great post btw - been thinking along similar lines.
Except
i think they may go the opposite direction - make him human
and possibly force him down the path Darla wasn't able to
take.
I also think and this isn't a spoiler - b/c I really am
spoil free after Seeing Red and the preview for next week, I
think he may discover the chip is irrelevant. And what
has been happening is his choice. What he does with this
information should be interesting.
He and Darla did live different lives though - he was
younger than Darla when he was turned. Also he wasn't on his
death bed. Another major difference is I don't believe he
was living an unsavory or difficult life - we know so
little. (I'm hoping ME is going to show us more in the next
few episodes like they did with Angel in the whole Becoming
- Amends arcs...but who can predict ME?)
This is what we do know:
1. He was a scholar and a bad poet (or so his peers
believed) He prefered scholarly pursuites and poetry and
romance and had no interest in violence. I think of him as a
bit of a dreamer - what does Dru say "you walk in worlds
no one can imagine?"
2. He was infatuated with Cecily - notice I say infatuated,
not love - Cecily clearly didn't appear to return it and he
seemed to write poetry to her from afar. Now I could have
misunderstood the scene, since she clearly recognizes him in
OAFA - so if Halfrek is Cecily, maybe more is going on
there? (Hmmm is something being planned on that score?)
3. He was close to his family and states Mother is
expecting
me.
In no way did I get the feeling he had a bad human life. Dru
just happened upon him during a weak moment and seduced him.
Darla - she was a prostitute and was dying of syphilus when
the Master turned her and when Drusillia did. Her life was
horrible. As she states - she wasn't a good person when she
was alive - if anything she was pretty bad, just like Liam,
its one of the reasons she turns him. Drusilla was a good
person when she was alive and goes after someone similar to
what she was in nature. The BIG difference is that Drusilla
doesn't drive William insane first - like Angel drives
Drusilla insane. Instead she just seduces him as Darla
seduces Angel. The Master turns Darla and coaches her in his
evil ways. When Dru does it, she's still a bit nuts.
Also Darla resisted being turned by Dru - so it was a rape,
while she gave in to the Master. Just as Dru resisted being
turned by Angel and it was a rape. I think that's
important
for some reason.
The names also interest me. Angel hasn't kept his human
name, he got rid of it. So did Darla - we don't know what
her original name was. Not so Drusilla and Spike. While
Spike did change his, he still is called Willaim by Buffy on
more than one occassion. Why? Also why use William and Liam
= both mean protector and are variations. Does JW
just have a love of the name William?
The characters of Spike and Darla have always fascinated me
because of their greyness - I can't predict them. Also they
were both the truth tellers. Angel and Dru tended to be a
little crazy and into dreams, while Darla and Spike were
pragmatists and tended to be upfront and forthright. They
also questioned their lovers - much like Anya.
I have no clear idea where they are going with Spike, just
hunches which I trust, b/c well I've been right on every
single thing that's happened up to now. But his character
never ceases to surprise me - partly because it is a
combination of Victorian gentleman and chaotic emotional
demon. He always seems to be on the verge of losing control,
going off the deep end or...and so did Darla in Ats.
So...you may be right, his arc may be Darla's. It certainly
sounds more reasonable to me than manwitch's prediction
below which gave me a headache.
Sorry for the rambling, tis late here and I keep getting
kicked off. Hope made some sense.
[> [>
Re: Spike and Darla parallel (Spoilers up to Seeing
Red) -- agent156, 22:37:33 05/11/02 Sat
I will concede that Spike didn't have a bad life in the same
sense that Darla did, but I think to him it was still
something he looks back on unfavorably. His telling Buffy
in FFL that he never really felt alive until he became a
vampire hints to that.
I disagree on the name thing though. Spike did change his
name. He even corrects Angelus when he calls him William.
He doesn't want to be associated with that name anymore. I
think the fact that William has stuck around at all is in
reference to the rather humanness he has even as a vampire.
As evidenced by the fact that the Judge could not burn him,
Angelus has no humnaity in him, and as such his name of Liam
has not followed him. But Spike, as the Judge pointed out
and we have indeed seen, does still have some humanity in
him. Spike did not choose to still go by the name of
William, it just followed him after he assumed his new
persona because unlike some other vampires he kept a bit of
his humanity after being turned.
As for where they're going to take Spike I don't really know
either. That was just some wild speculation of mine that
seemed interesting since it would continue the parallel.
And I can't believe one of the greatest posters on this
board liked my post. Thanks! That atleast means it was
worthwhile to do it.
[> [> [>
I Fail To See How It Is Possible to.... --
AngelVSAngelus, 10:07:27 05/12/02 Sun
feel remorse for a transgression if one doesn't have a
conscience. Maybe this is my own short coming, but I was
under the impression that a conscience what gives one the
ability to have the empathy for other people necessary to
feel remorse in the first place.
The writer's have really confuzzled me with this one, and
maybe I'm being rigid in doing so, but I don't accept a
creature that has been explained as NOT having a conscience
before feeling remorse for a dastardly deed, not even
against the one he loves. Love is amoral, IMHO.
People have pointed out that while Spike blames the chip
for his remorseful feelings and not going through with
Buffy's violation, that isn't possible. That, to me, is
inconsistancy on their part, and while I still find it
interesting to watch, I also find it disconcertingly
distracting. It takes me out of the element of belief that
I've had for the show for years.
It took Darla infection from her child's soul to feel any
remorse, and Angel a soul as well. I still stand by not soul
equals good, but soul equals capacity for empathy.
[> [>
Re: Spike and Darla parallel (Spoilers up to Seeing
Red) -- Rufus, 23:45:16 05/11/02 Sat
The names also interest me. Angel hasn't kept his human
name, he got rid of it. So did Darla - we don't know what
her original name was. Not so Drusilla and Spike. While
Spike did change his, he still is called Willaim by Buffy on
more than one occassion. Why? Also why use William and Liam
= both mean protector and are variations. Does JW
just have a love of the name William?
Angel adopted the name his sister called him when he had her
invite him into his parents house after he "died". It was a
perverse tribute to the sister he killed. From the
Prodigal...
Dad: “Be gone, unclean thing! A demon can not enter a
home where it’s not welcome. He must be invited!”
Angel: “That’s true. - But I was invited.”
Angel looks to the doorway. His father turns and sees little
Kathy slumped against the wall.
Dad: “Och!”
Angel: “She thought I returned to her - an angel.”
Darla is a bit of a different story. She was a prostitute
who had enough going for her to have property, but what she
couldn't have was the inclusion into polite society. She may
not have been what people call a "good girl" but she was
attempting to survive. Makes one wonder what you call the
customers who left her alone to die of syphillis?
Then we get to William, I agree that maybe his family was a
bit closer, but don't you find it odd that his mother was
expecting him not his family? Also his resentment of the
father figure in Tabula Rasa, that assumption that he hated
his father.....I considered him to be either from a family
with an absent or dead father. He made a specific point of
changing his station, his name, to that of the lower class
Spike persona. I highly doubt William the Bloody was a name
he considers a compliment, but at least Buffy called him
William. I think he had a bad life in that he was rejected
by all of those in his class, doomed to a solitary life,
until a certain dark beauty found him. Dru was smart to keep
him "sane" someone in the pair had to have an idea of what
was going on.
I've found both Spike and Darla to be rather predictable
because they both did things in a pattern. Angelus changed
his killing style because he wanted to make an artistic
statement...plus kill-drain-dump has to become tedious.
Spike killed for the prestige in numbers, when that tired
him he resorted to killing Slayers to earn respect. He is
kinda a trophy hunter of vampires. Darla tended to kill in a
way similar to a hooker finding a customer, she resented men
and tended to kill family units, perhaps because it was the
thing she never could have in life, a family and good
reputation. Even Angel knew where to look for Darla, she
loved Missionaries.
It was Darla who said "what we once were informs all that we
become" and she was right. The stuff from the vampires life
becomes how they act out as demons. William was rejected,
didn't measure up as a man, so he spends his unlife doing a
version of "Look at me!" over and over again. Angelus kills
purity and loving people because he resents their ability to
enjoy life. Darla kills the image of what once vicimized her
in life in the form of Johns and their families. Drusilla is
the most unpredictable, but even she has a cause...she is
attempting to rebuild the family Angelus took from her,
transferring all her need to her vampire parents.
When vampires are made they lose their soul, the moral
compass that once was directed to good is now pointed to
evil. They feel good doing things that would have horrified
them in real life, unless they were already sociopaths like
Kralic, then hey!, it's just a party with more energy.
Now to redemption and Darla and Spike. One thing we have to
remember is that redemption is an individual thing, there
isn't only one path to it, something can happen that will
turn someone in a new direction. For Darla it was the soul
in her son, the soul that caused her to feel love, real love
for the first time. For Spike, it could be something else,
some event that is no way near the same as the soul Darla
had temporary custody of. Is the chip a Jiminy Cricket to
remove and squish, leaving Spike to again be a monster? Or,
are the feelings Spike is following up on the need of
finding a way to get Buffy to love him? Spike is feeling
like nothing, he can't be either a monster or a man like he
is now, he is caught between two worlds, unable to truly
occupy either....his goodbye from the motorbike promised
change, we can only guess how.
[> [> [>
Rufus's thoughts on Spike; minor spoilers to SR, but
mostly just very long and historically-minded -- (don't
say i didn't warn you) - redcat, 04:57:41 05/12/02
Sun
Rufus - your perceptive comments and very enjoyable post got
me thinking, so this loooong response post is partly your
fault. ;)
You said: “Then we get to William, I agree that maybe his
family was a bit closer, but don't you find it odd
that his mother was expecting him not his family? Also his
resentment of the father figure in
Tabula Rasa, that assumption that he hated his father.....I
considered him to be either from a
family with an absent or dead father. He made a specific
point of changing his station, his
name, to that of the lower class Spike persona. I highly
doubt William the Bloody was a name
he considers a compliment, but at least Buffy called him
William. I think he had a bad life in
that he was rejected by all of those in his class, doomed to
a solitary life, until a certain dark
beauty found him.”
I generally agree, and have what is actually just a small
thing to add to this discussion, even
though it seems really long now that it’s all written out.
It’s based on my reading of the
construction of William as a literary trope representing a
certain recognizable historical
character type from the late 19th century. I know this
might sound more than a bit lectury, but
I think there’s a value to injecting at least the broad
outlines of the historical data into the
discussion.
Especially during the last two decades of the 19th century,
a cluster of British and American
social and cultural commentators, ranging from clergymen to
newspaper editors to educators
and academics in the newly-emerging professions of sexology,
psychology and sociology, very
publically heralded a clarion call for public panic about
the supposed “softening” of the male
citizens of the two respective nations. They were worried
about something generally called
neurasthenia, a condition of “social nervousness” which
manifested *in men* as the linked evils
of feminization, over-culturization and bureaucratization.
Many commentators blamed these
symptoms on men’s supposed over-civilization by women,
others on the creeping cultural
emasculation caused by the social effects of the industrial
revolution on the (white) middle
class. A whole generation of Anglo-American men were
supposedly afflicted, their cultural
type being represented in popular literature, sermons,
editorials and “educational” tracts as the
overly-sensitive, romantic, non-athletic poet of the genteel
middle class. Visual
representations of the neurasthenic male generally portrayed
him as thin, slightly stoop-
shouldered, fussily-dressed, clean-shaven, wearing glasses,
carrying a book, etc. A common
linked attribute of this type of character, especially in
popular dramatic and comedic
representations, was his over-identification with a (usually-
widowed but always over-protective)
mother and the real or implied absence of a strong father.
While there were vigorous social
arguments about the *meaning* of the neurasthenic male (and
his counterpart, the frigid and
infertile neurasthenic female), the problematical and wide-
spread existence of the type itself
had become generally accepted by the mid-1880s. For such a
weak character, the type had a
fairly healthy life, sustaining public and academic interest
throughout the rest of the 19th
century and into the early decades of the 20th, after which
the trope went through a series of
minor revivals, particularly in America in the period just
prior to WWI and in Britain in the inter-
war period.
Structurally, William is almost a caricature of the British
middle-class model of this type. His
comment to Dru in the alley when she vamps him that his
mother is waiting for him at home
confirms the typologic basis of his character. Cecily’s
comment that William is “beneath her”
also reflects the ways in which this character type was
thought to be a special problem of the
middle class. Particularly in Britain, the representation
of the middle-class neurasthenic male
was also linked to a critique of the upward class mobility
of modernity, in which these men
were seen as inappropriately using middle-class attributes
(education, manners, clothing, etc.)
in an attempt to climb the social ladder into the lower
rungs of the upper class. Both Cecily’s
dress and the furnishings of her drawing room, in which she
rejects William, suggest that she
is from at least a slightly higher class position than his,
which reiterates the tropic nature of the
characterization.
Seeing William’s surface characterization as based on this
common stereotypic figure helps
make sense of at least two sorts of statements that we have
seen Spike make. The first is his
fondness for describing men whom he wants to characterize as
emotional or weak as “nancy-
boys,” the perfect descriptor of dear, sweet, slightly
pathetic and clearly virginal William
himself. The second is Spike’s assertion to Buffy that Dru
had saved him “from a life of
mediocrity,” a pejorative phrase that is an almost-perfect
descriptor of the neurasthenic
“condition,” and one that might well have been snidely flung
at a young man like William (if he
were real and not a fictional character, that is) as he
walked the streets of London in 1880.
Finally, as many posters have noted, we need to consider
Spike’s construction of his vampire
identity at a class position lower than William’s original
human one. Darla, Angel and Dru all
clearly seek to establish a vamp life-style at a class
position higher than or equal to their
human one. However, as far as we know, none of the rest of
the “family” has, as a primary
internal psychological legacy from their human self,
inherited the need to establish and display
their “virility” in public ways, nor do they seek to do so
in situations where weakness would also
be publically and particularly displayed. Spike does, on
both counts. He not only loves the
brawl, the riot, going up against unfavorable odds and
coming out the winner, but by his own
admission, he needs it. His fighting style includes a large
dose of performativity, the acting-out
of being The Big Bad. He is only an efficient killer when
he has to be, or when no one
important is looking (e.g., the clerk in the Magic Box,
“Lover’s Walk”).
His intention in his public performances of violence,
however, is not to toy with his victims; he does not delight
in their
pain as Angelus, Dru and Vamp Willow seem to. Spike simply
seeks to display his own wit,
power, speed, strength and cleverness, acted out on the
bodies of his victims, almost as if they
were his canvass. And he does so in the style of a working-
class street-brawler. No fancy
Asian martial arts moves for Spike, no highly-sophisticated
elegance, no spouting of verse or
philosophy while fists and fangs fly. Spike dusts a demon
and then turns, expectantly, looking
to see who saw his theatrics, who he can brag to.
This need for the public display of strength and masculinity
was also the typical 19thC male
response to being categorized as neurasthenic. Literally
tens of thousands of middle-class
British and American men began taking boxing and hunting
lessons and joined organized
outdoor “sports clubs” to prove they weren’t “part of the
problem.” (This is also the era, of
course, of the beginning of the Boy Scouts - which perhaps
explains that organization’s history
of homophobia, although not its current practice of this
social disease.) Oddly enough, this
concern for public displays of “masculinity,” then, in fact
encouraged the broad development of
sites for homo-social organization, behavior and activities.
Men best prove that they are men,
after all, only in the presence of other men, not in the
company of women.
Spike’s choice for a new persona makes sense, given the
trope. Why not move up the social
ladder? It was the upper and middle classes who rejected
him as William, just as it was
members of those classes who identified the “problem” of the
weak man, and all too often
publically condemned and humiliated its human
representatives. Further, we see Spike calling
Angel/Angelus “fop” and “foppish,” words suggesting a
critique of the aristocracy as foolishly
effeminate. But while both the aristocratic/upper class and
the poor certainly had their own
models of inappropriate male development (coded somewhat
differently in Britain than
America), the vigor of the working class was often touted by
social commentators as the most
appropriate antidote for the emasculated, over-civilized,
over-educated male. This message
was mixed, though. Middle-class men were told to value
becoming “hard” like the working
class (as in hard labor, hard physical exercise, hard-
decision making skills, hard business
sense), but were simultaneously warned about the “evils” of
the lower-class world - drink,
drugs, violence and sex – just the sort of things any
sensible vampire would find pretty
exciting. Given all this, becoming the late 19thC
equivalent of Sid Vicious was almost
William’s only option. Since vampires signify (at least on
one level) arrested development,
perhaps it should come as no surprise that Spike retains
William’s typological insecurities and
that they are embodied in his outward persona, as well as in
his judgements of and
relationships with other males.
I’ve barely alluded to the sexual identity issues that are
linked to the model being discussed,
but the basic outlines are clear and folks can take that
wherever they need it to go.... One
thought - since Buffy, as the hero, exhibits a number of
significant attributes that have been
traditionally coded as “masculine,” Spike’s relationship
with her is clearly multi-valent and
complexly ambiguous. (Of course, this is true whether or
not one uses this model to
understand Spike – many, many folks have discussed the
nature of this ambiguity...)
I guess the reason that I’ve taken the pains to discuss this
historical issue at such length here
is that I think it affects Spike’s motivations, his interior
psychological processes, the way he
“came to be” who and what he is. Therefore, by extension,
it should affect his actions in the
present and the future, and, hopefully, our understanding of
them. Spike’s character clearly
reflects a close familiarity on the part of the writers with
the historical type, its representations
in the popular literature of the day, and the contemporary
debates over the resonance of this
“problematic” masculinity-type for modern American culture
in particular. Spike doesn’t just
*seem* to be someone who is insecure, he *represents* that
insecurity in a specifically-coded
way.
Someone else noted on another thread (sorry, I couldn’t find
it when I looked again, please
forgive me, whoever this insight originally was from) that
Spike takes trophies of his best kills,
his coat being the most obvious, and was at one time fixated
on killing Slayers because those
killings gained him a highly-masculinized and highly-
sexualized public reputation (at least in
the demon world). All of this fits with a late Victorian
man who was rescued from a life of
mediocrity by being made a vampire, and who then re-made
himself into a vampire hunter of
vampire-hunters. There’s been a lot of discussion on the
board lately about the relationship
between William and Spike, especially post -“that scene” in
SR. I have no idea if anyone will
even read a post this long and boring, but if so, I hope it
will -- just maybe -- spark a few
thoughts that might add to the general discussion of
Spike/William and the show.
Thanks for reading this and sorry once again that it's so
long.
a hui hou (until we meet again)
redcat
[> [> [> [>
Neat! Plus, a hobbyhorse of mine . . . --
d'Herblay, 06:38:24 05/12/02 Sun
So, Spike is then Teddy Roosevelt, a weedy, bespectacled,
bookish boy who grows into bustle and bluster after a
diagnosis of neurasthenia, travelling out west to take the
air and indulge in a little big-game hunting? I can buy it.
In fact, I outright like it. In the romanticization of Spike
there has been a tendency to Romanticize him as well; a
tendency to latch onto William's posistion as a poet and
build him into another sensitive Shelley or Keats. I wonder
if William might be viewed better within his context as a
Victorian poet, an embracer of blood and sweat and
colonialism: a budding Kipling before Drusilla nips him.
In fact, I (basically because I wanted him to flip through
Dawn's British Literature textbook and say, "That one's
mine") have entertained this fantasy that Spike is really
William Ernest Henley. I'm not sure if Henley was ever
diagnosed as neurasthenic; his tuberculosis was more
obvious. Still, from his infirmary, he did his best to
convey his Victorian masculinity:
Life -- life -- let there be life!
Better a thousand times the roaring hours
When wave and wind,
Like the Arch-Murderer in flight
From the Avenger at his heel,
Storms through the desolate fastnesses
And wild waste places of the world!
Life -- give me life until the end,
That at the very top of being,
The battle-spirit shouting in my blood,
Out of the reddest hell of the fight
I may be snatched and flung
Into the everlasting lull,
The immortal, incommunicable dream.
("Space and Dread and the Dark")
Or, "Oh, God! It's been so long since I had a decent spot of
violence. Really puts things in perspective."
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Neat! Plus, a hobbyhorse of mine . . . --
redcat, 13:12:43 05/12/02 Sun
William Ernest Henley!! Woo and hoo and woo
again!
thanks for your comments. i've also seen the tendency to
equate william/spike with the
Romantics of the earlier era, in part perhaps because spike
himself seems to demand the
comparison. william's own self-conceptualization would
probably seek a blurring of the line
between the Byron/Shelley/Keats image, with its inherent
component of the grand gesture and
the public displays of doomed courage, over the reality of
the poets' not-so-great neurasthenic
grandsons’ empire building during the late industrial/mid-
colonialist era at the end of the
century.
as have many scholars of the period, i see a direct
connection between the late victorian
debate over male neurasthenia and, at least in the american
case, the drive to war and
conquestive imperialism that resulted in the forceful taking
of Hawai'i, Guam and the
Philippines in the Pacific, and Cuba and Puerto Rico in the
Caribbean at the turn of the
century. the Brits, of course, were at the same time
demonstrating their continuing control
over China during the failed Boxer rebellion, during which
we see Spike kill his first Slayer.
Joss obviously had a good undergrad education at Welsley and
one of the things i appreciate
most about the show is that *most* of the time, ME not only
gets the history stuff right, they try
to understand the influence of specific historical issues on
the characters they've created.
Spike and the gang are not just some random creations based
solely on pop culture
iconographic representations of "the vampire." they are
specific vampires, literally "fleshed
out" characters for whom vampirism is but one of a number of
important life
experiences/processes that work complexly to provide them
with conflicting motivations and
multiply-layered psychological structures -- kind of like
the rest of us.
anyway, thanks again for responding. BTW, if you’re
interested in this period and haven’t
already read it, a good set of essays is collected in Gail
Bederman, _Manliness and
Civilization_, UP Chicago, 1995.
a hui hou,
redcat
[> [> [> [>
not boring at all, highly enjoyable actually --
aurelia, 08:51:24 05/12/02 Sun
[> [> [> [>
Re: Rufus's thoughts on Spike; to SR, but mostly just
very long and historically-minded -- Rufus, 14:28:11
05/12/02 Sun
Especially during the last two decades of the 19th
century, a cluster of British and American
social and cultural commentators, ranging from clergymen to
newspaper editors to educators
and academics in the newly-emerging professions of sexology,
psychology and sociology, very
publically heralded a clarion call for public panic about
the supposed “softening” of the male
citizens of the two respective nations. They were worried
about something generally called
neurasthenia, a condition of “social nervousness” which
manifested *in men* as the linked evils
of feminization, over-culturization and bureaucratization.
Many commentators blamed these
symptoms on men’s supposed over-civilization by women,
others on the creeping cultural
emasculation caused by the social effects of the industrial
revolution on the (white) middle
class. A whole generation of Anglo-American men were
supposedly afflicted, their cultural
type being represented in popular literature, sermons,
editorials and “educational” tracts as the
overly-sensitive, romantic, non-athletic poet of the genteel
middle class..
When I did my original outline of William I considered what
to do with Spike to make him someone you could do the
unexpected with. To make him a member of the upperclass was
a way out. Spike had been considered "manly" but I could see
that characterization was very limiting in possibilities.
What originally got me posting on any board was the fact
they went with what I had come up with right down to the
mother figure appearing strong in his life. This was a smart
move because William became a gentle potential of the more
sociopathic Spike. To make him a character made up from a
character was a smart thing to do. It gave redemptionists
something to look to, reference to show that Spike had been
once a "good man". The rejection by Cecily was also a great
addition because we got to see he was no Angelus in the
woman department. It also gave him much in common with Giles
who was another character who went below his station to find
a persona. No mistake you see the two men on the swingset
together.
From the Shooting Script of Fool for Love:
INT. ENGLISH DRAWING ROOM - 1880 - NIGHT
We cut to a high-society drawing room of the late nineteenth
century. Young people mingle and politely flirt.
SUBTITLE: LONDON, 1880
We pan across the crowd to find, sitting alone and staring
longingly out the window, young WILLIAM. Spike before he was
Spike. The biggest sissy imaginable. Chewing thoughtfully on
the end of a pen, mumbling...
William was the biggest sissy yet.....I loved it....he was
what Giles appeared to be in "Welcome to the Hellmouth",
fussy, almost feminine. In season two, Giles proved to be
more complicated than everyone assumed by his gentle seeming
exterior. In Halloween, we found out that Giles did just
what Spike did so many years previously. Giles was the
Ripper. The thing with Giles was that with a bad experience
with Dark Magic in "The Dark Age" he was capable of growing
from that, growing up, becoming an adult. The Ripper got
shoved behind spectacles, and a suit, but in Band Candy we
got to see the Ripper again when he had his way with Buffy's
mom over the hood of the police car. He violent tendancies
were very similar to Spikes, as a more adolecent personality
he had less experience that tells someone that you don't
only use violence to become a man, or to solve all
problems.
He looks in her eyes, begging for a chance he feels he's
earned. She looks back, sincerely.
CECILY
I do see you.
He holds his breath. Hope! She continues:
CECILY
That's the problem. You're
nothing to me, William.
You're beneath me.
Spike takes this in as she exits. He is quiet, trying to
contain his pain
EXT. ENGLISH STREET - 1880 - NIGHT
Without his hat and coat, William tears down the street. Hot
tears streak down his face. He rips up his poem as he stalks
out the building and down the street, blinded by rage and
humiliation.
He BUMPS into a GROUP of three people. A man and two
women.
SPIKE
Bloody... watch where
you're going!
He continues down the street, ripping up the paper into
smaller and smaller bits.
ANGLE ON: A dark section of street beneath a gas lamp.
Spike's overcome with fatigue and humiliation. He
rips the paper into smaller and smaller bits until he can
rip no more.
And slowly, all the rage drains out of him.
A soothing, understanding voice comes from nowhere:
VOICE
And here I wonder...
Embarrassed, Spike whirls to see who it is.
DRUSILLA. Dressed for the times. Looking at him with total
love and understanding.
DRUSILLA
What possible catastrophe came
crashing down from heaven and
brought this dashing stranger...
She reaches out, gingerly wipes the last remaining tear from
his face.
DRUSILLA
...To tears?
SPIKE
Nothing. I wish to be alone.
DRUSILLA
You've been alone too long.
SPIKE
What could you possibly know of me?
DRUSILLA
I've seen you. A man surrounded
by fools who cannot see his strength.
His vision. His glory. That, and
burning baby fish swimming all
'round your head.
What? Spike eyes this crazy Victorian chick suspiciously as
she steps closer, curiously examining him like a cat eyeing
a new breed of mouse. Her lips part...
SPIKE
Th-that's quite close enough.
I've heard tales of London
pickpockets. You'll not get
my purse, I tell you.
DRUSILLA
Don't need a purse.
Your wealth lies here.
(touching his heart)
And here.
(touches his head)
In the spirit and imagination.
You walk in worlds the others
can't begin to imagine.
He's flabbergasted. Hypnotized. How could she know? She
steps closer. Her face near his. He's not used to this. He
squirms, but can't move.
SPIKE
Yes... I mean, no. I mean -
Mother's expecting me.
She leans closer, whispering in his ear.
DRUSILLA
I see what you want. Something
glowing, and glistening. Something
effulgent. Do you want it?
SPIKE
I - yes! God, yes!
She smiles. VAMP-FACES. And BITES deeps in his neck. Spike
rears his head back, new sensations coursing through him. He
closes his eyes, feeling ecstasy... then some pain.
SPIKE
Ow. Ow! OW! Ow ow ow ow OW-WOO!
Drusilla keeps feeding, sucking on the young poet's neck,
pinning him upright against the post, lit by the single
light from above. Draining him, sucking him...
I included the previous exchange because it shows William to
be no man of heavy labour. I don't think he was middle class
he had to be high enough in station to gain entrance to such
a party. His presence there was only because he was in that
class, but as a nerd type he was rejected because he was for
even that type eccentric.
Spike makes his way into the crowd. The Male Partygoer
turns to him.
MALE PARTYGOER
Ah, William. Favor us with your
opinion. What do you make of
this rash of disappearances
sweeping our town? Animals -
or thieves?
All eyes turn to Spike
SPIKE
I prefer not to think of such
dark, ugly business at all.
That's what police are for.
William was not into participating in society, he was more
of a solitary type, one who was a bit of an academic snob,
in that he wasn't going to get his hands dirty with "ugly
business" he clearly "wouldn't" be involved in.
Of course Dru found him and took him to the never-never land
of the vampire. No more books, no more having to live up to
expectations, he was liberated to become a new man. But that
new man came from the mind that had company in the form of
the demon influence that took the potential of William
changing and becoming more of a Ripper type, to a Ripper who
was clearly a monster. I will say again, with age and
experience, Giles was able to evolve into the watcher we
know now, hiding Ripper, but using some of those strengths
when needed. With Spike we perpetually see an adolecent, one
that could never understand why he should find a happy
medium between shy scholar and tough guy. This is because
without a soul, Spike is stuck in that adolecence, still
blaming others for his own weakness, still a very big danger
to those around him as he is prone to act out without
reason. Buffy can't love him because she simply doesn't
dare. We saw that alley scene with the woman he talked
himself into attacking. That to me was the signal from the
writers that the soul was the thing that stood between the
monster and the man. I have to wonder what would happen if
Spike got a soul back? With his experience of over a hundred
years, I doubt he would revert to the ponce we first saw
sniffing after something he couldn't have in the form of
Cecily. I think that like Giles he would be able to use the
strengths of what he had once been as human and demon, leave
never never land and become someone Buffy could give a
serious look to.
I guess we could take a second look at all those punches to
the face as the womans way of civilizing the male.:)
BTW....LOL at the idea that Buffy is a manifestation of
masculinity that can make Spike feel manly, thank god she
hasn't smashed his orbs..;)....heroes have such a tough
job.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Rufus's thoughts -- redcat, 19:39:57
05/12/02 Sun
well, rufus, we may have to just respectfully agree to
disagree. i can certainly see why you see william as upper
class and i think that interpretation is valid, especially
given the shooting script directions. some of the points i
made earlier about the neurasthenic trope may still work
within that perspective, though.
however, in re-thinking the crucial set of scenes in FFL, i
still see william as somewhat outside the "high society"
social order, and not just because he is a poet or sensitive
or a geek. i look at his clothes and manners in relation to
the others in the drawing room, cecily's statement to him,
the way the visual, textual and structural cues reflect the
neurasthenic model so perfectly, and i wind up saying - yep,
once again ME has created ambiguity rather than certainty,
leaving important factors like william's class position open
to debate. so, as has been mentioned on more than one
occasion, such events only confirm the truth that Joss is
both God and evil.....
BTW, i always enjoy your posts, even the ones i don't
completely agree with, so thanks for the great insights
across a number of topics and threads. -- rc
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Rufus's thoughts -- Rufus, 20:28:52 05/12/02
Sun
in re-thinking the crucial set of scenes in FFL, i still
see william as somewhat outside the "high society" social
order, and not just because he is a poet or sensitive or a
geek. i look at his clothes and manners in relation to the
others in the drawing room, cecily's statement to him, the
way the visual, textual and structural cues reflect the
neurasthenic model so perfectly, and i wind up saying - yep,
once again ME has created ambiguity rather than certainty,
leaving important factors like william's class position open
to debate
I agree it is open to interpretation, the clothing could
easiliy explained as either lack of income, or just lack of
style or freedom to express style. I did agree he did
reflect the neurasthenic model, but he could be in a higher
income and be neurasthenic. I see him as upper middle class,
not anything like aristocracy, look to how he treated the
butler. He asked a question one wouldn't think of to ask a
servant, so is that inexperience in the drawing room, or is
he so removed from everyone else because of his introverted
leanings. One thing that bugged me, if his mother was
expecting him....if he was ready to chuck it all to travel
with Drusilla(I doubt he understood he was going to die to
start that journey), could he possibly know his mother was
well taken care of, or was he a selfish uncaring person?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Rufus's thoughts -- anom, 22:19:55 05/12/02
Sun
"One thing that bugged me, if his mother was expecting
him....if he was ready to chuck it all to travel with
Drusilla(I doubt he understood he was going to die to start
that journey), could he possibly know his mother was well
taken care of, or was he a selfish uncaring person?"
I doubt he was thinking in terms of traveling in the 1st
place--just that she was offering something intangible (he
thought) that he really wanted deep down & never thought he
could have. I don't see any basis to believe he thought he'd
be leaving his mother.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Rufus's thoughts -- Rufus, 00:19:41 05/13/02
Mon
I wasn't thinking about the 5 minute trip he thought he was
taking....from Fool for Love
What? Spike eyes this crazy Victorian chick suspiciously
as she steps closer, curiously examining him like a cat
eyeing a new breed of mouse. Her lips part...
SPIKE
Th-that's quite close enough.
I've heard tales of London
pickpockets. You'll not get
my purse, I tell you.
DRUSILLA
Don't need a purse.
Your wealth lies here.
(touching his heart)
And here.
(touches his head)
In the spirit and imagination.
You walk in worlds the others
can't begin to imagine.
He's flabbergasted. Hypnotized. How could she know? She
steps closer. Her face near his. He's not used to this. He
squirms, but can't move.
SPIKE
Yes... I mean, no. I mean -
Mother's expecting me.
She leans closer, whispering in his ear.
DRUSILLA
I see what you want. Something
glowing, and glistening. Something
effulgent. Do you want it?
SPIKE
I - yes! God, yes!
She smiles. VAMP-FACES. And BITES deeps in his neck. Spike
rears his head back, new sensations coursing through him. He
closes his eyes, feeling ecstasy... then some pain.
SPIKE
Ow. Ow! OW! Ow ow ow ow OW-WOO!
Drusilla keeps feeding, sucking on the young poet's neck,
pinning him upright against the post, lit by the single
light from above. Draining him, sucking him...
Even as a soulless evil, vampire, he seemed to respect a
mother figure, strangers are one thing, but his real mother
is something else. I got the impression that he had no
worries about her well being before he left forever with Dru
and the family. I didn't feel he went back and killed his
mother like Angelus killed his father. If his mother wasn't
of high station, a son who could take care of her would be
as good as killing her if he left her alone, so I thought
somehow that he didn't have to fear for her well-being, be
it food or lodging.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
what wasn't clear... -- anom, 11:19:10 05/13/02
Mon
...was your use of "travel":
"...if he was ready to chuck it all to travel with
Drusilla...."
I didn't think William had any idea he'd be leaving his
mother, either to "travel" long-term or by dying. And if
"the 5-minute trip" means sex w/Dru, ...well, maybe one of
the board's experts on the Victorian era can tell us if its
poets would expect "effulgence" from a quick, or even not so
quick, roll w/a stranger. I don't see any evidence in that
scene that when William said, "yes! God, yes!" to Dru, he
thought he'd never see his mother again & might be leaving
her w/no means of support, only that he'd be late. And maybe
not even that--he probably would have stayed longer at the
party if Cecily hadn't rebuffed him, so "Mother's expecting
me" might have been just an excuse.
What did he think he was saying yes to? Maybe someone
who could understand the worlds he walked in, his search for
effulgence...someone with whom he could transcend his
mundane, "mediocre" existence. Well, he did, just not in any
way he might have expected.
"Even as a soulless evil, vampire, he seemed to respect a
mother figure...."
Hmm. Certainly he had a soft spot for Joyce. But I don't
know if we can extend that individual case to a general
respect for mothers. Did you have any additional instances
in mind?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: what wasn't clear... -- Rufus, 14:36:12
05/13/02 Mon
Nope, for the instances with mothers, it was only an
observation, I would have provided an exact quote if I could
remember one. I think the only thing William knew at the
point he died was that something was going to happen, I
don't think he even knew what that was. I used the word
"travel" with tongue in cheek, I should have made that
clear.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Rufus's thoughts -- Ronia, 21:42:40 05/12/02
Sun
O.K. I do not posses at this hour, desire to back myself up
as historically acurate, so I'm just gonna offer up a
possibility that occurred to me reading these last few
posts...couldn't William be both? It is interesting to me
also that he mentions only his mother, and that he is an
invited guest at the party, and that he doesn't seem to have
a trade...so I was wondering if perhaps his mother is
widowed, therefore, leaving him formerly of their class, but
now somewhat beneath it due to his financial situation. I
noticed as well that he was not "quite" as nicely dressed as
the others, and wondered if this could be part of the
culprit for his dandification...
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Rufus's thoughts -- Malandanza, 10:32:18
05/13/02 Mon
...couldn't William be both?
I believe William was both as well, although I come at it
from a different perspective. Granted, my view is most
likely not historically sound, since it is based on Jane
Austen novels (which predate William), but Joss is a JA fan
and often doesn't worry about historical accuracy when he
has a story to tell.
I see William's family as being thoroughly middle class, but
with a father who made money in some trade (unworthy of the
aristocracy) like the up and coming families in JA's novels.
They are treated with disdain by the old landed gentry.
This prejudice against new money is best seen in Emma
when Augusta Hawkins becomes engaged to Mr. Elton:
What she was, must be uncertain; but who
she was, might be found out; and setting aside the 10,000
pounds it did not appear that she was all Harriet's
superior. She brought no name, no blood, no alliance. Miss
Hawkins was the youngest daughter of a Bristol--Merchant, of
course, he must be called; but, as the whole of the profits
of his mercantile life appeared so very moderate, it was not
unfair to guess the dignity of his line of trade had been
very moderate also. Part of every winter she used to spend
in Bath; but Bristol was her home, the very heart of
Bristol; for though the mother and father had died some
years ago, and uncle remained -- in the law line: nothing
more distinctly honourable was hazarded of him, than he was
in the law line; and with him the daughter had lived. Emma
guessed him to be some drudge of an attorney, and too stupid
to rise. And all the grandeur of the connection seemed
dependent on the elder sister, who was very well
married, to a gentleman in a great way, near
Bristol, who kept two carriages! That was the wind-up of
the history; that was the glory of Miss Hawkins.
So I see William in much the same way -- his father made
money through hard work and either his father or (more
likely) his mother wanted to see William become a gentleman.
But While William's money may buy him admittance into the
upper class, it cannot buy him acceptance. He is Jonathan
trying out for the swim team. He does not belong and his
actions and mannerisms reveal this. Like Miss Hawkins, he
has "no name, no blood, no alliance" -- just money.
And money has always been important to Spike -- there's not
much he wouldn't do for a few dollars. Even when William is
accosted by Dru, William's pocket book is what concerns
him.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Rufus's thoughts -- Ronia, 11:29:45 05/13/02
Mon
wow...I was thinking of JA when I wrote that...the only
reason that I came to the conclusion that he was previously
of their class and not working towards it are as
follows...he was not dressed as nicely as the others, if I
had come into money and was trying to fit into a different
class system, I can't imagine not dressing the part.....his
mannerisms and speech are entirely genteel, not something
that you learn as an adult but are almost bred in..life Is
this way and so on....He doesn't seem to have a trade, or
even to know anything about the trades of others, I can't
imagine the child of a nonwealthy parentage who has worked
to acheive wealth enough to admit them into another class
systems private party would be that ignorant....and lastly,
he was addressed very informally, which was not common at
the time and so it is unlikely that he is a new aquaitance
(sp?)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
requested spelling -- anom, 23:10:00 05/13/02
Mon
"...a new aquaitance (sp?)"
Close--since you ask, it's "acquaintance."
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: requested spelling -- Ronia thanks, knew that
didn't look quite right, 09:29:33 05/14/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Rufus's thoughts -- Rufus, 16:21:30 05/13/02
Mon
Great Mal, now you will have people thinking of Spike in a
Speedo.....I know they didn't have them in Victorian times,
but who wants to be exact?
When I looked over William, I thought he had an absent
father, I don't know why I got that vibe but I did. Absent
or dead, and in those times the father could have been in
India. When it comes to money, I thought that with his
bookish looks he may be well educated which I thought back
then would have cost money.....most of all I see him as a
Victorian Giles.
[> [> [> [>
weary of boredom, but gobbled up every word! I look
forward to more - I know nothing of this subject --
yuri, 00:39:57 05/13/02 Mon
[> [> [>
a quick question -- abt, 06:44:15 05/12/02
Sun
What do you think lies behind Spike's tendency to comfort
crying women?
[> [> [>
Re: Spike and Darla parallel (Spoilers up to Seeing
Red) -- clg0107, 13:49:11 05/14/02 Tue
>> I think he had a bad life in that he was rejected by all
of those in his class, doomed to a solitary life,
Actually, William wasn't of the class that he was hanging
onto, and to which Cecily did belong. She makes that plain
-- she could/would ever consider him courting her because he
was not of the class to marry her. And that was probably
part of William's worship of her -- in his heart of hearts,
he knew her to be unattainable. It didn't hurt any less to
have it said to his face when he got so wrapped up in his
emotions that he declared himeslf. But he was of the
society and knew it's rules.
As to his name following him, he now has pretentions to
humanity -- he effects mannerisms like eating that are
unnecessary to him as a vamp, but that he likes; and he
frequently refers to himself as "a man". And the few times
when Buffy has referred to him as William, it has been as a
recognition of sorts of that. In AYW, it's definately as a
sign of respect for the vestiges of the man in Spike that
she calls him William -- kind of a sign that she recognizes
that his feelings have some worth. It was how he realized
that she really meant it this time.
All in the FWIW category!
~clg0107
[>
Re: Spike and Darla parallel (Spoilers up to Seeing
Red) -- Malandanza, 05:44:46 05/12/02 Sun
I would add that Angel also tried to go back to his
murdering ways after his ensoulment. He tracked Darla down
and tried to get the "whirlwind" back.
Having said that, I think there is a big difference between
a soulless vampire and either human Darla or souled Angel.
Remember, all it took was one drink of blood to erase all of
Darla's moral qualms and angst. Suddenly she was back and
as bad as ever. Similarly, when Angel lost his soul,
Angelus was back in full force -- a century of memories
where he had been wracked with guilt had no effect on him --
one sip of blood and he was back.
My guess is that if Spike gets his chip out, his first
victim will erase all the "progress" he has made since the
Initiative boys castrated him.
[>
Is this what you and Dochawk were chatting about the
other night? Great post, agent! :-) -- OnM, 21:29:55
05/12/02 Sun
Very well reasoned and written, and these were some insights
that hadn't occurred to me.
Nice work!
Nemesis - Willow
and Warren -- Ixchel, 21:03:48 05/11/02 Sat
Warren to Buffy: We're your arch-nemesises...nemeses.
(Gone)
It seems some people have expressed the opinion that Tara's
death is Willow's punishment for her resurrection of Buffy.
If the Buffyverse is a world of harsh gods (the PtB?), who
punish with the discernment of a venegeance demon, then this
would be appropriate.
From www.pantheon.org:
"In Greek mythology, Nemesis is the goddess of divine
justice and vengeance. Her anger is directed toward human
transgression of the natural, right order of things and of
the arrogance causing it. Nemesis pursues the insolent and
the wicked with inflexible vengeance."
Is Warren the instrument of Nemesis exacting the gods'
retribution on Willow for violation of natural law
(resurrecting Buffy)? This idea is congruent with the Greek
idea of the PtB. Tara herself becomes (cruelly, unjustly)
irrelevant, just a means of punishing Willow's hubris.
OTOH, Tara's death could be the seeming cruelty of an
indifferent and random Buffyverse's cosmic balance
adjustment?
Ixchel
[>
Re: Nemesis - Willow and Warren (SPOILERS for Seeing
Red) -- Robert, 21:38:56 05/11/02 Sat
Ixchel, you should label your posting as a spoiler.
>> "OTOH, Tara's death could be the seeming cruelty of an
indifferent and random Buffyverse's cosmic balance
adjustment?"
I actually prefer this interpretation, partly because I
don't believe the BtVS universe includes the powers-that-be,
as a force taking an active hand in the day-to-day operation
of the universe(s).
>> "Tara herself becomes (cruelly, unjustly) irrelevant,
just a means of punishing Willow's hubris."
Tara is not irrelevant. Being the instrument of righteous
punishment (and poetic justice) is certainly not irrelevant.
Beyond that, please recall that Tara is not wholy innocent
of Buffy's resurrection. She may not bear blood on her hands
as Willow does, but she did knowingly participate in the
darkest magic. The other two participants (Xander and Anya)
appear to have received their punishments as well.
Who received the greater punishment, Tara or Willow? If
Willow comes to understand that her actions were the
antecedent to Tara's death, then maybe Willow's punishment
will be the greater.
[>
Spoilers for Seeing Red in my above post. --
Ixchel, 22:45:25 05/11/02 Sat
[>
On the side of Revenge (good spotting !) --
Etrangere, 08:27:51 05/12/02 Sun
We've got Warren, and the trio, self named Nemesis, yes, but
also because his main intention is to "get back" at everyone
who made him suffer. From Katrina to Buffy, passing by the
guy that humiliated him when he was in high school, Warren
is all about vengeance.
In OAFA, Halfrek claimed that vengeance was the same thing
as justice. But if this season teach us anything it's that
this is wrong. Anya learned that, contrary to Halfrek, she's
not interrested anymore into fulfilling wishes, because she
realised that vengeance caused only more pain to
everyone.
Tara however was a symbole of forgiveness, not blind
forgiveness, for she would not let herself be abused by
Willow's use of magic, but she got back with her when her
mind safety was safe anew with Willow.And just when she did
that she was a victim from vengeance's blindness.
Before the end of the season, Buffy, Willow and Xander will
have to make a choice between (or somewhere in between)
vengeance and forgiveness and wonder what justice really
mean.
[> [>
Re: On the side of Revenge (good spotting !) SPOILERS
for Entropy and SR -- manwitch, 10:42:46 05/12/02
Sun
When I see Tara come to Willow's room at the end of entropy
I sense a sadness that seems almost comparable to Christ
going to the cross. There is a quality of, "here it is
folks, time to take it all the way to the conclusion."
Tara seems to be the willing sacrifice, come back to Willow
for I don't know what reason. To give her the chance to work
without the net? As a final lesson in compassion by allowing
Willow to suffer the loss of Tara herself?
And what about the blood? Willow is splattered with Tara's
blood, while Buffy, shot at the same moment and exhibiting
nearly the same wound as Tara, bleeds out. Shadowkat has
argued for Tara as a "mother" figure. Blood of the Mother?
The final ingredient? Dried on Willow's hands?
I don't see Tara as simply a tool. She's far too powerful
for that. Not demon witchy power like Willow has, but
compasionate bodhisattva power.
No, I don't have a point. Just some thoughts.
[> [> [>
Sacrificing Dawn was sacrificing Innocence - Is
sacrificing Tara sacrificing Experience ? -- Ete,
13:56:22 05/12/02 Sun
[> [> [> [>
Uhh, Ete? Spoiler in your subject line! -- OnM,
21:14:54 05/12/02 Sun
[> [> [> [> [>
Arrrrg, sorry ! muchos apologies. When is an episode
not spoiler anymore ? -- Etrangere, 03:42:50 05/13/02
Mon
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Arrrrg, sorry ! muchos apologies. When is an
episode not spoiler anymore ? -- LittleBit, 05:59:14
05/13/02 Mon
Australia is only up to Gone, if that is any help.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
*** Spoiler Policy *** -- Masquerad3, 10:33:01
05/13/02 Mon
The official policy here about marking spoilers is that we
put up spoiler warnings at least a week after the episode
has been shown in North America. That is because not
everyone sees it on Tuesday. Trying to not spoil other
countries that are behind by months (UK, Australia) would be
a full-time job.
That said, spoilers in subject lines that give away major
plot points should be avoided in general just out of common
courtesy. This is almost impossible to enforce, but I've
started deleting posts that give away future spoilers (not
yet aired in N. America) in the subject line.
And as Rob has recently reminded folks, it's also a good
thing to say which episode a spoiler is for. This should be
MANDATORY if it's an episode not yet aired in N.
America.
Questions? Comments?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: *** Spoiler Policy *** -- Sophist, 13:12:29
05/13/02 Mon
Some posters are skirting the spoiler policy by comments
such as "this is speculation" or "ME is going in this
direction". When such comments are made by someone known to
be spoiled, I think a spoiler warning is appropriate.
Speculation is fine, but only if the person is really
speculating.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
There used to be a thing called "Spoiler
Speculations". Should be re-emphasized! -- Masq,
13:22:01 05/13/02 Mon
Spike, Willow,
spoilers to Seeing Red -- abt, 06:36:51 05/12/02
Sun
How do you compare Willow's violation of Tara, and Spike's
attempted violation of Buffy?
Neither of them did it to hurt their loved one, they both
thought they were going to make things nice and happy, but
by the method of force.
In Willow's defence, she didn't hear Tara's voice saying
'No, stop, please' like Spike did, but then again, Willow
went ahead and did it a second time in Tabula Rasa, even
though she knew Tara didn't want it.
[>
Re: Spike, Willow, spoilers to Seeing Red -- Sloan
Parker, 07:02:07 05/12/02 Sun
Here for angel and buffy
scripts and for a free DVD contest! Bloody cool!
[> [>
Re: Spike, Willow, spoilers to Seeing Red -- SM,
09:01:48 05/12/02 Sun
Rape, and "Jack Rolling" (gang rape) is a national disgrace
in my country. It is all about power, and hatred for the
"victim" or "survivor" of the violation, usually but not,
always a woman. It is nothing to do with "sex". The age of
the victim, here, can often be counted in months, not years,
as sex with a virgin is thought to be a "cure" for AIDS.
Rape can never be acceptable or excused. I am dismayed at
the writer having included such a scene. BtVS is aired here
at 5pm to a mostly children's viewership.
[> [> [>
Good grief! -- vh, 06:55:07 05/13/02 Mon
[> [> [>
Re: Spike, Willow, spoilers to Seeing Red --
maddog, 10:26:14 05/13/02 Mon
ok, first off, they write these with the US time slots in
mind(8pm). If the channel that shows Buffy in your country
didn't preview it and decide to put it on at a later time
then it's their fault. Don't blame the writers...they
didn't make that decision.
Trust and Love
and Passion/SPOILERS at end for next week's preview --
alcibiades, 09:59:21 05/12/02 Sun
Buffy shut down with Riley after the Faith body switch and
the fact that Riley did